hotair--2020-10-07--Army Reserve: We're opening an investigation into Cunningham; Mistress' husband demands Cunningham w

Army Reserve: We're opening an investigation into Cunningham; Mistress' husband demands Cunningham withdraw

Earlier , Jazz wondered whether Cal Cunningham could tip the balance of the Senate to Democrats .
WRAL now reports that the Army Reserve might end up tipping a balance or two as well .
Cunningham serves as an officer in the reserve , and any extramarital shenanigans falls into military jurisdiction — and could result in a potential court-martial : Wednesday morning , the Army Reserve confirmed to WRAL that it has opened an investigation into Cunningham .
“ The Army Reserve is investigating the matters involving Lt. Col. James Cunningham .
As such , we are unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Simon B. Flake , chief of media relations and public information for the Army Reserve Strategic Communications .
It ’ s unclear why the Army Reserve launched an investigation .
NationalFile.com reported last week that Guzman Todd is married to a service member .
That ’ s not the only bad news coming from the military , either .
The husband of Arlene Guzman Todd wants Cunningham out of the race , citing his betrayal of a “ fellow junior officer and veteran.
” Jeremy Todd wants the Army Reserve investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the third-party texts that have subsequently been published are not genuine .
“ I ’ ve seen the real ones , ” he told the News & Observer : Jeremy Todd is an Army veteran who served 19-plus years and severely injured his spine during a paratrooper proficiency jump several years ago .
His wife , Arlene Guzman Todd , has confirmed she had an intimate relationship with Cunningham after the candidate ’ s campaign confirmed the authenticity of suggestive text messages between the two .
“ Mr .
Cunningham chose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurt his family and a fellow junior officer and veteran , ” Jeremy Todd said in a statement Wednesday to The News & Observer .
“ If elected , I can only imagine how misplaced his judgment would be for the people he ’ s charged to represent , ” Todd said .
“ I firmly believe Mr. Cunningham should drop out of the Senate race and ask that his behavior and actions be reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
” That ’ s gon na sting , especially combined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not at all “ unclear ” why the military opened this investigation or why Todd is demanding it , either .
As a member of the Army Reserve , he has to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice .
Adultery is explicitly forbidden to all military members in Article 134 and can result in detention and a dishonorable discharge .
To build a case , the Army Reserve has to establish three elements : The maximum punishment according to Article 134 ( Adultery ) is a Dishonorable Discharge , forfeiture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement for one year .
The crime of adultery under the UCMJ consists of three elements .
All three of these elements must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt in order to charge a service member with adultery and include : • That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person ; • That , at the time , the accused or the other person was married to someone else ; and • That , under the circumstances , the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces .
The texts and other public testimony appear to establish the first two elements .
The third might be trickier , especially if this occurred at times while Cunningham was not performing Reserve duty .
Generally speaking , the military would be loathe to intrude on civilian life unless absolutely necessary .
If this took place while Cunningham was out of uniform , they might well ignore it — except that Cunningham was running in part by publicizing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s nothing wrong with a reservist making his service known in a political campaign , but by doing so , Cunningham ’ s sexual peccadilloes might be thought to “ bring discredit ” on his Reserve status .
However , it ’ s also not a charge brought often on its own , as another law firm specializing in military representation notes : Indeed , and that ’ s why this is likely to end at the investigative stage .
The Army Reserve needs to establish whether any action is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judgment in running for the Senate while juggling two mistresses and an Army Reserve obligation , but they ’ re probably hoping that the dates don ’ t match up to his active-duty service .
If it does , however , it ’ s likely to be yet even more backfire for a man who clearly has risk-management and self-destruction issues .
Even without a court-martial , though , Todd ’ s remarks will stick with voters , especially coming from an injured combat veteran who thought Cunningham was his friend .

Earlier, Jazz wondered whether Cal Cunningham could tip the balance of the Senate to Democrats. WRAL now reports that the Army Reserve might end up tipping a balance or two as well. Cunningham serves as an officer in the reserve, and any extramarital shenanigans falls into military jurisdiction — and could result in a potential court-martial:
Wednesday morning, the Army Reserve confirmed to WRAL that it has opened an investigation into Cunningham. “The Army Reserve is investigating the matters involving Lt. Col. James Cunningham. As such, we are unable to provide further details at this time,” said Simon B. Flake, chief of media relations and public information for the Army Reserve Strategic Communications. It’s unclear why the Army Reserve launched an investigation. NationalFile.com reported last week that Guzman Todd is married to a service member.
That’s not the only bad news coming from the military, either. The husband of Arlene Guzman Todd wants Cunningham out of the race, citing his betrayal of a “fellow junior officer and veteran.” Jeremy Todd wants the Army Reserve investigation as well, although Todd also says some of the third-party texts that have subsequently been published are not genuine. “I’ve seen the real ones,” he told the News & Observer:
Jeremy Todd is an Army veteran who served 19-plus years and severely injured his spine during a paratrooper proficiency jump several years ago. His wife, Arlene Guzman Todd, has confirmed she had an intimate relationship with Cunningham after the candidate’s campaign confirmed the authenticity of suggestive text messages between the two. “Mr. Cunningham chose to repeatedly engage in activities that would hurt his family and a fellow junior officer and veteran,” Jeremy Todd said in a statement Wednesday to The News & Observer. “If elected, I can only imagine how misplaced his judgment would be for the people he’s charged to represent,” Todd said. “I firmly believe Mr. Cunningham should drop out of the Senate race and ask that his behavior and actions be reviewed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
That’s gonna sting, especially combined with the Army’s announcement. It’s not at all “unclear” why the military opened this investigation or why Todd is demanding it, either. As a member of the Army Reserve, he has to obey the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Adultery is explicitly forbidden to all military members in Article 134 and can result in detention and a dishonorable discharge. To build a case, the Army Reserve has to establish three elements:
The maximum punishment according to Article 134 (Adultery) is a Dishonorable Discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year. The crime of adultery under the UCMJ consists of three elements. All three of these elements must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt in order to charge a service member with adultery and include: That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person; That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
The texts and other public testimony appear to establish the first two elements. The third might be trickier, especially if this occurred at times while Cunningham was not performing Reserve duty. Generally speaking, the military would be loathe to intrude on civilian life unless absolutely necessary. If this took place while Cunningham was out of uniform, they might well ignore it — except that Cunningham was running in part by publicizing his Reserve status, crossing over that line. There’s nothing wrong with a reservist making his service known in a political campaign, but by doing so, Cunningham’s sexual peccadilloes might be thought to “bring discredit” on his Reserve status.
However, it’s also not a charge brought often on its own, as another law firm specializing in military representation notes:
The Manual for Courts-Martial explains that, “the adulterous conduct must either be directly prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting.” Military prosecutors typically charge adultery as an add-on charge to some other offense such as rape or sexual assault. Adultery is not normally brought to a court-martial if that is the only misconduct alleged. Some experts view adultery as an outdated offense.
Indeed, and that’s why this is likely to end at the investigative stage. The Army Reserve needs to establish whether any action is warranted against Cunningham for his epic bad judgment in running for the Senate while juggling two mistresses and an Army Reserve obligation, but they’re probably hoping that the dates don’t match up to his active-duty service. If it does, however, it’s likely to be yet even more backfire for a man who clearly has risk-management and self-destruction issues.
Even without a court-martial, though, Todd’s remarks will stick with voters, especially coming from an injured combat veteran who thought Cunningham was his friend.


hotair--2020-10-07--Poll: Biden leads by 12 nationally, says ... Rasmussen?

All good news is relative at this point , so here ’ s the good news today : There aren ’ t many *state* polls this week showing the bottom falling out for Trump over the past week .
For instance , a poll of Wisconsin from the respected outfit at Marquette Law that was released within the last few hours shows him within five of Biden , 46/41 .
Is it encouraging for an incumbent to be at 41 percent in a swing state less than a month from Election Day ?
It is not .
But could something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a five-point lead ?
Sure .
Wisconsin isn ’ t lost yet .
The national picture is different .
If you follow election polls , you know that Rasmussen tends to have the rosiest numbers for Trump among all of America ’ s major polling outfits .
( Arguably it ’ s been overtaken on that score by Trafalgar , but that ’ s a subject for another day . )
If Rasmussen has the race Biden +12 then maybe it ’ s time to panic .
The latest national telephone and online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % to 40 % among Likely U.S .
Voters .
Four percent ( 4 % ) prefer some other candidate .
Another four percent ( 4 % ) are undecided .
( To see survey question wording , click here . )
Last week , following Trump ’ s announcement that he was nominating federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court , Biden moved from a narrow one-point lead to eight points ahead .
The race had narrowed over the previous three weeks .
Biden has now cleared the 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ row , while Trump has fallen to his lowest level of support since the first week of White House Watch in early July .
It ’ s interesting that Rasmussen saw big movement towards Biden after the Barrett announcement , not Trump ’ s widely panned debate performance three days later .
Other polling suggests that voters are warming up to Barrett .
Maybe trying to fill that seat so late in the race is more of a liability for the GOP than we realize .
We ’ ve spent the past three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up double digits and pronouncing each of them an outlier , but the trend is now unmistakable .
Of six national surveys conducted partly over the weekend , after Trump had been hospitalized for COVID , four of them have the Democrat up 10 or more and another has him up nine .
Look at the far right side of this graph tracking the last three months of national polling .
The date on which the two lines began to diverge , with Biden rising and Trump sinking , was September 29 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Increasingly it seems like Trump did himself real damage there by interrupting Biden constantly , and then that bad impression was reinforced by another bad impression a few days later when he and various people in his orbit began testing positive for coronavirus .
There ’ s an exception to the general stasis in state polling too .
This afternoon Quinnipiac dropped a new poll putting Biden up double digits in , of all states , Florida and Pennsylvania .
No one ’ s taking that seriously — Florida ’ s always close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state was terrible in 2018 , and no other pollster has Biden leading by anything like that margin there .
( A new one today from Reuters has him up four . )
But it ’ s worth noting that their last poll of the state in early September found the race a plausible 48/45 at the time .
Laying aside the outlandish topline number , today ’ s poll suggests that there ’ s been some sort of shift towards Biden in the state since then .
And that ’ s borne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , note the far right side of the graph .
Care to guess on which date Trump ’ s numbers started to tank ?
Right .
September 29 , the day of the debate .
Quinnipiac ’ s poll finds 44 percent of Floridians thought worse of Trump after the debate compared to nine percent who thought better of him .
Since then , one poll of the state has had the race tied but the remaining four have Biden ahead by four points or better .
It ’ s hard to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final weeks of the race , but it was also hard to imagine half the White House coming down with COVID in October and yet here we are .
Nate Silver offers this snapshot of the state of play in swing states : All Biden needs in that group are Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , and Michigan .
( Assuming he holds Nevada and Minnesota , that is , which seems likely . )
Even if there were a polling error in each of those states in Trump ’ s favor of six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now are such that he ’ d still win the presidency based on Silver ’ s numbers , albeit narrowly .
One other big “ tell ” that the national picture has moved left is that states that were easy wins for Trump four years ago are now competitive .
Quinnipiac has Biden up five in Iowa , a state Trump won in 2016 by nearly 10 points .
That ’ s a bit higher than the average there , which has Biden up 1.4 , but not wildly so .
Likewise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio today .
Trump won there by eight against Clinton .
Not all swing states are seeing a dramatic nine- or 10-point shift from four years ago — Florida is Florida — and in some states , like Wisconsin , the shift appears more modest .
But there is a shift , and in light of how narrow Trump ’ s margins were in 2016 , it ’ ll be fatal to his candidacy if he doesn ’ t come up with a way to undo it in 27 days .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week suggest that he ’ s moving in the wrong direction .
I ’ ll leave you with this , from the chairman of the Democrats ’ most prominent Super PAC .
The left ’ s great fear at this moment in time is simple complacency .
The more Biden ’ s gaudy polling leads pile up , the greater the risk that his more reluctant supporters will conclude , “ He doesn ’ t need me to turn out after all.
” Over the next few weeks , we may find Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all suddenly singing from the same hymnal for very different reasons : Stop believing the polls and go vote .

All good news is relative at this point, so here’s the good news today: There aren’t many *state* polls this week showing the bottom falling out for Trump over the past week. For instance, a poll of Wisconsin from the respected outfit at Marquette Law that was released within the last few hours shows him within five of Biden, 46/41. Is it encouraging for an incumbent to be at 41 percent in a swing state less than a month from Election Day? It is not. But could something happen between now and then to erase a five-point lead? Sure. Wisconsin isn’t lost yet.
The national picture is different.
If you follow election polls, you know that Rasmussen tends to have the rosiest numbers for Trump among all of America’s major polling outfits. (Arguably it’s been overtaken on that score by Trafalgar, but that’s a subject for another day.) If Rasmussen has the race Biden +12 then maybe it’s time to panic.
The latest national telephone and online survey finds Biden leading President Trump 52% to 40% among Likely U.S. Voters. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate. Another four percent (4%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Last week, following Trump’s announcement that he was nominating federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court, Biden moved from a narrow one-point lead to eight points ahead. The race had narrowed over the previous three weeks. Biden has now cleared the 50% mark for two weeks in a row, while Trump has fallen to his lowest level of support since the first week of White House Watch in early July.
It’s interesting that Rasmussen saw big movement towards Biden after the Barrett announcement, not Trump’s widely panned debate performance three days later. Other polling suggests that voters are warming up to Barrett. Maybe trying to fill that seat so late in the race is more of a liability for the GOP than we realize.
We’ve spent the past three days flagging national polls showing Biden suddenly up double digits and pronouncing each of them an outlier, but the trend is now unmistakable. Of six national surveys conducted partly over the weekend, after Trump had been hospitalized for COVID, four of them have the Democrat up 10 or more and another has him up nine. Look at the far right side of this graph tracking the last three months of national polling.
The date on which the two lines began to diverge, with Biden rising and Trump sinking, was September 29 — the day of the first debate. Increasingly it seems like Trump did himself real damage there by interrupting Biden constantly, and then that bad impression was reinforced by another bad impression a few days later when he and various people in his orbit began testing positive for coronavirus.
There’s an exception to the general stasis in state polling too. This afternoon Quinnipiac dropped a new poll putting Biden up double digits in, of all states, Florida and Pennsylvania. No one’s taking that seriously — Florida’s always close, Quinnipiac’s polling of the state was terrible in 2018, and no other pollster has Biden leading by anything like that margin there. (A new one today from Reuters has him up four.) But it’s worth noting that their last poll of the state in early September found the race a plausible 48/45 at the time. Laying aside the outlandish topline number, today’s poll suggests that there’s been some sort of shift towards Biden in the state since then. And that’s borne out by other surveys lately. Again, note the far right side of the graph.
Care to guess on which date Trump’s numbers started to tank? Right. September 29, the day of the debate. Quinnipiac’s poll finds 44 percent of Floridians thought worse of Trump after the debate compared to nine percent who thought better of him. Since then, one poll of the state has had the race tied but the remaining four have Biden ahead by four points or better.
It’s hard to imagine it won’t tighten up in the final weeks of the race, but it was also hard to imagine half the White House coming down with COVID in October and yet here we are.
I can’t overstate the significance of this. Two red-state Rs, on consecutive days, telling me they’re seeing poll numbers they never thought were possible. Their shared conclusion: Trump’s standing w/ white college+ women threatens to tank the entire party down-ballot on Nov 3. https://t.co/6HGhHtR3DI — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) October 7, 2020
Nate Silver offers this snapshot of the state of play in swing states:
Our current polling averages in the most likely tipping-point states: National: Biden +9.4 PA: Biden +6.9
FL: Biden +4.5
WI: Biden +6.9
MI: Biden +7.7
AZ: Biden +4.6
NC: Biden +2.3
MN: Biden +9.5
NV: Biden +6.6
OH: Biden +0.7
GA: Biden +1.0https://t.co/cy51vc5isJ — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 7, 2020
All Biden needs in that group are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. (Assuming he holds Nevada and Minnesota, that is, which seems likely.) Even if there were a polling error in each of those states in Trump’s favor of six points, Biden’s margins right now are such that he’d still win the presidency based on Silver’s numbers, albeit narrowly.
One other big “tell” that the national picture has moved left is that states that were easy wins for Trump four years ago are now competitive. Quinnipiac has Biden up five in Iowa, a state Trump won in 2016 by nearly 10 points. That’s a bit higher than the average there, which has Biden up 1.4, but not wildly so. Likewise, the NYT has Biden up by one in Ohio today. Trump won there by eight against Clinton. Not all swing states are seeing a dramatic nine- or 10-point shift from four years ago — Florida is Florida — and in some states, like Wisconsin, the shift appears more modest. But there is a shift, and in light of how narrow Trump’s margins were in 2016, it’ll be fatal to his candidacy if he doesn’t come up with a way to undo it in 27 days. The Rasmussen survey and other national polls this week suggest that he’s moving in the wrong direction.
I’ll leave you with this, from the chairman of the Democrats’ most prominent Super PAC. The left’s great fear at this moment in time is simple complacency. The more Biden’s gaudy polling leads pile up, the greater the risk that his more reluctant supporters will conclude, “He doesn’t need me to turn out after all.” Over the next few weeks, we may find Trump and many of his harshest Democratic critics all suddenly singing from the same hymnal for very different reasons: Stop believing the polls and go vote.


hotair--2020-10-07--Portland: 90 percent of those arrested during protests/riots last month have had charges dropped

There was a brief pause in the nightly protests/riots taking place in Portland last month because wildfires had rendered the air hazardous .
Even so , police made more than 200 arrests last month .
But as expected , nearly all of those arrested have already had the charges against them dropped : Officers with the Portland Police Bureau , as well as Oregon State Police , made 213 arrests in September , according to a KOIN 6 News database compiled from press releases and direct inquiries .
That ’ s a decrease from August , which had a record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a peace officer was the most common charge demonstrators were arrested on , followed by disorderly conduct and riot .
All three charges are ones the Multnomah County District Attorney ’ s Office has decided to “ presumptively decline to prosecute.
” The policy is designed to “ focus limited prosecution resources on violent crimes that include property damage , assaultive behavior and actions that create a risk of injury or property destruction during a mass demonstration , ” according to the DA ’ s office .
Indeed , most suspects have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some as soon as the day after their arrest .
As of October 5 , charges had been dropped in around 90 % of the cases stemming from September ’ s protest activity .
About 10 percent of those arrested last month were people who had previously been arrested .
Clearly word has gotten around that even if you ’ re arrested at one of these nightly protests/riots nothing will happen to you .
And that ’ s one reason why the protests in Portland haven ’ t stopped .
Last night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the group marched on the ICE center : After first gathering in Elizabeth Caruthers Park on South Moody Avenue , the group marched to the ICE building on South Macadam Avenue .
Within minutes of arriving , protesters began blocking traffic on South Bancroft Street and some were seen shining lights into the eyes of the Federal Protection Officers who were standing outside the building .
The Portland Police Bureau says just before 11 p.m. , someone in the group threw some sort of incendiary device on the roof .
Portland police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the group threw rocks at officers .
As the criminal activity continued , the federal officers emerged from the building ’ s entrance to assist in dispersing the crowd .
There ’ s plenty of video of last night ’ s unlawful assembly : After a pause in the action , the protesters returned to try again : Four arrests were made .
All of the charges will be dropped .
Not everyone is thrilled with the late night protests ( NSFW language ) : Apparently a live-streamer was attacked last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding a camera : Another angle on the assault : Maybe at some point the DA will decide enough is enough and he ’ ll actually prosecute the people arrested by police , but apparently 121 days of this isn ’ t enough to convince him yet .

There was a brief pause in the nightly protests/riots taking place in Portland last month because wildfires had rendered the air hazardous. Even so, police made more than 200 arrests last month. But as expected, nearly all of those arrested have already had the charges against them dropped:
Officers with the Portland Police Bureau, as well as Oregon State Police, made 213 arrests in September, according to a KOIN 6 News database compiled from press releases and direct inquiries. That’s a decrease from August, which had a record 295 arrests… As in August, interfering with a peace officer was the most common charge demonstrators were arrested on, followed by disorderly conduct and riot. All three charges are ones the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office has decided to “presumptively decline to prosecute.” The policy is designed to “focus limited prosecution resources on violent crimes that include property damage, assaultive behavior and actions that create a risk of injury or property destruction during a mass demonstration,” according to the DA’s office. Indeed, most suspects have had their charges dropped or dismissed, some as soon as the day after their arrest. As of October 5, charges had been dropped in around 90% of the cases stemming from September’s protest activity.
About 10 percent of those arrested last month were people who had previously been arrested. Clearly word has gotten around that even if you’re arrested at one of these nightly protests/riots nothing will happen to you. And that’s one reason why the protests in Portland haven’t stopped.
Last night, police once again declared an unlawful assembly after the group marched on the ICE center:
After first gathering in Elizabeth Caruthers Park on South Moody Avenue, the group marched to the ICE building on South Macadam Avenue. Within minutes of arriving, protesters began blocking traffic on South Bancroft Street and some were seen shining lights into the eyes of the Federal Protection Officers who were standing outside the building. The Portland Police Bureau says just before 11 p.m., someone in the group threw some sort of incendiary device on the roof. Portland police attempted to clear the crowd as several members of the group threw rocks at officers. As the criminal activity continued, the federal officers emerged from the building’s entrance to assist in dispersing the crowd.
There’s plenty of video of last night’s unlawful assembly:
“I am antifa” Camillo Massagi reads Willem van Spronsen’s manifesto at the Portland antifa protest. Van Sprossen is the armed antifa militant who firebombed the Tacoma @ICEgov facility & got himself shot dead in the process. pic.twitter.com/2YzRpO6iyA — Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) October 7, 2020
Feds didn’t come out after their 2min warning, protestors moved up and are taunting them to come out pic.twitter.com/ZiG6zGrJv7 — Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) October 7, 2020
Protestors retreated in formation, using umbrellas to shield themselves from impact munitions pic.twitter.com/aBNWtMmbzD — Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) October 7, 2020
After a pause in the action, the protesters returned to try again:
Protestors dances in front of Feds pic.twitter.com/gMccqy4e3I — Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) October 7, 2020
Four arrests were made. All of the charges will be dropped.
Protestors resist by sitting in the street, arrested by police pic.twitter.com/GGmCXbzBMi — Sergio Olmos (@MrOlmos) October 7, 2020
Not everyone is thrilled with the late night protests (NSFW language):
A resident does not approve of the protests pic.twitter.com/V7Sum8erHt — Laura Jedeed, Professional Stocker (@LauraJedeed) October 7, 2020
Apparently a live-streamer was attacked last night. Why? Because he was holding a camera:
https://twitter.com/KittyLists/status/1313756334135808000
Another angle on the assault:
3rd person point of view of streamer getting assaulted by some guy who didn't like his camera pic.twitter.com/lfVlfuCE6T — After Action Report (@after_theaction) October 7, 2020
Maybe at some point the DA will decide enough is enough and he’ll actually prosecute the people arrested by police, but apparently 121 days of this isn’t enough to convince him yet.


hotair--2020-10-07--Film review: "The Phenomenon"

Film review: "The Phenomenon"

This is a review of the movie “ The Phenomenon , ” from director James Fox and 1091 Productions .
I had been waiting eagerly for this documentary to be released and it was finally made available yesterday so I watched it immediately .
What I will say upfront is that the wait was worth it and it did not disappoint .
Fox takes one of the deepest dives imaginable into the realm of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena , UFOs , or whatever you ’ re calling them these days and it contains some eye-opening revelations even for those who follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmmaking , Fox delivers a beautiful product as usual .
The camera work , editing and soundtrack all deliver a thoroughly enjoyable experience .
But it ’ s the content of the film that truly shines above and beyond the movie when considered as a work of art .
Fox covers a raft of UAP encounters , both military and civilian , from the early part of the twentieth century to the present .
But he ’ s not simply retelling well-worn stories .
He includes new interviews with some of the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the cutting edge of trying to lift the veil of government secrecy regarding the phenomenon of UAPs .
One of these is with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who spurred the creation of the Pentagon ’ s original , secret AATIP program .
Reid generally plays things close to the vest , but without spoiling it for you , I ’ ll simply say that Reid comes as close as I ’ ve ever heard him come to admitting the existence of a government coverup .
Fox does spend some time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incidents from around the world , uncovering details that many of us hadn ’ t previously heard , as well as bringing current updates from some of the key players into the mix .
He has some extremely rare footage of an interview with Major Jesse Marcel who was with the Roswell Army Airfield in 1947 and a key figure in the infamous Roswell crash incident .
He also catches up with some of the witnesses to the Ariel School UFO encounter in Zimbabwe from 1994 .
( If you ’ ve never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to check it out . )
And there ’ s much more where that came from .
Prior to the release of the film , Lue Elizondo , who ran AATIP , went out on social media , heartily endorsing the film and suggesting that it provides a peek at information that he wished he could tell the world himself but is barred from doing so because of his nondisclosure agreements .
( If you don ’ t know who Luis Elizondo is by now , this film might not be quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s still worth a viewing . )
I found myself gasping on multiple occasions while watching .
I will honestly say that The Phenomenon is nothing short of stunning .
It ’ s currently available on Amazon Prime and can also be accessed through the film ’ s website .
On the Hot Air scale for subscription-service series and films , The Phenomenon gets a full 4 out of 4 : 4 – Subscribe to the service to watch this 3 – Make time to watch it if you already subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else appeals 1 – Avoid at all costs

This is a review of the movie “The Phenomenon,” from director James Fox and 1091 Productions. I had been waiting eagerly for this documentary to be released and it was finally made available yesterday so I watched it immediately. What I will say upfront is that the wait was worth it and it did not disappoint. Fox takes one of the deepest dives imaginable into the realm of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, UFOs, or whatever you’re calling them these days and it contains some eye-opening revelations even for those who follow this subject closely.
In terms of filmmaking, Fox delivers a beautiful product as usual. The camera work, editing and soundtrack all deliver a thoroughly enjoyable experience. But it’s the content of the film that truly shines above and beyond the movie when considered as a work of art. Fox covers a raft of UAP encounters, both military and civilian, from the early part of the twentieth century to the present. But he’s not simply retelling well-worn stories. He includes new interviews with some of the key governmental and intelligence figures who have been on the cutting edge of trying to lift the veil of government secrecy regarding the phenomenon of UAPs. One of these is with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who spurred the creation of the Pentagon’s original, secret AATIP program. Reid generally plays things close to the vest, but without spoiling it for you, I’ll simply say that Reid comes as close as I’ve ever heard him come to admitting the existence of a government coverup.
Fox does spend some time on several of the more famous UAP/UFP incidents from around the world, uncovering details that many of us hadn’t previously heard, as well as bringing current updates from some of the key players into the mix. He has some extremely rare footage of an interview with Major Jesse Marcel who was with the Roswell Army Airfield in 1947 and a key figure in the infamous Roswell crash incident. He also catches up with some of the witnesses to the Ariel School UFO encounter in Zimbabwe from 1994. (If you’ve never heard of that one you’ll want to check it out.) And there’s much more where that came from.
Prior to the release of the film, Lue Elizondo, who ran AATIP, went out on social media, heartily endorsing the film and suggesting that it provides a peek at information that he wished he could tell the world himself but is barred from doing so because of his nondisclosure agreements. (If you don’t know who Luis Elizondo is by now, this film might not be quite so much up your alley, but it’s still worth a viewing.) I found myself gasping on multiple occasions while watching. I will honestly say that The Phenomenon is nothing short of stunning. It’s currently available on Amazon Prime and can also be accessed through the film’s website.
On the Hot Air scale for subscription-service series and films, The Phenomenon gets a full 4 out of 4:
4 – Subscribe to the service to watch this
3 – Make time to watch it if you already subscribe
2 – Worth a watch if nothing else appeals
1 – Avoid at all costs


hotair--2020-10-07--"Concast"? NBC News town-hall's "undecided voters" previously declared Biden support on ... MSNBC

Did we really need yet another reminder of just how dishonest the media “ town hall format ” is ?
In this latest installment , the Free Beacon makes a nice catch about the intellectual honesty of NBC News .
In their forum for Joe Biden last week , at least two of the participants had already declared their preference for the former VP over Donald Trump .
Granted , it might have been easy to miss those … had they not happened on NBC News ’ own platforms .
D ’ oh !
NBC News featured a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town hall earlier this week who had previously declared their support for Democratic nominee Joe Biden on the network ’ s sister channel , MSNBC .
Lawyer Peter Gonzalez and marketing executive Ismael Llano posed questions to Biden during a town hall on Monday , when he appeared before what the network described as an “ audience of undecided Florida voters.
” Both Gonzalez and Llano , however , were featured in an MSNBC segment in August to explain why they support Biden .
“ If we get four more years of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the future attracting younger voters , ” Gonzalez said as an MSNBC chyron noted he was “ voting for Biden.
” Llano was also identified as “ voting for Biden ” and offered praise for the former vice president .
On Monday , NBC ’ s Lester Holt said that Llano “ voted for Hillary Clinton four years ago but has voted Republican in the past.
” Gonzalez , whose voting history went unmentioned , asked Biden to ease his family ’ s concerns that the Democrat is beholden to “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t watch MSNBC .
That would certainly explain their confusion .
And let ’ s face it , who could blame them ?
Do you watch MSNBC ?
That potential explanation aside , this proves Marc Caputo correct : The only thing Caputo missed was intentionality .
This looks as rigged as the quiz shows of the 1950s , with only Charles Van Doren and Herb Stempel missing from the festivities .
Trump himself took note of the false pretenses used by NBC News to take a swipe at NBC parent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storm this morning , calling them “ Concast ” : Don ’ t let this distract from the usual dishonesty of these “ town halls , ” too .
The media outlets that stage these either carefully select which questions get asked , or they assign questions to audience members , who are carefully selected by the organizers to suit their own narrative needs .
These exchanges are anything but spontaneous and representative .
This infomercial effort from NBC News is only notable for the extent to which they went to cook up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as a news organization , but it reminds us that they ’ ve largely abandoned journalism for narrative and advocacy .
This is just the most recent and blatant example .

Did we really need yet another reminder of just how dishonest the media “town hall format” is? In this latest installment, the Free Beacon makes a nice catch about the intellectual honesty of NBC News. In their forum for Joe Biden last week, at least two of the participants had already declared their preference for the former VP over Donald Trump.
Granted, it might have been easy to miss those … had they not happened on NBC News’ own platforms. D’oh!
NBC News featured a pair of “undecided” voters during a network town hall earlier this week who had previously declared their support for Democratic nominee Joe Biden on the network’s sister channel, MSNBC. Lawyer Peter Gonzalez and marketing executive Ismael Llano posed questions to Biden during a town hall on Monday, when he appeared before what the network described as an “audience of undecided Florida voters.” Both Gonzalez and Llano, however, were featured in an MSNBC segment in August to explain why they support Biden. “If we get four more years of Trump, good luck, and good luck with the future attracting younger voters,” Gonzalez said as an MSNBC chyron noted he was “voting for Biden.” Llano was also identified as “voting for Biden” and offered praise for the former vice president. On Monday, NBC’s Lester Holt said that Llano “voted for Hillary Clinton four years ago but has voted Republican in the past.” Gonzalez, whose voting history went unmentioned, asked Biden to ease his family’s concerns that the Democrat is beholden to “the radical left.”
Maybe NBC News personnel don’t watch MSNBC. That would certainly explain their confusion. And let’s face it, who could blame them? Do you watch MSNBC?
That potential explanation aside, this proves Marc Caputo correct:
NBC's town hall with Joe Biden & "undecided voters" in Miami didn't seem to have undecided voters. Nor was it much of a Miami town hall, which would have way more yelling & pointed questions. It was a TV show that doubled as a Biden infomercial. Can't blame him for doing it — Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) October 6, 2020
The only thing Caputo missed was intentionality. This looks as rigged as the quiz shows of the 1950s, with only Charles Van Doren and Herb Stempel missing from the festivities. Trump himself took note of the false pretenses used by NBC News to take a swipe at NBC parent Comcast in the middle of his tweet storm this morning, calling them “Concast”:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313861656766820352
Don’t let this distract from the usual dishonesty of these “town halls,” too. The media outlets that stage these either carefully select which questions get asked, or they assign questions to audience members, who are carefully selected by the organizers to suit their own narrative needs. These exchanges are anything but spontaneous and representative.
This infomercial effort from NBC News is only notable for the extent to which they went to cook up this event. This reflects shamefully on them as a news organization, but it reminds us that they’ve largely abandoned journalism for narrative and advocacy. This is just the most recent and blatant example.


hotair--2020-10-07--Report: WH officials believe Trump was infected at the Barrett announcement on Sept. 26

When he says “ was infected , ” I believe Jake Tapper means they suspect he already had an active infection that day and was contagious to others , not that he got infected at the ceremony .
The timeline wouldn ’ t work in the latter case , as you don ’ t become contagious until after the virus has had a few days to propagate in your system .
Which raises the question : When did the president get infected ?
We ’ d have a better idea if the White House told us when he received his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve refused to share that information even though it ’ s important for contact-tracing purposes .
Could the admiral have been infected by Trump on the 27th and then had enough of the virus in his system to test positive the very next day ?
I think Tapper has the timeline slightly confused : The admiral , Charles Ray , didn ’ t test positive on Monday , September 28 , he tested positive on Monday , October 5 — a few days ago .
That ’ s more consistent with a scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 27th .
Was Trump infected and infectious at the debate with Biden on September 29 ?
Tapper ’ s timeline suggests that he was .
Did Trump know that he was infected at that point ?
His first positive test allegedly came last Thursday night , two days after the debate .
But did he test negative before the debate — or was he not tested at all ?
Two officials maintained that Mr. Trump had been tested before the presidential debate , but the White House has yet to affirm that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there had been an impression created that Mr. Trump was getting tested every day , and a reliance on testing as if it were a curative measure as opposed to a diagnostic .
Yet the president himself was not tested every day , according to two people familiar with the practices .
A senior administration official would only say on Tuesday that Mr. Trump was tested “ regularly.
” Mr. Trump himself told reporters in the White House briefing room in July that “ I do take probably on average a test every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t imagine why Trump himself wasn ’ t being tested every day .
People around him typically are asked to submit to one of Abbott ’ s rapid tests — which don ’ t work that well on asymptomatics — before meeting with him , but of course he can infect them as easily as they can infect him .
How long did he go without a test between the time he first got infected and the time of his first positive test on October 1 ?
How many visitors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during that period ?
Given how many infected people were in debate prep with Trump around the time of the Barrett announcement ( Ronna McDaniel , Bill Stepien , Chris Christie , Kellyanne Conway , Hope Hicks ) , at the Barrett ceremony itself ( Mike Lee , Thom Tillis , the president of Notre Dame ) , or in close quarters with him for other business ( Kayleigh McEnany , Stephen Miller , various military aides ) , the likelihood is rising that Trump himself was a key vector of transmission here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just a spoke in a hub of transmission that has someone else who works at the White House at its center .
He might be the center .
I made that some point a few days ago about the White House ’ s bizarre refusal to activate the CDC for contact-tracing in this case .
The politics of that decision are simply terrible ; it reeks of callous disregard for the welfare of the people at the Barrett announcement .
They ’ re getting a completely foreseeable and preventable black eye from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to submit to that black eye is if Trump and his aides have concluded that they ’ d get a much worse black eye from what the CDC might discover by performing contact-tracing .
Namely , that a lot more people than we realize have been exposed to the virus due to White House negligence and/or that Trump himself is the likely source of many infections .
Skip ahead to today .
Is he at least isolating now , while he ’ s back in the White House , or is he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Mark Meadows said this morning that Trump *wants* to return to the Oval Office but is being isolated now , and that precautions are being taken in the Oval to make things safe ( r ) for staff interacting with him , such as “ gowns , gloves , mask , eye protection ” — which sounds like a lot of trouble relative to just having him remain in the residence .
( “ He ’ s the president , we can ’ t run away from him if he approaches , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily Beast .
“ But the circle of people who feel comfortable telling him if he ’ s being inconsiderate is very small.
” ) Is it true that he hasn ’ t been to his office yet or did Kudlow inadvertently tell the truth in claiming that Trump had already been there and now they ’ re scrambling to cover it up ?
Relatedly , is the information below also true or also a cover-up ?
Why not bring the CDC in to confirm that the Barrett ceremony wasn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good PR for the White House , relatively speaking , and the CDC has much more credibility on COVID matters than Trump ’ s political operation does : Either way , Democrats are going to do everything they can to keep public attention focused on the White House ’ s negligence in containing the spread .
Although it remains unclear when Trump last tested negative , we know that Hope Hicks tested positive last Thursday morning , that that fact was known to senior staff , and that Trump followed through on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway instead of isolating as a precaution .
New Jersey ’ s Democratic governor pronounced that “ completely unacceptable , completely reckless and uncalled for ” and state officials are now investigating to see whether the gathering violated the state ’ s social-distancing rules .
Quote : “ Area private schools have sent out ‘ urgent ’ emails informing students to stay home if their parents attended the fundraiser.
” What a fiasco .

When he says “was infected,” I believe Jake Tapper means they suspect he already had an active infection that day and was contagious to others, not that he got infected at the ceremony. The timeline wouldn’t work in the latter case, as you don’t become contagious until after the virus has had a few days to propagate in your system.
Which raises the question: When did the president get infected?
We’d have a better idea if the White House told us when he received his last negative test. But they’ve refused to share that information even though it’s important for contact-tracing purposes.
2/ NYT reporter @shearm believes he got infected Sept 26 either at the WH (required to go to get a COVID test bc he was traveling with the POTUS) or on Air Force One with POTUS the night of Sat. Sept 26. Did POTUS test negative that day? WH won’t say.https://t.co/QydiWCfDM5 — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 7, 2020
4/ A Coast Guard admiral who attended that Gold Star Family event tested positive the next day. The White House did not initiate contact with the Gold Star families to let them know of the infection, the Washington Post reports. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 7, 2020
Could the admiral have been infected by Trump on the 27th and then had enough of the virus in his system to test positive the very next day? I think Tapper has the timeline slightly confused: The admiral, Charles Ray, didn’t test positive on Monday, September 28, he tested positive on Monday, October 5 — a few days ago. That’s more consistent with a scenario in which he got infected on September 27th.
Was Trump infected and infectious at the debate with Biden on September 29? Tapper’s timeline suggests that he was. Did Trump know that he was infected at that point? His first positive test allegedly came last Thursday night, two days after the debate. But did he test negative before the debate — or was he not tested at all?
Two officials maintained that Mr. Trump had been tested before the presidential debate, but the White House has yet to affirm that. White House officials conceded on Tuesday that there had been an impression created that Mr. Trump was getting tested every day, and a reliance on testing as if it were a curative measure as opposed to a diagnostic. Yet the president himself was not tested every day, according to two people familiar with the practices. A senior administration official would only say on Tuesday that Mr. Trump was tested “regularly.” Mr. Trump himself told reporters in the White House briefing room in July that “I do take probably on average a test every two days, three days.”
I can’t imagine why Trump himself wasn’t being tested every day. People around him typically are asked to submit to one of Abbott’s rapid tests — which don’t work that well on asymptomatics — before meeting with him, but of course he can infect them as easily as they can infect him. How long did he go without a test between the time he first got infected and the time of his first positive test on October 1? How many visitors and aides were face to face with him during that period?
Given how many infected people were in debate prep with Trump around the time of the Barrett announcement (Ronna McDaniel, Bill Stepien, Chris Christie, Kellyanne Conway, Hope Hicks), at the Barrett ceremony itself (Mike Lee, Thom Tillis, the president of Notre Dame), or in close quarters with him for other business (Kayleigh McEnany, Stephen Miller, various military aides), the likelihood is rising that Trump himself was a key vector of transmission here. That is, he’s not just a spoke in a hub of transmission that has someone else who works at the White House at its center. He might be the center.
Dr Jonathan Reiner: "I think POTUS was infected with coronavirus for at least a week before he was admitted to the hospital…I think he's the superspreader. And I think the reason the WH will not have the CDC do a formal check…is they're concerned patient zero might be POTUS." pic.twitter.com/zQGc6Nqh5U — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 7, 2020
I made that some point a few days ago about the White House’s bizarre refusal to activate the CDC for contact-tracing in this case. The politics of that decision are simply terrible; it reeks of callous disregard for the welfare of the people at the Barrett announcement. They’re getting a completely foreseeable and preventable black eye from the media for it. The only reason to submit to that black eye is if Trump and his aides have concluded that they’d get a much worse black eye from what the CDC might discover by performing contact-tracing. Namely, that a lot more people than we realize have been exposed to the virus due to White House negligence and/or that Trump himself is the likely source of many infections.
Skip ahead to today. Is he at least isolating now, while he’s back in the White House, or is he exposing more people to infection? Hmmmm:
UPDATE: @_WilliamsonBen tweets correcting Kudlow, "While the President wanted to be in the Oval Office yesterday, he was not there—he stayed back in the residence working from there." So why is Kudlow, WH advisor most frequently made avail to TV, saying things that aren't true? — Paula Reid (@PaulaReidCBS) October 7, 2020
Mark Meadows said this morning that Trump *wants* to return to the Oval Office but is being isolated now, and that precautions are being taken in the Oval to make things safe(r) for staff interacting with him, such as “gowns, gloves, mask, eye protection” — which sounds like a lot of trouble relative to just having him remain in the residence. (“He’s the president, we can’t run away from him if he approaches,” said one senior official to the Daily Beast. “But the circle of people who feel comfortable telling him if he’s being inconsiderate is very small.”) Is it true that he hasn’t been to his office yet or did Kudlow inadvertently tell the truth in claiming that Trump had already been there and now they’re scrambling to cover it up?
Relatedly, is the information below also true or also a cover-up? Why not bring the CDC in to confirm that the Barrett ceremony wasn’t a superspreader event? That’d be good PR for the White House, relatively speaking, and the CDC has much more credibility on COVID matters than Trump’s political operation does:
.@PeterAlexander: "Meadows said at this point, & they've finished their contact tracing, we're told by WH officials, they've not identified that Rose Garden event as the source of these infections. They said they have indications it may have happened elsewhere." #AMRstaff — Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) October 7, 2020
Either way, Democrats are going to do everything they can to keep public attention focused on the White House’s negligence in containing the spread. Although it remains unclear when Trump last tested negative, we know that Hope Hicks tested positive last Thursday morning, that that fact was known to senior staff, and that Trump followed through on his planned fundraiser in New Jersey that afternoon anyway instead of isolating as a precaution. New Jersey’s Democratic governor pronounced that “completely unacceptable, completely reckless and uncalled for” and state officials are now investigating to see whether the gathering violated the state’s social-distancing rules. Quote: “Area private schools have sent out ‘urgent’ emails informing students to stay home if their parents attended the fundraiser.” What a fiasco.


hotair--2020-10-07--The far-left domestic terrorist who was on a board managing BLM's money

Tablet published a story yesterday about the intentionally obscure ways in which Black Lives Matter manages its money .
The piece notes that while BLM presents itself as a grassroots organization , it also has a back office managing millions in donations through a series of constantly changing left-wing non-profit organizations , some of which have connections to billionaire Warren Buffett .
Those organizations also include a board member who is a former domestic terrorist connected to the Black Liberation Army .
One of the organizations which initially managed money for BLM was the International Development Exchange ( IDEX ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was founded way back in 1985 with connections to the Peace Corps .
But since the formation of BLM it has transformed itself : Indeed , in 2013 , after decades attending to the patient , detailed work of making grants to farmers in Guatemala , IDEX underwent a sudden transformation—just as the Black Lives Matter movement was beginning in earnest .
For the decade prior , according to their financial disclosures , donor revenue to IDEX , which changed its name to Thousand Currents in 2016 , remained in the modest six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 600,000 annually .
But in 2013 , IDEX received an unprecedented $ 450,000 in grant funding from a single source—raising from one donation about 73 % of what the organization had taken in the year prior .
That donor was NoVo , a social justice foundation formed in 2006 by Peter Buffett—the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett—and Peter ’ s wife , Jennifer… At the same time NoVo was making its first large donations to IDEX , the philanthropy also made another , even larger donation of $ 750,000 to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October of 2013 , [ BLM co-fournder Alicia ] Garza was hired as special projects director .
By 2015 , NoVo ’ s contributions to IDEX and NDWA went from $ 1.2 million to a little over $ 8 million .
And that ’ s when IDEX added Susan Rosenberg to the group ’ s board of directors .
Rosenberg is a convicted domestic terrorist with connections to the Black Liberation Army : Rosenberg joined the Weather Underground , where she took up with a cohort of other young , affluent , highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called May 19th , which by 1979 was working alongside the Black Liberation Army .
The three groups carried out a series of bombings , shootings , and robberies in which dozens of innocent people were killed and maimed… In their aid to the Black liberation movement , the M19 women called themselves “ the white edge , ” meaning that they were able to buy supplies and drive cars on missions while avoiding questions from law enforcement tracking the liberation ’ s predominantly Black male membership .
For their part , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosenberg ’ s role in the Black rights movement satisfied her desire to push back against an American government that she saw as inherently violent and racist .
“ It was necessary to oppose it with force .
I felt that we lived in a country that loved violence and that we had to meet it on its own terms , ” she wrote .
Over the next several years , “ the white edge ” of the Black liberation movement helped spring key liberation leaders from jail , including a bomb maker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital .
They also worked a series of bank robberies , the most high-profile of which was the infamous botched Brinks armored car robbery on Oct. 20 , 1981 , in Nanuet , New York , in which six BLA members and four members of the Weather Underground stole $ 1.6 million from a Brinks truck , killing Brinks guard Peter Paige and wounding two other men in the truck .
In the course of their attempted getaway , the robbers shot and killed two Nyack police officers , Edward O ’ Grady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a police detective named Artie Keenan .
Indicted by the FBI for driving the getaway vehicle , Rosenberg fled the scene and went underground until her arrest in 1984 in Cherry Hill , New Jersey , when she and a partner attempted to transfer 740 pounds of dynamite , a dozen guns , and hundreds of fake IDs from a rental truck to a storage facility .
One of the things Rosenberg was allegedly involved in with the BLA was helping Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur escape from prison in 1979 ( though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shakur had been convicted of killing a police officer in 1977 and has been living as a fugitive in Cuba ever since .
There is a reverence for Shakur among many BLM leaders .
I wonder if Rosenberg ’ s involvement in her escape isn ’ t the real reason she was elevated to the board of the group overseeing BLM ’ s financies .
In any case , after her arrest with dynamite and guns in 1984 , then-US Attorney Rudy Giuliani decided to drop the charges connected to the Brinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weapons charges .
She was convicted and sentenced to 58 years in prison .
But in January 2001 , on his last day in office , Bill Clinton issued clemency to Rosenberg .
And 14 years later , Rosenberg went from robbing Brinks ’ trucks to support the Black Liberation Army to the board of the organization managing millions in donations for Black Lives Matter .
Rosenberg ’ s prominent role with the group attracted some attention back in July of this year , including from conservatives .
Thousand Currents ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from its website about the board members including Rosenberg .
On July 10 , Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg on his show .
That same day , Thousand Currents decided to transfer all control of BLM ’ s finances to another left-wing group called the Tides Center .
This definitely isn ’ t the side of BLM that the public usually sees .
Clearly the money managers want to keep it that way .
Here ’ s the segment on Rosenberg that Tucker Carlson did back in July .

Tablet published a story yesterday about the intentionally obscure ways in which Black Lives Matter manages its money. The piece notes that while BLM presents itself as a grassroots organization, it also has a back office managing millions in donations through a series of constantly changing left-wing non-profit organizations, some of which have connections to billionaire Warren Buffett. Those organizations also include a board member who is a former domestic terrorist connected to the Black Liberation Army.
One of the organizations which initially managed money for BLM was the International Development Exchange (IDEX). The Tablet piece explains that IDEX was founded way back in 1985 with connections to the Peace Corps. But since the formation of BLM it has transformed itself:
Indeed, in 2013, after decades attending to the patient, detailed work of making grants to farmers in Guatemala, IDEX underwent a sudden transformation—just as the Black Lives Matter movement was beginning in earnest. For the decade prior, according to their financial disclosures, donor revenue to IDEX, which changed its name to Thousand Currents in 2016, remained in the modest six figures, often around $500,000 to $600,000 annually. But in 2013, IDEX received an unprecedented $450,000 in grant funding from a single source—raising from one donation about 73% of what the organization had taken in the year prior. That donor was NoVo, a social justice foundation formed in 2006 by Peter Buffett—the son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett—and Peter’s wife, Jennifer… At the same time NoVo was making its first large donations to IDEX, the philanthropy also made another, even larger donation of $750,000 to the National Domestic Workers Alliance, where in October of 2013, [BLM co-fournder Alicia] Garza was hired as special projects director.
By 2015, NoVo’s contributions to IDEX and NDWA went from $1.2 million to a little over $8 million. And that’s when IDEX added Susan Rosenberg to the group’s board of directors. Rosenberg is a convicted domestic terrorist with connections to the Black Liberation Army:
Rosenberg joined the Weather Underground, where she took up with a cohort of other young, affluent, highly educated white women to found a group called May 19th, which by 1979 was working alongside the Black Liberation Army. The three groups carried out a series of bombings, shootings, and robberies in which dozens of innocent people were killed and maimed… In their aid to the Black liberation movement, the M19 women called themselves “the white edge,” meaning that they were able to buy supplies and drive cars on missions while avoiding questions from law enforcement tracking the liberation’s predominantly Black male membership. For their part, the men called the girls “crackers.” Rosenberg’s role in the Black rights movement satisfied her desire to push back against an American government that she saw as inherently violent and racist. “It was necessary to oppose it with force. I felt that we lived in a country that loved violence and that we had to meet it on its own terms,” she wrote. Over the next several years, “the white edge” of the Black liberation movement helped spring key liberation leaders from jail, including a bomb maker held in New York’s Bellevue hospital. They also worked a series of bank robberies, the most high-profile of which was the infamous botched Brinks armored car robbery on Oct. 20, 1981, in Nanuet, New York, in which six BLA members and four members of the Weather Underground stole $1.6 million from a Brinks truck, killing Brinks guard Peter Paige and wounding two other men in the truck. In the course of their attempted getaway, the robbers shot and killed two Nyack police officers, Edward O’Grady and Waverly Brown, and seriously wounded a police detective named Artie Keenan. Indicted by the FBI for driving the getaway vehicle, Rosenberg fled the scene and went underground until her arrest in 1984 in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, when she and a partner attempted to transfer 740 pounds of dynamite, a dozen guns, and hundreds of fake IDs from a rental truck to a storage facility.
One of the things Rosenberg was allegedly involved in with the BLA was helping Joanne Chesimard aka Assata Shakur escape from prison in 1979 (though Rosenberg was never convicted of this). Shakur had been convicted of killing a police officer in 1977 and has been living as a fugitive in Cuba ever since. There is a reverence for Shakur among many BLM leaders. I wonder if Rosenberg’s involvement in her escape isn’t the real reason she was elevated to the board of the group overseeing BLM’s financies.
In any case, after her arrest with dynamite and guns in 1984, then-US Attorney Rudy Giuliani decided to drop the charges connected to the Brinks robbery and instead simply hit Rosenberg with the weapons charges. She was convicted and sentenced to 58 years in prison. But in January 2001, on his last day in office, Bill Clinton issued clemency to Rosenberg. And 14 years later, Rosenberg went from robbing Brinks’ trucks to support the Black Liberation Army to the board of the organization managing millions in donations for Black Lives Matter.
Any question about how seriously NoVo was invested in setting up Thousand Currents as the financial and administrative power behind Black Lives Matter was put to rest in 2017 and 2018. In those years, NoVo dispersed a whopping $12.91 million grant to Thousand Currents. By then the group had promoted Susan Rosenberg to vice chairman of the Board of Directors.
Rosenberg’s prominent role with the group attracted some attention back in July of this year, including from conservatives. Thousand Currents (the new name for IDEX) removed information from its website about the board members including Rosenberg. On July 10, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg on his show. That same day, Thousand Currents decided to transfer all control of BLM’s finances to another left-wing group called the Tides Center.
This definitely isn’t the side of BLM that the public usually sees. Clearly the money managers want to keep it that way.
Here’s the segment on Rosenberg that Tucker Carlson did back in July.


hotair--2020-10-07--Biden: Maybe we should cancel next debate if Trump's still contagious

As excuses go , this one ’ s … not bad at all .
Joe Biden may or may not be looking for a pretext to ditch the remaining two presidential debates , but one person still contagious with a pandemic virus ain ’ t exactly a pretext .
In fact , it should be more or less assumed that anyone with an active and contagious COVID-19 infection doesn ’ t belong at a presidential debate , even if they ’ re a candidate .
These days , though , nothing can be left unsaid : Democratic presidential nominee Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Delaware from Maryland on Tuesday that next week ’ s presidential debate should be canceled if President Trump is still positive for COVID-19 .
“ I think if he still has COVID , then we shouldn ’ t have a debate , ” Biden said Tuesday evening .
… Biden ’ s comments come one day after he told reporters that he ’ d listen to what the experts say to determine whether it ’ s safe for him to face off next week in Miami against the president in the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ ll do whatever the experts say is appropriate for me to do , ” Biden told reporters as he boarded a flight Monday to campaign in the battleground state of Florida .
“ Listen to the science .
If scientists say that it ’ s safe…then I think that ’ s fine.
” So it doesn ’ t look like Biden wants an exit from the debates , or at least not enough to just simply say that it ’ s too short a time from Trump ’ s hospitalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be , as normally that would require some recuperation and isolation to ensure that the COVID infection has subsided and is no longer producing active viruses in expiration .
Trump left the hospital pretty quickly too , choosing to recuperate at the White House , which means the clock may not yet have started on post-infection isolation .
It ’ s a close call , and one can hardly fault a 77-year-old man for erring on the side of caution , especially when the 74-year-old man on stage keeps choosing the side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question , however , with bigger implications .
Why does the debate have to be in one place ?
We ’ re Zooming everywhere now , from kindergartens to Congress .
( Yes , I ’ m aware of that redundancy . )
If Trump feels up to a debate but there is a question about his contagious status , why not just do a teleconference debate ?
It would be tougher to adopt the town-hall format that the Commission on Presidential Debates — not impossible , but perhaps less useful .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , and in 2020 , a teleconference meeting is hardly exotic .
And that way , no one ’ s contagion impacts anyone else .
That does have one other potential virtue — a handy way to cut microphones .
As anyone who manages Zoom meetings knows , the manager has the ability to mute participants .
This is very helpful when barking dogs or side conversations override another speaker .
By agreeing that the mics won ’ t come on until after the question is asked , and then only for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interruptions can be quashed before they begin .
Voila !
Suddenly , we can have a coherent debate , if a less entertaining one in the gladiatorial sense .
That power could be abused , but if the rules were set up for specific periods of response for each candidate , it might make the flow more equal and fair .
Trump will likely push for an in-person town hall , of course , as he likes retail campaigning .
But this isn ’ t a bad back-up plan , and under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until we know more about the arc of Trump ’ s recovery .

As excuses go, this one’s … not bad at all. Joe Biden may or may not be looking for a pretext to ditch the remaining two presidential debates, but one person still contagious with a pandemic virus ain’t exactly a pretext. In fact, it should be more or less assumed that anyone with an active and contagious COVID-19 infection doesn’t belong at a presidential debate, even if they’re a candidate.
These days, though, nothing can be left unsaid:
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden told reporters while boarding a plane to Delaware from Maryland on Tuesday that next week’s presidential debate should be canceled if President Trump is still positive for COVID-19. “I think if he still has COVID, then we shouldn’t have a debate,” Biden said Tuesday evening. … Biden’s comments come one day after he told reporters that he’d listen to what the experts say to determine whether it’s safe for him to face off next week in Miami against the president in the second of three scheduled debates with Trump. “I’ll do whatever the experts say is appropriate for me to do,” Biden told reporters as he boarded a flight Monday to campaign in the battleground state of Florida. “Listen to the science. If scientists say that it’s safe…then I think that’s fine.”
So it doesn’t look like Biden wants an exit from the debates, or at least not enough to just simply say that it’s too short a time from Trump’s hospitalization to be safe. And it might be, as normally that would require some recuperation and isolation to ensure that the COVID infection has subsided and is no longer producing active viruses in expiration. Trump left the hospital pretty quickly too, choosing to recuperate at the White House, which means the clock may not yet have started on post-infection isolation. It’s a close call, and one can hardly fault a 77-year-old man for erring on the side of caution, especially when the 74-year-old man on stage keeps choosing the side of risk.
This all leads to another question, however, with bigger implications. Why does the debate have to be in one place? We’re Zooming everywhere now, from kindergartens to Congress. (Yes, I’m aware of that redundancy.) If Trump feels up to a debate but there is a question about his contagious status, why not just do a teleconference debate? It would be tougher to adopt the town-hall format that the Commission on Presidential Debates — not impossible, but perhaps less useful. The debate matters more than the format, however, and in 2020, a teleconference meeting is hardly exotic. And that way, no one’s contagion impacts anyone else.
That does have one other potential virtue — a handy way to cut microphones. As anyone who manages Zoom meetings knows, the manager has the ability to mute participants. This is very helpful when barking dogs or side conversations override another speaker. By agreeing that the mics won’t come on until after the question is asked, and then only for one candidate at a time, the interruptions can be quashed before they begin. Voila! Suddenly, we can have a coherent debate, if a less entertaining one in the gladiatorial sense. That power could be abused, but if the rules were set up for specific periods of response for each candidate, it might make the flow more equal and fair.
Trump will likely push for an in-person town hall, of course, as he likes retail campaigning. But this isn’t a bad back-up plan, and under the circumstances, should be considered Plan A until we know more about the arc of Trump’s recovery.


hotair--2020-10-07--Poll: Americans more supportive of confirming Barrett now than two weeks ago

A little good news this morning for the GOP amid an otherwise grim moment .
Previously a plurality of independents had opposed confirmation .
Now a plurality supports it .
Even Democrats have softened ( a little ) .
How come ?
Take your pick of possibilities : 1 .
Voters don ’ t care about process , which is the main objection to Barrett at the moment .
Political junkies can bicker about the propriety of blocking Garland four years ago and then ramming Barrett through now , but most Americans don ’ t care or follow politics closely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 .
Barrett ’ s made a good impression .
Her legal peers , including those on the left , seemingly can ’ t pay her enough compliments for her intellect and character .
And her big family made for an adorable scene in the Rose Garden at the White House .
What ’ s not to like ?
3 .
Some of her critics have made a bad impression .
The effort to paint her as a religious fanatic or kook is … not going well .
4 .
Conceivably , Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that her grand introduction to the public is now suspected to have been a COVID superspreader sh*tshow that took out half the White House .
That ’ s not her fault .
It ’ s a shame history will remember it that way .
Not only do Americans now support confirming Barrett , they ’ ve shifted slightly from opposing her confirmation before the election to narrowly supporting it .
Two weeks ago they split 40/39 in favor of making confirmation contingent upon Trump winning the election .
Now they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the vote .
Which makes me wonder if some segment of the “ wait until Trump wins ” group in the previous poll was confident at the time that he was going to be reelected and has grown less confident after the double whammy of his debate performance and COVID diagnosis .
But maybe not : Even Dems have shrunk from 79 percent in favor of waiting until after the election to confirm her to 59 percent in favor of doing so .
All of which adds up to some alarm bells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument against the GOP is that the Barrett Court is going to nuke legal abortion *and* coverage for preexisting conditions under ObamaCare .
They ’ ve spent two weeks making that point repeatedly on the trail .
And … voters are more pro-Barrett today than they were before that messaging began .
If that ’ s true , packing the Court may be an even bigger loser politically than anyone thought .
And it already seemed like a pretty big loser .
Rising support for Barrett *could* also mean rising support for Lindsey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Graham ’ s the head of the Judiciary Committee and will be front and center when confirmation hearings begin next week .
If he makes a good show there , as he tends to do at SCOTUS hearings , maybe that ’ ll bring home some of the wayward Republican voters in SC who keep refusing to commit to him in polls of that race .
As things stand , the Cook Political Report now rates his chances against Democrat Jaime Harrison as a toss-up — a shocking verdict given Graham ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s status as a red stronghold .
If SC is in play , virtually everything ’ s in play .
Republicans certainly hope that heavy coverage [ of the hearing ] can help consolidate Republican votes and remind them why they want to vote for a GOP majority on judges , with Graham being the only way to get that .
At the candidates ’ first debate this past Saturday , Graham repeatedly hammered home his sway on the court and judicial nominees , turning nearly every question back to Barrett or his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harrison , in turn , evoked the coronavirus crisis and how badly it ’ s hit South Carolina — punctuated by a plexiglass shield he brought with him to the debate to separate himself from Graham .
While the senator tested negative for COVID after being exposed to other senators who tested positive , there would still be a 14 day quarantine per CDC guidelines .
In that regard , the chasm between them on the pandemic wasn ’ t just metaphorical , and Graham could face some blowback for pushing ahead with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as two committee members have tested positive for the virus .
Even some Republicans privately concede it was Harrison , not Graham , who came out looking stronger from that showdown .
That ’ s an important point .
As it happens , the one number in today ’ s Morning Consult poll that wasn ’ t encouraging for Republicans was the share who thought Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing should be postponed in light of Trump ’ s COVID diagnosis .
Fifty-four percent said so , including 46 percent of indies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I expect Democrats will use the hearing as a platform to hammer at that along with the expected scaremongering about Roe v. Wade and ObamaCare .
“ We shouldn ’ t even be here today !
We should be isolating to protect ourselves and our families , but once again these reckless Republicans care more about their agenda than the health of people around them !
” How does that play in SC ?
No idea .
Two last points .
Although the public *momentarily* supports confirming Barrett before the election , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day and if Biden were to win in a landslide , I doubt the numbers would look the same on November 4 .
Some chunk of the public would shift to the view that the new president had just been given a major mandate at a moment when there ’ s still a vacancy on the Court and therefore he should get to fill it .
Senate Republicans wouldn ’ t care , I suspect — why would they when they wouldn ’ t need to face voters again for two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different then than now .
Second , although the public supports Barrett ’ s confirmation on balance , that doesn ’ t mean this issue is necessarily a winner for the GOP .
We ’ re all familiar with gun-control polls that show 90 percent of the public supports universal background checks , yet Congress never gets around to passing a bill to make universal background checks the law .
Why not ?
Because the 10 percent that opposes the idea opposes it vehemently , and they ’ re willing and able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same may be true with the Barrett confirmation .
A plurality of the public is fine with it , but the insane amounts of money that Democratic candidates have raised over the past three weeks since Ginsburg died prove that some lefties oppose letting Trump fill the seat vehemently .
What that means for turnout on Election Day , I don ’ t know .
But Cook notes that Harrison has received such a ludicrous windfall of contributions from donors that he ’ s outspent Graham , a well-connected incumbent , three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — $ 60 million versus $ 20 million .
And that advantage may yet grow in the four weeks left before the vote .
In lieu of an exit question , read Michael Brendan Dougherty on the double disservice done to Barrett by Trump in rolling out her nomination .
It ’ s not just that she made her debut at an apparent superspreader event caused by Whit House negligence .
It ’ s that Trump continually talks about the need for confirming a ninth justice before the election so that she can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disputes .
Democrats are destined to grill her about that at her hearing , notes Dougherty , and there ’ s really no good response for her to give .
Exit quotation : “ If her answers make it sound like she is against recusal , she will be portrayed as corrupt .
If her answers make it sound like she is pre-committing to recusal , it will shake Republicans up .
”

A little good news this morning for the GOP amid an otherwise grim moment.
46% of voters in our latest poll with @politico said the Senate should confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26. https://t.co/dplWQ3XLrB pic.twitter.com/NnQwx1EblX — Morning Consult (@MorningConsult) October 7, 2020
Previously a plurality of independents had opposed confirmation. Now a plurality supports it. Even Democrats have softened (a little). How come? Take your pick of possibilities:
1. Voters don’t care about process, which is the main objection to Barrett at the moment. Political junkies can bicker about the propriety of blocking Garland four years ago and then ramming Barrett through now, but most Americans don’t care or follow politics closely enough to invest in that debate.
2. Barrett’s made a good impression. Her legal peers, including those on the left, seemingly can’t pay her enough compliments for her intellect and character. And her big family made for an adorable scene in the Rose Garden at the White House. What’s not to like?
3. Some of her critics have made a bad impression. The effort to paint her as a religious fanatic or kook is … not going well.
4. Conceivably, Barrett has gained a bit of sympathy due to the fact that her grand introduction to the public is now suspected to have been a COVID superspreader sh*tshow that took out half the White House. That’s not her fault. It’s a shame history will remember it that way.
Not only do Americans now support confirming Barrett, they’ve shifted slightly from opposing her confirmation before the election to narrowly supporting it. Two weeks ago they split 40/39 in favor of making confirmation contingent upon Trump winning the election. Now they split 43/37 in favor of doing it before the vote. Which makes me wonder if some segment of the “wait until Trump wins” group in the previous poll was confident at the time that he was going to be reelected and has grown less confident after the double whammy of his debate performance and COVID diagnosis. But maybe not: Even Dems have shrunk from 79 percent in favor of waiting until after the election to confirm her to 59 percent in favor of doing so.
All of which adds up to some alarm bells for Democrats. Part of their closing argument against the GOP is that the Barrett Court is going to nuke legal abortion *and* coverage for preexisting conditions under ObamaCare. They’ve spent two weeks making that point repeatedly on the trail. And … voters are more pro-Barrett today than they were before that messaging began. If that’s true, packing the Court may be an even bigger loser politically than anyone thought. And it already seemed like a pretty big loser.
Rising support for Barrett *could* also mean rising support for Lindsey Graham in his South Carolina Senate race. Graham’s the head of the Judiciary Committee and will be front and center when confirmation hearings begin next week. If he makes a good show there, as he tends to do at SCOTUS hearings, maybe that’ll bring home some of the wayward Republican voters in SC who keep refusing to commit to him in polls of that race. As things stand, the Cook Political Report now rates his chances against Democrat Jaime Harrison as a toss-up — a shocking verdict given Graham’s long incumbency and South Carolina’s status as a red stronghold. If SC is in play, virtually everything’s in play.
Republicans certainly hope that heavy coverage [of the hearing] can help consolidate Republican votes and remind them why they want to vote for a GOP majority on judges, with Graham being the only way to get that. At the candidates’ first debate this past Saturday, Graham repeatedly hammered home his sway on the court and judicial nominees, turning nearly every question back to Barrett or his support for Trump’s appointees. Harrison, in turn, evoked the coronavirus crisis and how badly it’s hit South Carolina — punctuated by a plexiglass shield he brought with him to the debate to separate himself from Graham. While the senator tested negative for COVID after being exposed to other senators who tested positive, there would still be a 14 day quarantine per CDC guidelines. In that regard, the chasm between them on the pandemic wasn’t just metaphorical, and Graham could face some blowback for pushing ahead with the hearings on such a rushed timeline even as two committee members have tested positive for the virus. Even some Republicans privately concede it was Harrison, not Graham, who came out looking stronger from that showdown.
That’s an important point. As it happens, the one number in today’s Morning Consult poll that wasn’t encouraging for Republicans was the share who thought Barrett’s confirmation hearing should be postponed in light of Trump’s COVID diagnosis. Fifty-four percent said so, including 46 percent of indies and even 30 percent of Republicans. I expect Democrats will use the hearing as a platform to hammer at that along with the expected scaremongering about Roe v. Wade and ObamaCare. “We shouldn’t even be here today! We should be isolating to protect ourselves and our families, but once again these reckless Republicans care more about their agenda than the health of people around them!” How does that play in SC? No idea.
Two last points. Although the public *momentarily* supports confirming Barrett before the election, if something happened to push that vote past Election Day and if Biden were to win in a landslide, I doubt the numbers would look the same on November 4. Some chunk of the public would shift to the view that the new president had just been given a major mandate at a moment when there’s still a vacancy on the Court and therefore he should get to fill it. Senate Republicans wouldn’t care, I suspect — why would they when they wouldn’t need to face voters again for two years? — but the politics may be different then than now.
Second, although the public supports Barrett’s confirmation on balance, that doesn’t mean this issue is necessarily a winner for the GOP. We’re all familiar with gun-control polls that show 90 percent of the public supports universal background checks, yet Congress never gets around to passing a bill to make universal background checks the law. Why not? Because the 10 percent that opposes the idea opposes it vehemently, and they’re willing and able to punish Republican politicians who cross them. The same may be true with the Barrett confirmation. A plurality of the public is fine with it, but the insane amounts of money that Democratic candidates have raised over the past three weeks since Ginsburg died prove that some lefties oppose letting Trump fill the seat vehemently. What that means for turnout on Election Day, I don’t know. But Cook notes that Harrison has received such a ludicrous windfall of contributions from donors that he’s outspent Graham, a well-connected incumbent, three to one on TV and digital ads — $60 million versus $20 million. And that advantage may yet grow in the four weeks left before the vote.
In lieu of an exit question, read Michael Brendan Dougherty on the double disservice done to Barrett by Trump in rolling out her nomination. It’s not just that she made her debut at an apparent superspreader event caused by Whit House negligence. It’s that Trump continually talks about the need for confirming a ninth justice before the election so that she can cast the deciding vote in any ballot disputes. Democrats are destined to grill her about that at her hearing, notes Dougherty, and there’s really no good response for her to give. Exit quotation: “If her answers make it sound like she is against recusal, she will be portrayed as corrupt. If her answers make it sound like she is pre-committing to recusal, it will shake Republicans up.”