hotair--2020-10-20--Trend: Sweet results from another PA bakery's presidential cookie poll

It looks like presidential cookie polls are popular with bakery customers this year .
Some bakeries traditionally hold their own polls by selling sugar cookies iced with the logos or faces of the Republican and Democrat candidates .
It ’ s a fun marketing gimmick that brings in customer traffic and delivers a boost in sales .
Last weekend I wrote about Lochel ’ s Bakery just north of Philadelphia .
Like Lochel ’ s , Oakmont Bakery in Oakmont , Pennsylvania is finding that presidential cookies are a popular item .
Co-owner Tony Serrao says the bakery has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Lochel ’ s Bakery spelled out Trump 2020 and Biden 2020 in the icing but Oakmont Bakery decorates the sugar cookies with the faces of the two candidates .
Some customers tell him they buy the cookies just for the satisfaction of biting off the candidate ’ s head .
While Lochel ’ s Bakery has bragging rights to accurately predicting the winner of the presidential race for the last three elections , Oakmont has a mixed record .
“ We have people who come in and say , ‘ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those just so I can bite his head off.
’ We don ’ t care what you do with them , ” said Mark Serrao , the owner of Oakmont Bakery .
It ’ s a tradition for this family-owned business , baking cookies with the candidates ’ faces .
Whoever sells the most “ unofficially ” wins the race .
“ In 2012 , President Obama and Mitt Romney ran and Mitt Romney won by about 10 percent at the bakery .
Obviously , that wasn ’ t accurate , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and everything is crazy , including the presidential race , Serrao wasn ’ t sure that carrying on the tradition was such a good idea this year .
His son convinced him that the tradition must continue .
As of last Friday , President Trump was well ahead of Joe Biden .
“ They ’ re cookies .
We want to make some fun out of it and let people enjoy them , ” said Tony Serrao , co-owner of Oakmont Bakery .
The cookies of President Donald Trump and Joe Biden are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bakery has sold more than 3,000 of the cookies since they started baking them this week , and they are posting the results on social media.
” “ As of today , we sold 779 of Biden , 2,463 of Trump , ” said Mark Serrao .
How do they keep track of individual cookie sales for the tally ?
There ’ s a button for that .
“ Our , POS system , which keeps track of everything that we sell , it has a button for Trump cookie and it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it tallies every one that ’ s sold , no matter whether they ’ re sold in dozens or by the piece .
It keeps track of every one .
So , we just run a report every day , ” said owner Marc Serrao .
There have been mixed comments on the bakery ’ s Facebook page in the comments section when pictures of the cookies are posted .
Just like the electorate , opinions are split between those who approve and those who do not .
The bakery , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has no political opinion .
The cookie poll is just for fun .
The cookies cost 24 dollars a dozen .
Oakmont Bakery has no political opinion .
We have been making presidential election cookies for 20+ years .
Our staff is like our family .
We are a very diverse group of people with many different views and opinions , who care deeply for each other and respect each other .
Many of us are involved in the marketing and production of the election cookies .
The cookie poll is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy the season .
Our intention is never to offend anyone or cause division .
We respectfully ask that you keep your comments as tasteful as our cookies .
The updated results of the cookie poll were posted on the bakery ’ s Twitter account yesterday .
The sales of Trump cookies are still well ahead of Biden cookies .
Trump is the winner in other poll sales in bakeries across the country .
Some bakeries are selling cookies , others sell cupcakes .
No matter how the cookie crumbles , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scolds should stop and take a breath .
Getting upset over a cookie is silly , especially when both political parties are represented .

It looks like presidential cookie polls are popular with bakery customers this year. Some bakeries traditionally hold their own polls by selling sugar cookies iced with the logos or faces of the Republican and Democrat candidates. It’s a fun marketing gimmick that brings in customer traffic and delivers a boost in sales.
Last weekend I wrote about Lochel’s Bakery just north of Philadelphia. Like Lochel’s, Oakmont Bakery in Oakmont, Pennsylvania is finding that presidential cookies are a popular item. Co-owner Tony Serrao says the bakery has been baking and selling presidential cookies for 20 years. Lochel’s Bakery spelled out Trump 2020 and Biden 2020 in the icing but Oakmont Bakery decorates the sugar cookies with the faces of the two candidates. Some customers tell him they buy the cookies just for the satisfaction of biting off the candidate’s head. While Lochel’s Bakery has bragging rights to accurately predicting the winner of the presidential race for the last three elections, Oakmont has a mixed record.
“We have people who come in and say, ‘I’m going to buy a dozen of those just so I can bite his head off.’ We don’t care what you do with them,” said Mark Serrao, the owner of Oakmont Bakery. It’s a tradition for this family-owned business, baking cookies with the candidates’ faces. Whoever sells the most “unofficially” wins the race. “In 2012, President Obama and Mitt Romney ran and Mitt Romney won by about 10 percent at the bakery. Obviously, that wasn’t accurate,” said Serrao.
Since this is 2020 and everything is crazy, including the presidential race, Serrao wasn’t sure that carrying on the tradition was such a good idea this year. His son convinced him that the tradition must continue. As of last Friday, President Trump was well ahead of Joe Biden.
“They’re cookies. We want to make some fun out of it and let people enjoy them,” said Tony Serrao, co-owner of Oakmont Bakery. The cookies of President Donald Trump and Joe Biden are flying off the baking sheets. Oakmont Bakery has sold more than 3,000 of the cookies since they started baking them this week, and they are posting the results on social media.” “As of today, we sold 779 of Biden, 2,463 of Trump,” said Mark Serrao.
How do they keep track of individual cookie sales for the tally? There’s a button for that.
“Our, POS system, which keeps track of everything that we sell, it has a button for Trump cookie and it has a button for the Biden cookie. And it tallies every one that’s sold, no matter whether they’re sold in dozens or by the piece. It keeps track of every one. So, we just run a report every day,” said owner Marc Serrao.
There have been mixed comments on the bakery’s Facebook page in the comments section when pictures of the cookies are posted. Just like the electorate, opinions are split between those who approve and those who do not.
https://www.facebook.com/OakmontBakery/posts/3898226380206108
The bakery, however, posted a disclaimer that states that it has no political opinion. The cookie poll is just for fun. The cookies cost 24 dollars a dozen.
Oakmont Bakery has no political opinion. We have been making presidential election cookies for 20+ years. Our staff is like our family. We are a very diverse group of people with many different views and opinions, who care deeply for each other and respect each other. Many of us are involved in the marketing and production of the election cookies. The cookie poll is a fun way of encouraging our customers to enjoy the season. Our intention is never to offend anyone or cause division. We respectfully ask that you keep your comments as tasteful as our cookies.
The updated results of the cookie poll were posted on the bakery’s Twitter account yesterday. The sales of Trump cookies are still well ahead of Biden cookies.
https://twitter.com/OakmontBakery/status/1318159593206317057
Trump is the winner in other poll sales in bakeries across the country. Some bakeries are selling cookies, others sell cupcakes.
No matter how the cookie crumbles, it’s all just for fun. The scolds should stop and take a breath. Getting upset over a cookie is silly, especially when both political parties are represented.


hotair--2020-10-21--Is Schumer about to throw Feinstein under the bus after Barrett hearing?

Reaaalllyy curious moment yesterday , made even more curious by the fact that rank and file Democrats are warming up to Amy Coney Barrett .
As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee , Dianne Feinstein led the charge to derail Barrett ’ s confirmation , but instead ended up failing , largely because the task of delegitimizing Barrett was impossible in the first place .
While voters could take comfort in Barrett ’ s normality , Democratic activist groups exploded over the failure — and took aim at Feinstein in particular , especially for her polite manner .
Late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hinted to reporters that he had rebuked Feinstein , and that her assignment Judiciary might get yanked : Schumer , speaking to reporters during a press conference , declined to say if he would make changes to the Judiciary Committee or to disclose how his conversation with Feinsten went .
“ I had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein .
That ’ s all I ’ m going to say , ” Schumer told reporters .
Asked if he could discuss the conversation , he added : “ Nope.
” Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feinstein ’ s future comes after the California Democrat , 87 , sparked calls for her caucus to replace her as the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee over her handling of Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s Supreme Court nomination hearings .
Needless to say , this is one hell of a way to treat a long-time colleague who has dutifully done your bidding for decades .
Schumer wouldn ’ t have been in this position if ( a ) he and Harry Reid hadn ’ t blockaded judicial nominations from 2002-5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Reid hadn ’ t escalated things when Republicans retaliated by eliminating the filibuster on presidential appointments in 2013 .
That did leave an exception for Supreme Court nominees , but no one in their right mind would have thought Mitch McConnell wouldn ’ t use that 2013 precedent to remove the exception .
And then Schumer wasted that by attempting to filibuster Neil Gorsuch .
Feinstein went along for all of those actions , protecting leadership ’ s flanks all the way .
Then she got stuck with its consequences in Judiciary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shots from the cheap seats .
For all her trouble , Schumer ’ s dropping hints that he ’ ll throw Feinstein under the bus to save his own backside with progressive groups who demanded the impossible .
Stay classy , Chuck .
Judiciary colleague Chuck Grassley went on Twitter to shame Feinstein ’ s critics , presumably including Schumer , as “ sexist & ageist ” today :

Reaaalllyy curious moment yesterday, made even more curious by the fact that rank and file Democrats are warming up to Amy Coney Barrett. As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein led the charge to derail Barrett’s confirmation, but instead ended up failing, largely because the task of delegitimizing Barrett was impossible in the first place. While voters could take comfort in Barrett’s normality, Democratic activist groups exploded over the failure — and took aim at Feinstein in particular, especially for her polite manner.
Late yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer hinted to reporters that he had rebuked Feinstein, and that her assignment Judiciary might get yanked:
Reporter: "Some progressive groups have spoken out criticizing Sen. Feinstein for her handling of the hearings… Do you plan to make any changes to the Judiciary Committee?" Sen. Chuck Schumer; "I had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein. That's all I'm going to say." pic.twitter.com/Rr5URoftar — The Hill (@thehill) October 20, 2020
Schumer, speaking to reporters during a press conference, declined to say if he would make changes to the Judiciary Committee or to disclose how his conversation with Feinsten went. “I had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein. That’s all I’m going to say,” Schumer told reporters. Asked if he could discuss the conversation, he added: “Nope.” Schumer’s decision to sidestep questions about Feinstein’s future comes after the California Democrat, 87, sparked calls for her caucus to replace her as the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee over her handling of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearings.
Needless to say, this is one hell of a way to treat a long-time colleague who has dutifully done your bidding for decades. Schumer wouldn’t have been in this position if (a) he and Harry Reid hadn’t blockaded judicial nominations from 2002-5, and then (b) he and Reid hadn’t escalated things when Republicans retaliated by eliminating the filibuster on presidential appointments in 2013. That did leave an exception for Supreme Court nominees, but no one in their right mind would have thought Mitch McConnell wouldn’t use that 2013 precedent to remove the exception. And then Schumer wasted that by attempting to filibuster Neil Gorsuch.
Feinstein went along for all of those actions, protecting leadership’s flanks all the way. Then she got stuck with its consequences in Judiciary, while Schumer got to keep taking shots from the cheap seats. For all her trouble, Schumer’s dropping hints that he’ll throw Feinstein under the bus to save his own backside with progressive groups who demanded the impossible. Stay classy, Chuck.
Judiciary colleague Chuck Grassley went on Twitter to shame Feinstein’s critics, presumably including Schumer, as “sexist & ageist” today:
Democrats calling for Senator Feinstein to step down from Judiciary Ranking Member should think twice abt their sexist & ageist motivations against an outstanding legislator & icon in her own right Attacks on Senator Feinstein are totally unjustified — ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 21, 2020
“Sexist & ageist”? Maybe. Ingrate? You betcha.


hotair--2020-10-21--Rudy: I've been set up, all I did in the Borat scene was tuck my shirt in

In a sane world this would have to be true , right ?
He has no reason to lie .
The footage will be globally available in 48 hours .
We ’ ll all know the truth , or at least have strong opinions about it , by Friday afternoon .
But in a sane world , he wouldn ’ t have gone boasting to New York tabloids in July that he had totally pwn3d Sacha Baron Cohen by foiling a prank , knowing that Cohen had footage of him lying on a bed with his hands down his pants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s perfectly capable of telling lies which he has every reason to know will be exposed in humiliating ways .
Every Amazon Prime member in the country was planning to enjoy this movie this weekend and now we ’ ll all be watching this scene like the Zapruder film to see if he really was performing a retuck or preparing to bring “ little Rudy ” out to play .
He notes in his statement that there was a screening of the film in September and no one made mention of the scene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Did Cohen include it in that cut or did he save it as a surprise for the final release ?
You don ’ t need to assume political motives for that — it may be that he knew the Giuliani scene would draw big buzz and didn ’ t want to waste it a month before the film debuted .
All we can do for the next 48 hours is rely on people who have watched the scene , bearing in mind that they have their own political biases that may dispose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jeva Lange of The Week says she ’ s seen it and that “ even knowing what ’ s coming won ’ t prepare you for the shock and revulsion of the scene.
” Jack Crosbie of Discourse Blog has seen it too and claims that Rudy *does* seem to be tucking his shirt in — at least at first .
Then , well… What I saw starts at the end of an interview between Rudy and Borat ’ s “ daughter ” Tutar .
Tutar is apologizing to Rudy for something , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knee , suggestively .
She then thanks him for the interview and invites him into the bedroom of the hotel suite they ’ re in for a drink .
He awkwardly helps her remove some of her microphones , and then immediately sits down on the bed , patting her , again , extremely awkwardly on the waist , while saying “ you can give me your phone number , and your address.
” Tutar helps Giuliani remove a microphone from his shirt while he is sitting on the bed .
He then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushes both hands into the front of his pants , possibly re-tucking his shirt , but they stay there as he rummages around a bit , sighing .
Crosbie includes a full transcript of what was said after Cohen burst into the room but I won ’ t reprint it just so as not to spoil the jokes for those planning to watch .
It ’ s funny .
I gave you some anti-anti-Rudy spin in the last post and will give you some more here , bearing in mind that I haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on descriptions of how things had gone up to that point , is it really plausible that Giuliani would have suddenly started touching himself ?
Clearly there was flirting happening , at least on the actress ’ s part ; him asking for her phone number and patting her on the waist suggests reciprocal interest .
But a man typically doesn ’ t go from that to instantly fondling his dong right in front of the woman he ’ s interested in .
There would have been some suggestive banter , a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , something , before the self-abuse began .
One would hope .
A thousand women are reading those lines right now , shaking their heads , and thinking , “ Oh , honey .
If only you knew.
” Fair enough .
I know the Louis CK stories , to take one example .
I assume that famous and powerful men are especially likely to be … abrupt in demonstrating their interest , as they ’ re more used to getting what they want .
But if what Rudy was doing was ambiguous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support the least charitable interpretation of his behavior , maybe we shouldn ’ t adopt that interpretation ?
Ben Dreyfuss , who ’ s no conservative , says he ’ s watched the scene too .
And he claims Rudy ’ s getting a bad rap .
And so we come to the inevitable end of the 2020 presidential campaign : America collectively scrutinizing hidden-cam footage to reach a consensus on whether Time ’ s 2001 Man of the Year was cranking it on a hotel bed with Borat watching him from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ’ s Rudy calling in to talk radio this afternoon to defend himself .
He ’ s fully entitled , but if I may make a suggestion : Presenting this absurd episode as some sort of left-wing dirty trick to run interference for Hunter Biden sounds insane even allowing for the fact that many righties will believe it , never mind that the scene was filmed months before the contents of Biden ’ s laptop were publicized .
The U.S. electorate can tolerate a lot of absurdity nowadays but Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prank to the sinister Biden crime family ’ s influence-peddling operation will sound so deranged that it ’ ll discredit Rudy even more than the hidden-cam footage might .
And God help us all if Trump ends up ranting about this tomorrow night at the debate .
What a closing argument that would be : “ Don ’ t reward Joe Biden with the presidency after he got Borat to frame Rudy for jerking off .
”

In a sane world this would have to be true, right? He has no reason to lie. The footage will be globally available in 48 hours.
We’ll all know the truth, or at least have strong opinions about it, by Friday afternoon.
But in a sane world, he wouldn’t have gone boasting to New York tabloids in July that he had totally pwn3d Sacha Baron Cohen by foiling a prank, knowing that Cohen had footage of him lying on a bed with his hands down his pants.
So, yeah, Rudy’s perfectly capable of telling lies which he has every reason to know will be exposed in humiliating ways.
Every Amazon Prime member in the country was planning to enjoy this movie this weekend and now we’ll all be watching this scene like the Zapruder film to see if he really was performing a retuck or preparing to bring “little Rudy” out to play.
(2) In fact, the NY Post today reports "it looks to me like an exaggeration through editing." As soon as I realized it was a set up I called the police, which has been noted in THR article on July 8th. — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) October 21, 2020
(4) We are preparing much bigger dumps off of the hard drive from hell, of which Joe Biden will be unable to defend or hide from. I have the receipts. — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) October 21, 2020
He notes in his statement that there was a screening of the film in September and no one made mention of the scene afterward, which is an interesting point. Did Cohen include it in that cut or did he save it as a surprise for the final release? You don’t need to assume political motives for that — it may be that he knew the Giuliani scene would draw big buzz and didn’t want to waste it a month before the film debuted.
All we can do for the next 48 hours is rely on people who have watched the scene, bearing in mind that they have their own political biases that may dispose them unfavorably towards Giuliani or otherwise. Jeva Lange of The Week says she’s seen it and that “even knowing what’s coming won’t prepare you for the shock and revulsion of the scene.” Jack Crosbie of Discourse Blog has seen it too and claims that Rudy *does* seem to be tucking his shirt in — at least at first. Then, well…
What I saw starts at the end of an interview between Rudy and Borat’s “daughter” Tutar. Tutar is apologizing to Rudy for something, and then leans forward and touches his knee, suggestively. She then thanks him for the interview and invites him into the bedroom of the hotel suite they’re in for a drink. He awkwardly helps her remove some of her microphones, and then immediately sits down on the bed, patting her, again, extremely awkwardly on the waist, while saying “you can give me your phone number, and your address.” Tutar helps Giuliani remove a microphone from his shirt while he is sitting on the bed. He then lies down flat on his back and pushes both hands into the front of his pants, possibly re-tucking his shirt, but they stay there as he rummages around a bit, sighing.
Crosbie includes a full transcript of what was said after Cohen burst into the room but I won’t reprint it just so as not to spoil the jokes for those planning to watch. It’s funny.
I gave you some anti-anti-Rudy spin in the last post and will give you some more here, bearing in mind that I haven’t watched the scene. Based on descriptions of how things had gone up to that point, is it really plausible that Giuliani would have suddenly started touching himself? Clearly there was flirting happening, at least on the actress’s part; him asking for her phone number and patting her on the waist suggests reciprocal interest. But a man typically doesn’t go from that to instantly fondling his dong right in front of the woman he’s interested in. There would have been some suggestive banter, a little more “patting,” a kiss, something, before the self-abuse began. One would hope.
A thousand women are reading those lines right now, shaking their heads, and thinking, “Oh, honey. If only you knew.” Fair enough. I know the Louis CK stories, to take one example. I assume that famous and powerful men are especially likely to be … abrupt in demonstrating their interest, as they’re more used to getting what they want. But if what Rudy was doing was ambiguous and the circumstances don’t logically support the least charitable interpretation of his behavior, maybe we shouldn’t adopt that interpretation?
Ben Dreyfuss, who’s no conservative, says he’s watched the scene too. And he claims Rudy’s getting a bad rap.
https://twitter.com/bendreyfuss/status/1319001450597396480
And so we come to the inevitable end of the 2020 presidential campaign: America collectively scrutinizing hidden-cam footage to reach a consensus on whether Time’s 2001 Man of the Year was cranking it on a hotel bed with Borat watching him from the closet.
Via the Daily Beast, here’s Rudy calling in to talk radio this afternoon to defend himself. He’s fully entitled, but if I may make a suggestion: Presenting this absurd episode as some sort of left-wing dirty trick to run interference for Hunter Biden sounds insane even allowing for the fact that many righties will believe it, never mind that the scene was filmed months before the contents of Biden’s laptop were publicized. The U.S. electorate can tolerate a lot of absurdity nowadays but Trump’s lawyer linking a British comedian’s prank to the sinister Biden crime family’s influence-peddling operation will sound so deranged that it’ll discredit Rudy even more than the hidden-cam footage might. And God help us all if Trump ends up ranting about this tomorrow night at the debate. What a closing argument that would be: “Don’t reward Joe Biden with the presidency after he got Borat to frame Rudy for jerking off.”


hotair--2020-10-21--Senate Democrats will boycott Judge Barrett's committee vote tomorrow

Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
At least that ’ s what Republicans on the committee will be doing .
Democrats have decided they will boycott the vote as a way to signal their displeasure with the outcome : The plan hasn ’ t been finalized yet , according to a Democratic aide , but Democrats are preparing to fill their empty seats with poster-sized photos of people who would be hurt by Barrett potentially casting a deciding vote against the Affordable Care Act .
These would be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ display during Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing last week .
Democrats also intend to hold two press conferences to push back on Barrett ’ s confirmation ― one on the Capitol steps and one on the Supreme Court steps .
They will go to one or both of these pressers during the committee vote , according to the Democratic aide .
Sen. Schumer has been doing his best today to signal he ’ s prepared to fight to the bitter end : Democrats made it very clear last week that they were very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed the confirmation hearings with praise for Sen. Lindsey Graham followed by a hug .
It was bad enough they were going to lose , but to lose with grace and decency was just too much .
There were lots of calls for Feinstein to immediately resign : Ed has more on the fallout from the hug coming up but suffice it to say Democrats want to see their representatives acting like the world is about to end , not heaping praise on the enemy .
Meanwhile , barring some extraordinary event , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Graham has told reporters he still plans to vote and that a majority of his committee can act on the nomination and send it to the floor .
GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he is planning a full Senate vote on the nomination on Monday .
The maneuver would ensure that Barrett could be sworn in before the Nov. 3 election and that she could participate in election questions that are already pending before the Supreme Court… The Democrats ’ boycott comes at a time that the progressive wing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate leadership to do more to call attention to what is widely viewed on the Democratic side of the aisle as an “ outrageous ” power play to get Barrett confirmed in record time for a nominee in modern times .
I can appreciate that Democrats aren ’ t too happy about seeing the most liberal member of the Supreme Court replace with someone who is conservative in just about every way .
If the parties were reversed in this situation Republicans would be just as upset about it .
That said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stunt planned for tomorrow accomplishes anything .
Democrats made their case against Barrett last week and polls suggest they failed .
But if having Chuck Schumer metaphorically ball up his fists and shake them at the sky makes Dems feel better , that ’ s fine with me .
What worries me is that some of the more extreme elements of their coalition could go beyond that .
I don ’ t even want to speculate how but the potential for crazy seems strong at this moment and Monday ’ s confirmation vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long ways off .

Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. At least that’s what Republicans on the committee will be doing. Democrats have decided they will boycott the vote as a way to signal their displeasure with the outcome:
The plan hasn’t been finalized yet, according to a Democratic aide, but Democrats are preparing to fill their empty seats with poster-sized photos of people who would be hurt by Barrett potentially casting a deciding vote against the Affordable Care Act. These would be the same pictures of people Democrats had on display during Barrett’s confirmation hearing last week. Democrats also intend to hold two press conferences to push back on Barrett’s confirmation ― one on the Capitol steps and one on the Supreme Court steps. They will go to one or both of these pressers during the committee vote, according to the Democratic aide.
Sen. Schumer has been doing his best today to signal he’s prepared to fight to the bitter end:
Republicans could never repeal a woman’s right to choose in Congress, so they are rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice who is a threat to Roe. A vote for Judge Barrett is a vote to curtail women’s reproductive freedoms. We're fighting this.#WhatsAtStake — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 21, 2020
Democrats will boycott the illegitimate markup tomorrow of Judge Barrett’s nomination in Judiciary and not provide the quorum required Health care is at stake. Rights are at stake. But the GOP's showing they're concerned only with raw political power We will not stop fighting — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 21, 2020
I am forcing a vote to adjourn the Senate until after the November election. We are not going to have business as usual here in the Senate while the Republicans try to use an illegitimate process to jam through a Supreme Court nominee. — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) October 21, 2020
Democrats made it very clear last week that they were very unhappy with Sen. Dianne Feinstein after she closed the confirmation hearings with praise for Sen. Lindsey Graham followed by a hug. It was bad enough they were going to lose, but to lose with grace and decency was just too much. There were lots of calls for Feinstein to immediately resign:
I really can't get over what a betrayal this moment was to the thousands (millions?) of progressive activists who have worked their asses off fighting Barrett's confirmation tooth and nail. Feinstein should be ashamed, and she should step down immediately. https://t.co/uPVDeQgrlC — Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) October 15, 2020
Ed has more on the fallout from the hug coming up but suffice it to say Democrats want to see their representatives acting like the world is about to end, not heaping praise on the enemy. Meanwhile, barring some extraordinary event, the die is cast.
Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham has told reporters he still plans to vote and that a majority of his committee can act on the nomination and send it to the floor. GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he is planning a full Senate vote on the nomination on Monday. The maneuver would ensure that Barrett could be sworn in before the Nov. 3 election and that she could participate in election questions that are already pending before the Supreme Court… The Democrats’ boycott comes at a time that the progressive wing of the party is leaning on the Democratic Senate leadership to do more to call attention to what is widely viewed on the Democratic side of the aisle as an “outrageous” power play to get Barrett confirmed in record time for a nominee in modern times.
I can appreciate that Democrats aren’t too happy about seeing the most liberal member of the Supreme Court replace with someone who is conservative in just about every way. If the parties were reversed in this situation Republicans would be just as upset about it.
That said, I don’t think this little stunt planned for tomorrow accomplishes anything. Democrats made their case against Barrett last week and polls suggest they failed. But if having Chuck Schumer metaphorically ball up his fists and shake them at the sky makes Dems feel better, that’s fine with me. What worries me is that some of the more extreme elements of their coalition could go beyond that. I don’t even want to speculate how but the potential for crazy seems strong at this moment and Monday’s confirmation vote still feels like it’s a long ways off.


hotair--2020-10-21--CPD member: Trump's attack on us "is an attack on the election itself"

This is such an absurd argument that it ’ s almost no surprise at all that the Washington Post features it today .
In his essay , the otherwise estimable former Senator John Danforth lays out the case that the Commission on Presidential Debates has so much value as an institution for elections that Donald Trump ’ s criticisms of it are tantamount to an attack on democracy itself .
Gee , how did we manage to hold elections before the CPD ?
The president ’ s campaign attacked moderator Chris Wallace as “ terrible and biased.
” Its senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission of a “ scheme to protect their preferred candidate , ” and one of Trump ’ s strongest champions , Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Mo . )
, branded the commission “ a disgrace.
” The claim is that the commission is composed of Democrats and never-Trump Republicans who — through their selection of moderators , their decision to make the town-hall meeting virtual , and ( in the latest accusation ) through the moderator ’ s selection of subjects for the final debate — have corruptly tilted the scale .
… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization ’ s decisions , and the Commission on Presidential Debates is not above criticism .
Some have suggested we should have postponed the town-hall debate until we were certain the president couldn ’ t spread the disease .
Some have said we should have done better at communicating with the two campaigns .
But there ’ s an enormous difference between criticizing good-faith efforts and accusing the commission of corrupt favoritism .
The first is helpful for improving our work .
The second destroys public confidence in the most basic treasure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The second paves the way to violence in the streets .
It is not the honor of the commission that is at stake here .
What is at stake is Americans ’ belief in the fairness of our presidential debates and , in turn , the presidential election .
When that faith is undermined , the damage to our country is incalculable .
Needless to say , this is quite an ironic argument coming from a 26-year member of an unelected panel with accountability to no one .
It ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanism whose entire raison d ’ être is to provide a negotiating space to set up these game-show events .
That ’ s it ; that ’ s its entire purpose .
It is supposed to negotiate those terms between the two campaigns , not dictate terms to either of them .
It has no authority at all except that given by the campaigns and political parties , all which could choose to bypass the CPD and negotiate directly — and probably should .
Danforth ’ s 26-year career as a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
Trump might have been wildly mistaken about bias , as Danforth argues , but he ’ s not wrong about the barnacle-like status of its members .
Danforth started on the board two years before Bob Dole won the GOP presidential nomination — the same Bob Dole who also complained last week that the CPD is out of touch with the electorate and the campaigns .
How is Danforth even still on this board ?
How often do they bring in new voices ?
Has the composition of the CPD changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Party and the more populist shift within the GOP ?
Don ’ t expect any answers from checking the CPD website , whose design appears to have last been addressed in the Bush 43 administration .
The CPD exists only because the two major parties wrested control of the presidential debates in 1987 away from the League of Women Voters , specifically so that they could set the terms of the debates to best protect their candidates .
The RNC and DNC created the commission as a way to balance out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more ways than just choosing moderators and formats .
That includes locking out any but the most significant outsider/third party challengers , using a standard which has been repeatedly challenged in court and defended vigorously by the CPD .
Danforth fails to mention CPD ’ s mission in locking out third parties in elections , perhaps because it doesn ’ t line up with his argument that the CPD is an institution of access and balance .
Danforth mentions that the CPD is “ not above criticism , ” but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Criticizing the CPD isn ’ t an “ attack on elections , ” even if the criticism is wrong or mean-spirited .
Criticism is literally the only accountability the CPD has .
Danforth apparently wants to put CPD on a higher institutional pedestal than Congress or the presidency , both of which actually get chosen in actual elections and have accountability for their work product .

This is such an absurd argument that it’s almost no surprise at all that the Washington Post features it today. In his essay, the otherwise estimable former Senator John Danforth lays out the case that the Commission on Presidential Debates has so much value as an institution for elections that Donald Trump’s criticisms of it are tantamount to an attack on democracy itself.
Gee, how did we manage to hold elections before the CPD?
The president’s campaign attacked moderator Chris Wallace as “terrible and biased.” Its senior adviser, Steve Cortes, accused the commission of a “scheme to protect their preferred candidate,” and one of Trump’s strongest champions, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), branded the commission “a disgrace.” The claim is that the commission is composed of Democrats and never-Trump Republicans who — through their selection of moderators, their decision to make the town-hall meeting virtual, and (in the latest accusation) through the moderator’s selection of subjects for the final debate — have corruptly tilted the scale. … It is always fair to question any organization’s decisions, and the Commission on Presidential Debates is not above criticism. Some have suggested we should have postponed the town-hall debate until we were certain the president couldn’t spread the disease. Some have said we should have done better at communicating with the two campaigns. But there’s an enormous difference between criticizing good-faith efforts and accusing the commission of corrupt favoritism. The first is helpful for improving our work. The second destroys public confidence in the most basic treasure of democracy, the conduct of fair elections. The second paves the way to violence in the streets. It is not the honor of the commission that is at stake here. What is at stake is Americans’ belief in the fairness of our presidential debates and, in turn, the presidential election. When that faith is undermined, the damage to our country is incalculable.
Needless to say, this is quite an ironic argument coming from a 26-year member of an unelected panel with accountability to no one. It’s also quite an expansive view of a mediation mechanism whose entire raison d’être is to provide a negotiating space to set up these game-show events. That’s it; that’s its entire purpose. It is supposed to negotiate those terms between the two campaigns, not dictate terms to either of them. It has no authority at all except that given by the campaigns and political parties, all which could choose to bypass the CPD and negotiate directly — and probably should.
Danforth’s 26-year career as a member of the CPD illustrates just how unaccountable it is. Trump might have been wildly mistaken about bias, as Danforth argues, but he’s not wrong about the barnacle-like status of its members. Danforth started on the board two years before Bob Dole won the GOP presidential nomination — the same Bob Dole who also complained last week that the CPD is out of touch with the electorate and the campaigns. How is Danforth even still on this board? How often do they bring in new voices? Has the composition of the CPD changed to reflect the more progressive nature of the Democratic Party and the more populist shift within the GOP? Don’t expect any answers from checking the CPD website, whose design appears to have last been addressed in the Bush 43 administration.
The CPD exists only because the two major parties wrested control of the presidential debates in 1987 away from the League of Women Voters, specifically so that they could set the terms of the debates to best protect their candidates. The RNC and DNC created the commission as a way to balance out the interests of both parties, in more ways than just choosing moderators and formats. That includes locking out any but the most significant outsider/third party challengers, using a standard which has been repeatedly challenged in court and defended vigorously by the CPD. Danforth fails to mention CPD’s mission in locking out third parties in elections, perhaps because it doesn’t line up with his argument that the CPD is an institution of access and balance.
Danforth mentions that the CPD is “not above criticism,” but that’s precisely how his argument positions the panel. Criticizing the CPD isn’t an “attack on elections,” even if the criticism is wrong or mean-spirited. Criticism is literally the only accountability the CPD has. Danforth apparently wants to put CPD on a higher institutional pedestal than Congress or the presidency, both of which actually get chosen in actual elections and have accountability for their work product.
Let’s paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte in closing: L’élection, ce n’est pas toi.


hotair--2020-10-21--Romney says he didn't vote for Trump this year, won't deny that he voted for Biden

Realistically , was he supposed to vote for the president after voting in February to remove him from office ?
It ’ s well-known that Romney didn ’ t vote for Trump in 2016 , although he made a point of noting in that case that he didn ’ t cross the aisle for Hillary .
He wrote in his wife Ann .
Today when he was asked if he voted for Trump this year , he affirmed that he hadn ’ t — but declined to say what he did instead .
Which raises the possibility that Mitt cast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ticket that defeated him in 2012 .
Given Romney ’ s unusual statement last week exempting Biden from his criticism of politicians who have let their partisanship turn toxic , it wouldn ’ t be surprising .
Normally this is where I ’ d speculate wildly about him landing a spot in the Biden administration but I can ’ t think of a cabinet position that would appeal to him which the left would tolerate having him in .
He wouldn ’ t be offered a top-tier slot like Treasury ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what incentive would he have to accept a lesser slot , like Commerce , when he can occupy a safe-ish Senate seat in Utah and exert more influence over government that way ?
In fact , Romney could be a potentially important vote for Biden in the Senate depending upon how things shake out next month .
There ’ s probably no scenario in which he ’ s a swing vote — that would require nuking the filibuster , and Dems would need a reasonably large majority for that .
But he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Manchin has played periodically for Republicans , casting a vote that lets the other party claim that support for their position is bipartisan .
He did it on impeachment , didn ’ t he ?
He had a good excuse to vote for Biden this time , if in fact he did .
According to the president , Sleepy Joe is the fiscal-responsibility candidate : The “ grand bargain ” described in that Breitbart piece he linked was the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission .
That commission was a direct result of the rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swept to power in 2010 running on a platform of stopping ObamaCare and reducing spending , with future Romney running mate Paul Ryan the party ’ s most notable spokesman for the urgency of entitlement reform .
( Ryan was a member of the commission and ended up voting no on its final proposal because he couldn ’ t abide its plans for raising taxes , a compromise measure aimed at satisfying Democrats in return for their support in cutting spending . )
Few things better encapsulate the populist right ’ s abject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump opportunistically trying to make Democrats the party of entitlement reform by citing a tea-party-era initiative to shrink government .
If Romney wants to declare his support for Biden , he should point to that when he does .
“ I was going to back Trump but then he convinced me that only Biden realizes that entitlement spending is unsustainable.
” I wonder if he regrets casting his vote so early , before we entered the exciting “ Trump obsesses about Lesley Stahl ” phase of his closing argument .
Maybe it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior White House official said Trump had told aides he wanted to go after Stahl and brainstormed ideas after the [ interview ] with a group of aides in the Oval Office , ” WaPo reported last night .
Exactly what you want your candidate doing in the stretch run of a tough election .
Exit question : Was there anything in that health-care book he gave her ?

Realistically, was he supposed to vote for the president after voting in February to remove him from office?
It’s well-known that Romney didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, although he made a point of noting in that case that he didn’t cross the aisle for Hillary. He wrote in his wife Ann. Today when he was asked if he voted for Trump this year, he affirmed that he hadn’t — but declined to say what he did instead.
Which raises the possibility that Mitt cast his ballot for a guy who was on the ticket that defeated him in 2012. Given Romney’s unusual statement last week exempting Biden from his criticism of politicians who have let their partisanship turn toxic, it wouldn’t be surprising.
Mitt Rommey told me he already voted in the elections but he wouldn’t say if he voted for Joe Biden or wrote someone else in. “I did not vote for President Trump,” he said — Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 21, 2020
Normally this is where I’d speculate wildly about him landing a spot in the Biden administration but I can’t think of a cabinet position that would appeal to him which the left would tolerate having him in. He wouldn’t be offered a top-tier slot like Treasury; progressives would lose their minds. And what incentive would he have to accept a lesser slot, like Commerce, when he can occupy a safe-ish Senate seat in Utah and exert more influence over government that way?
In fact, Romney could be a potentially important vote for Biden in the Senate depending upon how things shake out next month. There’s probably no scenario in which he’s a swing vote — that would require nuking the filibuster, and Dems would need a reasonably large majority for that. But he can play the same role for them that Joe Manchin has played periodically for Republicans, casting a vote that lets the other party claim that support for their position is bipartisan. He did it on impeachment, didn’t he?
He had a good excuse to vote for Biden this time, if in fact he did. According to the president, Sleepy Joe is the fiscal-responsibility candidate:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318882381202423808
The “grand bargain” described in that Breitbart piece he linked was the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission. That commission was a direct result of the rise of the tea party: Republicans were swept to power in 2010 running on a platform of stopping ObamaCare and reducing spending, with future Romney running mate Paul Ryan the party’s most notable spokesman for the urgency of entitlement reform. (Ryan was a member of the commission and ended up voting no on its final proposal because he couldn’t abide its plans for raising taxes, a compromise measure aimed at satisfying Democrats in return for their support in cutting spending.) Few things better encapsulate the populist right’s abject abandonment of tea-party priorities for Trumpism than Trump opportunistically trying to make Democrats the party of entitlement reform by citing a tea-party-era initiative to shrink government.
If Romney wants to declare his support for Biden, he should point to that when he does. “I was going to back Trump but then he convinced me that only Biden realizes that entitlement spending is unsustainable.”
I wonder if he regrets casting his vote so early, before we entered the exciting “Trump obsesses about Lesley Stahl” phase of his closing argument. Maybe it would have changed his mind.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318675789248946176
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318979804490850304
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318979974699810822
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318980039388561410
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1318980093948104704
“A senior White House official said Trump had told aides he wanted to go after Stahl and brainstormed ideas after the [interview] with a group of aides in the Oval Office,” WaPo reported last night. Exactly what you want your candidate doing in the stretch run of a tough election.
Exit question: Was there anything in that health-care book he gave her?


hotair--2020-10-21--NY Times: Suburban Atlanta voters are sticking with Trump and 'defund police' is one reason why

The NY Times published a story today which includes an interview with women voters living in Atlanta ’ s suburbs who plan to vote for Trump , in part , because of the left ’ s push to “ defund the police ” and the riots associated with that message .
The Times points to polling to suggest this message hasn ’ t resonated with suburban voters around the country but admits it appears to be having an impact in Georgia .
Natalie Pontius is an interior decorator , married with two children and a University of Georgia alumna .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but moved to the city ’ s exurbs with her family severalyears ago , drawn to the region ’ s quality of public education .
In November , she ’ s voting for Donald Trump .
The decision was a no-brainer .
“ The riots , the push to defund the police — that ’ s not the direction our country needs to go , ” Ms. Pontius , 48 , said .
“ I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such voters in and around Atlanta , what ’ s currently keeping them from jumping ship is not so much a deep affinity for Mr. Trump , but a fear of “ lawlessness ” taking root should Democrats take the White House… Polling suggests that in many battleground states where protests turned violent this summer , that message hasn ’ t broken through .
But in Georgia , many voters said Mr. Trump ’ s “ law-and-order ” appeals had struck a nerve , and almost all cited a fear that the call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police ” would materialize during a Biden presidency .
The Times also spoke to Amanda Newman , who works at a law firm downtown .
Newman said she ’ s aware that Biden has said he does not support defunding the police but feels a vote for Biden is also a vote for Harris and other more extreme voices on the left , like AOC who do support those efforts .
She told the Times , “ I don ’ t think Joe Biden has an opinion until somebody tells him what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction caused by the far left up close .
Rioters broke the windows on the ground floor of the building where she works .
The Times spoke to an elected Democrat from DeKalb county who said Biden could win back some of these voters by taking their fear of lawlessness seriously .
In his view it ’ s “ ridiculous ” to suggest that defund the police means “ we don ’ t want any police.
” This being the NY Times , they didn ’ t point out that some people really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember when the mayor of Minneapolis was booed off the street by hundreds of protesters for refusing to endorse that goal ?
Brian Robinson , a Republican strategist , said the message about police isn ’ t the only one causing more conservative voters to swing back toward Trump , “ You ’ re hearing people now saying that they don ’ t like Trump , but that the Supreme Court opening has reminded them why it ’ s important to have a Republican in the White House.
” Whether this means Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win in two weeks is a separate question , but I think this shows that there are plenty of real voters are concerned about the extremism of the left even if Joe Biden is an attempt to put a moderate face on the party .

The NY Times published a story today which includes an interview with women voters living in Atlanta’s suburbs who plan to vote for Trump, in part, because of the left’s push to “defund the police” and the riots associated with that message. The Times points to polling to suggest this message hasn’t resonated with suburban voters around the country but admits it appears to be having an impact in Georgia.
Natalie Pontius is an interior decorator, married with two children and a University of Georgia alumna. She was born and raised in Atlanta, but moved to the city’s exurbs with her family severalyears ago, drawn to the region’s quality of public education. In November, she’s voting for Donald Trump. The decision was a no-brainer. “The riots, the push to defund the police — that’s not the direction our country needs to go,” Ms. Pontius, 48, said. “I feel like the Democratic Party is continually trying to come up with ways to divide us.”… According to more than a dozen such voters in and around Atlanta, what’s currently keeping them from jumping ship is not so much a deep affinity for Mr. Trump, but a fear of “lawlessness” taking root should Democrats take the White House… Polling suggests that in many battleground states where protests turned violent this summer, that message hasn’t broken through. But in Georgia, many voters said Mr. Trump’s “law-and-order” appeals had struck a nerve, and almost all cited a fear that the call among some progressives to “defund the police” would materialize during a Biden presidency.
The Times also spoke to Amanda Newman, who works at a law firm downtown. Newman said she’s aware that Biden has said he does not support defunding the police but feels a vote for Biden is also a vote for Harris and other more extreme voices on the left, like AOC who do support those efforts. She told the Times, “I don’t think Joe Biden has an opinion until somebody tells him what it is.” Newman saw some of the destruction caused by the far left up close. Rioters broke the windows on the ground floor of the building where she works.
The Times spoke to an elected Democrat from DeKalb county who said Biden could win back some of these voters by taking their fear of lawlessness seriously. In his view it’s “ridiculous” to suggest that defund the police means “we don’t want any police.”
This being the NY Times, they didn’t point out that some people really do want to disband the police. Remember when the mayor of Minneapolis was booed off the street by hundreds of protesters for refusing to endorse that goal?
Brian Robinson, a Republican strategist, said the message about police isn’t the only one causing more conservative voters to swing back toward Trump, “You’re hearing people now saying that they don’t like Trump, but that the Supreme Court opening has reminded them why it’s important to have a Republican in the White House.”
Whether this means Trump is likely to pull off another upset win in two weeks is a separate question, but I think this shows that there are plenty of real voters are concerned about the extremism of the left even if Joe Biden is an attempt to put a moderate face on the party.


hotair--2020-10-21--California looks to replicate New York's disastrous "bail reform" law

This seems like an odd time to be having this conversation so soon after we looked at the literally deadly consequences of doing away with cash bail in New York City .
Be that as it may , Californians are preparing to go to the polls and decide whether the state should effectively do away with all bail in all cases .
Does that mean that nobody will be held over until trial , no matter the charges they face ?
Not quite .
But anyone deemed to not be a risk to society would simply be released on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their trial .
And how will they determine who is in the “ safe ” category ?
They ’ re going to let a computer algorithm figure it out .
What could possibly go wrong ?
( NBC News ) The movement to eradicate bail from America ’ s justice system will face a crucial test Nov. 3 , when California voters will decide whether to end the centuries-old practice of trading money for freedom and replace it with algorithms that try to predict whether defendants deserve to be released before trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proposition 25 passes , California will follow dozens of counties , and several states , that have adopted “ risk assessment tools ” intended to bring more fairness to the pretrial justice system .
Traditionally , that system has relied on the payment of cash or bonds to guarantee defendants will return to court — which keeps poor people locked up or in debt to bail bondsmen .
A victory on the referendum would come at a key moment for reform advocates , who are trying to harness public demands for change following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Minneapolis police .
What George Floyd has to do with the subject of bail reform is a mystery to me , but I suppose you have to invoke his name every chance you get in social justice warrior circles .
We should at least be asking the California court system where their “ algorithm ” will be drawing the line and how many suspects can expect to be released under this system .
I ’ m guessing it will be quite a few if they are setting the bar as low as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Bloods gang member Darrius “ Blizz Meecho ” Sutton .
He was cut loose on the same day that he ’ d been arrested on attempted murder charges .
He went on to participate in three drive-by shootings and the assassination ( from the rear ) of a rival gang member in broad daylight .
I noticed how NBC News chose to phrase their descriptions of the legal system in the linked article .
They elected to describe bail as “ trading money for freedom.
” They further point out that poorer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inability to make bail or be “ in debt to bail bondsmen.
” Well… yes .
That ’ s why we have bail bond services and the entire bail system to begin with .
If they don ’ t want to wind up in debt to the bondsman they simply need to show up for trial .
Not to continue beating a dead horse for too long here , but that ’ s why we have bail in the first place .
It provides an incentive for people to not skip town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ condition of “ being poor ” doesn ’ t automatically confer saintly status on a suspect .
Poor people can engage in plenty of crime .
In fact , they arguably do engage in more crime than wealthy individuals unless you ’ re talking about the sorts of crime you find on Wall Street .
California is already tearing itself apart , causing people to leave in droves .
When we recently looked at the top reasons record numbers of new California gun buyers listed as their motivation for wanting a firearm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ worry about lawlessness ” and “ worry about prisoner releases.
” But their elected officials simply aren ’ t listening to them .
Perhaps more people should save up their money for a U-Haul get out while it ’ s still possible .

This seems like an odd time to be having this conversation so soon after we looked at the literally deadly consequences of doing away with cash bail in New York City. Be that as it may, Californians are preparing to go to the polls and decide whether the state should effectively do away with all bail in all cases. Does that mean that nobody will be held over until trial, no matter the charges they face? Not quite. But anyone deemed to not be a risk to society would simply be released on their own recognizance and expected to show up for their trial. And how will they determine who is in the “safe” category? They’re going to let a computer algorithm figure it out. What could possibly go wrong? (NBC News)
The movement to eradicate bail from America’s justice system will face a crucial test Nov. 3, when California voters will decide whether to end the centuries-old practice of trading money for freedom and replace it with algorithms that try to predict whether defendants deserve to be released before trial. If the ballot measure known as Proposition 25 passes, California will follow dozens of counties, and several states, that have adopted “risk assessment tools” intended to bring more fairness to the pretrial justice system. Traditionally, that system has relied on the payment of cash or bonds to guarantee defendants will return to court — which keeps poor people locked up or in debt to bail bondsmen. A victory on the referendum would come at a key moment for reform advocates, who are trying to harness public demands for change following the May 25 killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police.
What George Floyd has to do with the subject of bail reform is a mystery to me, but I suppose you have to invoke his name every chance you get in social justice warrior circles. We should at least be asking the California court system where their “algorithm” will be drawing the line and how many suspects can expect to be released under this system. I’m guessing it will be quite a few if they are setting the bar as low as New York City did in the case of Bloods gang member Darrius “Blizz Meecho” Sutton. He was cut loose on the same day that he’d been arrested on attempted murder charges. He went on to participate in three drive-by shootings and the assassination (from the rear) of a rival gang member in broad daylight.
I noticed how NBC News chose to phrase their descriptions of the legal system in the linked article. They elected to describe bail as “trading money for freedom.” They further point out that poorer defendants can get stuck in jail for an inability to make bail or be “in debt to bail bondsmen.”
Well… yes. That’s why we have bail bond services and the entire bail system to begin with. If they don’t want to wind up in debt to the bondsman they simply need to show up for trial. Not to continue beating a dead horse for too long here, but that’s why we have bail in the first place. It provides an incentive for people to not skip town and avoid their court dates. The condition of “being poor” doesn’t automatically confer saintly status on a suspect. Poor people can engage in plenty of crime. In fact, they arguably do engage in more crime than wealthy individuals unless you’re talking about the sorts of crime you find on Wall Street.
California is already tearing itself apart, causing people to leave in droves. When we recently looked at the top reasons record numbers of new California gun buyers listed as their motivation for wanting a firearm, the number two and three answers were “worry about lawlessness” and “worry about prisoner releases.” But their elected officials simply aren’t listening to them. Perhaps more people should save up their money for a U-Haul get out while it’s still possible.


hotair--2020-10-21--Are Trump's cronies really getting "essentially ... a no-bid contract" on a 5G windfall, as CNN clai

Are Trump's cronies really getting "essentially ... a no-bid contract" on a 5G windfall, as CNN claimed?

Does the Trump administration plan to line supporters ’ pockets through a 5G spectrum lease program run by the Department of Defense ?
Or is this an example of a conflict of interest at a media outlet whose parent has a vested interest in the outcome ?
Or both ?
Late yesterday , CNN reported that the DoD and White House planned to use a process that “ would essentially be a no-bid contract ” to grant control of a massive amount of spectrum to Rivada , a wireless innovator .
If true , the setup would certainly be of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the emerging 5G industry , as well as to taxpayers : Senior officials throughout various departments and agencies of the Trump administration tell CNN they are alarmed at White House pressure to grant what would essentially be a no-bid contract to lease the Department of Defense ’ s mid-band spectrum — premium real estate for the booming and lucrative 5G market — to Rivada Networks , a company in which prominent Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have investments .
The pressure campaign to fast track Rivada ’ s “ Request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using authorities that would preclude a competitive bidding process intensified in September , and has been led by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , who was acting at Trump ’ s behest , sources with knowledge tell CNN .
To push his case , Meadows has sometimes used as his proxy an individual identified by sources in the telecommunications industry as a top financial management official in the US Army .
Sources tell CNN that Trump was encouraged to help Rivada by Fox News commentator and veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in , Rivada .
Untold billions are at stake .
A government auction of 70 megahertz of spectrum in August went for more than $ 4.5 billion .
The Rivada bid would be for 350 megahertz of spectrum — five times that amount .
It ’ s not difficult to believe that shenanigans might exist in government auctions of cell-system spectrum .
Nine years ago , the Obama administration got caught in exactly this kind of corruption in the LightSquared debacle .
That blew up into a scandal when an Air Force general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change his testimony to protect one of its donors linked to the firm at the center of the spectrum-sale proposal .
In that case , Barack Obama himself was at one time an investor in LightSquared , which eventually declared bankruptcy amid SEC investigations into potential fraud .
So yeah , it ’ s fair to be worried about the risk of cronyism in spectrum-assignment projects .
That doesn ’ t appear to be the problem here , however , at least not at this point .
As a source familiar with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story first emerged , that isn ’ t at all what is happening at the DoD or at Rivada .
In the 2011-12 case , the Pentagon opposed the spectrum sale because of its potential to interfere with GPS systems .
They argued , eventually successfully , that the DoD needed to control its assigned spectrum for national-security reasons .
And that is what makes this case different from the 2011-12 effort by LightSquared or the August auction .
The DoD isn ’ t actually selling spectrum with this contract , nor will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this source , who says that Rivada has made it clear it wouldn ’ t participate in a no-bid award .
Instead , the government will keep overall control of the spectrum , as Donald Trump himself insisted on doing , while selecting one or more contractors to build and then manage the leasing of a new national 5G network ’ s bandwidth to retailers .
In short , the contract will take the building of the infrastructure of a national 5G network out of the hands of the retailers .
Previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AT & T , Verizon , T-Mobile , Sprint , and other carriers , who have invested a great deal of capital into that infrastructure over the years and see that as a competitive advantage .
That ( reasonably ) allows them to set prices for access to those private networks , not just to individual cell-phone users but also firms that exist on those networks — like Google and Amazon , for instance , and smaller regional resellers who can ’ t afford to build their own nationwide networks .
The DoD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model by building the network itself through a contractor rather than selling the spectrum at auction .
The DoD retains control of the spectrum and the network in case of national emergencies , but otherwise this allows for much more competition in the retail arena by eliminating the need for massive capital investment by retailers in that new infrastructure .
The costs will eventually go into the rates for bandwidth charges , of course , but the cost of entry into the new cellular/wireless data market will drop dramatically .
That lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build private 5G networks threatens the dominant market position of the current leaders — Verizon and AT & T , which oppose this plan .
It ’ s worth noting on that score that AT & T owns CNN , which the CNN article dutifully discloses .
However , it doesn ’ t explain that AT & T opposes this policy or why .
( For what it ’ s worth , my source thinks it very unlikely that the CNN story and take came directly from its parents ’ HQ , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies closer to the White House .
Hence , the “ senior administration official ” saying that it ’ s “ really fishy.
” ) The article also fails to note that the conceptual DoD plan for a wholesale network has advocates in the tech industry , some of whom — like Google ’ s Eric Schmidt — could hardly be considered a Trump crony .
They want lower pricing for access to 5G , and perhaps to even be a player in the retail end , as well as to catch up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast as possible .
In some ways , this is a battle between Big Tech and Big Telco , but the DoD plan would also allow a lot of smaller operators to compete on pricing and service as well .
Not all of those would survive , but they would at least have equal access to the market at the beginning .
That ’ s not to say that there isn ’ t a rational counterargument to this plan .
Government operations aren ’ t known for their efficiency , and the DoD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private sector isn ’ t exactly spotless or failure-free , either .
The telcos have a big interest in investing their capital into 5G development , and it might be more efficient in some ways to let them build competing private networks .
But let ’ s not kid ourselves into thinking that those telecoms don ’ t have their own lobbyists and their own influencers at work in this decision , too .
What about Rivada ?
The DoD wants to open bidding on the project , my source says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request for information ( RFI ) and request for proposal ( RFP ) processes would tend to confirm that , although it doesn ’ t preclude covert pressure to do otherwise ; if the DoD and administration wants to no-bid the project , there are quieter ways to accomplish it .
The Pentagon might end up with a consortium of different bidders in the end to build and manage access to the new 5G spectrum .
My source confirmed CNN ’ s reporting on Rivada ’ s refusal to deal with a no-bid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article ) , for both ethical and practical considerations .
Rivada execs “ would spend the next two and a half years in front of the House Oversight Committee ” if they accepted a no-bid contract , my source pointed out .
Rivada , by the way , has published the executive summary of its response to the DoD ’ s RFI that starts the process of bidding .
They argue that this will eventually benefit the current market leaders by relieving them of capital expenditures , but whether the telcos buy that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By utilizing a purely wholesale business model ( subject to DoD pre-emption ) , the network operator avoids costs associated with branding , retail marketing , sales , retail operations and customer management .
The Commercial Wholesale Network Operator will lower prices , drive increased utilization , improve access to 5G and provide enhanced coverage to underserved areas .
By reducing the costs of the network build and operations , eliminating all retail expenses , and operating through an open access wireless sales model , broadband capacity would be sold dynamically at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn , these would unleash the ability to sell capacity to ( i ) other cellular Mobile Network Operators ( MNOs ) that need extra capacity , ( ii ) existing and new MVNOs ( potentially including DoD as an MVNO to its employees or more broadly to federal employees ) , and ( iii ) other providers of innovative new products , services and solutions that will increasingly “ bundle ” broadband connectivity with the product , service or solution ( rather than requiring the end user to subscribe to the connectivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to access the digital product , service or solution ) .
A wholesale network would not compete with any existing retail carrier business in any geographical area .
Rather , it would provide those existing 5G carriers with quick and flexible additional 5G capacity if they needed it , either on a short-term or long-term basis .
Rivada calls its model for providing network capacity to wholesale customers the Open Access Wireless Market ( OAWM ) .
Conceptually it is similar to the open-access wholesale electricity markets that have been in operation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs and increase investment in that sector .
As mentioned above , the RFI starts the contract process by identifying potentially qualified bidders .
The DoD will use those to craft its RFP , which is where game-playing sometimes does take place .
Contracting agencies can write RFPs so specifically that only one ( favored ) provider can qualify for the bid .
On a project of this scope and with so much potential for revenue at stake , however , any attempt to rig the process would immediately generate very public screaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there won ’ t be other such contracts for consolation prizes down the road , and the bidders won ’ t have any incentive to stay quiet , as they do on military systems . )
It ’ s far more likely that this ends up being portioned out to several bidders on different phases anyway , as the scope of building a new national 5G infrastructure is so gigantic that it will exceed the current capabilities of any one company , with the exceptions of AT & T and Verizon — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one if they can ’ t regulate it for the DoD afterward .
If that ’ s what the DoD wanted , they ’ d just sell the spectrum or do a no-bid deal up front with the big players .
And since we haven ’ t yet seen the RFP , we ’ re nowhere near the stage where the DoD can simply hand off the project to anyone .
Is Rivada the right partner for the DoD ?
That is what the bidding process is designed to discern .
Anyone familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorts of reasons to be skeptical about how well that might work out .
However , contrary to CNN ’ s report , this is not a spectrum sale , the DoD will remain in control of the spectrum through its selected contractor ( s ) , it ’ s almost certainly not going to be a no-bid contract , and it ’ s actually a plan that has wide conceptual support outside of the telcos .
It will be interesting to see who else jumps into the RFI/RFP pool — and whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point .

Does the Trump administration plan to line supporters’ pockets through a 5G spectrum lease program run by the Department of Defense? Or is this an example of a conflict of interest at a media outlet whose parent has a vested interest in the outcome? Or both?
Late yesterday, CNN reported that the DoD and White House planned to use a process that “would essentially be a no-bid contract” to grant control of a massive amount of spectrum to Rivada, a wireless innovator. If true, the setup would certainly be of significant concern, especially to those involved in the emerging 5G industry, as well as to taxpayers:
Senior officials throughout various departments and agencies of the Trump administration tell CNN they are alarmed at White House pressure to grant what would essentially be a no-bid contract to lease the Department of Defense’s mid-band spectrum — premium real estate for the booming and lucrative 5G market — to Rivada Networks, a company in which prominent Republicans and supporters of President Donald Trump have investments. The pressure campaign to fast track Rivada’s “Request for Proposal” (RFP) by using authorities that would preclude a competitive bidding process intensified in September, and has been led by White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, who was acting at Trump’s behest, sources with knowledge tell CNN. To push his case, Meadows has sometimes used as his proxy an individual identified by sources in the telecommunications industry as a top financial management official in the US Army. Sources tell CNN that Trump was encouraged to help Rivada by Fox News commentator and veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove, a lobbyist for, and investor in, Rivada. Untold billions are at stake. A government auction of 70 megahertz of spectrum in August went for more than $4.5 billion. The Rivada bid would be for 350 megahertz of spectrum — five times that amount.
It’s not difficult to believe that shenanigans might exist in government auctions of cell-system spectrum. Nine years ago, the Obama administration got caught in exactly this kind of corruption in the LightSquared debacle. That blew up into a scandal when an Air Force general accused the White House of pressuring him to change his testimony to protect one of its donors linked to the firm at the center of the spectrum-sale proposal. In that case, Barack Obama himself was at one time an investor in LightSquared, which eventually declared bankruptcy amid SEC investigations into potential fraud.
So yeah, it’s fair to be worried about the risk of cronyism in spectrum-assignment projects. That doesn’t appear to be the problem here, however, at least not at this point. As a source familiar with the process told me after this CNN story first emerged, that isn’t at all what is happening at the DoD or at Rivada.
In the 2011-12 case, the Pentagon opposed the spectrum sale because of its potential to interfere with GPS systems. They argued, eventually successfully, that the DoD needed to control its assigned spectrum for national-security reasons. And that is what makes this case different from the 2011-12 effort by LightSquared or the August auction. The DoD isn’t actually selling spectrum with this contract, nor will it be a no-bid situation, according to this source, who says that Rivada has made it clear it wouldn’t participate in a no-bid award. Instead, the government will keep overall control of the spectrum, as Donald Trump himself insisted on doing, while selecting one or more contractors to build and then manage the leasing of a new national 5G network’s bandwidth to retailers.
In short, the contract will take the building of the infrastructure of a national 5G network out of the hands of the retailers. Previous networks got built for private use by AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and other carriers, who have invested a great deal of capital into that infrastructure over the years and see that as a competitive advantage. That (reasonably) allows them to set prices for access to those private networks, not just to individual cell-phone users but also firms that exist on those networks — like Google and Amazon, for instance, and smaller regional resellers who can’t afford to build their own nationwide networks.
The DoD’s vision for 5G upends this model by building the network itself through a contractor rather than selling the spectrum at auction. The DoD retains control of the spectrum and the network in case of national emergencies, but otherwise this allows for much more competition in the retail arena by eliminating the need for massive capital investment by retailers in that new infrastructure. The costs will eventually go into the rates for bandwidth charges, of course, but the cost of entry into the new cellular/wireless data market will drop dramatically. That lack of necessity for massive capital spending upfront to build private 5G networks threatens the dominant market position of the current leaders — Verizon and AT&T, which oppose this plan.
It’s worth noting on that score that AT&T owns CNN, which the CNN article dutifully discloses. However, it doesn’t explain that AT&T opposes this policy or why. (For what it’s worth, my source thinks it very unlikely that the CNN story and take came directly from its parents’ HQ, but much more likely through AT&T allies closer to the White House. Hence, the “senior administration official” saying that it’s “really fishy.”)
The article also fails to note that the conceptual DoD plan for a wholesale network has advocates in the tech industry, some of whom — like Google’s Eric Schmidt — could hardly be considered a Trump crony. They want lower pricing for access to 5G, and perhaps to even be a player in the retail end, as well as to catch up to China’s 5G development as fast as possible. In some ways, this is a battle between Big Tech and Big Telco, but the DoD plan would also allow a lot of smaller operators to compete on pricing and service as well. Not all of those would survive, but they would at least have equal access to the market at the beginning.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a rational counterargument to this plan. Government operations aren’t known for their efficiency, and the DoD’s track record in contracting with the private sector isn’t exactly spotless or failure-free, either. The telcos have a big interest in investing their capital into 5G development, and it might be more efficient in some ways to let them build competing private networks. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that those telecoms don’t have their own lobbyists and their own influencers at work in this decision, too.
What about Rivada? The DoD wants to open bidding on the project, my source says, not limit it. Using the public request for information (RFI) and request for proposal (RFP) processes would tend to confirm that, although it doesn’t preclude covert pressure to do otherwise; if the DoD and administration wants to no-bid the project, there are quieter ways to accomplish it. The Pentagon might end up with a consortium of different bidders in the end to build and manage access to the new 5G spectrum. My source confirmed CNN’s reporting on Rivada’s refusal to deal with a no-bid situation (noted further into the CNN article), for both ethical and practical considerations. Rivada execs “would spend the next two and a half years in front of the House Oversight Committee” if they accepted a no-bid contract, my source pointed out.
Rivada, by the way, has published the executive summary of its response to the DoD’s RFI that starts the process of bidding. They argue that this will eventually benefit the current market leaders by relieving them of capital expenditures, but whether the telcos buy that argument is left to the imagination:
By utilizing a purely wholesale business model (subject to DoD pre-emption), the network operator avoids costs associated with branding, retail marketing, sales, retail operations and customer management. The Commercial Wholesale Network Operator will lower prices, drive increased utilization, improve access to 5G and provide enhanced coverage to underserved areas. By reducing the costs of the network build and operations, eliminating all retail expenses, and operating through an open access wireless sales model, broadband capacity would be sold dynamically at the lowest possible price over cost. In turn, these would unleash the ability to sell capacity to (i) other cellular Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) that need extra capacity, (ii) existing and new MVNOs (potentially including DoD as an MVNO to its employees or more broadly to federal employees), and (iii) other providers of innovative new products, services and solutions that will increasingly “bundle” broadband connectivity with the product, service or solution (rather than requiring the end user to subscribe to the connectivity services of a retail carrier in order to access the digital product, service or solution). A wholesale network would not compete with any existing retail carrier business in any geographical area. Rather, it would provide those existing 5G carriers with quick and flexible additional 5G capacity if they needed it, either on a short-term or long-term basis. Rivada calls its model for providing network capacity to wholesale customers the Open Access Wireless Market (OAWM). Conceptually it is similar to the open-access wholesale electricity markets that have been in operation for decades, and have helped drive down costs and increase investment in that sector.
As mentioned above, the RFI starts the contract process by identifying potentially qualified bidders. The DoD will use those to craft its RFP, which is where game-playing sometimes does take place. Contracting agencies can write RFPs so specifically that only one (favored) provider can qualify for the bid. On a project of this scope and with so much potential for revenue at stake, however, any attempt to rig the process would immediately generate very public screaming. (Unlike other DoD projects, there won’t be other such contracts for consolation prizes down the road, and the bidders won’t have any incentive to stay quiet, as they do on military systems.) It’s far more likely that this ends up being portioned out to several bidders on different phases anyway, as the scope of building a new national 5G infrastructure is so gigantic that it will exceed the current capabilities of any one company, with the exceptions of AT&T and Verizon — and they’re not going to build one if they can’t regulate it for the DoD afterward. If that’s what the DoD wanted, they’d just sell the spectrum or do a no-bid deal up front with the big players.
And since we haven’t yet seen the RFP, we’re nowhere near the stage where the DoD can simply hand off the project to anyone.
Is Rivada the right partner for the DoD? That is what the bidding process is designed to discern. Anyone familiar with DoD procurement knows there are all sorts of reasons to be skeptical about how well that might work out. However, contrary to CNN’s report, this is not a spectrum sale, the DoD will remain in control of the spectrum through its selected contractor(s), it’s almost certainly not going to be a no-bid contract, and it’s actually a plan that has wide conceptual support outside of the telcos. It will be interesting to see who else jumps into the RFI/RFP pool — and whether that includes the big telcos at some point.


hotair--2020-10-21--Uh, what exactly happened to Rudy in the new "Borat" film?

If it was this easy for Sacha Baron Cohen to get kompromat on Rudy , imagine how easy it must have been for foreign intelligence .
Here ’ s the thing about 2020 ’ s absurdities : They seem unthinkable right up to the moment that they happen , and then they seem inevitable .
Trump getting COVID is a perfect example .
Every day from early March to September 30 : “ He won ’ t get infected .
He ’ s the most well-protected person in the world .
Everyone around him is being tested before meeting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Every day from September 30 to today : “ Of course he got infected .
He and his retinue of morons hardly ever wore masks or kept their distance from each other .
The question is how it took seven months for them to have a mass outbreak at the White House.
” Same goes for Rudy ’ s noteworthy cameo in the new Borat movie being released on Friday .
Before : “ No , Rudy Giuliani isn ’ t going to get caught on camera lying on a bed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Sacha Baron Cohen prank.
” After : “ I ’ m surprised they didn ’ t catch him actually whipping it out.
” This is the president ’ s lawyer , who ’ s been spearheading the effort to find dirt on the Bidens for the past 18 months .
This is whom Trump wants at quarterback in taking down his opponent : In the film , released on Friday , the former New York mayor and current personal attorney to Donald Trump is seen reaching into his trousers and apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bed in the presence of the actor playing Borat ’ s daughter , who is posing as a TV journalist .
Following an obsequious interview for a fake conservative news programme , the pair retreat at her suggestion for a drink to the bedroom of a hotel suite , which is rigged with concealed cameras .
After she removes his microphone , Giuliani , 76 , can be seen lying back on the bed , fiddling with his untucked shirt and reaching into his trousers .
They are then interrupted by Borat who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 15 .
She ’ s too old for you.
” … Even before he reaches into his trousers , Giuliani does not appear to acquit himself especially impressively during the encounter .
Flattered and flirtatious , he drinks scotch , coughs , fails to socially distance and claims Trump ’ s speedy actions in the spring saved a million Americans from dying of Covid .
He also agrees – in theory at least – to eat a bat with his interviewer .
The scene was filmed this past July , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time that he had outwitted Cohen .
“ I thought about all the people he previously fooled and I felt good about myself because he didn ’ t get me , ” he told the New York Post back then .
Remember Mr. Gower from “ It ’ s a Wonderful Life ” ?
He was Bedford Falls ’ s respected pharmacist , saved from a catastrophic mistake when a young George Bailey recognized that he had filled the wrong prescription for a sick customer .
In the alternate timeline where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a ruined drunken derelict who lets himself be humiliated at Nick ’ s bar for the entertainment of patrons .
Rudy is the Mr. Gower of the Trump show — a former mayor of New York , hero of 9/11 , and a once semi-serious presidential candidate who now spends his time stumbling around rhetorically for the political press ’ s morbid amusement .
Him getting caught in a Borat sting is the equivalent of Nick spraying Mr. Gower in the face with seltzer .
It ’ s supposed to be funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an example of how far a formerly reputable person has fallen .
Especially since Rudy didn ’ t need an alternate timeline to turn him into Trump ’ s least respectable crony , the guy whom other MAGA mooks look down on as undignified .
A little more from the scene , per the Daily Beast : On what appear to be hidden cameras , we see Giuliani remove her microphone and ask for her phone number and address as he sits down on the bed .
He starts patting her backside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pants .
Giuliani then lies down on the bed and starts sticking his hands down his pants in a suggestive manner .
But before anything more can happen , Borat bursts into the room and shouts , “ Put down your chram !
” —his preferred word for penis .
“ She ’ s 15 !
She ’ s too old for you !
” The startled Giuliani , who had no reason to believe his interviewer was underage , sits up abruptly and gets out of there as fast as he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappoint !
You are leaving hotel without golden shower !
” Borat yells after him .
I ’ m going to try some anti-anti-Rudy spin here , mainly because I ’ m bored and this fiasco warrants a contrarian hot take amid the entirety of America ’ s political class guffawing at him this afternoon .
Giuliani is single ( or unmarried , at least ) .
The actress is 24 and presumably appeared to him to be an adult ; she does look young in some pictures online , but he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adult given that she presented herself as a journalist .
She flirts with him in the scene , according to the Daily Beast , flattering him and touching his knee before inviting him to “ have a drink in the bedroom.
” The idea of a 76-year-old hooking up with a 24-year-old is … unappealing ( although check back with me on that when I ’ m 76 ) but there ’ s nothing illegal about it .
Maybe Rudy thought he was about to get an unexpected roll in the hay from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and power .
In which case , what ’ s supposed to be embarrassing about the scene ?
That he still has a libido ?
Oh , wait .
It ’ s probably the whole “ lawyer to the president who ’ s mixed up with shady eastern Europeans brazenly allows himself to be compromised in a honey-trap sting , ” isn ’ t it ?
Yeah , I think that ’ s it .
Looking forward to watching on Friday either way .
Perfect timing too , as this is happening at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convince the American public that they should take seriously his allegations about Hunter Biden ’ s poor character .
Exit question : How did Cohen get him to agree to let them use this footage ?
Rudy wasn ’ t in public .
Did he sign a waiver before the “ interview ” and then all of the stuff with him on the bed caught by the cameras was considered part of that ?
Update : On second thought , I ’ m going to delete the update that was here about Rudy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impersonator .
We don ’ t have any proof that those texts are real .
It ’ s the sort of thing he would do — this is a guy who ’ s butt-dialed reporters , remember , allowing them to eavesdrop on this private conversations — but that doesn ’ t mean he actually did do it .

If it was this easy for Sacha Baron Cohen to get kompromat on Rudy, imagine how easy it must have been for foreign intelligence.
Here’s the thing about 2020’s absurdities: They seem unthinkable right up to the moment that they happen, and then they seem inevitable. Trump getting COVID is a perfect example. Every day from early March to September 30: “He won’t get infected. He’s the most well-protected person in the world. Everyone around him is being tested before meeting with him. He’ll be fine.” Every day from September 30 to today: “Of course he got infected. He and his retinue of morons hardly ever wore masks or kept their distance from each other. The question is how it took seven months for them to have a mass outbreak at the White House.”
Same goes for Rudy’s noteworthy cameo in the new Borat movie being released on Friday. Before: “No, Rudy Giuliani isn’t going to get caught on camera lying on a bed with his hand down his pants as part of a Sacha Baron Cohen prank.”
After: “I’m surprised they didn’t catch him actually whipping it out.”
This is the president’s lawyer, who’s been spearheading the effort to find dirt on the Bidens for the past 18 months. This is whom Trump wants at quarterback in taking down his opponent:
In the film, released on Friday, the former New York mayor and current personal attorney to Donald Trump is seen reaching into his trousers and apparently touching his genitals while reclining on a bed in the presence of the actor playing Borat’s daughter, who is posing as a TV journalist. Following an obsequious interview for a fake conservative news programme, the pair retreat at her suggestion for a drink to the bedroom of a hotel suite, which is rigged with concealed cameras. After she removes his microphone, Giuliani, 76, can be seen lying back on the bed, fiddling with his untucked shirt and reaching into his trousers. They are then interrupted by Borat who runs in and says: “She’s 15. She’s too old for you.”… Even before he reaches into his trousers, Giuliani does not appear to acquit himself especially impressively during the encounter. Flattered and flirtatious, he drinks scotch, coughs, fails to socially distance and claims Trump’s speedy actions in the spring saved a million Americans from dying of Covid. He also agrees – in theory at least – to eat a bat with his interviewer.
The scene was filmed this past July, which we know because Rudy took to boasting at the time that he had outwitted Cohen. “I thought about all the people he previously fooled and I felt good about myself because he didn’t get me,” he told the New York Post back then.
Remember Mr. Gower from “It’s a Wonderful Life”? He was Bedford Falls’s respected pharmacist, saved from a catastrophic mistake when a young George Bailey recognized that he had filled the wrong prescription for a sick customer. In the alternate timeline where George is never born, he’s a ruined drunken derelict who lets himself be humiliated at Nick’s bar for the entertainment of patrons. Rudy is the Mr. Gower of the Trump show — a former mayor of New York, hero of 9/11, and a once semi-serious presidential candidate who now spends his time stumbling around rhetorically for the political press’s morbid amusement. Him getting caught in a Borat sting is the equivalent of Nick spraying Mr. Gower in the face with seltzer. It’s supposed to be funny but it’s actually terribly sad as an example of how far a formerly reputable person has fallen.
Especially since Rudy didn’t need an alternate timeline to turn him into Trump’s least respectable crony, the guy whom other MAGA mooks look down on as undignified.
A little more from the scene, per the Daily Beast:
On what appear to be hidden cameras, we see Giuliani remove her microphone and ask for her phone number and address as he sits down on the bed. He starts patting her backside as she removes the microphone from his pants. Giuliani then lies down on the bed and starts sticking his hands down his pants in a suggestive manner. But before anything more can happen, Borat bursts into the room and shouts, “Put down your chram!”—his preferred word for penis. “She’s 15! She’s too old for you!” The startled Giuliani, who had no reason to believe his interviewer was underage, sits up abruptly and gets out of there as fast as he can. “Rudy, Trump will be disappoint! You are leaving hotel without golden shower!” Borat yells after him.
I’m going to try some anti-anti-Rudy spin here, mainly because I’m bored and this fiasco warrants a contrarian hot take amid the entirety of America’s political class guffawing at him this afternoon. Giuliani is single (or unmarried, at least). The actress is 24 and presumably appeared to him to be an adult; she does look young in some pictures online, but he would have reasonably believed her to be an adult given that she presented herself as a journalist. She flirts with him in the scene, according to the Daily Beast, flattering him and touching his knee before inviting him to “have a drink in the bedroom.” The idea of a 76-year-old hooking up with a 24-year-old is … unappealing (although check back with me on that when I’m 76) but there’s nothing illegal about it. Maybe Rudy thought he was about to get an unexpected roll in the hay from a young admirer drawn to his fame and power. In which case, what’s supposed to be embarrassing about the scene? That he still has a libido?
Oh, wait. It’s probably the whole “lawyer to the president who’s mixed up with shady eastern Europeans brazenly allows himself to be compromised in a honey-trap sting,” isn’t it? Yeah, I think that’s it.
Looking forward to watching on Friday either way. Perfect timing too, as this is happening at the very moment Giuliani is trying to convince the American public that they should take seriously his allegations about Hunter Biden’s poor character. Exit question: How did Cohen get him to agree to let them use this footage? Rudy wasn’t in public. Did he sign a waiver before the “interview” and then all of the stuff with him on the bed caught by the cameras was considered part of that?
I’ve seen the Giuliani moment in Borat 2. It’s even wilder than it sounds. Beyond cringe. — Maureen Dowd (@maureendowd) October 21, 2020
Update: On second thought, I’m going to delete the update that was here about Rudy supposedly being pranked again by an Ivanka impersonator. We don’t have any proof that those texts are real. It’s the sort of thing he would do — this is a guy who’s butt-dialed reporters, remember, allowing them to eavesdrop on this private conversations — but that doesn’t mean he actually did do it.