hotair--2020-10-14--Contrary to claims by Pelosi and Hillary, NY Times reports there's no evidence Trump owes money to R

Contrary to claims by Pelosi and Hillary, NY Times reports there's no evidence Trump owes money to Russia

Two weeks ago the NY Times published a look at President Trump ’ s tax returns which found he owes about $ 400 million in debt .
Immediately this became a talking point among Democrats .
Nancy Pelosi went on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell and claimed Trump ’ s debt was a national security risk .
Pelosi hinted darkly that Trump may personally owe money to Vladimir Putin : Ms Pelosi said the report showed that “ this president appears to have over $ 400m in debt ” .
“ To whom ?
Different countries ?
What is the leverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding : “ So for me , this is a national security question.
” “ The fact that you could have a sitting president who owes hundreds of millions of dollars that he ’ s personally guaranteed to lenders , and we don ’ t know who these lenders are , ” she said , and suggested that Mr Trump may be indebted to Russian President Vladimir Putin .
“ What does Putin have on the president politically ?
Personally ?
Financially ?
” Naturally , MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow ran with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owes hundreds of millions of dollars to God knows who… ” And the next day , just prior to the first presidential debate , MSNBC interviewed Hillary Clinton who suggested one of the questions that needed to be asked of Trump was “ Who do you owe that $ 400 million dollars to ?
That set all of the heads nodding at MSNBC ( video below ) .
But Hillary didn ’ t stop there .
“ If you take the pieces…of the puzzle here , it appears pretty clear to me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that Russian money was funneled through Deutsche Bank .
Russian money was used as guarantees for continuing lending to Trump and his organization despite his terrible track record financially…So who do you owe that money to ?
” she said .
Clinton added , “ Is that part of the reason why you have undisclosed conversations on a regular basis with Vladimir Putin ?
” More recently , during the Vice-Presidential debate , Kamala Harris raised the same point about Trump ’ s debt .
“ It ’ d be really good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , the commander-in-chief owes money to , because the American people have a right to know what is influencing the president ’ s decisions and is he making those decisions on the best interests of the American people….or self-interest ?
” she said .
Yesterday the NY Times reported that we already know who Trump owes that debt to and the answer isn ’ t Russia , it ’ s Deutsche Bank .
Author David Enrich not only takes down Pelosi ’ s suggestion that Trump owes Putin money but demolishes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along the way : According to Mr. Trump ’ s latest financial disclosure report , filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics , he owes at least $ 135 million to a smattering of small financial institutions such as Ladder Capital .
His biggest creditor — to whom Mr. Trump owes well over $ 300 million — is Deutsche Bank .
From 2012 through 2015 , the scandal-plagued German bank lent Mr. Trump money for his Doral golf resort in Florida ( $ 125 million ) , his hotel in Washington ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chicago ( at least $ 45 million ) … One conspiracy theory is that Deutsche Bank agreed to make the loans because they were backstopped by Russians — the Kremlin or a state-owned bank or an oligarch .
If Mr. Trump were to default , it would be the Russians , not Deutsche Bank , on the hook for the losses .
I wonder why Enrich cites some rando on Twitter making this claim rather than Hillary Clinton ?
In any case , it ’ s not true : Another , related @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loans , it sold chunks of them to Russians… But the theories don ’ t hold up .
Deutsche Bank didn ’ t chop up and sell the latest batch of debt — the only portion that is still outstanding , according to bank officials with direct knowledge of the transactions .
The loans remain on Deutsche Bank ’ s books .
In other words , Pelosi ’ s and Hillary ’ s claims about Trump owing Putin , both eagerly spread by MSNBC , were fake news .
Kamala Harris claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president owes is similarly just more trolling for the same conspiracy theorists .
MSNBC never lets the facts get in the way of a good story .
Here ’ s the clip of Hillary speculating wildly prior to the first debate :

Two weeks ago the NY Times published a look at President Trump’s tax returns which found he owes about $400 million in debt. Immediately this became a talking point among Democrats. Nancy Pelosi went on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell and claimed Trump’s debt was a national security risk. Pelosi hinted darkly that Trump may personally owe money to Vladimir Putin:
Ms Pelosi said the report showed that “this president appears to have over $400m in debt”. “To whom? Different countries? What is the leverage they have?” she asked, adding: “So for me, this is a national security question.” “The fact that you could have a sitting president who owes hundreds of millions of dollars that he’s personally guaranteed to lenders, and we don’t know who these lenders are,” she said, and suggested that Mr Trump may be indebted to Russian President Vladimir Putin. “What does Putin have on the president politically? Personally? Financially?”
Naturally, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow ran with this, saying “the sitting president owes hundreds of millions of dollars to God knows who…”
And the next day, just prior to the first presidential debate, MSNBC interviewed Hillary Clinton who suggested one of the questions that needed to be asked of Trump was “Who do you owe that $400 million dollars to? That set all of the heads nodding at MSNBC (video below). But Hillary didn’t stop there. “If you take the pieces…of the puzzle here, it appears pretty clear to me, and I think to a lot of people that Russian money was funneled through Deutsche Bank. Russian money was used as guarantees for continuing lending to Trump and his organization despite his terrible track record financially…So who do you owe that money to?” she said. Clinton added, “Is that part of the reason why you have undisclosed conversations on a regular basis with Vladimir Putin?”
More recently, during the Vice-Presidential debate, Kamala Harris raised the same point about Trump’s debt. “It’d be really good to know who the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief owes money to, because the American people have a right to know what is influencing the president’s decisions and is he making those decisions on the best interests of the American people….or self-interest?” she said.
Yesterday the NY Times reported that we already know who Trump owes that debt to and the answer isn’t Russia, it’s Deutsche Bank. Author David Enrich not only takes down Pelosi’s suggestion that Trump owes Putin money but demolishes a lot of other left-wing conspiracy theories along the way:
According to Mr. Trump’s latest financial disclosure report, filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, he owes at least $135 million to a smattering of small financial institutions such as Ladder Capital. His biggest creditor — to whom Mr. Trump owes well over $300 million — is Deutsche Bank. From 2012 through 2015, the scandal-plagued German bank lent Mr. Trump money for his Doral golf resort in Florida ($125 million), his hotel in Washington ($170 million) and his skyscraper in Chicago (at least $45 million)… One conspiracy theory is that Deutsche Bank agreed to make the loans because they were backstopped by Russians — the Kremlin or a state-owned bank or an oligarch. If Mr. Trump were to default, it would be the Russians, not Deutsche Bank, on the hook for the losses.
I wonder why Enrich cites some rando on Twitter making this claim rather than Hillary Clinton? In any case, it’s not true:
Another, related claim is that after Deutsche Bank made the loans, it sold chunks of them to Russians… But the theories don’t hold up. Deutsche Bank didn’t chop up and sell the latest batch of debt — the only portion that is still outstanding, according to bank officials with direct knowledge of the transactions. The loans remain on Deutsche Bank’s books.
In other words, Pelosi’s and Hillary’s claims about Trump owing Putin, both eagerly spread by MSNBC, were fake news. Kamala Harris claim that we don’t know who the president owes is similarly just more trolling for the same conspiracy theorists. MSNBC never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.
Here’s the clip of Hillary speculating wildly prior to the first debate:


hotair--2020-10-14--Spox: Senate Homeland Security Committee investigating new Hunter Biden docs; <span class='red'>Upda

Spox: Senate Homeland Security Committee investigating new Hunter Biden docs; Update: Biden called lid at 9:41

We ’ re getting a little more information about the earlier New York Post bombshell on Hunter Biden , but enough to still leave some nagging questions .
According to its spokesperson , the Senate Homeland Security Committee has opened its own investigation into the claims by the Delaware technician , calling him a “ whistleblower.
” They only heard from him in the last few weeks , according to the Post ’ s report from about an hour ago : A Senate committee is investigating a bombshell cache of documents about Hunter Biden ’ s foreign dealings acquired by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by The Post .
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed it is working with the repairman , whose identity was confirmed by The Post , to verify the documents .
… The repairman contacted the committee in late September — one day after it released a report on Joe Biden ’ s apparent conflicts of interest in his son ’ s international business dealings — including a claim he received $ 3.5 million from the wife of Moscow ’ s former mayor .
The repairman provided correspondence to The Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hmmmm .
The earlier report was a little more vague on this point .
In fact , it didn ’ t mention anything about the repairman connecting with the Senate Homeland Security Committee , or any congressional committee .
Did the Post forget to put that into its first report , or did they get an update from the repairman after its publication ?
If it ’ s the latter , that might go toward credibility of their source .
There are other points that remain to be clarified .
The repairman turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FBI in December in accordance with a subpoena , and we have a picture of the subpoena in the first report .
Did the SHSC ask the FBI about whether it could authenticate the documents , and indeed the laptop itself ?
They have had it for eleven months , it would appear , and should have some insight into the provenance of all the above .
The FBI can ’ t comment publicly on investigations , but they should respond to inquiries from Congress about them , especially to determine whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — or worse .
This new timing answers one of the questions posed by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman , but still leaves the others murky : This makes it sound as though the repairman got tired of getting no response on the issue , and started looking for other options last month .
If that ’ s the case , then it makes Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Bannon look a bit better than in the original telling .
That , however , doesn ’ t necessarily mean that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these men have been publicly asking for this kind of dirt for years , and would be susceptible to a disinformation campaign — especially just weeks ahead of an election .
The timing on this is odd in another way .
The laptop emerged in December , just as the House was impeaching Donald Trump over Ukraine-gate .
The FBI took it and it went nowhere .
Now it ’ s suddenly emerging again just as the election comes up .
Those might be coincidences , but they ’ re awfully convenient coincidences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hand , but don ’ t buy into it either unless the FBI weighs in on this soon , or the SHSC provides a basis for confidence in this report .
Update : Here ’ s an amusing , if not entirely dispositive , development : Biden ’ s been calling mid-morning lids for weeks , so this may have nothing to do with the Post stories .
On the other hand , it ’ s an indication that they ’ re not prepared to get on top of this story , @ @

We’re getting a little more information about the earlier New York Post bombshell on Hunter Biden, but enough to still leave some nagging questions. According to its spokesperson, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has opened its own investigation into the claims by the Delaware technician, calling him a “whistleblower.” They only heard from him in the last few weeks, according to the Post’s report from about an hour ago:
A Senate committee is investigating a bombshell cache of documents about Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings acquired by a Delaware computer repairman and exposed Wednesday by The Post. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed it is working with the repairman, whose identity was confirmed by The Post, to verify the documents. … The repairman contacted the committee in late September — one day after it released a report on Joe Biden’s apparent conflicts of interest in his son’s international business dealings — including a claim he received $3.5 million from the wife of Moscow’s former mayor. The repairman provided correspondence to The Post documenting his outreach to the committee.
Hmmmm. The earlier report was a little more vague on this point. In fact, it didn’t mention anything about the repairman connecting with the Senate Homeland Security Committee, or any congressional committee. Did the Post forget to put that into its first report, or did they get an update from the repairman after its publication? If it’s the latter, that might go toward credibility of their source.
There are other points that remain to be clarified. The repairman turned over the laptop and hard drive to the FBI in December in accordance with a subpoena, and we have a picture of the subpoena in the first report. Did the SHSC ask the FBI about whether it could authenticate the documents, and indeed the laptop itself? They have had it for eleven months, it would appear, and should have some insight into the provenance of all the above. The FBI can’t comment publicly on investigations, but they should respond to inquiries from Congress about them, especially to determine whether this is a whistleblower or a crank — or worse.
This new timing answers one of the questions posed by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, but still leaves the others murky:
Things that are sketchy in NYP story on Hunter Biden – why wasn’t this in Ron Johnson report if it’s been in possession for awhile? When did Giuliani acquire it? Giuliani has been everywhere on the but this has been kicking around since late last year and unreleased till now? — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2020
This makes it sound as though the repairman got tired of getting no response on the issue, and started looking for other options last month. If that’s the case, then it makes Rudy Giuliani and Stephen Bannon look a bit better than in the original telling. That, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s on the level either. Both of these men have been publicly asking for this kind of dirt for years, and would be susceptible to a disinformation campaign — especially just weeks ahead of an election.
The timing on this is odd in another way. The laptop emerged in December, just as the House was impeaching Donald Trump over Ukraine-gate. The FBI took it and it went nowhere. Now it’s suddenly emerging again just as the election comes up. Those might be coincidences, but they’re awfully convenient coincidences. Don’t dismiss this out of hand, but don’t buy into it either unless the FBI weighs in on this soon, or the SHSC provides a basis for confidence in this report.
Update: Here’s an amusing, if not entirely dispositive, development:
The @JoeBiden campaign has called a LID today, but he'll be participating in a virtual fundraiser later today, per pooler @SabrinaSiddiqui. — Nikki Schwab (@NikkiSchwab) October 14, 2020
Biden’s been calling mid-morning lids for weeks, so this may have nothing to do with the Post stories. On the other hand, it’s an indication that they’re not prepared to get on top of this story, either.


hotair--2020-10-14--Merriam-Webster alters definition of sexual "preference" to say it's offensive after Hirono attacked

Merriam-Webster alters definition of sexual "preference" to say it's offensive after Hirono attacked Barrett for using it

As far as I can tell , critics have them dead to rights on this .
Check the Wayback Machine and you ’ ll find that Merriam-Webster ’ s definition of “ preference ” said nothing about the term being offensive as of September 28 , the last time the page was archived .
Today the label “ offensive ” has been attached , with this note about usage : It ’ s … strange that the alleged offensiveness of the term came to M-W ’ s attention only recently if it ’ s “ widely considered ” to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the definition was altered , presumably only the editors know .
But there is this : Looks like the page was updated on the very same day that Mazie Hirono went after Barrett for using the term “ sexual preference ” at her confirmation hearing .
Fancy that .
There are two possibilities here , one bad , the other sinister .
The bad one is that M-W noticed a number of people whining yesterday after the hearing that Barrett had offended them by using the term , and so they simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical mass of Americans believe that a word is offensive then it should be designated offensive , without rendering any judgment as to whether that belief is fair or not .
It ’ s a dictionary , not a moral umpire .
If in fact “ preference ” is “ widely considered ” inappropriate then it ’ s proper to note it .
Although that gets us back to the question of what sort of critical mass needs to be reached before the “ widely considered ” threshold is met .
If 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re offended , is that enough ?
How about 500 ?
How about 26,000 , the number who ’ ve retweeted this tweet ?
If Trump gets 26,000 people to retweet that they ’ re offended by the term “ mail-in ballot , ” will that phrase also be deemed offensive ?
If this is all just a numbers game , it should be .
The sinister possibility is that M-W took it upon itself to change the definition in order to provide cover for Hirono and the left in demagoging Barrett .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ widely ” the term is deemed inappropriate .
The editors are just liberal hacks who scrambled to retcon the meaning because it suited Democrats ’ political interests for them to do so .
Which would be absolutely textbook Orwell .
I look forward to a full public accounting from the company as to which explanation is accurate .
And that accounting had better explain why , if the term is “ widely considered ” offensive , politicians and beloved judicial icons from the allegedly enlightened left have used it with impunity in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beacon highlight reel below .
John McCormack has other examples of gay-rights supporters referring to “ sexual preference ” as well .
The dumbest aspect of this nontroversy is that preferences often *aren ’ t* conscious decisions .
Liberals are objecting to the term because it ostensibly treats sexual orientation as a choice rather than a predisposition , but consider all of the various preferences you have and how few of them derive from deliberation .
I have a strong preference for certain types of foods over others ; at no point in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prefer those foods .
Barrett ’ s being smeared here for using the term not because there ’ s something inherently objectionable about it but because she has the wrong politics and , more pertinently , the wrong religious values .
Simple as that .
And the dictionary ’ s going along with it .

As far as I can tell, critics have them dead to rights on this.
As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive." Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real. (via @ThorSvensonn & @chadfelixg) pic.twitter.com/oOq1SNtCP2 — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 14, 2020
Check the Wayback Machine and you’ll find that Merriam-Webster’s definition of “preference” said nothing about the term being offensive as of September 28, the last time the page was archived. Today the label “offensive” has been attached, with this note about usage:
Usage of Preference The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.
It’s … strange that the alleged offensiveness of the term came to M-W’s attention only recently if it’s “widely considered” to be taboo.
As for when, precisely, the definition was altered, presumably only the editors know. But there is this:
Looks like the page was updated on the very same day that Mazie Hirono went after Barrett for using the term “sexual preference” at her confirmation hearing. Fancy that.
There are two possibilities here, one bad, the other sinister. The bad one is that M-W noticed a number of people whining yesterday after the hearing that Barrett had offended them by using the term, and so they simply adjusted the definition accordingly. If a critical mass of Americans believe that a word is offensive then it should be designated offensive, without rendering any judgment as to whether that belief is fair or not. It’s a dictionary, not a moral umpire. If in fact “preference” is “widely considered” inappropriate then it’s proper to note it.
Although that gets us back to the question of what sort of critical mass needs to be reached before the “widely considered” threshold is met. If 50 Very Online progressives tweet that they’re offended, is that enough? How about 500? How about 26,000, the number who’ve retweeted this tweet? If Trump gets 26,000 people to retweet that they’re offended by the term “mail-in ballot,” will that phrase also be deemed offensive? If this is all just a numbers game, it should be.
The sinister possibility is that M-W took it upon itself to change the definition in order to provide cover for Hirono and the left in demagoging Barrett. It had nothing to do with how “widely” the term is deemed inappropriate. The editors are just liberal hacks who scrambled to retcon the meaning because it suited Democrats’ political interests for them to do so. Which would be absolutely textbook Orwell.
I look forward to a full public accounting from the company as to which explanation is accurate. And that accounting had better explain why, if the term is “widely considered” offensive, politicians and beloved judicial icons from the allegedly enlightened left have used it with impunity in the recent past. Watch the Free Beacon highlight reel below. John McCormack has other examples of gay-rights supporters referring to “sexual preference” as well.
The dumbest aspect of this nontroversy is that preferences often *aren’t* conscious decisions. Liberals are objecting to the term because it ostensibly treats sexual orientation as a choice rather than a predisposition, but consider all of the various preferences you have and how few of them derive from deliberation. I have a strong preference for certain types of foods over others; at no point in my life did I “decide” to prefer those foods. Barrett’s being smeared here for using the term not because there’s something inherently objectionable about it but because she has the wrong politics and, more pertinently, the wrong religious values. Simple as that. And the dictionary’s going along with it.


hotair--2020-10-14--Texas GOP sues Harris County over drive-thru voting sites

A record number of voters showed up at early voting sites in Harris County ( Houston ) on Tuesday .
According to an email from the county clerk ’ s office last night , the total number of in-person voters Tuesday is 128,186 .
The total number of mail-in ballots returned is 41,337 .
Enthusiasm to vote is high and preparations have been made for a very large voter turn-out in the county .
Why does Harris County matter ?
The county matters because Democrats have taken control and demographics are changing .
Harris County , the most populous county @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States , was a dependable , solid red county for many years .
Houston is a liberal big city and has been for years .
There ’ s a saying , As Harris County goes , so goes Texas .
That was true in the past , as all statewide offices have been held by Republicans for more than twenty years but things are changing .
Texas , believe it or not , is more purple than red now .
Democrats smell blood in the water and are working hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to a blue state .
The new Harris County Clerk , a Democrat tasked with running elections in Harris County , is aggressively and quickly expanding how local residents vote .
Chris Hollins has been in the job since June .
He was shut down by the Supreme Court of Texas from mailing out applications for mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the county – more than 2.3 million registered voters .
Texas is one of only a few states in the country that requires voters to meet specific qualifications to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include age ( 65 years or older ) , illness or disability , out of the county during the election period , and incarcerated but still eligible to vote .
The Supreme Court of Texas also ruled that fear of the coronavirus is not a disability , therefore it does not qualify for the disability requirement .
There have been many lawsuits over early voting in Harris County , some still pending .
The Republican Party of Texas ( RPT ) filed a lawsuit against the county over drive-thru early voting sites on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began in Texas .
This is a new way of voting that Hollins introduced during the July primary elections , the first election period under his control .
In July , the experiment was a limited one .
He was pleased with the results and decided to expand the option of drive-thru voting for the general election .
There are ten drive-thru locations throughout Harris County .
Collins looks at the option as an expansion of curbside voting which has been in place for years .
The RPT contends that voters who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location yet vote in a drive-thru location are doing so illegally .
“ Unless stopped , each of these instances of illegal voting will cast a cloud over the results of the General Election , ” the lawsuit states .
In a petition filed late Monday in Texas ’ 14th Court of Appeals , the Texas Republican Party contended the Texas Election Code limits curbside voting , including drive-thru voting , to voters who are sick or disabled , or if voting inside the polling location “ would create a likelihood of injuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions do not apply to the coronavirus pandemic , the party argued in its filing .
“ Chris Hollins is telling all Harris County residents that they are eligible for curbside voting when he knows that is not the case , ” the party said in a statement .
“ Any voter that does not qualify to vote curbside under narrow statutory language would be voting illegally if allowed to vote drive-through.
” Voters may use curbside voting if they have a medical condition that makes it difficult to go inside to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them by an election worker .
At the drive-thru voting sites , an election worker hands a voting machine through the car window after their voter identification is checked .
The RPT seeks to limit the option to those who have submitted sworn applications saying they qualify for it .
Democrats in Texas say there is no such restriction in the state ’ s election law .
Hollins calls the RPT ’ s lawsuit “ frivolous ” and the Texas Democrat Party chairman calls Republicans “ cowards ” .
When all else fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris County Clerk , said the latest lawsuit is in line with the Republican Party “ feverishly ” using resources to limit people ’ s right to vote .
“ This lawsuit is not only frivolous , but it ’ s also a gross misrepresentation of the differences between curbside voting — for voters with disabilities , including illness — and drive-thru voting , which is available for all voters who want to vote from the safety and convenience of their vehicle , ” he said in a statement Tuesday .
Texas Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders “ cowards ” and said in a statement that Gov .
Greg Abbott , the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton “ will stop at nothing to try to stop Texans from voting in the middle of a pandemic.
” The Democrats , both locally and nationally , want the public to think that Republicans are suppressing the vote in Texas .
That couldn ’ t be more untrue .
Governor Abbott , a Republican , increased the early voting period to the longest time ever allotted – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 this election – and early voting sites have been greatly increased .
Any registered voter can go to any early voting site to vote , it doesn ’ t have to be the voter ’ s normally assigned Election Day voting site .
As mentioned , there is curbside voting available and now there is drive-thru voting available .
Mail-in voting continues as normal , too , with the option of dropping off a mail-in ballot into a drop-off ballot box in every county .
It was very disingenuous of Senator Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that votes are being suppressed in Texas as she did during Amy Coney Barrett ’ s hearing yesterday .
That was just a partisan attack by an insincere Democrat in an election year .
Democrats like to toss the charge of voter suppression around and it is all for political theatre .
Texans don ’ t seem to feel suppressed if yesterday is any indication .
Lines were long and voters waited to vote .
Records were set with the turn-out .
People are showing up to vote in person despite the fearmongering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
The massive turnout produced long lines at a number of polling places , leading some voters to wait for more than an hour .
About a third of the county ’ s 112 early voting locations — including 10 drive-thru sites — reported wait times of at least 40 minutes for parts of the day , according to the Harris County Clerk ’ s office .
And voters remained in line well after polls closed at 7 p.m. , waiting for their chance to cast a ballot .
Many voters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to vote before Election Day .
“ If I ’ ve got to wait for an hour or two , it ’ s worth it to just get it out of the way , get it done and know that my vote is counted , ” said Jackson Neagli , a 24-year-old law student who was one of several dozen people in line at the Moody Community Center voting location around 9 a.m .
It look less than seven hours for the county to surpass its 2016 record of 68,000 in-person votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The in-person vote total also set a record for any day of early voting , surpassing the 100,000 people who voted on the last day of early voting in 2016 .
A quick glance of the breakdown by voting site in the county clerk ’ s email last night shows voter enthusiasm up in most locations , both in Republican-leaning areas and Democrat-leaning areas .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I have no doubt that Harris County and certainly Houston will go for Joe Biden .
I still think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is important to remember that voters need to stay and vote all the way down the ballot .
Those elections are important , too , especially as they determine the make-up of the state legislature and of representation in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate .
Most of all , it is important that Republicans continue to fight the power grabs attempted by Democrats in Texas , especially Harris County .
As I finish this , I hear Senator Leahy complain that Harris County has “ only ” one drop-off ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat , Senator Leahy .
As the former Harris County Judge said recently , any mailbox in the county is a drop-off box for a MAIL-IN ballot , for heaven ’ s sake .
Perhaps Democrats should have thought of that before they repeatedly incited fear into their voters over the safety of mailing in ballots this year .
They get no sympathy now .

A record number of voters showed up at early voting sites in Harris County (Houston) on Tuesday. According to an email from the county clerk’s office last night, the total number of in-person voters Tuesday is 128,186. The total number of mail-in ballots returned is 41,337. Enthusiasm to vote is high and preparations have been made for a very large voter turn-out in the county.
Why does Harris County matter? The county matters because Democrats have taken control and demographics are changing. Harris County, the most populous county in Texas and the third-most populous county in the United States, was a dependable, solid red county for many years. Houston is a liberal big city and has been for years. There’s a saying, As Harris County goes, so goes Texas. That was true in the past, as all statewide offices have been held by Republicans for more than twenty years but things are changing. Texas, believe it or not, is more purple than red now. Democrats smell blood in the water and are working hard to seize the opportunity to turn Texas back to a blue state.
The new Harris County Clerk, a Democrat tasked with running elections in Harris County, is aggressively and quickly expanding how local residents vote. Chris Hollins has been in the job since June. He was shut down by the Supreme Court of Texas from mailing out applications for mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the county – more than 2.3 million registered voters. Texas is one of only a few states in the country that requires voters to meet specific qualifications to receive a mail-in ballot. These qualifications include age (65 years or older), illness or disability, out of the county during the election period, and incarcerated but still eligible to vote. The Supreme Court of Texas also ruled that fear of the coronavirus is not a disability, therefore it does not qualify for the disability requirement. There have been many lawsuits over early voting in Harris County, some still pending.
The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) filed a lawsuit against the county over drive-thru early voting sites on Monday, one day before early voting began in Texas. This is a new way of voting that Hollins introduced during the July primary elections, the first election period under his control. In July, the experiment was a limited one. He was pleased with the results and decided to expand the option of drive-thru voting for the general election. There are ten drive-thru locations throughout Harris County. Collins looks at the option as an expansion of curbside voting which has been in place for years. The RPT contends that voters who are not qualified to vote at a curbside location yet vote in a drive-thru location are doing so illegally. “Unless stopped, each of these instances of illegal voting will cast a cloud over the results of the General Election,” the lawsuit states.
In a petition filed late Monday in Texas’ 14th Court of Appeals, the Texas Republican Party contended the Texas Election Code limits curbside voting, including drive-thru voting, to voters who are sick or disabled, or if voting inside the polling location “would create a likelihood of injuring the voter’s health.” Those provisions do not apply to the coronavirus pandemic, the party argued in its filing. “Chris Hollins is telling all Harris County residents that they are eligible for curbside voting when he knows that is not the case,” the party said in a statement. “Any voter that does not qualify to vote curbside under narrow statutory language would be voting illegally if allowed to vote drive-through.”
Voters may use curbside voting if they have a medical condition that makes it difficult to go inside to vote. A ballot is brought out to them by an election worker. At the drive-thru voting sites, an election worker hands a voting machine through the car window after their voter identification is checked. The RPT seeks to limit the option to those who have submitted sworn applications saying they qualify for it. Democrats in Texas say there is no such restriction in the state’s election law.
Glenn Smith, a senior strategist with Progress Texas, said Tuesday he could find nothing in the law requiring an application to vote curbside. Texas election law instructs election officers to deliver an on-site curbside ballot if a voter is “physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter’s health.”
Hollins calls the RPT’s lawsuit “frivolous” and the Texas Democrat Party chairman calls Republicans “cowards”. When all else fails, name-call.
Chris Hollins, the Harris County Clerk, said the latest lawsuit is in line with the Republican Party “feverishly” using resources to limit people’s right to vote. “This lawsuit is not only frivolous, but it’s also a gross misrepresentation of the differences between curbside voting — for voters with disabilities, including illness — and drive-thru voting, which is available for all voters who want to vote from the safety and convenience of their vehicle,” he said in a statement Tuesday. Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called Republican party leaders “cowards” and said in a statement that Gov. Greg Abbott, the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton “will stop at nothing to try to stop Texans from voting in the middle of a pandemic.”
The Democrats, both locally and nationally, want the public to think that Republicans are suppressing the vote in Texas. That couldn’t be more untrue. Governor Abbott, a Republican, increased the early voting period to the longest time ever allotted – it goes from October 13 to October 30 this election – and early voting sites have been greatly increased. Any registered voter can go to any early voting site to vote, it doesn’t have to be the voter’s normally assigned Election Day voting site. As mentioned, there is curbside voting available and now there is drive-thru voting available. Mail-in voting continues as normal, too, with the option of dropping off a mail-in ballot into a drop-off ballot box in every county. It was very disingenuous of Senator Amy Klobuchar, for example, to claim that votes are being suppressed in Texas as she did during Amy Coney Barrett’s hearing yesterday. That was just a partisan attack by an insincere Democrat in an election year. Democrats like to toss the charge of voter suppression around and it is all for political theatre.
Texans don’t seem to feel suppressed if yesterday is any indication. Lines were long and voters waited to vote. Records were set with the turn-out. People are showing up to vote in person despite the fearmongering over the coronavirus, as it turns out.
The massive turnout produced long lines at a number of polling places, leading some voters to wait for more than an hour. About a third of the county’s 112 early voting locations — including 10 drive-thru sites — reported wait times of at least 40 minutes for parts of the day, according to the Harris County Clerk’s office. And voters remained in line well after polls closed at 7 p.m., waiting for their chance to cast a ballot. Many voters were not dissuaded, even with 17 days left to vote before Election Day. “If I’ve got to wait for an hour or two, it’s worth it to just get it out of the way, get it done and know that my vote is counted,” said Jackson Neagli, a 24-year-old law student who was one of several dozen people in line at the Moody Community Center voting location around 9 a.m. It look less than seven hours for the county to surpass its 2016 record of 68,000 in-person votes on the first day of early voting. The in-person vote total also set a record for any day of early voting, surpassing the 100,000 people who voted on the last day of early voting in 2016.
A quick glance of the breakdown by voting site in the county clerk’s email last night shows voter enthusiasm up in most locations, both in Republican-leaning areas and Democrat-leaning areas. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that Harris County and certainly Houston will go for Joe Biden. I still think that Texas will go to Trump. But it is important to remember that voters need to stay and vote all the way down the ballot. Those elections are important, too, especially as they determine the make-up of the state legislature and of representation in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Most of all, it is important that Republicans continue to fight the power grabs attempted by Democrats in Texas, especially Harris County.
As I finish this, I hear Senator Leahy complain that Harris County has “only” one drop-off ballot box in Harris County. Take a seat, Senator Leahy. As the former Harris County Judge said recently, any mailbox in the county is a drop-off box for a MAIL-IN ballot, for heaven’s sake. Perhaps Democrats should have thought of that before they repeatedly incited fear into their voters over the safety of mailing in ballots this year. They get no sympathy now.


hotair--2020-10-14--Colorado police AGAIN "stand down" during standoff with child abuse suspect

Last month we looked at the shocking story of a felon going on a violent rampage at an apartment complex in Aurora , Colorado .
Robert Thompson had been exposing himself to young girls , destroying property and threatening the residents .
That fact that Thompson was engaging in this behavior wasn ’ t really the shocking part .
He had a lengthy rap sheet and a history of drug abuse .
What was appalling was the fact that the Aurora Police showed up twice on two consecutive days in response to 911 calls and both times decided to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without taking Thompson into custody .
That decision was reportedly made to “ avoid a confrontation ” that might have ended in the use of force by the police .
Well , it ’ s happened again , also in Aurora .
Back on September 24th , the Aurora PD SWAT team was dispatched to the home of 39-year-old Eric Burns as part of a “ felony child abuse investigation.
” Burns already had a warrant out on domestic violence charges and was believed to have assaulted his son and abused his young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a felony kidnapping warrant in a nearby town .
Upon their arrival , a standoff ensued .
Police believed that Burns was armed and they began negotiating for his surrender .
They did manage to convince the suspect to send out his his 6-year-old daughter , but after that no progress was made .
Then , after a few hours , records reveal that the cops made a “ decision to vacate.
” They just left without arresting Burns or getting the son out of the house .
Why ?
A statement the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS Denver ) The department declined to be interviewed but released a statement saying , “ Members of our community and across the nation have made it very clear that they want their police department to respond differently to some incidents , particularly when there is a possibility of using serious force against a subject.
” The statement went on to say “ avoiding unnecessary confrontations was now a top priority for the department.
” “ Sometimes this means walking away from a situation and utilizing investigative resources to apprehend persons at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
This concept of “ walking away and apprehending persons at a later time ” hasn ’ t worked out so well thus far .
The police have been unable to locate Burns since the standoff on September 24th and he remains on the loose .
Some neighbors interviewed by CBS were outraged that the cops would simply leave a wanted felon in their neighborhood and go back to their barracks .
Should we be surprised ?
So why does this keep happening ?
I did a little digging and found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand down ” events began unfolding , the city ’ s acting Police Chief had been officially promoted to the role by the City Council .
Vanessa Wilson had been tapped for the position earlier when her predecessor had been forced out following the death of Elijah McClain , a Black man who had been put in a chokehold while in police custody .
Upon assuming the role , Chief Wilson issued a number of apologies and assurances that she was going to make sure the Aurora Police are “ an active and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will be a transparent partner dedicated to making Aurora a safer city for all , with respect for our diversity , an embrace of unity , and continual conversation about how we can do better , ” Wilson said .
I ’ m getting the feeling that there are some new marching orders in place for the cops ever since Wilson took over as Chief .
And they seem to involve instructing her cops to avoid any possibility of a physical confrontation with suspects , even if it means leaving a potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the community .
So is this the sort of “ police reform ” that activists are calling for during rallies all across the nation ?
We should be asking the voters of Aurora how much longer they plan on tolerating this sort of leadership .

Last month we looked at the shocking story of a felon going on a violent rampage at an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado. Robert Thompson had been exposing himself to young girls, destroying property and threatening the residents. That fact that Thompson was engaging in this behavior wasn’t really the shocking part. He had a lengthy rap sheet and a history of drug abuse. What was appalling was the fact that the Aurora Police showed up twice on two consecutive days in response to 911 calls and both times decided to “stand down” and leave the scene without taking Thompson into custody. That decision was reportedly made to “avoid a confrontation” that might have ended in the use of force by the police.
Well, it’s happened again, also in Aurora. Back on September 24th, the Aurora PD SWAT team was dispatched to the home of 39-year-old Eric Burns as part of a “felony child abuse investigation.” Burns already had a warrant out on domestic violence charges and was believed to have assaulted his son and abused his young daughter. He additionally was wanted for a felony kidnapping warrant in a nearby town. Upon their arrival, a standoff ensued. Police believed that Burns was armed and they began negotiating for his surrender. They did manage to convince the suspect to send out his his 6-year-old daughter, but after that no progress was made. Then, after a few hours, records reveal that the cops made a “decision to vacate.” They just left without arresting Burns or getting the son out of the house. Why? A statement the PD released sounded awfully familiar. (CBS Denver)
The department declined to be interviewed but released a statement saying, “Members of our community and across the nation have made it very clear that they want their police department to respond differently to some incidents, particularly when there is a possibility of using serious force against a subject.” The statement went on to say “avoiding unnecessary confrontations was now a top priority for the department.” “Sometimes this means walking away from a situation and utilizing investigative resources to apprehend persons at a later time,” said the APD statement.
This concept of “walking away and apprehending persons at a later time” hasn’t worked out so well thus far. The police have been unable to locate Burns since the standoff on September 24th and he remains on the loose. Some neighbors interviewed by CBS were outraged that the cops would simply leave a wanted felon in their neighborhood and go back to their barracks. Should we be surprised?
So why does this keep happening? I did a little digging and found that in August, shortly before these “stand down” events began unfolding, the city’s acting Police Chief had been officially promoted to the role by the City Council. Vanessa Wilson had been tapped for the position earlier when her predecessor had been forced out following the death of Elijah McClain, a Black man who had been put in a chokehold while in police custody.
Upon assuming the role, Chief Wilson issued a number of apologies and assurances that she was going to make sure the Aurora Police are “an active and engaged part of this community.”
“We will be a transparent partner dedicated to making Aurora a safer city for all, with respect for our diversity, an embrace of unity, and continual conversation about how we can do better,” Wilson said.
I’m getting the feeling that there are some new marching orders in place for the cops ever since Wilson took over as Chief. And they seem to involve instructing her cops to avoid any possibility of a physical confrontation with suspects, even if it means leaving a potentially armed suspected kidnapper and child abuser free in the community. So is this the sort of “police reform” that activists are calling for during rallies all across the nation? We should be asking the voters of Aurora how much longer they plan on tolerating this sort of leadership.


hotair--2020-10-14--NBC analysis: We've uncovered Barrett's secret plot to destroy abortion rights

This hasn ’ t been a very good week for Senate Democrats looking for ways to undermine Amy Coney Barrett ’ s Supreme Court confirmation process .
Few of them have come off looking worse than Senator Feinstein of California .
Her repeated efforts to get Barrett to predict how she would vote on a hypothetical case challenging Roe v Wade were met with cool responses about lacking any set agenda for any particular policy .
But that doesn ’ t mean that their allies in the liberal media have given up on the effort .
At NBC News , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , claiming to have discovered the “ road map ” that Barrett is plotting to use to make abortions illegal , reinstitute segregation and God only knows what else .
You really need to screw on your thinking cap to keep up with Allen ’ s verbal gymnastics here , but it all seems to come down to a disregard for precedent and the need for someone to have standing to challenge existing laws .
With the help of senators of both parties , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett laid out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade ruling protecting abortion rights and the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation .
Barrett declined to say Tuesday how she would rule on any future cases , including those involving abortion , racial discrimination , voting rights and the Affordable Care Act .
But she did articulate clear views about the relative susceptibility of Roe and Brown to being reversed .
She said Brown is settled only so long as no one sues the government — federal , state or local — for segregating schools .
And she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more controversy , is more open to being thrown out .
Despite the fact that none of this was actually said by Barrett , Allen manages to dig out some quotes that he feels “ suggest ” that she ’ s leaving the door open to these sorts of plans .
Regarding Roe the author excitedly points to the fact that Barrett noted the ruling was not a “ super-precedent.
” While that may be true , Barrett also pointed out that “ super-precedent ” is a term of “ art , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stare decisis is not any sort of law or constitutional mandate .
The court has reversed itself many times over the course of its history .
Barrett was simply noting that there are a number of challenges to Roe in the lower courts , demonstrating that disputes exist and the matter isn ’ t settled .
But she also went on to point out that simply because challenges exist , that doesn ’ t automatically mean that a decision should be reversed , only that it ’ s more likely to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown v Board of Education , outlawing segregation along racial lines , Allen ’ s interpretation truly falls down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories .
When asked about Brown , Barrett conceded that it would qualify under the generally accepted definition of a super-precedent .
Her reasoning for this is that the decision is so widely agreed upon , nobody in their right mind would attempt to pass a law reinstituting segregation so there would be no challenge for the court to consider .
Allen counters by saying that there still could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of segregation .
But now that Barrett has sent out a signal that any such lawsuit could open the door to reconsidering the decision , it will have a “ chilling effect ” on plaintiffs wishing to bring such a suit .
They will fear , in Allen ’ s view , that attempting to sue could result in the Supreme Court overturning Brown entirely and ushering back in an era of segregation .
And that fear will cause them to not fight for their rights in court .
Were you able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither .
But the media obviously needs to keep up the anti-Barrett buzz throughout the confirmation process and scaring people into believing that Barret plans to outlaw abortions and endorse segregation is apparently one of the few cards they have left to play .

This hasn’t been a very good week for Senate Democrats looking for ways to undermine Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation process. Few of them have come off looking worse than Senator Feinstein of California. Her repeated efforts to get Barrett to predict how she would vote on a hypothetical case challenging Roe v Wade were met with cool responses about lacking any set agenda for any particular policy. But that doesn’t mean that their allies in the liberal media have given up on the effort. At NBC News, Jonathan Allen has published his own analysis, claiming to have discovered the “road map” that Barrett is plotting to use to make abortions illegal, reinstitute segregation and God only knows what else.
You really need to screw on your thinking cap to keep up with Allen’s verbal gymnastics here, but it all seems to come down to a disregard for precedent and the need for someone to have standing to challenge existing laws.
With the help of senators of both parties, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett laid out a road map for overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling protecting abortion rights and the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation. Barrett declined to say Tuesday how she would rule on any future cases, including those involving abortion, racial discrimination, voting rights and the Affordable Care Act. But she did articulate clear views about the relative susceptibility of Roe and Brown to being reversed. She said Brown is settled only so long as no one sues the government — federal, state or local — for segregating schools. And she said Roe, because it is the subject of more controversy, is more open to being thrown out.
Despite the fact that none of this was actually said by Barrett, Allen manages to dig out some quotes that he feels “suggest” that she’s leaving the door open to these sorts of plans. Regarding Roe the author excitedly points to the fact that Barrett noted the ruling was not a “super-precedent.” While that may be true, Barrett also pointed out that “super-precedent” is a term of “art, rather than doctrine.” The reality is that stare decisis is not any sort of law or constitutional mandate. The court has reversed itself many times over the course of its history.
Barrett was simply noting that there are a number of challenges to Roe in the lower courts, demonstrating that disputes exist and the matter isn’t settled. But she also went on to point out that simply because challenges exist, that doesn’t automatically mean that a decision should be reversed, only that it’s more likely to receive a hearing.
In the case of Brown v Board of Education, outlawing segregation along racial lines, Allen’s interpretation truly falls down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories. When asked about Brown, Barrett conceded that it would qualify under the generally accepted definition of a super-precedent. Her reasoning for this is that the decision is so widely agreed upon, nobody in their right mind would attempt to pass a law reinstituting segregation so there would be no challenge for the court to consider.
Allen counters by saying that there still could be lawsuits against policies that create the appearance of segregation. But now that Barrett has sent out a signal that any such lawsuit could open the door to reconsidering the decision, it will have a “chilling effect” on plaintiffs wishing to bring such a suit. They will fear, in Allen’s view, that attempting to sue could result in the Supreme Court overturning Brown entirely and ushering back in an era of segregation. And that fear will cause them to not fight for their rights in court.
Were you able to follow that? No? Me neither. But the media obviously needs to keep up the anti-Barrett buzz throughout the confirmation process and scaring people into believing that Barret plans to outlaw abortions and endorse segregation is apparently one of the few cards they have left to play.


hotair--2020-10-14--NY Post: We have a "smoking gun" proving the Bidens lied about Burisma

Given to them by Rudy Giuliani , no less .
According to the New York Post , an e-mail found on a laptop in a Delaware repair center shows that Hunter Biden introduced Burisma executives to Joe Biden a year before Biden intervened in Ukraine to demand the firing of their top prosecutor .
That contradicts an number of denials from Joe Biden , who has insisted that he had never gotten involved in his son ’ s business dealings , in Ukraine , Romania , China , or anywhere else while he was vice president .
But is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi , an adviser to the board of Burisma , allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17 , 2015 , about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $ 50,000 a month .
“ Dear Hunter , thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [ sic ] some time together .
It ’ s realty [ sic ] an honor and pleasure , ” the e-mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 also shows Pozharskyi , reportedly Burisma ’ s No .
3 exec , asking Hunter for “ advice on how you could use your influence ” on the company ’ s behalf .
The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden ’ s claim that he ’ s “ never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings ” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer .
There are all sorts of questions this raises , but not just for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions are simple : if this is on the level , how do they explain lying all this time about their actions with Burisma and Ukraine ?
For House Democrats who impeached Donald Trump over his phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymir Zelensky by claiming it was corrupt , this raises a huge problem right before they have to go home to voters who will want to know what they will do about Biden .
The same is true for Senate Democrats who tried to remove Trump over it .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How do we know this laptop had Hunter Biden ’ s information on it ?
According to the Post , it held a number of business and personal data connected to Hunter , including a twelve-minute video allegedly showing Hunter smoking crack and having sex .
The Post uses a couple of other personal pics found on the drive , including one of Hunter and his family with Joe himself , and another of Hunter apparently smoking a cigarette in bed .
So the data at least appears to have come from Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Was it really Hunter ’ s , and how exactly did this computer data get to Giuliani ?
Well , that ’ s a fairly convoluted tale , at least as the Post tells it .
Someone dropped off the laptop ( with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it ) to repair water damage but never came back to pick it up , despite a number of calls to the owner .
In December , the shop owner looked at the hard drive and alerted the FBI about the contents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seize both the laptop and the hard drive .
The Post has a photo of the grand-jury subpoena in the story .
But that was in December .
How did Giuliani get the data , and why is it only coming out now ?
Photos of a Delaware federal court subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December , after the shop ’ s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence .
But before turning over the gear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani ’ s lawyer , Robert Costello .
Steve Bannon , former adviser to President Trump , told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday .
So the shop owner “ later ” gave the copy to Giuliani ’ s lawyer .
When was “ later ” ?
Presumably after the impeachment and Senate trial ; if Giuliani had this information and could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it then to embarrass Democrats into ending that effort .
Maybe he waited until September to pass it along , but that seems rather odd , given the political context of Joe Biden ’ s win in the primaries and the narrative-busting nature of this information .
The timing of this seems pretty suspicious — it looks like a deliberate October surprise .
Meanwhile , where is the FBI in all of this ?
They had the laptop in December .
If they authenticated it , why haven ’ t they acted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The FBI refused to confirm or deny that an investigation exists , as is their practice , but the long delay on any action could mean that they haven ’ t yet authenticated anything .
It ’ s possible that this could be more game-playing by outside sources , especially since this just seems waaay too good to be true .
Hunter Biden might be an idiot , but would even he leave a laptop at a repair center with the Burisma smoking gun on its hard drive ?
And not go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center called ?
Or did someone manage to hack into Hunter ’ s files , retrieve some personal data , create the “ smoking gun , ” and then leave it all on a laptop with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker at a repair center while leaving the owner with an unpaid bill ?
This might be entirely on the level , of course .
There ’ s enough smoke around Joe Biden and the way his family members manage to get wealthy in areas where Biden takes policy interests to suspect multiple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this gets some authentication , stay skeptical , or at least remember that things too good to be true usually aren ’ t .

Given to them by Rudy Giuliani, no less. According to the New York Post, an e-mail found on a laptop in a Delaware repair center shows that Hunter Biden introduced Burisma executives to Joe Biden a year before Biden intervened in Ukraine to demand the firing of their top prosecutor. That contradicts an number of denials from Joe Biden, who has insisted that he had never gotten involved in his son’s business dealings, in Ukraine, Romania, China, or anywhere else while he was vice president.
But is this on the level?
The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the e-mail reads. An earlier e-mail from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf. The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
There are all sorts of questions this raises, but not just for the Bidens. For them, the questions are simple: if this is on the level, how do they explain lying all this time about their actions with Burisma and Ukraine? For House Democrats who impeached Donald Trump over his phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymir Zelensky by claiming it was corrupt, this raises a huge problem right before they have to go home to voters who will want to know what they will do about Biden. The same is true for Senate Democrats who tried to remove Trump over it.
That’s if this is on the level. How do we know this laptop had Hunter Biden’s information on it? According to the Post, it held a number of business and personal data connected to Hunter, including a twelve-minute video allegedly showing Hunter smoking crack and having sex. The Post uses a couple of other personal pics found on the drive, including one of Hunter and his family with Joe himself, and another of Hunter apparently smoking a cigarette in bed.
So the data at least appears to have come from Hunter Biden, but what about the laptop? Was it really Hunter’s, and how exactly did this computer data get to Giuliani? Well, that’s a fairly convoluted tale, at least as the Post tells it. Someone dropped off the laptop (with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker on it) to repair water damage but never came back to pick it up, despite a number of calls to the owner. In December, the shop owner looked at the hard drive and alerted the FBI about the contents, who then subpoenaed the shop owner to seize both the laptop and the hard drive. The Post has a photo of the grand-jury subpoena in the story.
But that was in December. How did Giuliani get the data, and why is it only coming out now?
Photos of a Delaware federal court subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence. But before turning over the gear, the shop owner says he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello. Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday.
So the shop owner “later” gave the copy to Giuliani’s lawyer. When was “later”? Presumably after the impeachment and Senate trial; if Giuliani had this information and could authenticate it, he would have leaked it then to embarrass Democrats into ending that effort. Maybe he waited until September to pass it along, but that seems rather odd, given the political context of Joe Biden’s win in the primaries and the narrative-busting nature of this information. The timing of this seems pretty suspicious — it looks like a deliberate October surprise.
Meanwhile, where is the FBI in all of this? They had the laptop in December. If they authenticated it, why haven’t they acted on it, especially with the grand-jury subpoena? The FBI refused to confirm or deny that an investigation exists, as is their practice, but the long delay on any action could mean that they haven’t yet authenticated anything. It’s possible that this could be more game-playing by outside sources, especially since this just seems waaay too good to be true. Hunter Biden might be an idiot, but would even he leave a laptop at a repair center with the Burisma smoking gun on its hard drive? And not go back to get it when the repair center called? Or did someone manage to hack into Hunter’s files, retrieve some personal data, create the “smoking gun,” and then leave it all on a laptop with a Beau Biden Foundation sticker at a repair center while leaving the owner with an unpaid bill?
This might be entirely on the level, of course. There’s enough smoke around Joe Biden and the way his family members manage to get wealthy in areas where Biden takes policy interests to suspect multiple points of corruption fire. But until this gets some authentication, stay skeptical, or at least remember that things too good to be true usually aren’t.


hotair--2020-10-15--Twitter: Yeah, we didn't handle that NY Post story on Hunter Biden very well

John covered most of the lowlights of the bombshell New York Post article yesterday about Hunter Biden ’ s influence-peddling at Burisma , with a specific focus on how the social media giants reacted .
Much of the initial focus was on Facebook for the rapid way it clamped down on any mention of the story , and rightly so .
But as John noted , Jack Dorsey ’ s crew at Twitter wasn ’ t far behind .
They almost immediately started muting , shadow-banning and disabling the accounts of anyone who dared to mention the forbidden knowledge .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his tweets hit with a “ suspicious content ” tag just for linking to it .
Twitter quickly went through a series of excuses for why they were doing this , beginning with claims that the content was “ false.
” They then moved to say that the story was “ unverified , ” before finally settling on saying the news was based on “ hacked content.
” All of those claims seemed to fall apart pretty rapidly and by the end of the day , Dorsey was forced to come forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue in an “ unacceptable ” manner .
But even then he didn ’ t say that they shouldn ’ t have been running this scheme to protect the Biden campaign .
He just apologized for “ not explaining it ” well enough .
( NY Post ) Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said it was “ unacceptable ” that the social media giant blocked users from sharing a Post exposé about Hunter Biden ’ s emails without providing a clear message as to why it was taking the action .
Dorsey released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — hours after a number of high-profile Republicans , including Sen. Josh Hawley , blasted the social media giant for blocking the stories from being shared on the platform .
“ Our communication around our actions on the @ nypost article was not great .
And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we ’ re blocking : unacceptable , ” Dorsey wrote in the tweet .
We should also point out that this effort to suppress the story , which essentially amounts to election interference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The memo obviously went out to all of the cable news networks quickly .
As of this morning , the most recent mention of the name “ Hunter Biden ” on CNN ’ s website is an article from more than a week ago talking about “ baseless conspiracy theories ” regarding Ukraine .
NBC News actually does have one story touching on the subject , but it ’ s focused on comments from President Trump “ repeating his often-told conspiracy theory ” about Burisma .
They go on to claim that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ no such meeting with Joe Biden ” was on his schedule from the time .
ABC News took the same path , describing the news as a “ dubious tabloid story.
” So we ’ re seeing a familiar pattern here .
The mainstream media is either rushing to discredit the story without attempting to verify it or simply ignoring it entirely .
The truly laughable part of all this is that the idea this was somehow “ fake news ” or election interference has already imploded .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign isn ’ t even denying it , though they ’ re not confirming it either .
They did say that “ it ’ s possible ” that the former VP may have had an informal meeting with a Burisma executive .
But you know how that goes , right ?
We all have so many meetings with wealthy Russian oligarchs .
Who can keep track of them all ?
I ’ m sure it ’ s easy to forget a few of them , right Joe ?
By the way , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stepped on when attempting to justify their actions .
The last excuse we heard was that the information about the meeting taken from Hunter Biden ’ s emails was “ hacked content.
” But if the information was actually hacked from Hunter ’ s documents , doesn ’ t that sort of imply that it ’ s true ?
Why would anyone bother hacking somebody else ’ s data just to steal something useless ?
By saying this was “ hacked , ” Dorsey is tacitly admitting that the emails are real and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to merit public investigation and discussion .
So why is it still being suppressed ?
The irony here is that most of the mainstream press obsessed for years over supposed Russian collusion to interfere in our elections .
But now , right in front of our faces , those same media outlets are engaging in actual election interference by blocking a huge story from the public ’ s view .
Just for fun , here ’ s Josh Hawley in a Free Beacon “ Beastmode ” segment asking Amy Coney Barrett if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypothetical adult son ” who was selling access to the Vice President to a foreign oligarch constitutes corruption .
Enjoy .

John covered most of the lowlights of the bombshell New York Post article yesterday about Hunter Biden’s influence-peddling at Burisma, with a specific focus on how the social media giants reacted. Much of the initial focus was on Facebook for the rapid way it clamped down on any mention of the story, and rightly so. But as John noted, Jack Dorsey’s crew at Twitter wasn’t far behind. They almost immediately started muting, shadow-banning and disabling the accounts of anyone who dared to mention the forbidden knowledge. Heck, even Ed Morrissey had one of his tweets hit with a “suspicious content” tag just for linking to it.
Twitter quickly went through a series of excuses for why they were doing this, beginning with claims that the content was “false.” They then moved to say that the story was “unverified,” before finally settling on saying the news was based on “hacked content.” All of those claims seemed to fall apart pretty rapidly and by the end of the day, Dorsey was forced to come forward and admit that his company had handled the issue in an “unacceptable” manner. But even then he didn’t say that they shouldn’t have been running this scheme to protect the Biden campaign. He just apologized for “not explaining it” well enough. (NY Post)
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said it was “unacceptable” that the social media giant blocked users from sharing a Post exposé about Hunter Biden’s emails without providing a clear message as to why it was taking the action. Dorsey released his statement in a tweet Wednesday night — hours after a number of high-profile Republicans, including Sen. Josh Hawley, blasted the social media giant for blocking the stories from being shared on the platform. “Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable,” Dorsey wrote in the tweet.
Our communication around our actions on the @nypost article was not great. And blocking URL sharing via tweet or DM with zero context as to why we’re blocking: unacceptable. https://t.co/v55vDVVlgt — jack (@jack) October 14, 2020
We should also point out that this effort to suppress the story, which essentially amounts to election interference, isn’t limited to social media. The memo obviously went out to all of the cable news networks quickly. As of this morning, the most recent mention of the name “Hunter Biden” on CNN’s website is an article from more than a week ago talking about “baseless conspiracy theories” regarding Ukraine. NBC News actually does have one story touching on the subject, but it’s focused on comments from President Trump “repeating his often-told conspiracy theory” about Burisma. They go on to claim that the emails “aren’t verified” and “no such meeting with Joe Biden” was on his schedule from the time. ABC News took the same path, describing the news as a “dubious tabloid story.” So we’re seeing a familiar pattern here. The mainstream media is either rushing to discredit the story without attempting to verify it or simply ignoring it entirely.
The truly laughable part of all this is that the idea this was somehow “fake news” or election interference has already imploded. As the Daily Wire quickly reported, the Biden campaign isn’t even denying it, though they’re not confirming it either. They did say that “it’s possible” that the former VP may have had an informal meeting with a Burisma executive. But you know how that goes, right? We all have so many meetings with wealthy Russian oligarchs. Who can keep track of them all? I’m sure it’s easy to forget a few of them, right Joe?
By the way, that reminds me of another rake that Twitter stepped on when attempting to justify their actions. The last excuse we heard was that the information about the meeting taken from Hunter Biden’s emails was “hacked content.” But if the information was actually hacked from Hunter’s documents, doesn’t that sort of imply that it’s true? Why would anyone bother hacking somebody else’s data just to steal something useless? By saying this was “hacked,” Dorsey is tacitly admitting that the emails are real and the story is based on something real enough to merit public investigation and discussion. So why is it still being suppressed?
The irony here is that most of the mainstream press obsessed for years over supposed Russian collusion to interfere in our elections. But now, right in front of our faces, those same media outlets are engaging in actual election interference by blocking a huge story from the public’s view.
Just for fun, here’s Josh Hawley in a Free Beacon “Beastmode” segment asking Amy Coney Barrett if a “hypothetical Vice President with a hypothetical adult son” who was selling access to the Vice President to a foreign oligarch constitutes corruption. Enjoy.


hotair--2020-10-14--DOJ sues author of tell-all book on Melania Trump, Trump books see record sales

On Tuesday , the Department of Justice sued author Stephanie Winston Wolkoff .
She is the former close friend of First Lady Melania Trump who broke a nondisclosure agreement by writing a tell-all book about her .
The DOJ claims Wolkoff revealed confidential information obtained during her work for Mrs. Trump .
The lawsuit asks that Wolkoff turn over profits from the book to a government trust .
The book is titled “ Melania and Me : The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady.
” The most current statistics from its Amazon page are # 144,933 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mid Atlantic U.S .
Biographies , # 2,583 in Biographies & Memoirs ( Kindle Store ) .
I ’ m not sure how much the profits amount to but these rankings reflect book sales .
Ironically , Wolkoff dedicated the book to Melania .
Most of the book , according to the reviews , centers around criticizing her former best friend and spreading gossip .
With friends like that , who needs enemies ?
The two women have been friends since 2003 , a time in which Melania was Trump ’ s girlfriend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director for Vogue magazine .
She served as executive producer and chief creative officer of the 58th Presidential Inauguration and senior advisor to inauguration chairman Thomas J. Barrack , Jr. Wolkoff was a volunteer adviser to the First Lady .
The lawsuit calls the book a “ flat violation ” of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligations to the first lady .
The suit , whose lead signatory is acting Assistant Attorney General John Coghlan , accuses Winston Wolkoff of “ flat violation ” of breach of contract and breach of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The complaint says that Winston Wolkoff agreed in 2017 to a so-called gratuitous services agreement .
That pact contained a confidentiality clause in which she “ promised to maintain strict confidentiality over ‘ nonpublic , privileged and/or confidential information ’ that she might obtain during her service , ” the suit says .
That deal “ included no termination date ” for its conditions , according to the suit , which says that Wolkoff had “ access to significant confidential information related to the First Lady ’ s official duties as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the First Family.
” There is also a claim by the DOJ that Wolkoff had indirect access to information the First Lady had that was related to the president ’ s official duties .
The lawsuit alleges that Wolkoff never submitted a draft of the book to Melania Trump , her chief of staff , or to the Office of the White House Counsel .
She “ never received authorization to disclose any information she learned pursuant to her work under the Agreement.
” Wolkoff admitted during an appearance on the Rachel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cease and desist warning before the book was published in September .
“ The last thing that any of these people want is for the truth to be told.
” Last month , on The View , she said she didn ’ t violate the 2017 NDA .
In a statement , Wolkoff said she will not be bullied .
In other book news , guess who is back ?
Omarosa Manigault Newman .
She wrote a book about her time in the Trump White House and now the Trump campaign wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The campaign wants her to pay $ 1 million in campaign ad expenditures , a “ corrective ” ad campaign .
The proposal asks that the ads be run for “ targeted audiences ” in 15 “ select states ” that are also battleground states in the election , including Arizona , Florida , Georgia , Ohio , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
All of those states will be important in Trump ’ s re-election bid .
The Trump campaign last week filed a document from an expert witness , obtained by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manigault Newman ’ s comments against Trump in her 2018 book “ Unhinged ” and associated interviews .
The filing was written by Eric Rose , a crisis management expert , who proposed that Manigault Newman could fund an advertising campaign that would cost more than $ 846,000 .
He did not mention a designated timeline for the advertising campaign , but the document mentions “ voters ” and was filed weeks ahead of Election Day , the Times noted .
“ It would be my recommendation that Ms. Manigault Newman pays for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counteract the long-term adverse effects of information that appeared as a result of Ms. Manigault Newman violating her confidentially agreement , ” he said , according to the Times .
“ If corrective ads are not placed , voters may continue to hold beliefs about the president as a result of Ms. Manigault Newman ’ s statements , ” he added .
Rose suggested Manigault Newman ’ s negative remarks about Trump were “ given heightened veracity because of her relationship with the president ” and “ corrective remedies are justified.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ provide a paid media recommendation with the goal of reaching audiences reached by negative statements disseminated by Ms. Manigault Newman , ” he wrote , according to the Times .
Omarosa ’ s lawyer isn ’ t keen on the idea , to say the least .
These two examples of alleged violations of NDAs signed for the Trump family are not the only ones we ’ ve seen .
It does show that even if a high profile person protects himself/herself with a legal agreement for privacy , it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exploit the friendship or employer for monetary gain .
What is unusual is the amount of books that have been published against President Trump and now Melania during their time in the White House .
Often , but not always , the books do not come out until the president leaves office .
The WSJ has an interesting article about the increase of political book sales during the Trump administration .
“ 2020 is on track to be the biggest year for political books since we began tracking U.S. book sales in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive director of business development at NPD BookScan .
And that is before 3 million hardcover copies of the first volume of President Obama ’ s presidential memoirs hit the bookshelves next month .
During the first three years of the Trump administration , more than 1,000 titles were published about the president , more than twice the 450-plus titles about Mr. Obama during the first three years of his presidency , according to NPD , which tracks book sales .
Sales of print political books through mid-September were up 85 % from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales in the first half of the year were 20 % higher than in 2019 , according to NPD , which said its political-book category includes political-science books , political biographies and autobiographies .
Overall sales are up 6 % for print books and 7.6 % for e-books over the same periods , NPD said—a remarkable feat given that many bookstores closed temporarily in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic .
That live entertainment options , including movie theaters and concerts , largely went dark or sharply scaled back during the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lockdowns have increased reading by book lovers and demands for political books that are written about Trump and his administration .
Let ’ s just say that Trump has made book sales great again .

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sued author Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. She is the former close friend of First Lady Melania Trump who broke a nondisclosure agreement by writing a tell-all book about her. The DOJ claims Wolkoff revealed confidential information obtained during her work for Mrs. Trump. The lawsuit asks that Wolkoff turn over profits from the book to a government trust.
The book is titled “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady.” The most current statistics from its Amazon page are #144,933 in Kindle Store, #116 in Mid Atlantic U.S. Biographies, #2,583 in Biographies & Memoirs (Kindle Store). I’m not sure how much the profits amount to but these rankings reflect book sales. Ironically, Wolkoff dedicated the book to Melania. Most of the book, according to the reviews, centers around criticizing her former best friend and spreading gossip. With friends like that, who needs enemies? The two women have been friends since 2003, a time in which Melania was Trump’s girlfriend. Wolkoff is a former special events director for Vogue magazine. She served as executive producer and chief creative officer of the 58th Presidential Inauguration and senior advisor to inauguration chairman Thomas J. Barrack, Jr. Wolkoff was a volunteer adviser to the First Lady. The lawsuit calls the book a “flat violation” of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligations to the first lady.
The suit, whose lead signatory is acting Assistant Attorney General John Coghlan, accuses Winston Wolkoff of “flat violation” of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligations to the first lady. The complaint says that Winston Wolkoff agreed in 2017 to a so-called gratuitous services agreement. That pact contained a confidentiality clause in which she “promised to maintain strict confidentiality over ‘nonpublic, privileged and/or confidential information’ that she might obtain during her service,” the suit says. That deal “included no termination date” for its conditions, according to the suit, which says that Wolkoff had “access to significant confidential information related to the First Lady’s official duties as well as to more private aspects of her role in the First Family.”
There is also a claim by the DOJ that Wolkoff had indirect access to information the First Lady had that was related to the president’s official duties.
Despite Winston Wolkoff’s promise of confidentiality, the Justice Department said, she “has written a book that Simon & Schuster [the book’s publisher] promotes as a ‘scathing tell-all’ and an ‘epic scream of a tell-all.'”
The lawsuit alleges that Wolkoff never submitted a draft of the book to Melania Trump, her chief of staff, or to the Office of the White House Counsel. She “never received authorization to disclose any information she learned pursuant to her work under the Agreement.” Wolkoff admitted during an appearance on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC that she received a cease and desist warning before the book was published in September. “The last thing that any of these people want is for the truth to be told.” Last month, on The View, she said she didn’t violate the 2017 NDA.
In a statement, Wolkoff said she will not be bullied.
“The president and first lady’s use of the U.S. Department of Justice to silence me is a violation of my First Amendment rights and a blatant abuse of the government to pursue their own personal interests and goals,” she said. “I will not be deterred by these bullying tactics,” she added.
In other book news, guess who is back? Omarosa Manigault Newman. She wrote a book about her time in the Trump White House and now the Trump campaign wants her to correct her inaccurate statements. The campaign wants her to pay $1 million in campaign ad expenditures, a “corrective” ad campaign. The proposal asks that the ads be run for “targeted audiences” in 15 “select states” that are also battleground states in the election, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. All of those states will be important in Trump’s re-election bid.
The Trump campaign last week filed a document from an expert witness, obtained by the Times, in the arbitration case over Manigault Newman’s comments against Trump in her 2018 book “Unhinged” and associated interviews. The filing was written by Eric Rose, a crisis management expert, who proposed that Manigault Newman could fund an advertising campaign that would cost more than $846,000. He did not mention a designated timeline for the advertising campaign, but the document mentions “voters” and was filed weeks ahead of Election Day, the Times noted. “It would be my recommendation that Ms. Manigault Newman pays for the corrective ads/corrective statements outlined above to counteract the long-term adverse effects of information that appeared as a result of Ms. Manigault Newman violating her confidentially agreement,” he said, according to the Times. “If corrective ads are not placed, voters may continue to hold beliefs about the president as a result of Ms. Manigault Newman’s statements,” he added. Rose suggested Manigault Newman’s negative remarks about Trump were “given heightened veracity because of her relationship with the president” and “corrective remedies are justified.” The advertising campaign’s goal would be to “provide a paid media recommendation with the goal of reaching audiences reached by negative statements disseminated by Ms. Manigault Newman,” he wrote, according to the Times.
Omarosa’s lawyer isn’t keen on the idea, to say the least.
Manigault Newman’s lawyer John Phillips told the Times the campaign’s submission of the expert witness document was the height of “weaponized litigation.” “Friday, we found out their bullets are commercials they want Omarosa to go do,” he said. “This isn’t free speech. It’s speech with a gun to your head.” Phillips added that the submission came after Manigault Newman’s team asked the president’s lawyers how they would prove damages were owed.
These two examples of alleged violations of NDAs signed for the Trump family are not the only ones we’ve seen. It does show that even if a high profile person protects himself/herself with a legal agreement for privacy, it will likely be broken when one party chooses to exploit the friendship or employer for monetary gain. What is unusual is the amount of books that have been published against President Trump and now Melania during their time in the White House. Often, but not always, the books do not come out until the president leaves office.
The WSJ has an interesting article about the increase of political book sales during the Trump administration.
“2020 is on track to be the biggest year for political books since we began tracking U.S. book sales in 2004,” said Kristen McLean, executive director of business development at NPD BookScan. And that is before 3 million hardcover copies of the first volume of President Obama’s presidential memoirs hit the bookshelves next month. During the first three years of the Trump administration, more than 1,000 titles were published about the president, more than twice the 450-plus titles about Mr. Obama during the first three years of his presidency, according to NPD, which tracks book sales. Sales of print political books through mid-September were up 85% from a year earlier, while political e-book sales in the first half of the year were 20% higher than in 2019, according to NPD, which said its political-book category includes political-science books, political biographies and autobiographies. Overall sales are up 6% for print books and 7.6% for e-books over the same periods, NPD said—a remarkable feat given that many bookstores closed temporarily in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic. That live entertainment options, including movie theaters and concerts, largely went dark or sharply scaled back during the pandemic also drove demand, publishers said.
Lockdowns have increased reading by book lovers and demands for political books that are written about Trump and his administration. Let’s just say that Trump has made book sales great again.