hotair--2020-09-09--Spokane sheriff criticizes HuffPost story on arrest of Democratic Socialist co-chair

Last week HuffPost published a story about the arrest of Jeremy Logan in Spokane , WA .
Logan is a co-chair of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America and , according to him , he was “ abducted ” by unidentifed officers who put him in an unmarked van .
Jeremy Logan — a 40-year-old DSA member , tenants rights organizer , and owner of a painting company ― believes the whole ordeal was either an attempt to pressure him into providing intel on his fellow anti-fascist activists , or retaliation for past statements he ’ s made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1:30 p.m. on Sunday , Aug. 30 , Logan told HuffPost , after he parked his car near the site of a protest against police brutality in Spokane .
As he walked to join up with a few friends on their way to the protest , Logan says he found himself suddenly apprehended by two men , one of whom wore a green tactical vest and was carrying a gun .
About four other men , all in plainclothes , also suddenly surrounded Logan .
They threw him into the back of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was under arrest for an outstanding warrant… Logan says the officers never showed him a badge and repeatedly refused to identify the agencies for which they worked .
They also made contradictory statements about the alleged warrant , at different times saying it had been issued in Chelan or Okanogan counties .
Spokane , where the arrest took place , is in Spokane County… The Spokane County Sheriff ’ s Office initiated Logan ’ s arrest , Cpl .
Mark Gregory told HuffPost in an email , “ because we learned he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has made threatening public statements toward law enforcement in the past , ” Gregory said , although he would not elaborate on the nature of the supposed statements .
( Logan laughed at the accusation that he ’ d somehow threatened cops .
“ I ’ ve been really critical , ” he said , “ but never made a threat of any kind.
” ) So that ’ s what happened according to Jeremy Logan and HuffPost .
He is being persecuted for his beliefs by people who wore no badges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made any threats against police .
Yesterday , Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich held a press conference to discuss Logan ’ s claims as they appeared in the HuffPost story .
“ I ’ m a little dumbfounded that I ’ m actually doing this press conference because and individual was arrested that had a warrant , ” Sheriff Knezovich said .
He then brought up a slide showing the HuffPost story and read part of the headline and a summary of the claims in the story .
The sheriff said the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read is that he is not a fan of Antifa .
But in order to make the point that his views were not based on political partisanship , Sheriff Knezovich spent the next several minutes reviewing the fact that he had warned the community in the past about white supremacists who were in the area .
“ For me , law enforcement isn ’ t about politics it ’ s about keeping you safe .
And if there ’ s a threat on the left or the right I will let you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slides of several white supremacist groups that his office had gone after and put in jail .
Then he turned back to the HuffPost story .
“ Never showed him badges .
Nope , they did show him badges .
They actually had the badges hanging around their neck , ” he said adding that Logan ’ s claim to the contrary was “ Not a true statement.
” As for the county from which the warrant arose , the Sheriff said the deputies involved “ may have been a bit confused ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He explained that police had been looking to arrest Logan on the warrant since June and had even gone to his house but he disappeared for a while .
They later found out he had gone to Seattle to spend time at CHAZ/CHOP .
When he returned , they learned he was back , found out where he was and arrested him before he got to the site of the protest because they didn ’ t want to risk making the arrest in the midst of other activists which might incite them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s claim that he never made any threatening comments about police was false .
Later he put up an image taken from Facebook in which Logan had written , “ I am not going to lie .
I want to take these pigs heads off with a hand saw.
” He then posted a photograph of Logan brandishing a machete .
The Sheriff wrapped up his statement with this : “ I just want to close it this way .
For eight years I warned you about the right…I ’ ve also warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m watching the left act exactly like the right did…but it ’ s time for you to come to a realization that we got a problem here .
”

Last week HuffPost published a story about the arrest of Jeremy Logan in Spokane, WA. Logan is a co-chair of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America and, according to him, he was “abducted” by unidentifed officers who put him in an unmarked van.
Jeremy Logan — a 40-year-old DSA member, tenants rights organizer, and owner of a painting company ― believes the whole ordeal was either an attempt to pressure him into providing intel on his fellow anti-fascist activists, or retaliation for past statements he’s made criticizing police… It all started at around 1:30 p.m. on Sunday, Aug. 30, Logan told HuffPost, after he parked his car near the site of a protest against police brutality in Spokane. As he walked to join up with a few friends on their way to the protest, Logan says he found himself suddenly apprehended by two men, one of whom wore a green tactical vest and was carrying a gun. About four other men, all in plainclothes, also suddenly surrounded Logan. They threw him into the back of an unmarked silver Dodge Caravan, telling him he was under arrest for an outstanding warrant… Logan says the officers never showed him a badge and repeatedly refused to identify the agencies for which they worked. They also made contradictory statements about the alleged warrant, at different times saying it had been issued in Chelan or Okanogan counties. Spokane, where the arrest took place, is in Spokane County… The Spokane County Sheriff’s Office initiated Logan’s arrest, Cpl. Mark Gregory told HuffPost in an email, “because we learned he had a valid felony warrant.” “He has made threatening public statements toward law enforcement in the past,” Gregory said, although he would not elaborate on the nature of the supposed statements. (Logan laughed at the accusation that he’d somehow threatened cops. “I’ve been really critical,” he said, “but never made a threat of any kind.”)
So that’s what happened according to Jeremy Logan and HuffPost. He is being persecuted for his beliefs by people who wore no badges and, oh yeah, he never made any threats against police.
Yesterday, Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich held a press conference to discuss Logan’s claims as they appeared in the HuffPost story. “I’m a little dumbfounded that I’m actually doing this press conference because and individual was arrested that had a warrant, ” Sheriff Knezovich said. He then brought up a slide showing the HuffPost story and read part of the headline and a summary of the claims in the story.
The sheriff said the only true part of what he’d read is that he is not a fan of Antifa. But in order to make the point that his views were not based on political partisanship, Sheriff Knezovich spent the next several minutes reviewing the fact that he had warned the community in the past about white supremacists who were in the area. “For me, law enforcement isn’t about politics it’s about keeping you safe. And if there’s a threat on the left or the right I will let you know,” he said. He showed slides of several white supremacist groups that his office had gone after and put in jail. Then he turned back to the HuffPost story.
“Never showed him badges. Nope, they did show him badges. They actually had the badges hanging around their neck,” he said adding that Logan’s claim to the contrary was “Not a true statement.”
As for the county from which the warrant arose, the Sheriff said the deputies involved “may have been a bit confused” because the warrant mentions all three counties. He explained that police had been looking to arrest Logan on the warrant since June and had even gone to his house but he disappeared for a while. They later found out he had gone to Seattle to spend time at CHAZ/CHOP. When he returned, they learned he was back, found out where he was and arrested him before he got to the site of the protest because they didn’t want to risk making the arrest in the midst of other activists which might incite them.
The sheriff also said Logan’s claim that he never made any threatening comments about police was false. Later he put up an image taken from Facebook in which Logan had written, “I am not going to lie. I want to take these pigs heads off with a hand saw.” He then posted a photograph of Logan brandishing a machete.
The Sheriff wrapped up his statement with this: “I just want to close it this way. For eight years I warned you about the right…I’ve also warned you about the left. And I’m watching the left act exactly like the right did…but it’s time for you to come to a realization that we got a problem here.”
Here’s the full press conference featuring Sheriff Knezovich:


hotair--2020-09-09--Biden: Oh, never mind about that national mask mandate too

The primaries are behind us and we ’ re well into the season of candidates attempting to shove everything they said up until the conventions down the memory hole and replace those statements with new positions more salable to voters in swing states .
Uncle Joe has been on a roll in this department lately , dragging Kamala Harris with him on this field trip into revisionist history .
The latest example came to us this week in the form of a “ reconsideration ” of Biden ’ s previous promise to institute a national face mask mandate if elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ” warranted it , of course . )
So is Sleepy Joe Biden still preparing to send out the brute squad and make sure every American is wearing a mask next year ?
Perish the thought !
He never really intended any such thing because there are obvious “ constitutional questions ” about such a dictate .
( NY Post ) Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden walked back his own call for a national mask mandate , saying he wouldn ’ t issue any binding orders because he believes it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned by AZFamily ’ s “ Politics Unplugged ” Sunday about his repeated pledges to use the powers of the presidency to force Americans to wear masks when he got candid about the efficacy of a mandate .
Asked to respond to the governors who had appreciated President Trump ’ s more targeted coronavirus approach , which gave more authority to the states , Biden said , “ Well , I hope you could trust the governors .
“ But here ’ s the deal , the federal government — there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue such a mandate .
I don ’ t think constitutionally they could , so I wouldn ’ t issue a mandate.
” So what ’ s the new plan ?
Biden will simply “ plead ” with people to wear a mask and set an example by doing so himself .
Sounds good , right ?
But help us out here for a moment , Joe .
Was there some amendment to the Constitution passed since August 13th and we just missed it ?
If it ’ s constitutionally problematic now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This particular flip flop becomes even more amusing when you look at the timeline .
As I just mentioned , it was all of 27 days ago when the mandate was good to go .
But he ’ d been promising this ( and more ) long before that .
Speaking to Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA in June , Biden declared that he would sign an executive order mandating the wearing of masks .
Apparently the old , pre-September Constitution didn ’ t have any glitches preventing such an order back then either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris was dragged in front of a microphone and forced to try to find some middle ground on the mask mandate question .
Yes , there would be a mandate , she said .
But nobody was going to be punished if they didn ’ t comply .
So it was a mandate with no enforcement mechanism for all intents and purposes .
But still constitutionally okay , apparently .
I mean , the woman served as Attorney General in our most populous state .
She should know if anyone would , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only flip-flopped on the subject but inserted a disclaimer saying that the act would be unconstitutional .
And now Kamala Harris is going to have switch out from her formal heels into some comfortable gym shoes and do yet another flip-flop to follow Biden into this strange new territory .
Don ’ t fret for Harris , though .
She ’ s growing used to this gymnastics routine by now .
You ’ ll recall that she was quite firm during the primary when it came to ending fracking and most other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once Joe Biden abandoned that position entirely , Harris was forced to stand in the klieg lights and declare that a fracking ban was most assuredly off the table .
Particularly for voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio , if you get my drift .
Welcome to general election mode .
Everything Biden and Harris said on the campaign trail and during the debates is null and void now .
Today they ’ ll say whatever the polls dictate .
And sadly , most of the MSM will enable them in perpetuating this illusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But that should leave everyone with a nagging question in the back of their minds .
What if Biden and Harris win the election and then turn around and institute a face mask mandate and a fracking ban after all ?
Will they just point to their earlier statements during the primaries and pretend the general election never happened ?

The primaries are behind us and we’re well into the season of candidates attempting to shove everything they said up until the conventions down the memory hole and replace those statements with new positions more salable to voters in swing states. Uncle Joe has been on a roll in this department lately, dragging Kamala Harris with him on this field trip into revisionist history. The latest example came to us this week in the form of a “reconsideration” of Biden’s previous promise to institute a national face mask mandate if elected. (As long as “the science” warranted it, of course.)
So is Sleepy Joe Biden still preparing to send out the brute squad and make sure every American is wearing a mask next year? Perish the thought! He never really intended any such thing because there are obvious “constitutional questions” about such a dictate. (NY Post)
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden walked back his own call for a national mask mandate, saying he wouldn’t issue any binding orders because he believes it would be unconstitutional. The former vice president was questioned by AZFamily’s “Politics Unplugged” Sunday about his repeated pledges to use the powers of the presidency to force Americans to wear masks when he got candid about the efficacy of a mandate. Asked to respond to the governors who had appreciated President Trump’s more targeted coronavirus approach, which gave more authority to the states, Biden said, “Well, I hope you could trust the governors. “But here’s the deal, the federal government — there’s a constitutional issue whether federal government could issue such a mandate. I don’t think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn’t issue a mandate.”
So what’s the new plan? Biden will simply “plead” with people to wear a mask and set an example by doing so himself. Sounds good, right? But help us out here for a moment, Joe. Was there some amendment to the Constitution passed since August 13th and we just missed it? If it’s constitutionally problematic now, why wasn’t it then?
This particular flip flop becomes even more amusing when you look at the timeline. As I just mentioned, it was all of 27 days ago when the mandate was good to go. But he’d been promising this (and more) long before that. Speaking to Pittsburgh CBS affiliate KDKA in June, Biden declared that he would sign an executive order mandating the wearing of masks. Apparently the old, pre-September Constitution didn’t have any glitches preventing such an order back then either.
Before the end of August, Kamala Harris was dragged in front of a microphone and forced to try to find some middle ground on the mask mandate question. Yes, there would be a mandate, she said. But nobody was going to be punished if they didn’t comply. So it was a mandate with no enforcement mechanism for all intents and purposes. But still constitutionally okay, apparently. I mean, the woman served as Attorney General in our most populous state. She should know if anyone would, right?
But now Uncle Joe has not only flip-flopped on the subject but inserted a disclaimer saying that the act would be unconstitutional. And now Kamala Harris is going to have switch out from her formal heels into some comfortable gym shoes and do yet another flip-flop to follow Biden into this strange new territory.
Don’t fret for Harris, though. She’s growing used to this gymnastics routine by now. You’ll recall that she was quite firm during the primary when it came to ending fracking and most other oil drilling in the country. But once Joe Biden abandoned that position entirely, Harris was forced to stand in the klieg lights and declare that a fracking ban was most assuredly off the table. Particularly for voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, if you get my drift.
Welcome to general election mode. Everything Biden and Harris said on the campaign trail and during the debates is null and void now. Today they’ll say whatever the polls dictate. And sadly, most of the MSM will enable them in perpetuating this illusion as if the primary had never happened. But that should leave everyone with a nagging question in the back of their minds. What if Biden and Harris win the election and then turn around and institute a face mask mandate and a fracking ban after all? Will they just point to their earlier statements during the primaries and pretend the general election never happened?


hotair--2020-09-09--Masks not good enough? LA County bans Halloween trick or treating over COVID-19

What presents a bigger transmission risk — kids in masks on porches , or massive numbers of adults crowding into public squares and shouting slogans ?
Los Angeles County health officials chose the former , declaring a ban on Halloween trick or treating to prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
This was probably not going to be a big year for trick or treating anyway , but a formal ban on candy collection raises some questions about government power and its arbitrary applications : It ’ s not just trick-or-treating , as KCAL-9 points out in the above report .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned , even though it takes place in the open air away from porches and houses : “ Door-to-door trick-or-treating is not allowed because it can be very difficult to maintain proper social distancing on porches and at front doors especially in neighborhoods that are popular with trick or treaters , ” the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said in its recently released guidelines .
“ ‘ Trunk-or-treating ’ events where children go from car to car instead of door to door to receive treats are also not allowed.
” Gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted , even if held outdoors , and neither are carnivals , festivals , live entertainment or haunted house attractions .
So what can families do to safely celebrate the spooky holiday ?
They can participate in online parties and contests , such as costume or pumpkin carving ; car parades that comply with public health guidance for vehicle-based parades ; Halloween movie nights at drive-in theaters ; Halloween-themed meals at outdoor restaurants ; Halloween-themed art installations at an outdoor museum ; and decorating homes and yards with Halloween-themed decorations .
Will we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife ’ s immune suppression makes that too risky , even with masks .
Even without that as a concern , I would be hesitant as a parent or grandparent of small children to take them door to door for Halloween this year .
The risks of transmission in a pandemic are significant and rational enough to have everyone reconsidering that prospect in 2020 — as part of their own personal choice .
That , however , doesn ’ t require government to impose bans on social activities , especially when those bans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has LA County banned all front-door solicitations ?
Are door-to-door sales banned , too ?
Political door-knocking ?
The ban on “ trunk or treating ” is even more absurd .
People put groceries in their trunks and cars every day .
If masks are worn and enough care is taken , what is the grave risk involved in that kind of transitory outdoor activity ?
Where is the evidence of heightened risk that rises to the level of government intervention ?
And the ban on outdoor gatherings is not just absurd but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone “ banned ” the protests taking place nightly in south LA over the police-shooting death of Dijon Kizzee ?
The “ unlawful assembly ” was only declared after the so-called “ mostly peaceful ” demonstrators began chucking rocks and other objects at police .
Health officials have not banned these “ outdoor gatherings ” yet , and those pose a lot more risk to public health than a properly social-distanced garden party in someone ’ s backyard .
Would police have arrested them before this if they had started passing out candy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presents real risks which should not be minimized .
However , the arbitrary and capricious exercise of dictatorial powers by unelected bureaucrats — and some elected officials — presents real risks to public welfare and constitutional order as well .
Those shouldn ’ t be minimized or overlooked either .

What presents a bigger transmission risk — kids in masks on porches, or massive numbers of adults crowding into public squares and shouting slogans? Los Angeles County health officials chose the former, declaring a ban on Halloween trick or treating to prevent the spread of COVID-19. This was probably not going to be a big year for trick or treating anyway, but a formal ban on candy collection raises some questions about government power and its arbitrary applications:
It’s not just trick-or-treating, as KCAL-9 points out in the above report. “Trunk or treating” is also banned, even though it takes place in the open air away from porches and houses:
“Door-to-door trick-or-treating is not allowed because it can be very difficult to maintain proper social distancing on porches and at front doors especially in neighborhoods that are popular with trick or treaters,” the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said in its recently released guidelines. “‘Trunk-or-treating’ events where children go from car to car instead of door to door to receive treats are also not allowed.” Gatherings or parties with non-household members are not permitted, even if held outdoors, and neither are carnivals, festivals, live entertainment or haunted house attractions. So what can families do to safely celebrate the spooky holiday? They can participate in online parties and contests, such as costume or pumpkin carving; car parades that comply with public health guidance for vehicle-based parades; Halloween movie nights at drive-in theaters; Halloween-themed meals at outdoor restaurants; Halloween-themed art installations at an outdoor museum; and decorating homes and yards with Halloween-themed decorations.
Will we participate in trick-or-treating this year? My wife’s immune suppression makes that too risky, even with masks. Even without that as a concern, I would be hesitant as a parent or grandparent of small children to take them door to door for Halloween this year. The risks of transmission in a pandemic are significant and rational enough to have everyone reconsidering that prospect in 2020 — as part of their own personal choice.
That, however, doesn’t require government to impose bans on social activities, especially when those bans are outrageously arbitrary. For instance, has LA County banned all front-door solicitations? Are door-to-door sales banned, too? Political door-knocking? The ban on “trunk or treating” is even more absurd. People put groceries in their trunks and cars every day. If masks are worn and enough care is taken, what is the grave risk involved in that kind of transitory outdoor activity? Where is the evidence of heightened risk that rises to the level of government intervention?
And the ban on outdoor gatherings is not just absurd but also the height of hypocrisy. Has anyone “banned” the protests taking place nightly in south LA over the police-shooting death of Dijon Kizzee?
Another 17 people were arrested Tuesday, marking the third straight night of protests outside the South Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station over the controversial shooting death of Dijon Kizzee. The arrests came after an unlawful assembly was issued at about 8:15 p.m., according to Deputy Trina Schrader of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
The “unlawful assembly” was only declared after the so-called “mostly peaceful” demonstrators began chucking rocks and other objects at police. Health officials have not banned these “outdoor gatherings” yet, and those pose a lot more risk to public health than a properly social-distanced garden party in someone’s backyard. Would police have arrested them before this if they had started passing out candy from car trunks?
The COVID-19 pandemic presents real risks which should not be minimized. However, the arbitrary and capricious exercise of dictatorial powers by unelected bureaucrats — and some elected officials — presents real risks to public welfare and constitutional order as well. Those shouldn’t be minimized or overlooked either.


hotair--2020-09-09--Report: Trump barely preparing for the debates

Brashly overconfident and unconcerned with the substance of policy ?
That doesn ’ t sound like him .
I ’ ll say this for him , though .
If ever there were a candidate who could afford to ( mostly ) blow off preparing for a debate , it ’ s Trump this year .
Not because he ’ s so well-honed that he doesn ’ t need to study , but rather the opposite .
How much studying would it conceivably take for him to appear less … Trumpy ?
Even if there were enough hours between now and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that transformation , there ’ s no reason to think he ’ d do it .
It would contradict his bedrock narcissistic belief that the people love Trump , and thus the Trumpier he is , the more they ’ ll love him .
Besides , the debates — especially the first one — are the one instance in this entire campaign where voters will shift from treating the election as a referendum on Trump to a referendum on Biden .
If Sleepy Joe has a moment that appears to support the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geriatric mushbrain then Trump “ wins ” the debate no matter what he says .
If Biden doesn ’ t have that moment , Trump “ loses.
” His only job , really , is to stand onstage and cross his fingers while Biden ’ s answering questions .
President Donald Trump has not held a single mock debate session , and has no plans to stage a formal practice round , as he readies for his first faceoff with Joe Biden in less than three weeks , according to multiple people familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissed the typical debate preparations he participated in four years ago , joking to aides and allies that he ’ s been preparing for debates since he was born .
His ability to fire back at an opponent in real time , he ’ s argued , “ isn ’ t something you have to practice.
” … [ Some Trump advisors are ] worried that Trump appears to be banking on a Biden misstep in the first 2020 debate ; all the three debates are scheduled for 90 minutes each .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s not worried about debating Biden because the former vice president is likely to have a gaffe moment or stutter .
Biden had a severe stutter as a child that he overcame… Trump ’ s aides have provided him with details of Biden ’ s record , including his support for a crime bill in the 1990s and his recent comments on policing .
The president also has been advised to point out policy inconsistencies between Biden and his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris .
A well-practiced attack on Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the few things Trump could do to help himself at the debate .
It ’ s shocking how little attention he and the GOP have paid to his opponent ’ s many political liabilities .
I ’ ve heard more about Hunter Biden ’ s business in Ukraine this year from Republicans than I have about the Biden crime bill , his poor foreign-policy instincts , and so on .
It ’ s possible that Trump is committing those details to memory and planning an offensive , but… Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
He ’ s going to spend most of his time in his comfort zone , insisting that Biden wants to give Antifa the launch codes and “ exterminate the suburbs ” or however that talking point goes .
He ’ s going to be Trump .
Deep down , I doubt he even wants to shift the election from a referendum on him to a choice between two candidates .
The lesser-of-two-evils approach worked for him in 2016 but it ’ d be a giant affront to his ego to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admired him but because they despised his opponent just a bit more .
He thinks he has a “ silent majority ” that ’ s pleased with him and his record .
So why bother spending much time talking about Biden ’ s ?
…although others make the point that this is a rare opportunity for Trump to exceed voters ’ expectations of him : He can ’ t not be Trump , though , at least not over a series of debates .
There were a few coronavirus briefings this past spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matched the moment .
But over time , he ’ ll always revert to that guy ranting from the podium about the “ fake news media ” and idly wondering if there ’ s a way to disinfect the body internally the way we disinfect surfaces .
Which makes me wonder : Let ’ s say , against all expectations , he kills it at the first debate .
He pulls off a more or less coherent attack on Biden ’ s record *and* he ’ s gifted by Biden suffering some sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Would he show up for debates two and three ?
The standard GOP line is that Biden ’ s the one looking to back out of the debates , but I think any sign of reluctance by Biden to duck that spotlight will be received by voters as an admission that he ’ s trying to hide his mental decline .
He has to do all three .
Whereas if Trump gets what he wants from the first debate , he has every reason to deprive Biden of an opportunity to undo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the only way to stop him from reverting to Trumpian form .
He needs one good night at the first debate , then he walks away .
Two solid hours .
He can always come up with some lame pretext to skip debates two and three ( “ I ’ m too busy fighting COVID , ” he might say from the golf course ) .
That prospect should be extra incentive for him to buckle down and prepare like a demon for September 29 , knowing that a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But no , evidently , he ’ s going to wing it .
He ’ s being true to his instincts , I ’ ll grant him that .
Here ’ s a clip he retweeted last night to his many millions of Twitter followers , once again helpfully lowering the bar for Biden .
His new campaign manager , Bill Stepien , has already pivoted to trying to raise expectations for the Democrat , telling NBC , “ He ’ s a politician .
He gives speeches .
He ’ s really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s also very practiced at it… Joe Biden is not formidable anywhere else but he is formidable on the debate stage.
” If Trump were capable of a disciplined debate performance , he ’ d be capable of joining Stepien in a disciplined effort to pump Biden up before September 29 .
But here we are .
Exit question : Is Jeff Zucker going to offer him advice on how to prepare for this debate too , or was that solely a 2016 thing ?

Brashly overconfident and unconcerned with the substance of policy?
That doesn’t sound like him.
I’ll say this for him, though. If ever there were a candidate who could afford to (mostly) blow off preparing for a debate, it’s Trump this year. Not because he’s so well-honed that he doesn’t need to study, but rather the opposite. How much studying would it conceivably take for him to appear less … Trumpy?
Even if there were enough hours between now and September 29 for him to pull off that transformation, there’s no reason to think he’d do it. It would contradict his bedrock narcissistic belief that the people love Trump, and thus the Trumpier he is, the more they’ll love him.
Besides, the debates — especially the first one — are the one instance in this entire campaign where voters will shift from treating the election as a referendum on Trump to a referendum on Biden. If Sleepy Joe has a moment that appears to support the GOP hype that he’s a drooling geriatric mushbrain then Trump “wins” the debate no matter what he says. If Biden doesn’t have that moment, Trump “loses.” His only job, really, is to stand onstage and cross his fingers while Biden’s answering questions.
President Donald Trump has not held a single mock debate session, and has no plans to stage a formal practice round, as he readies for his first faceoff with Joe Biden in less than three weeks, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions. The president has dismissed the typical debate preparations he participated in four years ago, joking to aides and allies that he’s been preparing for debates since he was born. His ability to fire back at an opponent in real time, he’s argued, “isn’t something you have to practice.”… [Some Trump advisors are] worried that Trump appears to be banking on a Biden misstep in the first 2020 debate; all the three debates are scheduled for 90 minutes each. They said Trump has repeatedly told aides that he’s not worried about debating Biden because the former vice president is likely to have a gaffe moment or stutter. Biden had a severe stutter as a child that he overcame… Trump’s aides have provided him with details of Biden’s record, including his support for a crime bill in the 1990s and his recent comments on policing. The president also has been advised to point out policy inconsistencies between Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris.
A well-practiced attack on Biden’s long Senate and vice-presidential record is one of the few things Trump could do to help himself at the debate. It’s shocking how little attention he and the GOP have paid to his opponent’s many political liabilities. I’ve heard more about Hunter Biden’s business in Ukraine this year from Republicans than I have about the Biden crime bill, his poor foreign-policy instincts, and so on. It’s possible that Trump is committing those details to memory and planning an offensive, but…
Well, no, it’s not really possible. He’s going to spend most of his time in his comfort zone, insisting that Biden wants to give Antifa the launch codes and “exterminate the suburbs” or however that talking point goes. He’s going to be Trump. Deep down, I doubt he even wants to shift the election from a referendum on him to a choice between two candidates. The lesser-of-two-evils approach worked for him in 2016 but it’d be a giant affront to his ego to accept that he won not because the public admired him but because they despised his opponent just a bit more. He thinks he has a “silent majority” that’s pleased with him and his record. So why bother spending much time talking about Biden’s?
I’m with Tim Miller on this…
I mean debate prep is generally focused on getting the factual arguments down, something trump doesn’t care about and honing attacks, which he has a lizard brain for. So…what’s to practice? https://t.co/WY9M1zho9b — Tim Miller (@Timodc) September 9, 2020
…although others make the point that this is a rare opportunity for Trump to exceed voters’ expectations of him:
The risk to this is probably less "Trump flubs the debate" and more "Trump is on autopilot and says the same things he says in every rally and reminds everyone exactly how they usually feel about him, good or bad." https://t.co/4aHSKIrd8i — Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) September 9, 2020
So if Trump is heading into a debate down 7 or 8 (which we don't know yet, but seems the trend) and the core issue is people have an extremely entrenched view of Trump, then you end up just reinforcing where you are already. Same thing happened with all his press conferences. — Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) September 9, 2020
He can’t not be Trump, though, at least not over a series of debates. There were a few coronavirus briefings this past spring where he sounded prepared and his tone matched the moment. But over time, he’ll always revert to that guy ranting from the podium about the “fake news media” and idly wondering if there’s a way to disinfect the body internally the way we disinfect surfaces. Which makes me wonder: Let’s say, against all expectations, he kills it at the first debate. He pulls off a more or less coherent attack on Biden’s record *and* he’s gifted by Biden suffering some sort of “senior moment” on camera. Would he show up for debates two and three? The standard GOP line is that Biden’s the one looking to back out of the debates, but I think any sign of reluctance by Biden to duck that spotlight will be received by voters as an admission that he’s trying to hide his mental decline. He has to do all three. Whereas if Trump gets what he wants from the first debate, he has every reason to deprive Biden of an opportunity to undo that bad impression at further debates.
That’s the only way to stop him from reverting to Trumpian form. He needs one good night at the first debate, then he walks away. Two solid hours. He can always come up with some lame pretext to skip debates two and three (“I’m too busy fighting COVID,” he might say from the golf course). That prospect should be extra incentive for him to buckle down and prepare like a demon for September 29, knowing that a single gamechanging evening is possibly in reach. But no, evidently, he’s going to wing it. He’s being true to his instincts, I’ll grant him that.
Here’s a clip he retweeted last night to his many millions of Twitter followers, once again helpfully lowering the bar for Biden. His new campaign manager, Bill Stepien, has already pivoted to trying to raise expectations for the Democrat, telling NBC, “He’s a politician. He gives speeches. He’s really good at doing it. He’s also very practiced at it… Joe Biden is not formidable anywhere else but he is formidable on the debate stage.” If Trump were capable of a disciplined debate performance, he’d be capable of joining Stepien in a disciplined effort to pump Biden up before September 29. But here we are. Exit question: Is Jeff Zucker going to offer him advice on how to prepare for this debate too, or was that solely a 2016 thing?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1303429887592669184


hotair--2020-09-09--Steele's FBI handler considered his behavior 'crazy'

Real Clear Investigations has a piece today looking at the odd series of events involving Christopher Steele ’ s on and off again relationship with the FBI .
Back in 2016 , there was a moment when the FBI decided it needed to end its relationship with Steele because he had spoken to the media while also providing info to the FBI .
Steele ’ s FBI handler , Michael Gaeta , considered Steele ’ s behavior so odd that he labeled it “ crazy.
” Between 2013 and 2016 , the bureau had paid Steele $ 95,000 to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaeta was his contact at the bureau .
It was Gaeta whom Steele approached in July 2016 with wild and depraved stories of collusion and kompromat .
Gaeta became the “ handling agent ” for Steele ’ s participation in Crossfire Hurricane .
Among his tasks was to get Steele paid ( a process that came along slowly ) and to see to it that Steele didn ’ t violate the FBI ’ s rules on confidentiality… Gaeta was astonished , then , when shortly before the 2016 election an article appeared in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.
” The sub-headline asked , “ Has the bureau investigated this material ?
” Gaeta was convinced Steele was the source for the article and confronted him about it .
Steele readily admitted he was behind the Mother Jones story .
In case it has been a while since you read that 2016 Mother Jones piece , Steele is never identified by name but the piece does include direct quotes from a former western spy who was obviously Steele .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steele admitted it .
When Gaeta asked Steele why he had violated the FBI rules about confidentiality , Steele replied , “ I ’ m very upset about – we ’ re very upset – about the actions of your agency.
” The handling agent was shocked : “ I had no idea what he was talking about.
” Before Gaeta could inquire further , Steele started railing about ” your Director ” and his “ reopening of the investigation.
” … At which point it all became clear to the handling agent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he did this because he was upset that the Director ’ s reopening of the investigation was going to negatively affect the election for Hillary Clinton.
” The handling agent described his reaction to Steele ’ s behavior as “ surprise and disbelief.
” Gaeta told the Senate that Steele ’ s actions and attitude weren ’ t just “ crazy source-related stuff , ” but “ one of the craziest ” the veteran agent had seen in two decades of handling sources .
Gaeta related what has happened to Bill Priestap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Counterintelligence Division .
Priestap agreed the FBI would need to close out Steele as a source .
He was officially removed on Nov. 17 , 2016 .
And then something changed .
James Comey pushed to include material from the dossier in a briefing to President-elect Trump .
Bill Priestap was one of the people Comey told about his plan .
At this point you might expect Priestap would stand up and point out that Steele had been closed out as a source because of his “ crazy ” and clearly partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of including Steele ’ s allegations in the intelligence assessment , himself writing to the CIA and describing the former British spy as ‘ reliable . '
” That ’ s quite a turn around from “ crazy ” and cut off to “ reliable ” and the basis for FISA surveillance .
And as it turned out , the FBI handler had it right the first time .
The dossier was crazy and unreliable .
Unfortunately it was propped up by Democrats and media figures for nearly two years after @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Real Clear Investigations has a piece today looking at the odd series of events involving Christopher Steele’s on and off again relationship with the FBI. Back in 2016, there was a moment when the FBI decided it needed to end its relationship with Steele because he had spoken to the media while also providing info to the FBI. Steele’s FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, considered Steele’s behavior so odd that he labeled it “crazy.”
Between 2013 and 2016, the bureau had paid Steele $95,000 to pass along tidbits on Eurasian organized crime; Gaeta was his contact at the bureau. It was Gaeta whom Steele approached in July 2016 with wild and depraved stories of collusion and kompromat. Gaeta became the “handling agent” for Steele’s participation in Crossfire Hurricane. Among his tasks was to get Steele paid (a process that came along slowly) and to see to it that Steele didn’t violate the FBI’s rules on confidentiality… Gaeta was astonished, then, when shortly before the 2016 election an article appeared in Mother Jones titled “A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump.” The sub-headline asked, “Has the bureau investigated this material?” Gaeta was convinced Steele was the source for the article and confronted him about it. Steele readily admitted he was behind the Mother Jones story.
In case it has been a while since you read that 2016 Mother Jones piece, Steele is never identified by name but the piece does include direct quotes from a former western spy who was obviously Steele. But as you can see above, Steele admitted it. When Gaeta asked Steele why he had violated the FBI rules about confidentiality, Steele replied, “I’m very upset about – we’re very upset – about the actions of your agency.”
The handling agent was shocked: “I had no idea what he was talking about.” Before Gaeta could inquire further, Steele started railing about ”your Director” and his “reopening of the investigation.”… At which point it all became clear to the handling agent: “I’m now understanding that he did this because he was upset that the Director’s reopening of the investigation was going to negatively affect the election for Hillary Clinton.” The handling agent described his reaction to Steele’s behavior as “surprise and disbelief.” Gaeta told the Senate that Steele’s actions and attitude weren’t just “crazy source-related stuff,” but “one of the craziest” the veteran agent had seen in two decades of handling sources.
Gaeta related what has happened to Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division. Priestap agreed the FBI would need to close out Steele as a source. He was officially removed on Nov. 17, 2016. And then something changed. James Comey pushed to include material from the dossier in a briefing to President-elect Trump. Bill Priestap was one of the people Comey told about his plan.
At this point you might expect Priestap would stand up and point out that Steele had been closed out as a source because of his “crazy” and clearly partisan behavior. Instead, “Priestap promoted the idea of including Steele’s allegations in the intelligence assessment, himself writing to the CIA and describing the former British spy as ‘reliable.'”
That’s quite a turn around from “crazy” and cut off to “reliable” and the basis for FISA surveillance. And as it turned out, the FBI handler had it right the first time. The dossier was crazy and unreliable. Unfortunately it was propped up by Democrats and media figures for nearly two years after that was clear to the FBI.


hotair--2020-09-09--Former WH stenographer: Biden "doesn't seem to have the same mental acuity"

Shocked ?
I know I am .
Who knew the White House still employed stenographers ?
Oh , wait … does anyone really dispute the notion that Joe Biden has “ lost a step ” and that his “ mental acuity ” has declined since leaving the White House four years ago ?
Naah .
But that ’ s not the question .
The question is … does it matter ?
The Free Beacon ’ s Alana Goodman interviewed Mike McCormick to air his concerns about the Democratic nominee : “ It is a complete difference from what he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who worked as a White House stenographer for 15 years and with Biden from 2011 to 2017 , told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview .
“ He ’ s lost a step and he doesn ’ t seem to have the same mental acuity as he did four years ago.
” “ He doesn ’ t have the energy , he doesn ’ t have the pace of his speaking , ” McCormick said .
“ He ’ s a different guy.
” … McCormick—who often traveled with Biden and transcribed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders , and off-the-record media briefings for the official White House record—said the vice president had a talent for connecting with audiences when he was in office and almost always veered off script from his pre-written speeches .
Biden ’ s physical stamina and cognitive health have come under scrutiny during the 2020 election , due to a series of speaking appearances in which the 77-year-old has appeared to lose his train of thought , struggled to finish a sentence , or forgotten where he is .
“ He ’ d just make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and go straight from the hip .
And notice , he ’ s not doing that anymore , ” he said .
“ He read that [ Democratic National Committee speech ] verbatim … it ’ s not Joe Biden anymore.
” It ’ s a legit point , one made acute by Biden ’ s own performance on the campaign trail … or as much of the “ trail ” as he travels , anyway .
Team Trump certainly likes to beat this particular drum , with Biden ’ s on-camera fades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two days ago , Biden ’ s direction to his handlers to “ move it up here ” so he could read a scripted answer off a teleprompter went viral as a means of harping on the mental-acuity question : But does this matter ?
Four years ago , mental health professionals began their long-distance diagnoses and prognoses of Donald Trump ’ s mental health too , claiming that he was a pathological narcissist and liar who might be damaged enough to be effectively non compos mentis .
Remember all of the talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of all those attacks were essentially nil , because voters didn ’ t care about anything else other than the fact that Trump wasn ’ t Hillary Clinton or some other establishment stiff .
The same applies here , too ; the only thing that matters in 2020 is that Biden ’ s not Trump .
And vice-versa , for that matter — Trump ’ s pretty clearly warning voters that they may not like him , but that they should fear a Biden presidency .
( And not for no good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s mostly on policy and character issues in both cases , though , not for mental-health issues .
In a rational world , Biden ’ s mental acuity should matter , as should Trump ’ s character issues .
In a rational world , the two major parties should have come up with better options in 2016 than Trump and Clinton , too .
We aren ’ t living in that version of the Matrix , however , so we have to make do with what we have .
Voters understand that too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainly to vote against the evil of two lessers , which makes Biden ’ s mental acuity nothing much more than a fun meme in 2020 .

Shocked? I know I am. Who knew the White House still employed stenographers?
Oh, wait … does anyone really dispute the notion that Joe Biden has “lost a step” and that his “mental acuity” has declined since leaving the White House four years ago? Naah. But that’s not the question. The question is … does it matter?
The Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman interviewed Mike McCormick to air his concerns about the Democratic nominee:
“It is a complete difference from what he was in 2017,” Mike McCormick, who worked as a White House stenographer for 15 years and with Biden from 2011 to 2017, told the Washington Free Beacon in an interview. “He’s lost a step and he doesn’t seem to have the same mental acuity as he did four years ago.” “He doesn’t have the energy, he doesn’t have the pace of his speaking,” McCormick said. “He’s a different guy.” … McCormick—who often traveled with Biden and transcribed his speeches, public conversations with foreign leaders, and off-the-record media briefings for the official White House record—said the vice president had a talent for connecting with audiences when he was in office and almost always veered off script from his pre-written speeches. Biden’s physical stamina and cognitive health have come under scrutiny during the 2020 election, due to a series of speaking appearances in which the 77-year-old has appeared to lose his train of thought, struggled to finish a sentence, or forgotten where he is. “He’d just make a big joke out of it, and go straight from the hip. And notice, he’s not doing that anymore,” he said. “He read that [Democratic National Committee speech] verbatim … it’s not Joe Biden anymore.”
It’s a legit point, one made acute by Biden’s own performance on the campaign trail … or as much of the “trail” as he travels, anyway. Team Trump certainly likes to beat this particular drum, with Biden’s on-camera fades a particular favorite for meme clips. Two days ago, Biden’s direction to his handlers to “move it up here” so he could read a scripted answer off a teleprompter went viral as a means of harping on the mental-acuity question:
Joe Biden is relying on a teleprompter to answer questions: "move it up here," he tells his staff. There are long pauses between his words as he waits for the prompter to scroll. pic.twitter.com/zYlMbfd2mA — Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 7, 2020
Hilarity ensues!
But does this matter? Four years ago, mental health professionals began their long-distance diagnoses and prognoses of Donald Trump’s mental health too, claiming that he was a pathological narcissist and liar who might be damaged enough to be effectively non compos mentis. Remember all of the talk about the 25th Amendment options? The impact of all those attacks were essentially nil, because voters didn’t care about anything else other than the fact that Trump wasn’t Hillary Clinton or some other establishment stiff.
The same applies here, too; the only thing that matters in 2020 is that Biden’s not Trump. And vice-versa, for that matter — Trump’s pretty clearly warning voters that they may not like him, but that they should fear a Biden presidency. (And not for no good reason, too.) That’s mostly on policy and character issues in both cases, though, not for mental-health issues.
In a rational world, Biden’s mental acuity should matter, as should Trump’s character issues. In a rational world, the two major parties should have come up with better options in 2016 than Trump and Clinton, too. We aren’t living in that version of the Matrix, however, so we have to make do with what we have. Voters understand that too, and will go to the polls mainly to vote against the evil of two lessers, which makes Biden’s mental acuity nothing much more than a fun meme in 2020.


hotair--2020-09-09--Phase 3 trials for Oxford vaccine paused due to possible "adverse reaction" in one participant

I assume conspiracy theories are already circulating on Facebook that there was no actual “ adverse reaction ” in this study .
It ’ s just the darned deep state again , cooking up a pretext to go slow on vaccine development so that Trump doesn ’ t get the “ October surprise ” he ’ s clearly pining for .
In reality , this looks like a textbook example of why going slow is the responsible approach .
As I understand it , phase one of vaccine trials is a *basic* safety test : A few dozen people get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one keels over upon receiving it .
The real safety test comes in phases two and three , though , as the number of participants balloons .
Unexpected side effects that might not have showed up in the small phase-one group purely by chance are more likely to show up when you ’ re testing on 30,000 people or whatever .
Hence the shudder that went through the planet yesterday when news broke that someone enrolled in AstraZeneca ’ s trial of the Oxford vaccine had developed a serious enough adverse reaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paused .
Oxford is the leader of the pack in vaccine development , ahead of everyone else in the western world .
If their product ’ s too risky to use , it ’ s a setback .
And potentially , if their product is causing a serious side effect , other vaccines in development like Moderna ’ s and Novavax ’ s might have the same problem .
Which would be a lot worse than a “ setback.
” Bear in mind that Russia isn ’ t even doing phase-three testing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and told the Russian public to come and get it .
The spokesperson described the pause as “ a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials , while it is investigated , ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.
” The spokesperson also said that the company is “ working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline.
” An individual familiar with the development said researchers had been told the hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ an abundance of caution.
” A second individual familiar with the matter , who also spoke on condition of anonymity , said the finding is having an impact on other AstraZeneca vaccine trials underway — as well as on the clinical trials being conducted by other vaccine manufacturers .
Every story about this on the wires today is careful to note that pausing a clinical trial has been known to happen .
All it means is that someone enrolled in the study developed a serious illness .
It ’ s possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; in fact , one of the first things AstraZeneca will do is try to figure out whether the sick participant actually received the vaccine or a placebo .
If it ’ s the latter , there ’ s no problem .
Full speed ahead .
If it ’ s the former , they need to make a judgment about whether it ’ s likely or not that the vaccine is related to the illness .
The Times ’ s report contains this ambiguously worded detail : Reading that , I thought they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new study “ pause.
” But maybe not : A Twitter pal points to this passage in another story by the magazine Nature .
So myelitis caused the first “ pause.
” Is the Times claiming that myelitis also caused this new , second pause ?
Because that would be an “ uh oh ” moment and might cause researchers to revisit their assessment that the first myelitis case was unrelated to the vaccine .
Or is the current pause due to some other disease , one which might reasonably be explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer .
A doctor who advises the FDA told NBC that study pauses due to suspicions of serious side effects are “ uncommon , but not unheard of , ” and expects that we ’ ll know the cause in a few days .
What if all of the vaccines go bust ?
Well , a new theory has emerged that we already have a type of crude vaccine in our possession : Masks .
The idea is that , although masks mainly protect people around you from being infected by you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles spewed by others before they enter your nose and mouth .
“ Some ” is the key here .
If it ’ s true that someone who inhales a smallish viral load will develop a mild or asymptomatic case of COVID ( and scientists have , er , no idea if that ’ s true ) then in some cases the filtration process provided by the mask is working to “ vaccinate ” people .
Enough of the virus is getting through to your system to evoke an immune response but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you sick , at least not with serious symptoms .
Laying aside the fact that this theory rests on various unproven assumptions , would popularizing it actually do more harm than good ?
Taken the wrong way , the idea could lull the masked into a false sense of complacency , potentially putting them at higher risk than before , or perhaps even bolster the incorrect notion that face coverings are entirely useless against the coronavirus , since they can not render the wearer impervious to infection .
“ We still want people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Dr. Popescu said .
That means staying vigilant about avoiding crowds , physical distancing and hand hygiene — behaviors that overlap in their effects , but can ’ t replace one another… [ I ] t is difficult to pin down the infectious dose required to sicken a person , Dr. Rengarajan said .
Even if researchers eventually settle on an average dose , the outcome will vary from person to person , since factors like genetics , a person ’ s immune status and the architecture of their nasal passages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colonize the respiratory tract .
How anyone is supposed to convert this theory into sound pandemic practice escapes me .
Let ’ s say , hypothetically , that absorbing 100 viral particles is enough to evoke an immune response without symptoms whereas absorbing 1,000 viral particles will produce symptoms .
Imagine masking up and standing next to someone who ’ s in the early stages of a symptomatic case — cough , very mild fever , etc .
Whether you get sick or not would depend on how many particles the infected person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how effectively your mask filters those particles , both of which would be hugely variable .
You ’ d be nutty to take your chances in that situation just because you ’ re wearing a mask .
But then , the theory isn ’ t really prescriptive .
It ’ s descriptive , a possible explanation for why there are so many asymptomatic cases out there ( and why there are fewer hospitalizations now than there were when the first wave hit in March ) .
Masks aren ’ t foolproof in protecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be “ protective enough .
”

I assume conspiracy theories are already circulating on Facebook that there was no actual “adverse reaction” in this study. It’s just the darned deep state again, cooking up a pretext to go slow on vaccine development so that Trump doesn’t get the “October surprise” he’s clearly pining for.
In reality, this looks like a textbook example of why going slow is the responsible approach. As I understand it, phase one of vaccine trials is a *basic* safety test: A few dozen people get the shot just to make sure that no one keels over upon receiving it. The real safety test comes in phases two and three, though, as the number of participants balloons. Unexpected side effects that might not have showed up in the small phase-one group purely by chance are more likely to show up when you’re testing on 30,000 people or whatever. Hence the shudder that went through the planet yesterday when news broke that someone enrolled in AstraZeneca’s trial of the Oxford vaccine had developed a serious enough adverse reaction that the entire study had to be paused. Oxford is the leader of the pack in vaccine development, ahead of everyone else in the western world. If their product’s too risky to use, it’s a setback.
And potentially, if their product is causing a serious side effect, other vaccines in development like Moderna’s and Novavax’s might have the same problem. Which would be a lot worse than a “setback.”
Bear in mind that Russia isn’t even doing phase-three testing. They rang the bell after phase two and told the Russian public to come and get it.
The spokesperson described the pause as “a routine action which has to happen whenever there is a potentially unexplained illness in one of the trials, while it is investigated, ensuring we maintain the integrity of the trials.” The spokesperson also said that the company is “working to expedite the review of the single event to minimize any potential impact on the trial timeline.” An individual familiar with the development said researchers had been told the hold was placed on the trial out of “an abundance of caution.” A second individual familiar with the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the finding is having an impact on other AstraZeneca vaccine trials underway — as well as on the clinical trials being conducted by other vaccine manufacturers.
Every story about this on the wires today is careful to note that pausing a clinical trial has been known to happen. All it means is that someone enrolled in the study developed a serious illness. It’s possible that that illness is unrelated to the vaccine; in fact, one of the first things AstraZeneca will do is try to figure out whether the sick participant actually received the vaccine or a placebo. If it’s the latter, there’s no problem. Full speed ahead. If it’s the former, they need to make a judgment about whether it’s likely or not that the vaccine is related to the illness.
The Times’s report contains this ambiguously worded detail:
A person familiar with the situation, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the participant had been enrolled in a Phase 2/3 trial based in the United Kingdom. The individual also said that a volunteer in the U.K. trial had been found to have transverse myelitis, an inflammatory syndrome that affects the spinal cord and is often sparked by viral infections. However, the timing of this diagnosis, and whether it was directly linked to AstraZeneca’s vaccine, is unclear.
Reading that, I thought they were claiming that myelitis is what triggered this new study “pause.” But maybe not: A Twitter pal points to this passage in another story by the magazine Nature.
It is the second time that administration of the vaccine has been paused in the UK, according to two people who took part in the study and to information sheets uploaded to a clinical trial registry. Previously, a participant developed symptoms of transverse myelitis, an inflammation of the spinal cord which is often sparked by viral infections, according to an information sheet given to trial participants dated 12 July. After a safety review, the trial resumed. The individual was diagnosed with an “unrelated neurological illness”.
So myelitis caused the first “pause.” Is the Times claiming that myelitis also caused this new, second pause? Because that would be an “uh oh” moment and might cause researchers to revisit their assessment that the first myelitis case was unrelated to the vaccine. Or is the current pause due to some other disease, one which might reasonably be explained as unconnected? A lot rests on the answer. A doctor who advises the FDA told NBC that study pauses due to suspicions of serious side effects are “uncommon, but not unheard of,” and expects that we’ll know the cause in a few days.
What if all of the vaccines go bust? Well, a new theory has emerged that we already have a type of crude vaccine in our possession: Masks. The idea is that, although masks mainly protect people around you from being infected by you, they can also block *some* viral particles spewed by others before they enter your nose and mouth. “Some” is the key here. If it’s true that someone who inhales a smallish viral load will develop a mild or asymptomatic case of COVID (and scientists have, er, no idea if that’s true) then in some cases the filtration process provided by the mask is working to “vaccinate” people. Enough of the virus is getting through to your system to evoke an immune response but not enough is getting through to actually get you sick, at least not with serious symptoms.
Laying aside the fact that this theory rests on various unproven assumptions, would popularizing it actually do more harm than good?
Taken the wrong way, the idea could lull the masked into a false sense of complacency, potentially putting them at higher risk than before, or perhaps even bolster the incorrect notion that face coverings are entirely useless against the coronavirus, since they cannot render the wearer impervious to infection. “We still want people to follow all the other prevention strategies,” Dr. Popescu said. That means staying vigilant about avoiding crowds, physical distancing and hand hygiene — behaviors that overlap in their effects, but can’t replace one another… [I]t is difficult to pin down the infectious dose required to sicken a person, Dr. Rengarajan said. Even if researchers eventually settle on an average dose, the outcome will vary from person to person, since factors like genetics, a person’s immune status and the architecture of their nasal passages can all influence how much virus can colonize the respiratory tract.
How anyone is supposed to convert this theory into sound pandemic practice escapes me. Let’s say, hypothetically, that absorbing 100 viral particles is enough to evoke an immune response without symptoms whereas absorbing 1,000 viral particles will produce symptoms. Imagine masking up and standing next to someone who’s in the early stages of a symptomatic case — cough, very mild fever, etc. Whether you get sick or not would depend on how many particles the infected person is coughing into the air and on how effectively your mask filters those particles, both of which would be hugely variable. You’d be nutty to take your chances in that situation just because you’re wearing a mask.
But then, the theory isn’t really prescriptive. It’s descriptive, a possible explanation for why there are so many asymptomatic cases out there (and why there are fewer hospitalizations now than there were when the first wave hit in March). Masks aren’t foolproof in protecting people from serious infection but they might be “protective enough.”


hotair--2020-09-09--Dallas Police Chief resigns - recent protests, transparency issues cited

In a surprise move , Dallas Chief of Police Renee Hall tendered her letter of resignation Tuesday .
The city ’ s first black female police chief has come under fire for a lack of transparency in ongoing investigations , including one of a June BLM protest that didn ’ t end well .
Chief Hall , age 49 , has held her position for three years .
She was hired from the Detroit Police Department where she was a deputy police chief .
Her resignation comes just after her third year anniversary .
The odd thing is that not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why she is leaving but she won ’ t be leaving until the end of the year .
Her resignation comes months before she actually leaves .
In her letter , she said she ’ d be leaving by November 10 but that changed when the City Manager T.C .
Broadnax asked her to stay until the end of the year .
Hall didn ’ t mention the lack of confidence in her leadership abilities that six Dallas City Council members expressed after receiving an 85-page report in mid-August concerning the protests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the police chief says she has received “ a number of inquiries about future career opportunities ” and for now her next career move must remain confidential .
Some council members said her report on the protests was “ reactionary , biased and contradictory ” .
In the special Public Safety Committee meeting to discuss an 85-page report on the department ’ s response , council members subjected Hall to the most aggressive questioning she has faced to date since assuming the top job in 2017 .
While council members criticized how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report after the initial protests in late May and early June , their main concern was a lack of transparency about officers ’ use of force against citizens after tear gas and less-lethal ammunition were deployed .
The report , they said , has left too many unanswered questions and half-truths — even a cover-up of actual events .
“ I ’ m very concerned with how this all happened , and what I ’ m seeing is a lack of leadership , ” said Cara Mendelsohn , who represents far North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embarrassment to our city.
” Hall deflected the criticism from most of the seven council members who sit on the public safety committee .
A few of the other City Council members also attended the virtual meeting ( there are 14 total ) .
Chief Hall gave herself a C-minus grade on how she handled the protests .
She said her job is to “ keep an eye on the entire city.
” She delegated decision-making to the commanders in the field .
Her hands-off approach to leading the department didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She was questioned about her whereabouts from May 30 to June 1 , the days that were the most critical and tense days of the BLM protests .
A demonstration on June 1 ended in a disorganized attempt to arrest 674 protesters who had marched from the courthouse to the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge .
After initially denying that tear gas was used , police later conceded it was used .
The report outlined glaring failures in operational planning , communication and unclear directions on how to use weapons like pepper ball guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tiptoed around specific details regarding unlawful arrests and use-of-force incidents , including one that was a subject of a Dallas Morning News investigation .
Some council members directly contradicted the chief about a key fact in her report , saying it incorrectly claimed that police tried to block marchers from walking onto the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge .
Some council members called her written report biased and one-sided .
They sounded more concerned that the police actions that may have injured protesters weren ’ t highlighted while the violence against police officers at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and water bottles thrown at police .
Even the chief ’ s supporters voiced concern about injuries “ peaceful ” protesters received .
This must be particularly frustrating to law enforcement across the country .
City officials and leaders continue to label BLM protests as peaceful when they frequently spiral out of control or are overtaken by professional agitators .
The chief ’ s report about protests in Dallas cited the bricks and other objects thrown at police officers on the scene .
That isn ’ t a peaceful protest .
Given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and those seeking police reform , Dallas police were expected to be hypersensitive to protesters , I assume , as they are across the country .
It sounds to me that the police chief was standing up for her officers but maybe delegating too much responsibility to commanders on the ground .
What exactly were police officers supposed to do when the bricks started flying , just stand there or run away ?
The protesters would like the police to retreat but it seems to me that police have to use any tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests .
One council member said that the next police chief will have similar qualities possessed by the current chief .
Council member Jennifer Staubach Gates , who represents a district in northern Dallas , said when the city looks for its next chief , they ’ ll seek similar qualities to the ones they wanted when they selected Hall .
“ We need to have a chief that understands the community and the challenges that exist .
We need a chief that can lead , ” she said .
“ Dallas demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community — the entire community — and then be able to get along with and understand the different demands of the council members as well.
” A protester claimed victory as the chief ’ s resignation was announced .
Last weekend saw more protests and marked 100 consecutive days of protests in the city .
She demands more accountability .
Tramonica Brown , whose organization Not My Son has been protesting and calling for greater police accountability for months , said Hall ’ s resignation was a sign that protests have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reassurance that the community needed , ” Brown said .
“ They are out here and people are noticing and people are feeling it .
The pressure is being applied the right way without destruction.
” “ This is our first real win , ” Brown said .
Brown wants to see more transparency from the next chief : “ Somebody who is going to hold her officers accountable .
Somebody for sure who won ’ t assault peaceful protesters.
” The BLM movement has been successful in training the press and protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to injured cops or to the families of police who have been killed .
It ’ s no wonder we are witnessing the string of resignations coming from chiefs of police and law enforcement officers from police departments across the country .
Local officials don ’ t support law enforcement .
Chief Hall came in with a mandate for police reform , which she embraced .
The rise in crime in Dallas , though , led to criticism of her leadership abilities .
Apparently , the police unions “ turned on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Council member Lee Kleinman sums it up nicely – “ It just reinforces why we should not be letting unions contribute to political campaigns .
”

In a surprise move, Dallas Chief of Police Renee Hall tendered her letter of resignation Tuesday. The city’s first black female police chief has come under fire for a lack of transparency in ongoing investigations, including one of a June BLM protest that didn’t end well.
Chief Hall, age 49, has held her position for three years. She was hired from the Detroit Police Department where she was a deputy police chief. Her resignation comes just after her third year anniversary. The odd thing is that not only didn’t she specifically say why she is leaving but she won’t be leaving until the end of the year. Her resignation comes months before she actually leaves. In her letter, she said she’d be leaving by November 10 but that changed when the City Manager T.C. Broadnax asked her to stay until the end of the year.
Hall didn’t mention the lack of confidence in her leadership abilities that six Dallas City Council members expressed after receiving an 85-page report in mid-August concerning the protests in late May and early June. Instead, the police chief says she has received “a number of inquiries about future career opportunities” and for now her next career move must remain confidential. Some council members said her report on the protests was “reactionary, biased and contradictory”.
In the special Public Safety Committee meeting to discuss an 85-page report on the department’s response, council members subjected Hall to the most aggressive questioning she has faced to date since assuming the top job in 2017. While council members criticized how long it took for Hall to produce the report after the initial protests in late May and early June, their main concern was a lack of transparency about officers’ use of force against citizens after tear gas and less-lethal ammunition were deployed. The report, they said, has left too many unanswered questions and half-truths — even a cover-up of actual events. “I’m very concerned with how this all happened, and what I’m seeing is a lack of leadership,” said Cara Mendelsohn, who represents far North Dallas. “This has been an embarrassment to our city.” Hall deflected the criticism from most of the seven council members who sit on the public safety committee. A few of the other City Council members also attended the virtual meeting (there are 14 total).
Chief Hall gave herself a C-minus grade on how she handled the protests. She said her job is to “keep an eye on the entire city.” She delegated decision-making to the commanders in the field. Her hands-off approach to leading the department didn’t sit well with city council members. She was questioned about her whereabouts from May 30 to June 1, the days that were the most critical and tense days of the BLM protests.
A demonstration on June 1 ended in a disorganized attempt to arrest 674 protesters who had marched from the courthouse to the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge. After initially denying that tear gas was used, police later conceded it was used. The report outlined glaring failures in operational planning, communication and unclear directions on how to use weapons like pepper ball guns and other less-lethal ammunition. City officials tiptoed around specific details regarding unlawful arrests and use-of-force incidents, including one that was a subject of a Dallas Morning News investigation. Some council members directly contradicted the chief about a key fact in her report, saying it incorrectly claimed that police tried to block marchers from walking onto the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge.
Some council members called her written report biased and one-sided. They sounded more concerned that the police actions that may have injured protesters weren’t highlighted while the violence against police officers at the protests was mentioned – including bricks and water bottles thrown at police.
Even the chief’s supporters voiced concern about injuries “peaceful” protesters received. This must be particularly frustrating to law enforcement across the country. City officials and leaders continue to label BLM protests as peaceful when they frequently spiral out of control or are overtaken by professional agitators. The chief’s report about protests in Dallas cited the bricks and other objects thrown at police officers on the scene. That isn’t a peaceful protest. Given that the protests were due to anti-cop sentiments and those seeking police reform, Dallas police were expected to be hypersensitive to protesters, I assume, as they are across the country.
It sounds to me that the police chief was standing up for her officers but maybe delegating too much responsibility to commanders on the ground. What exactly were police officers supposed to do when the bricks started flying, just stand there or run away? The protesters would like the police to retreat but it seems to me that police have to use any tools available to disperse violent crowds and make arrests.
One council member said that the next police chief will have similar qualities possessed by the current chief.
Council member Jennifer Staubach Gates, who represents a district in northern Dallas, said when the city looks for its next chief, they’ll seek similar qualities to the ones they wanted when they selected Hall. “We need to have a chief that understands the community and the challenges that exist. We need a chief that can lead,” she said. “Dallas demands a chief that has a relationship with the community — the entire community — and then be able to get along with and understand the different demands of the council members as well.”
A protester claimed victory as the chief’s resignation was announced. Last weekend saw more protests and marked 100 consecutive days of protests in the city. She demands more accountability.
Tramonica Brown, whose organization Not My Son has been protesting and calling for greater police accountability for months, said Hall’s resignation was a sign that protests have not gone unheard. “It was the reassurance that the community needed,” Brown said. “They are out here and people are noticing and people are feeling it. The pressure is being applied the right way without destruction.” “This is our first real win,” Brown said. Brown wants to see more transparency from the next chief: “Somebody who is going to hold her officers accountable. Somebody for sure who won’t assault peaceful protesters.”
The BLM movement has been successful in training the press and protesters to call the protests peaceful. Tell that to injured cops or to the families of police who have been killed. It’s no wonder we are witnessing the string of resignations coming from chiefs of police and law enforcement officers from police departments across the country. Local officials don’t support law enforcement. Chief Hall came in with a mandate for police reform, which she embraced. The rise in crime in Dallas, though, led to criticism of her leadership abilities. Apparently, the police unions “turned on her”, according to one city councilman. Council member Lee Kleinman sums it up nicely – “It just reinforces why we should not be letting unions contribute to political campaigns.”


hotair--2020-09-09--Joy Behar: Let's face it. The electoral college needs some changes

Allow me to just say that for someone who has never once watched a single episode of The View , I certainly wind up seeing it , hearing about it and even writing about it more than I would have expected .
That happened again this week after social media began lighting up over the latest bit of craziness from co-host Joy Behar .
She ’ s no stranger to sticking her foot in her mouth , but with the election fast approaching and Joe Biden slipping in the polls , Behar and her fellow liberals are growing increasingly nervous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joy has a solution to this “ problem ” and it ’ s easy as pie .
We just need to get rid of the electoral college or at least “ change ” it and everything will be right as rain again .
( The Hill ) “ I ’ m worried that Trump could pull this off .
We see the polls and we see Biden is leading … but the Russian interference is alive and kicking .
Facebook is continuing to leave all the lies on the pages .
The Postal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behar , a frequent and ardent Trump critic said Tuesday .
“ The electoral college is an issue and a problem .
In the history of the United States , there were four presidents who won without the popular vote because of the electoral college , ” Behar continued .
“ I think it ’ s ridiculous that a few states , a handful of states , determine my future .
It ’ s ridiculous , so why bother voting in the rest of the country ?
They need to change the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a video available from the show ’ s Twitter feed so you can hear the full tone and attitude on display .
You ’ ll want to turn the sound on , though , as the closed captioning is a mess .
If you listened to the introduction to that clip , Behar had a laundry list of other concerns leading her to worry about Biden ’ s prospects .
She actually starts with a particularly valid one , questioning whether or not the nation was lining up with Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also seems to grudgingly give a nod to the fact that the presentations at the RNC were more on point and effective than the show that the Democrats organized .
But then she delves into a list of conspiracy theories about the Russians , Facebook ’ s failure to shut down the President ’ s statements and mysterious individuals stealing mailboxes .
All of that was only a prelude to the big knock on the electoral college .
It ’ s ridiculous , you see .
Only a handful of states “ determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone else bother voting ?
So “ they ” ( whoever “ they ” might be ) need to “ change ” the electoral college as soon as possible .
Hoo boy .
That ’ s a lot of malarkey shoved into a tight space to unpack .
First of all , the electoral college is not the reason we have “ battleground states ” beyond the fact that we organized the nation in the form of a group of states , to begin with .
( Hint : the name “ United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ random . )
We have battleground states due to the migratory patterns of Americans with different ideological views piling up in many regions .
That leaves a handful of states “ in play ” during the general election in most years .
But those lines could have fallen anywhere and they continue to shift over time .
Examples of this can be found in states like Michigan that seem to be showing more of a conservative streak and the formerly reliably red state of Texas seeing significant inroads being made by liberal Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should bother voting , well… if they don ’ t , then your argument about the electoral college evaporates .
There is only a “ red wall ” and a “ blue wall ” in America right now because so many of those people do go out and vote .
If we didn ’ t have any remaining battleground states , there would be little point in bothering to hold elections because we ’ d all know how it would play out before the voting even began .
As to the unspecified “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the electoral college , that would be all of the citizens of the country .
If enough people really wanted to do away with it , there would be a constitutional amendment either modifying or abolishing it and the job would already be done .
But Behar and her ilk don ’ t hold nearly as much of a unanimous view on that subject as she may think .
A slight majority are in favor of going to a popular vote model , but not nearly enough to get such a proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states you would need to approve such a change .
( Absent the calling of a new Constitutional Convention , of course . )
So the college isn ’ t going anywhere in the foreseeable future , I ’ m afraid .
Honestly , is this what passes for political analysis on the morning talk shows ?
I ’ m amazed they ’ ve stayed on the air for this long .

Allow me to just say that for someone who has never once watched a single episode of The View, I certainly wind up seeing it, hearing about it and even writing about it more than I would have expected. That happened again this week after social media began lighting up over the latest bit of craziness from co-host Joy Behar. She’s no stranger to sticking her foot in her mouth, but with the election fast approaching and Joe Biden slipping in the polls, Behar and her fellow liberals are growing increasingly nervous. But fear not, campers. Joy has a solution to this “problem” and it’s easy as pie. We just need to get rid of the electoral college or at least “change” it and everything will be right as rain again. (The Hill)
“I’m worried that Trump could pull this off. We see the polls and we see Biden is leading … but the Russian interference is alive and kicking. Facebook is continuing to leave all the lies on the pages. The Postal Service is being interfered with,” Behar, a frequent and ardent Trump critic said Tuesday. “The electoral college is an issue and a problem. In the history of the United States, there were four presidents who won without the popular vote because of the electoral college,” Behar continued. “I think it’s ridiculous that a few states, a handful of states, determine my future. It’s ridiculous, so why bother voting in the rest of the country? They need to change the electoral college as soon as possible.”
There’s a video available from the show’s Twitter feed so you can hear the full tone and attitude on display. You’ll want to turn the sound on, though, as the closed captioning is a mess.
TRUMP’S “LAW & ORDER” MESSAGE WORKING? With the presidential election eight weeks out, the co-hosts react to Pres. Trump pushing his “law and order” agenda and question if it will resonate with voters. https://t.co/1091s9WYqN pic.twitter.com/zWb9c7dlgh — The View (@TheView) September 8, 2020
If you listened to the introduction to that clip, Behar had a laundry list of other concerns leading her to worry about Biden’s prospects. She actually starts with a particularly valid one, questioning whether or not the nation was lining up with Trump’s law and order agenda. She also seems to grudgingly give a nod to the fact that the presentations at the RNC were more on point and effective than the show that the Democrats organized. But then she delves into a list of conspiracy theories about the Russians, Facebook’s failure to shut down the President’s statements and mysterious individuals stealing mailboxes.
All of that was only a prelude to the big knock on the electoral college. It’s ridiculous, you see. Only a handful of states “determine her future,” so why should anyone else bother voting? So “they” (whoever “they” might be) need to “change” the electoral college as soon as possible.
Hoo boy. That’s a lot of malarkey shoved into a tight space to unpack. First of all, the electoral college is not the reason we have “battleground states” beyond the fact that we organized the nation in the form of a group of states, to begin with. (Hint: the name “United States” wasn’t chosen at random.) We have battleground states due to the migratory patterns of Americans with different ideological views piling up in many regions. That leaves a handful of states “in play” during the general election in most years. But those lines could have fallen anywhere and they continue to shift over time. Examples of this can be found in states like Michigan that seem to be showing more of a conservative streak and the formerly reliably red state of Texas seeing significant inroads being made by liberal Democrats.
As to asking why anyone else should bother voting, well… if they don’t, then your argument about the electoral college evaporates. There is only a “red wall” and a “blue wall” in America right now because so many of those people do go out and vote. If we didn’t have any remaining battleground states, there would be little point in bothering to hold elections because we’d all know how it would play out before the voting even began.
As to the unspecified “they” who need to “change” the electoral college, that would be all of the citizens of the country. If enough people really wanted to do away with it, there would be a constitutional amendment either modifying or abolishing it and the job would already be done. But Behar and her ilk don’t hold nearly as much of a unanimous view on that subject as she may think. A slight majority are in favor of going to a popular vote model, but not nearly enough to get such a proposal over the finish line in the 34 states you would need to approve such a change. (Absent the calling of a new Constitutional Convention, of course.) So the college isn’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future, I’m afraid.
Honestly, is this what passes for political analysis on the morning talk shows? I’m amazed they’ve stayed on the air for this long.