ChrisWeigant.com

Election Day Starts Tomorrow

[ Posted Thursday, September 3rd, 2020 – 16:43 UTC ]

Tomorrow, two months before the third of November, the general election for president will already have begun. North Carolina will begin absentee voting, with all the other states to follow in the coming days and weeks. How it will all play out is anyone's guess, at this point.

When I say that, I'm not talking so much about the result of the election as the mechanics of voting this year. In normal times, both parties would now be urging their base to vote early, whether in person (at an early-voting polling site) or by absentee/mail-in ballot. This is called "banking votes," because once those votes are turned in it doesn't matter what else happens in the campaign, the vote is "safe in the bank" for one candidate or the other. This helps dampen the effect of any last-minute surprises (October or otherwise) on the actual vote count.

This year, of course, is different in a number of important ways. Mail-in voting is going to account for a much larger percentage of the total vote than ever before. This may lead to delays in finding out who won. Election Night could stretch into Election Week or even Election Month, in other words. In reality, things may not be this bad (although it remains a distinct possibility). In states where one candidate has a huge and obvious lead, the victor will be known fairly early on, as usual. In states where the lead is closer, it will depend on how efficient they are in counting their mail-in votes. Some will be more efficient than others, as we saw during the primaries. So in perhaps half of them (just to randomly make a guess), the victor will most likely also be known within 24 (or perhaps 48) hours of the polls shutting. The real question is when we reach the point -- where we know the winner in all the obvious states and all the efficient-but-close states -- will it add up to a 270-vote Electoral College victory? If the answer to that is "yes," then it simply will not matter how long the other states take to count their votes, because at that point the only difference will be in the overall margin of victory -- and not who actually won.

If, however, neither candidate has 270 Electoral College votes, then we can expect a flurry of lawsuits (and perhaps worse) challenging the counting in all the states which have not reported a winner. This will be ugly, even in the best-case scenario. It will make Bush v. Gore look like a Sunday-school picnic.

This whole situation is currently in flux. Right now, in many states Republican voters are being told two contradictory things. Their state Republican Party is urging them (as usual) to vote early, by mail or otherwise. President Trump, however, is throwing as much sand into the machinery of mail-in voting as he possibly can, aided and abetted by his lickspittle attorney general (both of whom are now full-blown conspiracy theorists on the subject). Trump even just illegally urged North Carolina voters to vote twice -- a felony, mind you -- both by mail-in ballot and in person. Trump is succeeding in sowing lots of confusion around the issue, but then sowing confusion is one of Trump's strong points.

Democratic voters, on the other hand, have largely embraced the concept of mail-in voting, because they are much more prone to take the entire coronavirus pandemic threat seriously. This could change, however, as a different scenario is now being considered. What if most of the in-person voting on Election Day is Republican while most of the mail-in voting is Democratic? This would mean the GOP votes would get counted first, and reported in real-time that night. The Democratic votes would be delayed, which would lead to Trump insisting that the initial Election-Day-only vote is the "real" vote and all the other ballots are somehow "fake." If a state's vote count flipped from Trump to Biden after a day or two of counting, then Trump will begin saying the election was being stolen from him. This is not any kind of stretch to imagine, as Trump has already floated this idea, several times.

But we've still got two months to go. So what happens if Democratic voters, en masse, decided to forgo mail-in voting and vote in person, so that their votes would also be counted on Election Day? This would avoid the "late votes breaking heavily Democratic" problem altogether. With another two months of living with masks and social distancing, perhaps more voters will feel safe enough to go vote in person. This may depend on the state of the pandemic in October, which is impossible to now predict. But it certainly is possible that more Democrats decide to vote in person than expected, making both the mail-in vote and the Election Day vote a lot more balanced.

This would require a mass movement, however, whether led by Democratic politicians or from the grassroots. A whole lot of Democrats would have to commit to voting in person to swing the needle, in other words, and it remains to be seen whether this will happen or not. How many Democratic voters have even heard of the scenario where all the GOP votes are counted early while their votes will be delayed? The story hasn't gotten all that much coverage, but if the political pundits (and the late-night comics, to give them their due) all start talking about it in a big way, then it might just percolate through the electorate.

Of course, the election could always go a lot more smoothly than anyone now expects. It's just as much a possibility as a chaotic outcome. Nobody's going to care if (for instance) California, Oklahoma, New York, or Mississippi take an extra few days before certifying their results, because in each case it will already be obvious which presidential candidate is going to win the state. If Joe Biden (or, to be fair, Donald Trump) wins in such a landslide that even the battleground states are mostly irrelevant, then it won't matter how many lawsuits are filed, the result will wind up being the same (even if the margin of victory changes). But if multiple states are very close, and if in all of these states the vote count takes days on end, then we will be in for a very bumpy ride indeed.

At this point, I don't have any particular advice for any voters out there, other than to echo the message given during the Democratic National Convention: make a voting plan. Decide how and when you are going to vote. Double-check to make sure your voter registration is valid and up-to-date, and re-register if necessary. Know the rules (and the deadlines) for either requesting a mail-in ballot or voting in person. Get your absentee request in as early as possible. If you vote by mail, do that as early as possible, too (to avoid any Post Office problems). If you vote in person, make sure you know where your local precinct's voting site is. Make a plan to block off enough time on Election Day to vote, and make a plan for how to get there. Leave nothing to chance. Leave nothing until the last minute. Get the information you need, make a plan, and then stick to it.

Voters in North Carolina will be the first in the nation to be able to complete this process, starting tomorrow. The rest of the nation will soon follow (well, most of the rest of the nation, except in those states which have kept in place outdated and Draconian rules for absentee ballots). As a political pundit, I have in the past often scoffed at the notion that "this election is the most important in our lifetimes," because it is so regularly overused. This time I do not scoff. Far from it. Everyone needs to get out there and vote like their lives depended on it -- especially those Democrats who live in battleground states.

Election Day starts tomorrow. Are you ready?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

74 Comments on “Election Day Starts Tomorrow”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What if most of the in-person voting on Election Day is Republican while most of the mail-in voting is Democratic? This would mean the GOP votes would get counted first, and reported in real-time that night. The Democratic votes would be delayed, which would lead to Trump insisting that the initial Election-Day-only vote is the "real" vote and all the other ballots are somehow "fake." If a state's vote count flipped from Trump to Biden after a day or two of counting, then Trump will begin saying the election was being stolen from him. This is not any kind of stretch to imagine, as Trump has already floated this idea, several times.

    Isn't it settled election analysis that more than 60% of Trump supporters say they will vote in-person while more than 70% of Biden's supporters say they will vote by mail?

    That is a recipe for disaster, no matter how you slice it, unless Biden wins very bigly, bigger than any Democratic candidate for president, ever has. I love Biden but, he ain't gonna win in a landslide of any description. Bet the farm on that, even if it's in Iowa!

    Of course, all bets are off if Trump declares, as my other favourite political analyst, William Bradley, said today, that he is a Russian agent. Heh. Sigh.

    As Bradley points out, the lopsided victory that Trump may believe he has on election night before all the mail in votes have a chance to be counted may be difficult to unravel ... unless "all those mail votes are counted. Or arrive. Or exist."

    If this doesn't get out the Democratic vote - however it's cast - I'm afraid nothing will. :(

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    Love to know your thoughts on the police killing of Daniel Prude. Which occurred five months ago ...

    Putting a plastic bag over his head? Are you freakin' kidding me!!!???

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That was a generic you not a you you but, I know you know that. :)

  4. [4] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    CW-

    I was surprised you didn't mention vote.org for those who may need help figuring out how to vote.

    It is a great site with all sorts of tools to help you check your registration, register if needed, request a ballot, and will send you reminders about when you can vote. it also has a bunch of other information.

    All in all a pretty handy site to have on tap.

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Election day may start tomorrow, but the campaigning never stops no matter the results from elections.

    In just about a month someone will start speculating about 2024 candidates.

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [2]

    Plastic bag? I have no interest in defending these homicidal cops, but I don't think that's correct.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Death Harris,

    I believe that Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo will run for prez in 2024.

    The End is near.

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The prospect of numerous death cult zombies being charged with voting twice is just fantastic and I mean that most sincerely.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what was it JFC?

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What was it that the police put over the head of Prude that made him suffocate. It might as well have been a plastic bag. Which was my point.

  11. [11] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Love to know your thoughts on the police killing of Daniel Prude. Which occurred five months ago ...

    I kid you not, when Devon told me about the death, all he had to say was:

    ”A naked mentally ill man, high on PCP, handcuffed and being restrained by officers, and forced to wear a ‘spit sock’,”

    and I stopped him and called the cause of death as:

    Apositional asphyxiation brought on by his being restrained; with PCP intoxication as a contributing factor in his death.

    And I had nailed it completely! This fit the description of excited delirium as I had learned about it years ago.. which goes like this:

    Imagine a caveman is being chased by a saber tooth tiger. He is running for his life, the tiger closing in on him, when suddenly the tiger pushes a tree down, pinning the caveman’s torso under it. He struggles to get out from under the tree, but he cannot. The weight of the tree on his back makes it harder and harder to breathe. The tiger is right in front of him, about to pounce and rip the caveman to pieces when the caveman’s body goes into complete cardiopulmonary failure — his body shuts itself off in order to prevent him from suffering what would likely be a slow, horrible death.

    While it is still simply a theory that humans may have this ability, other species that are prey have been found that do something similar to prevent them from experiencing a suffering-filled death. It is an evolutionary “kill switch” that triggers when our bodies believe that we are prey that has been hunted down and we realize that there is no way to escape. Once the switch is hit, there is no coming back — our bodies completely shut down — a total failure of all of our systems.

    And that concludes my tangent rant on excited delirium!

    As for Mr. Prude’s death, specifically, the officers did everything they are trained to do in this situation. PCP is a powerful drug that for some reason tends to give mentally unstable people what can only be described as “superhuman” strength while shutting off their pain receptors. I once witnessed a large Samoan on PCP get hit by three taser applications that did nothing to stop him. He tossed 200 lb. men like rag dolls. It took 15 -20 police officers almost an hour to finally restrain him.

    The “hood” is called a “spit sock” — a fully mesh device to prevent spit and bodily liquids from being projected out on officers while allowing air to flow freely in. The socks work so well that there is a chance that he drowned himself in his own spit, but that’s a risk spitters choose to take when they spit on others.

    This seems like the media is searching their archives for any story of a death of a black man in police custody over the past year that did not make national headlines so they can keep people believing this is all about racist cops picking on the innocent. The officers would have done the same thing in this situation regardless of the naked, spitting man on PCP’s race!

    Here is a much better question that people should be asking: Why did the hospital release someone in Mr. Prude’s condition? How do they justify releasing someone suffering from such clear mental problems and who was clearly a threat to himself and others?

  12. [12] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Geez, looking at my above post I now know that I was wrong when I said the “edible” I enjoyed earlier this afternoon did not effect me at all! Sorry for my rambling response!

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    sorry i asked

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, you can be sure that I won't ever ask again.

  15. [15] 
    Kick wrote:

    Forewarned is forearmed, but I don't understand the veritable "freak out" I'm seeing in the media about the election dragging on for a month; no, I'm not referring to CW here, other media.

    If you're voting absentee or voting by mail and know who you're voting for: Vote the minute you get your ballot. As you already know, the rules are different all over the nation. As you may not already know, there are many states where absentee ballots can be counted early. Meaning: If you vote absentee and as early as you possibly can, in many states, your ballot could be counted before election votes are cast on November 3.

    ----------------------------------------------
    Example 1
    Colorado
    Law: C.R.S.A. Sections 1-7.5-107.5
    Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing Can Begin: Upon receipt.
    Absentee/Mail Ballot Counting Can Begin: Fifteen days before Election Day. The vote count cannot be released until after 7 p.m. on Election Day.

    Example 2
    Ohio
    Law: Ohio Rev. Code Section 3509.06
    Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing Can Begin: Processing may begin before the time for counting ballots. Exact timing not specified.
    Absentee/Mail Ballot Counting Can Begin: Absentee ballots may be scanned prior to the election, but the count may not be disclosed prior to the closing of the polls.
    ----------------------------------------------

    So you see, a lot of ballots will be counted before the election day ballots are even cast. Vote as early as you can. Counting ballots generally finishes in the smaller counties first because obviously they're smaller. If the majority of ballots are returned early, they'll be counted early.

    So get that ballot in the mail or vote early in person.

    Here's a helpful list:

    https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx

    If, for instance, Trump were to lose Ohio... we'll know before the other ballots are counted that he's lost the election. Do I believe Trump will lose Ohio? Every poll I have seen is within the margin of error. If Democrats GOTV -- get out the vote -- Trump could lose Ohio. Is it likely? I don't think so at the current time. Could it happen? You bet your butt, it could.

    Another clue: North Carolina begins counting two weeks before election day. If we were to find out on Wednesday that Biden had flipped North Carolina, that'll be another clue that things are going Biden's way.

    Unfortunately, many states don't begin counting until election day, and several of them are swing states, including Florida. If we find out Biden won Florida, it wouldn't be impossible for Trump to win... oh, yeah, it basically would be dang near impossible for Trump to win without Florida, but Biden has led in the polls in Florida for months.

    One thing we know for sure: Trump will cheat. He used Rudy Giuliani and some pro-Trump FBI agents in 2016 to strong-arm Comey into that email that was leaked by Jason Chaffetz (who resigned in 2017 to spend more time with his family *shakes head*) so we know Trump will cheat... so vote like democracy depends on it... because it does.

  16. [16] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that's the trouble with our media culture - every news agency is trying so hard to find a new story to fit their desired narrative that they frequently run with cases that are either much more complicated or completely inconsistent with that narrative. as a result, the real, legitimate cases can get lost in the crowd. then donald trump cries "fake news" and people believe him because they've already been conditioned to suspect news stories of being false (or at least a LOT more nuanced than they're portrayed).

    JL

  17. [17] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant

    Election Day starts tomorrow. Are you ready?

    Where I come from, we don't say we're "Red-ie."
    We say: Let's flip this *itch Blue. ;)

    Got a big spatula. Some more of Texas is flipping. Count on it.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    He used Rudy Giuliani and some pro-Trump FBI agents in 2016 to strong-arm Comey into that email that was leaked by Jason Chaffetz

    Nobody strong-armed Comey into anything, least of all Rudy Giuliani. Sorry, couldn't let that false assertion go unanswered.

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    18

    Nobody strong-armed Comey into anything, least of all Rudy Giuliani.

    You are incorrect.

    Sorry, couldn't let that false assertion go unanswered.

    The only false assertion belongs to you, EM, since you are quite obviously misrepresenting what I wrote. Try reading it again without removing the part that explains Trump used Rudy Giuliani and some pro-Trump FBI agents (plural) to strong-arm Comey. They're called "cutouts" in the vernacular.
    ______________________

    Example 1
    Trump --> Giuliani --> Multiple FBI Agents --> Comey --> Congress

    Example 2
    Trump --> Stone --> Corsi --> Assange --> Multiple Russians --> Putin

    Example 3
    Trump --> Giuliani --> Toensing/DeGenova --> Lutsenko --> Poroshenko
    ______________________

    Example 3 is the (partial/incomplete) chain of cutouts used in an attempt to frame Ukraine and clear Trump/multiple others as well as Russians/multiple others who interfered in the 2016 elections while simultaneously "taking out" Joe Biden from the 2020 race, among a whole lot of other things. Attempt failed. Trump impeached. More coming.

    Teaser: Why do you suppose Rick Perry just "disappeared" in connection with the Ukraine scandal? Bribery.

    Trump is Putin's puppet. Full stop. Time to wake up, America.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I'm afraid you are still wrong about anybody strong-arming Comey, misinterpretation or no.

    Many people have the wrong impression about just what sort of chap Comey is. But, that's okay, there will always be someone around to set the record straight. :)

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick [17],

    Espatula!!!

    https://youtu.be/iTtQVffV-oM

  22. [22] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [16]

    that's the trouble with our media culture - every news agency is trying so hard to find a new story to fit their desired narrative that they frequently run with cases that are either much more complicated or completely inconsistent with that narrative. as a result, the real, legitimate cases can get lost in the crowd.

    THANK YOU! It is getting out of control, too! The WAPost’s articles on Mr. Prude’s death and the article first detailing Breonna Taylor’s death gave long narratives of what occurred that the authors do not tell you until near the end had been taken directly from the lawsuits filed against the city/police department. These aren’t being quoted directly, but instead are summaries of the lawsuit’s claims. Just how fair and balanced is that type of journalism? No wonder the police are all viewed as racists and bullies — that is the only side of the story being reported. The fact that PCP was involved in the Prude case was not mentioned until 3/4 of the way through the article.

    Same thing for the McClain death in Aurora, CO. The first article I read failed to mention that his cause of death was from an overdose of ketamine given to him by medics — An omission that seems oddly convenient in a story blaming the police for causing his death!

    Then there is the Blake shooting — which blows my mind that people think Blake is the innocent victim just being attacked because he is black.

    Blake had an arrest warrant out on him for sexual assault. When the first officer attempted to handcuff him, Blake resisted and put the officer in a headlock (so odd to see journalists correctly referring to it as a “headlock” instead of how they typically refer to it — a “chokehold”.)

    Blake is being ordered to surrender this whole time, but his refusal at obeying lawful commands does not make for good stories, apparently, as it goes unreported. Then officers attempted to taser Blake, but that fails to stop him.

    Then comes the part of the video that we have seen in the news played over and over, but that everyone only seems to watch the last 5 seconds of while ignoring what led to it. You have the Officer with his gun pointed at Blake ordering him to stop and not to open the car door where a weapon could possibly be. The Officer is literally grabbing Blake’s shirt trying to pull him back to prevent him from opening the car door because at that point Blake will have to be shot for everyone’s safety. Does he have a pipe bomb in there and plans on killing himself and his kids?

    Most of us when we have a gun pointed at us are going to do whatever the person pointing it at us tells us to do! If they say “Jump!”, we will jump! If they say, “Sing your favorite song from Hamilton,” you are gonna hear my best attempt at channeling Christopher Jackson belting out “One Last Time”. My point is that when officer’s have their guns pointed at you, it means that whether I will live to see tomorrow is going to be determined by what I CHOOSE TO DO!

    The officers had done everything they could do to get Blake to do what they required of him, what did Blake think would happen next if he Ignored their orders? You think they are just going to let you drive away when you are literally dragging a cop grabbing your shirt with one hand, trying to pull you back from opening the vehicle’s door while pointing his gun at you with his other hand???

    It is because of these stories being reported the way they are that young black men believe they are in the right to do whatever they want to when dealing with the police and they will be heroes if the police dare try to stop them! Last night, Devon was on a call assisting one of the county’s Sheriff’s deputies on a domestic violence charge at a party. They had both parties outside, separated, and were questioning them when a young black man who was at the party but not involved walked over - drunkenly - and without saying a word, he took a swing at the deputy’s head ... and missed! He ends up face down, handcuffed, and under arrest, drunk off his ass, screaming that the police had attacked him only because he was black in America!

    The deputy got in his face and screamed that he had not been targeted by the police at all... no one was talking to him when he took a swing at the deputy. I asked Devon if we could take a vacation when he is eventually suspended for being near by once the press gets ahold of this story and portrays him as a racist bigot for doing his job, but he said “No promises!”

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick (17)-
    Why you would want to flip to the side that has already burned is beyond me.

    But if you need a bigger spatula:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BUDwj_mXKE

  24. [24] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    sorry I asked

    And, you can be sure that I won't ever ask again.

    Gee, I am the one who is sorry! I am sorry that I did not realize that you weren’t actually interested in my opinion; you simply wanted me to agree with what you had said!

    Let’s take a look and see if maybe we can figure out why I failed you so miserably:

    Love to know your thoughts on the police killing of Daniel Prude. Which occurred five months ago ...

    Putting a plastic bag over his head? Are you freakin' kidding me!!!???
    <

    My first thought is that the police did not kill Daniel Prude. He died while in their custody. The way you stated it paints a very different picture than what actually occurred. It’s like describing a woman as someone who “killed her first child” because she had an abortion after she was raped as a teenager and became pregnant.

    And whoever told you that the police put “a plastic bag over his head” was obviously kidding you — or they were lying to you. Either way, it is clear by your wording of the question to me that you have chosen to continue spreading the disinformation along to others! It was not a “plastic bag”. It was a mesh sock that has elastic at both ends to fit over your head. Think: bee keeper’s protective mask. Air freely moves through the mesh. It doesn’t press against the wearer’s face. In fact, it shares almost no qualities with a “plastic bag”. The very notion that a police officer would seal a plastic bag over the face of someone should be so ridiculous that it would be laughable for someone to state it... yet here we are. It is still ridiculous to think an officer would do that, it is just sad that people now fail to see how ridiculous it truly is.

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Am I ready?

    So far so good. I am tracking my absentee ballot by internet. My ballot has been issued, it has not yet been mailed...I expect to see it flagged as "in the mail" by Monday and see it my mail box by Wed. If not sooner.

    This my first absentee vote, but projections indicate a 3rd wave of COVID is very likely by Election Day. Why accept a needless risk of infection? Should the Post Office fail me, I'll accept the risk and cast a provisional ballot in person.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    And whoever told you that the police put “a plastic bag over his head”

    Actually, I came up with that description all by myself cough coughGino Vanellicough cough based just on a video I saw after hearing that Prude suffocated.

    What was it? A hood? A spit sock? Well, whatever the hell it was, it was suffocating cough cough Sam Smith Spectrecough cough, even as it performed its protective duty.

    So, same result as if it had been a plastic bag. Which was my only point, asinine or no. :)

    So, if not the spit sock, what suffocated Prude? Let me guess, the police, who were called to help, had nothing to do with it, he would have suffocated anyways. Sigh.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It really pains me to see how it can be construed that there is no such thing as an unjustified homicide at the hands of police because they are simply doing their job.

    I haven't heard yet how the murder of the Black guy who was shot seven times at point blank range is justified. But, I can guess. I'm pretty good at that by now.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You may not know this about me but, sometimes I can get into a nasty combative mood and I can't get out.

    My bark is way worse than my bite, though, in other words.

    And, I do respect your opinions and I do always want to hear what you're thinking. Seriously!

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    20

    I'm afraid you are still wrong about anybody strong-arming Comey, misinterpretation or no.

    I'm perfectly okay with you volunteering yet again to tell me how wrong I am. I lost count the number of times you told me (and Russ too) how wrong we were about Biden and how well you knew him. Keep that crow handy. Then again, that fact I posted about Comey might never see the light of day depending on backroom negotiations and other things. Time will tell.

    Many people have the wrong impression about just what sort of chap Comey is.

    I know, right!? There are actually people out there who think Comey is some sort of superhuman "chap" who could never be cajoled or strong-armed into doing something against long-standing DOJ policy, and Comey might actually fall into that category himself, but I keep assuring them all that Comey is indeed a human just like the rest of us. Also, those who keep referring to the incident in question as Comey being "blackmailed" get a stiff talking to by me and mine that Comey isn't the kind of "chap" that could be "blackmailed" but that he is definitely human -- despite his own determination to present himself to the contrary -- and definitely and without question a product of the "system" and, as such, has spent multiple decades "negotiating" and being negotiated by/with the very different facets of the FBI both from within it and without.

    There really are three distinct FBIs. There are the field offices all over planet Earth, there is Washington DC, and then there is -- Lord, help us all -- New York... and FBI New York is leaky and leaks, a fact certainly well known among those who know, and the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and product of the system definitely does know, hoo boy how he does know.

    But, that's okay, there will always be someone around to set the record straight. :)

    Yes, I certainly will.

    Now please tell me more about how Biden will never choose one of the VP candidates I told you about more than a year before he picked her and how I am "wrong about Biden." Your repetitive insistence that "you know Biden" and "you know Comey" better than anyone else is amusing and makes me laugh, and I need a good laugh right now because I'm busier than a one-armed man with a big spatula in a district flipping contest working to flip more congressional seats in Texas for y'all. It'll be TX-23 this year... flip, flip, really big flip, and maybe a couple more if things turn out well. :)

  30. [30] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    21

    Espatula!!!

    https://youtu.be/iTtQVffV-oM

    That's what I'm talking about, JL!

    Really big "espatula" for flipping bigly 800 miles of border TX-23. Well, we're working on it for y'all. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't.

    Another election and on to the next one... come what may. :)

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, Russ, of course the people with whom the police end up dealing with in life and death situations are not usually saints. Yes, they are often hardened criminals or, at the very least, are not in total compliance with the law and even resisting arrest for whatever reason.

    Even so, I have concluded that what we are seeing in most of these many publicized police-involved deaths of Black suspects (and, they always seem to be Black citizens who end up dead in these events) are police resorting to using deadly force or failing to understand that their actions may cause the death of someone in their custody or in the act of resisting arrest when even just a little less than deadly force could have resulted in a better outcome for all concerned, including for the officers who end up taking the life of someone.

    I will always remember the officer we all saw in a night time stand-off at close range with an armed man and the officer had his gun aimed at the guy who was armed and the officer kept saying stop, I don't want to kill you - he must have pleaded with the guy a dozen times. No shots were fired and it ended peacefully. I'd like to know what that officer thinks about all of these incidents and whether he has any advice for his brethren.

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    22

    Same thing for the McClain death in Aurora, CO. The first article I read failed to mention that his cause of death was from an overdose of ketamine given to him by medics — An omission that seems oddly convenient in a story blaming the police for causing his death!

    Oh, I agree with you on this one, Russ. The medics likely caused McClain's death. No one will be able to prove it, though. Paramedics and emergency medical teams are generally allowed to administer sedatives to patients during arrest and are protected under qualified immunity to do so. The use of sedatives is not -- as yet -- considered to have been proven to be use of "excessive force" in multiple cases tried to date.

    Then there is the Blake shooting — which blows my mind that people think Blake is the innocent victim just being attacked because he is black.

    Now, I do believe we have an excessive force issue with this one, though, regardless of Blake's outstanding warrant issue, but I need more facts to decide. Bring it.

    The Officer is literally grabbing Blake’s shirt trying to pull him back to prevent him from opening the car door because at that point Blake will have to be shot for everyone’s safety.

    Seven times for "everyone's" safety!?

    Does he have a pipe bomb in there and plans on killing himself and his kids?

    I know, right!? No one on the planet could prove at that point in time that Blake didn't have a small nuclear device in a briefcase "in there" and planned on blowing up a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Who knows? There could have been large wheel of cheese "in there" which Blake could have used as a projectile weapon... we're talking Wisconsin, you know, eh? /sarcasm off.

    Russ, I'm teasing you because you're doing that pretzel thing I love so much about you. I do hear what you're saying, though, and that's the important thing. :)

    Most of us when we have a gun pointed at us are going to do whatever the person pointing it at us tells us to do! If they say “Jump!”, we will jump! If they say, “Sing your favorite song from Hamilton,” you are gonna hear my best attempt at channeling Christopher Jackson belting out “One Last Time”.

    Then you will need a right-hand man; I'll be your Hamilton:

    One last time.

    Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. I shall also carry with me... the hope... ~ Hamilton written for Washington

    *
    Will you cry at the end too because it's literally your last performance?

    My point is that when officer’s have their guns pointed at you, it means that whether I will live to see tomorrow is going to be determined by what I CHOOSE TO DO!

    Indeed. 'Tis true, 'tis true.
    History has it's eyes on you.

    The officers had done everything they could do to get Blake to do what they required of him, what did Blake think would happen next if he Ignored their orders? You think they are just going to let you drive away when you are literally dragging a cop grabbing your shirt with one hand, trying to pull you back from opening the vehicle’s door while pointing his gun at you with his other hand???

    Not throwing my shot, right? All seven of them. ;)

    It is because of these stories being reported the way they are that young black men believe they are in the right to do whatever they want to when dealing with the police and they will be heroes if the police dare try to stop them!

    A bridge too far, I think. Lumping "young black men" in one category is at at least as foolish as lumping "police" in one category too.

    Last night, Devon was on a call assisting one of the county’s Sheriff’s deputies on a domestic violence charge at a party. They had both parties outside, separated, and were questioning them when a young black man who was at the party but not involved walked over - drunkenly - and without saying a word, he took a swing at the deputy’s head ... and missed! He ends up face down, handcuffed, and under arrest, drunk off his ass, screaming that the police had attacked him only because he was black in America!

    Stupid move... mind-altering substances and reasoning skills don't mix well. Did Devon explain to him that he would indeed be the same color in any other country?

    I asked Devon if we could take a vacation when he is eventually suspended for being near by once the press gets ahold of this story and portrays him as a racist bigot for doing his job, but he said “No promises!”

    Sounds familiar to me. I know you are resourceful enough to wangle it, though, Russ. Work your magic and report back how you cajoled Devon into a vacation. At least get a commitment for a staycation. Threaten to rip up the new floor or withhold something or offer something in a quid pro quo. I know you can reason with him; he seems reasonable.

    Love you more. :)

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    Death Harris
    23

    Why you would want to flip to the side that has already burned is beyond me.

    Everything is "beyond" you, Death Harris; you needn't keep reminding any of us in the comments section of that fact.

    But if you need a bigger spatula.

    If you think I'm clicking that link, you're crazy. That was my EM impression.

    Thank you for your concern *shakes head*, but my spatula needs no improvement; yours, on the other hand, is a flipping failure. :)

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    24

    Gee, I am the one who is sorry! I am sorry that I did not realize that you weren’t actually interested in my opinion; you simply wanted me to agree with what you had said!

    She has a reputation for claiming she knows more about people than others... gotta watch that one. ;)

    Let’s take a look and see if maybe we can figure out why I failed you so miserably:

    Uh, oh... hammer time.

    The very notion that a police officer would seal a plastic bag over the face of someone should be so ridiculous that it would be laughable for someone to state it... yet here we are.

    Exactly this. :)

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    TheStig
    25

    Am I ready?

    Weigantia's first voter. You are thusly honored, sir, and you are required to keep us posted on your efforts.

    So far so good. I am tracking my absentee ballot by internet. My ballot has been issued, it has not yet been mailed...I expect to see it flagged as "in the mail" by Monday and see it my mail box by Wed. If not sooner.

    Let us know how long it takes from date of mailing. We'll be demanding dates and expecting details. ;)

    This my first absentee vote, but projections indicate a 3rd wave of COVID is very likely by Election Day. Why accept a needless risk of infection?

    If you have a choice; it's an easy choice that also has the added benefit of creating a paper ballot.

    Should the Post Office fail me, I'll accept the risk and cast a provisional ballot in person.

    Vote early, and remember:

    Person
    Woman
    Man
    Vote
    Biden/Harris. :)

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    26

    So, same result as if it had been a plastic bag. Which was my only point, asinine or no. :)

    Asinine. :)

    So, if not the spit sock, what suffocated Prude? Let me guess, the police, who were called to help, had nothing to do with it, he would have suffocated anyways. Sigh.

    It's under investigation and has been for months so let's not jump to conclusions. People breathing don't generally have plastic bags placed over their heads by law enforcement in America, although I did once see an otherwise clean plastic trash bag placed over a head injury in order to confine the bleeding into the waste receptacle until paramedics arrived... respiratory functions not impeded in any way, though.

    Bagging is generally reserved for the deceased in order to preserve forensic evidence. Full stop.

  37. [37] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT FOR CLARITY

    Bagging the head is generally reserved for the deceased in order to preserve forensic evidence. Full stop.

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I know that seven shots is a lot to fire... but “you don’t stop shooting as long as they are still moving” towards a weapon. I have read two differing accounts on how many bullets actually struck Blake: he either took 3 to the back and 1 in the arm OR 4 in the back and 1 in the arm. And his refusing to stop where he was and to not open the vehicle door (where he had supposedly told officers he had a knife) was while at gunpoint were clear indicators that he was going to use his weapon if he could get to it. The officer shot until the threat was no more.

    Does that sound extremely callous? Of course it does, because it is. It is a human life we are discussing, after all. Blake is still alive. That fact kinda helps to justify the 7 shots. “Excessive” is firing more shots into a corpse, not a person struggling to get to a weapon.

    How are you, my sweet, sweet friend? Did ya’ll get any damage from the Hurricane in your area? Stay safe and know that someone in WA has your back! Big hugs!

    -Russ

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick 35-

    To be clear, I have simply received electronic confirmation that my absentee ballot is approved and entering the mail stream. When it shows up at my house I cannot return it for a couple of weeks (it's unclear what happens if you jump the gun). When I do return it, it wll not be by US Mail, I will drop it off at The County Board of Elections myself. There is supposed to be a drop box outside the bulding, but I'll probably just walk it inside.....unless COVID is flaring white hot and there is a line at the County Board Door. Accomplish the mission with the least risk. Live to vote again in a Trump-Free World....fingers crossed.

  40. [40] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    Many people have the wrong impression about just what sort of chap Comey is.

    I'm under the impression that he's a Republican. He behaves just like one.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Shocking. Positively shocking.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    You really surprise me sometimes. Your impression of Comey is about as far from the truth of who Comey is as one could possibly be.

    But, I understand that when it is believed that Comey is the reason behind Hillary's incredible presidential election loss to none other than Trump - she lost to Trump, for God's sake!!!!!!????? - it's hard to see Comey as anything more than a Trump Republican. That doesn't make it so, though ... ahem.

    I also understand that Hillary's loss cuts to the bone and beyond. All too well. But, then again, if she had won, Biden wouldn't finally be on the verge of possibly being POTUS so, I'm a little conflicted about what happened in 2016 ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure that you do! :)

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sheee-it. This is an old thread and it sure is done.

  44. [44] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Your impression of Comey is about as far from the truth of who Comey is as one could possibly be.

    No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure he's a Republican.

    My impression is that you want Biden to hire him, but that would be a huge error. There is nothing he could bring to the table that some Democrat couldn't. The number of Americans who would view that hire as a good idea would be very small.

    I do believe that what he did damaged HilRod, but even if it didn't, it was unacceptable. He should have revealed the Trump investigation as well or kept his mouth shut.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My impression is that you want Biden to hire him, but that would be a huge error.

    That is true ... on both counts!

    We just disagree about why that would be a huge error. In any event, it ain't gonna happen. Guess I'll have to settle for another Comey book. :)

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I do believe that what he did damaged HilRod, but even if it didn't, it was unacceptable. He should have revealed the Trump investigation as well or kept his mouth shut.

    Well, when Comey testified before Congress, he was asked if he would let Congress know if any new information in the Hillary email case came forward that would initiate further investigation. Comey said he would. I guess he could have told Congress that he wouldn't but, I don't think that would have been a reasonable answer. And, besides, who could have imagined that more evidence would materialize? I know, I know ... perhaps the question to Comey might have foreshadowed more evidence coming forward but, whatever.

    The point is that the Hillary investigation was already over at this point and the investigation into Trump was not public knowledge so, of course, Comey couldn't announce that it was happening.

    False equivalency and all that, JFC ...

    And, don't forget, Comey wouldn't have had such a public role in any of this if it wasn't for Billrod ... but, don't get Kick started!

  47. [47] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    False equivalency

    Nope. He could've just shut up for a few more days.

    he was asked if he would let Congress know if any new information in the Hillary email case came forward that would initiate further investigation. Comey said he would.

    Would he have broken his word if he had let congress know after election day?

  48. [48] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I know, I know. He would have been criticized if he waited until after. He was in a no win situation, so he decided to interfere with the election.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If he had shut up for a few more days, that would have been interfering with the election if the new investigation had uncovered new pertinent evidence and, worse than that even, tainted a Hillary victory if she would have won and then can you imagine the serious outcry that would have followed?

    Not that she would have won, mind you, because she was not a great candidate. And, then there was her campaign-sabotaging husband who put Comey in the position of making all of the decisions instead of the God-damned Attorney General herself in the first freakin' place, you know.

  50. [50] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    Would he have broken his word if he had let congress know after election day?

    Is that a serious question??

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Comey had waited until after the election, then he would have proven your worst concerns about him and I wouldn't have the respect for him that I do have now.

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It really pains me to see how it can be construed that there is no such thing as an unjustified homicide at the hands of police because they are simply doing their job.

    You have it all wrong. The only time a death can be ruled a justified homicide is when the officer is legally authorized to use deadly force. The officers in the Floyd death did not use deadly force against him. Nothing they did was NOT done in response to actions taken by Floyd. Everything they did, they were authorized to do per their department’s SOP.

    I haven't heard yet how the murder of the Black guy who was shot seven times at point blank range is justified. But, I can guess. I'm pretty good at that by now.

    That officer, Officer Rusten Sheskey, deserves a medal for his handling of the incident! Don’t worry, I will explain how I could make what some will think is an outlandishly cruel comment:

    It always seemed weird to me that the Officer Sheskey went from being in front of the vehicle — where he would have a clear shot of Blake turned to open and get into the vehicle — to running so that he was behind Blake and in such close proximity to someone who was going to be shot if he continued to try to get inside his vehicle. If Blake went to open the door, shooting him from in front of the vehicle would have likely knocked Blake backwards and away from where his weapon was assumed to be. By putting himself behind Blake, Sheskey would be firing into Blake and causing him to go forward, towards the weapon.

    Officer Sheskey clearly moved himself into the other officers’ line of fire to protect the three children in Blake’s vehicle. If the police had fired from in front of the vehicle or the side of it, those children were in the direct line of fire. Sheskey positioning himself where he did made him the only officer with a shot that kept the children completely out of danger. It would hopefully prevent any of the others from firing out of fear of hitting him; thus protecting the children.

    Not only that, but Sheskey’s actions made it so he would be the sole shooter. It would all be on hm. He would be the one whose name would be on the front pages of every media outlet nationwide. He would instantly be known as a “bigot” and a “racist” for simply doing his job to the best of his ability. He would be putting his family and loved ones lives at risk for being targeted by the internet’s craziest scum. It could cost him EVERYTHING he loves even if he does everything exactly the way he was trained to do it...no mistakes. Just ask Darren Wilson from Ferguson.

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If Comey had waited until after the election, then he would have proven your worst concerns about him

    If he had, I wouldn't have any concerns about him.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, right. I'm don't with the both of you on your respective issues. :)

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, right ... I'm done with the both of you on your respective issues. Heh.

    For one night, anyways ...

    And, hope to see you guys at the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party ... I'll be there with a new Rolling Stones video, some STYX and Leonid and Friends!

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I might even throw a little PRiSM in there, just for good measure. Ahem.

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    38

    I know that seven shots is a lot to fire... but “you don’t stop shooting as long as they are still moving” towards a weapon.

    What!? And is it proper procedure in Wisconsin to assume that everyone moving away is moving towards a weapon? We need more information. We know he didn't have a gun. We know they said they found a knife in his car.

    https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/27/facebook-posts/no-jacob-blake-did-not-brandish-knife-gun-kenosha/

    Other than that, I'll wait to reserve judgment, but at this point in time, it sure looks like use of excessive force to me until someone convinces me otherwise. Too many differing accounts, Russ, I know you know.

    The officer shot until the threat was no more.

    Did he, though? The threat is alive in a Wisconsin hospital, and how does anyone who enters his room know "the threat" doesn't have a scalpel hidden beneath the sheets of his mechanical bed? Them suckers are sharp. How do we know someone didn't sneak one into the hospital room and Blake is just waiting for the next officer to walk into the room to exact his revenge? I believe I have a point in there somewhere about excessive force.

    Does that sound extremely callous?

    No.

    Of course it does, because it is.

    Seven shots fired rapidly into the back at point-blank range sounds like a shitty officer using excessive force to me, and I cannot fathom why other maneuvers weren't utilized to neutralize "the threat," but that is based on the facts I know so far.

    It is a human life we are discussing, after all. Blake is still alive. That fact kinda helps to justify the 7 shots.

    Perspective. I believe the fact Blake is alive helps to justify my "shitty officer using excessive force" theory too.

    “Excessive” is firing more shots into a corpse, not a person struggling to get to a weapon.

    Now that was callous. Do we check for a pulse first or just keep firing rapidly into the corpse? Oh, I'm just tired... ignore that.

    How are you, my sweet, sweet friend?

    I'm sweet. How are you? I hope you are keeping yourself well.

    Did ya’ll get any damage from the Hurricane in your area?

    Only got about 30 minutes of rain off an extreme outer band of it because we were/are way too North and West of where it struck. Texas is so big! Let's flip some of it in November!

    Stay safe and know that someone in WA has your back! Big hugs!

    I'm doing my best under the circumstances, and you better be taking care of yourself too. I'm thinking about y'all up there. From everything I see, it looks like we're headed for some rough months until 2020 is finally mercifully over. I'm eager for the day we can all look back on 2020 with 20/20 hindsight; I wish I knew now what I'll know then. XOXOXO :)

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    TheStig
    39

    To be clear, I have simply received electronic confirmation that my absentee ballot is approved and entering the mail stream.

    Yep. They weren't mailed out until Friday. Fun!

    When it shows up at my house I cannot return it for a couple of weeks (it's unclear what happens if you jump the gun).

    What!? Well, I know you'll follow the rules.

    When I do return it, it will not be by US Mail, I will drop it off at The County Board of Elections myself.

    Good idea.

    There is supposed to be a drop box outside the building, but I'll probably just walk it inside.....unless COVID is flaring white hot and there is a line at the County Board Door. Accomplish the mission with the least risk. Live to vote again in a Trump-Free World....fingers crossed.

    Keep yourself safe, for sure. Then you can track online for the receipt of your ballot. Wouldn't it be awesome to flip North Carolina? Oh, yeah! Keep us posted. :)

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    42

    You really surprise me sometimes. Your impression of Comey is about as far from the truth of who Comey is as one could possibly be.

    Is Comey not a Republican? JFC said nothing more than that. The rest of your comment is pure speculation regarding what JFC is thinking, and he's not one given to superfluous nonsense and flights of fancy. Comedy? Yes. Nonsensical BS? Not him.

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    44

    No, it isn't. I'm pretty sure he's a Republican.

    Exactly what I said!

    My impression is that you want Biden to hire him, but that would be a huge error. There is nothing he could bring to the table that some Democrat couldn't. The number of Americans who would view that hire as a good idea would be very small.

    Exactly! When Trump fired him, he did so in order to obstruct justice; therefore, Comey is now too involved in ongoing investigations (and potential future) that he'd be ineffective in a Biden administration regardless of his curriculum vitae, character, and/or fitness for duty. Full stop.

    I do believe that what he did damaged HilRod, but even if it didn't, it was unacceptable. He should have revealed the Trump investigation as well or kept his mouth shut.

    Exactly. Comey incorrectly ignored longstanding DOJ policy, and there are reasons why. That's the part that isn't the least bit complicated. :)

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    46

    Well, when Comey testified before Congress, he was asked if he would let Congress know if any new information in the Hillary email case came forward that would initiate further investigation. Comey said he would. I guess he could have told Congress that he wouldn't but, I don't think that would have been a reasonable answer.

    It is childish level reasoning, EM, to keep suggesting that Comey had no choice but to break longstanding Department of Justice rigid rules in order to "keep his word" to Congress. Asinine.

    And, besides, who could have imagined that more evidence would materialize?

    Who indeed? Now you're getting somewhere... finally.

    The point is that the Hillary investigation was already over at this point and the investigation into Trump was not public knowledge so, of course, Comey couldn't announce that it was happening.

    Yes, Comey absolutely could have made the decision to go against longstanding DOJ policy and announce an investigation into Donald Trump; it's false and also ridiculous to claim otherwise.

    And, don't forget, Comey wouldn't have had such a public role in any of this if it wasn't for Billrod ... but, don't get Kick started!

    Still unbelievably incorrect, EM. Comey chose to have a public role in this. He could have also chosen to announce that his agents had found no reason to bring charges against HRC and left it at that. He chose otherwise on multiple occasions to disparage a candidate for office that the FBI wasn't charging. That also is a choice he made that flies in the face of longstanding DOJ policy. Full stop.

    Allow yourself to let it "sink in" that Comey made multiple decisions wherein he could have chosen to make other decisions. I'm a big fan of Comey too, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every incorrect decision he makes but does mean I can recognize he's human like the rest of us. People are human; Comey is too. :)

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    49

    If he had shut up for a few more days, that would have been interfering with the election if the new investigation had uncovered new pertinent evidence and, worse than that even, tainted a Hillary victory if she would have won and then can you imagine the serious outcry that would have followed?

    There are longstanding DOJ rules for a reason, and not content to claim that Comey had no choice but to interfere (when he had a choice), you're now claiming that Comey would have been interfering if he hadn't interfered. This is almost the most ridiculous thing I have read on this forum... almost.

    Not that she would have won, mind you, because she was not a great candidate. And, then there was her campaign-sabotaging husband who put Comey in the position of making all of the decisions instead of the God-damned Attorney General herself in the first freakin' place, you know.

    Bullshit. The FBI agents unanimously made the decision not to prosecute. No one forced Comey to make an announcement far beyond what was required and against longstanding FBI protocol. No one forced Comey to decide or call a press conference to disparage a United States citizen who wasn't being charged with a crime. No one.

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    53

    If he had, I wouldn't have any concerns about him.

    Exactly. :)

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sometimes, a far away eye can see things that can't be seen up close.

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The FBI agents unanimously made the decision not to prosecute.

    Absolutely.

    No one forced Comey to make an announcement far beyond what was required and against longstanding FBI protocol. No one forced Comey to decide or call a press conference to disparage a United States citizen who wasn't being charged with a crime. No one.

    Actually, someone or other did. And, they are both named Clinton!

    Try not to let your blind love of the Clintons distort your understanding of the reality of the situation.

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, I'd add another name to the list of someones and that is AG Loretta Lynch, who showed very poor judgement which may come as a result of being too close to the Clintons. Ahem.

  67. [67] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    A few points regarding the number of times the police shoot at a person who they are authorized to use deadly force against: as long as the person continues to do whatever it is that justified deadly force to be initiated, officers will continue to use deadly force. Breonna Taylor was struck 8 times by bullets from officers who had been fired upon by the man in bed with Taylor. The police had no view into their bedroom, as Taylor’s boyfriend fired through the walls and door, striking one officer. The police were going to keep firing as long as they were fired upon and until they knew the suspect had stopped firing.

    Blake was struck by 4 bullets because he refused to stop trying to get to a weapon (both the knife IN his truck and the truck itself are considered weapons). The officer fired 7 times at him. Blake was still moving towards getting into the truck as all 7 were fired.

    This is very important for people to understand and know — unless Blake stopped and allowed the police to place him under arrest, he was most likely going to be killed. His actions (physically attacking the officer who first tried to handcuff him and refusing to stop moving towards a weapon while guns were focused on him) made it clear that he was a threat to the general public.

    I was not joking when I said Officer Sheskey deserves a medal for his heroism that day. Sheskey put himself in danger by moving behind Blake in his attempt to keep Blake’s children safe. If the other officers, who were in front of and to the side of Blake’s vehicle, had opened fire on Blake, the children were in danger of being struck accidentally. Sheskey placing himself behind Blake made it so he would likely be struck if any officer fired at Blake... which is why no other officer fired at Blake when the shooting started. He was the only person who could fire at Blake who would not put his children at risk of being struck. That also meant that he had to make sure Blake did not get the door open to his vehicle. Sheskey further puts his own life in danger by getting so close to Blake that he is able to grab onto Blake’s shirt and is trying to pull him back so that he won’t have to shoot and kill Blake — remember: this ALL ends when Blake stops moving towards his weapon. That was up to him! Sheskey was forced to stop Blake because Blake refused to stop himself!

    Liz asked me if the police ever think about whether they could use non-lethal force when they were authorized to use deadly force. This case shows just how far officers will go to avoid using deadly force and how it truly is used as the last resort. The police would have been authorized to have shot Blake the moment he refused to obey when they ordered him to stop going for his weapon. They waited until the last second possible before Blake could get into his vehicle before they shot him. He had every opportunity to stop and was told what would happen if he got to his vehicle; yet HE CHOSE TO DO WHAT HE KNEW WOULD RESULT IN THE POLICE SHOOTING HIM! Blake put the lives of his children at risk by his refusing to stop, and thanks to the heroic quick thinking of Officer Rusten Sheskey, Blake’s children were not put in danger when Blake forced the officer to stop him.

    Daniel Prude and George Floyd both died in police custody, but neither died from the use of deadly force by the police. They both died as they were waiting for medics to arrive — which should be an indicator that there was something medically wrong with them prior to their being taken into custody. While their deaths were tragic, blaming the police and claiming that the deaths were intentionally done out of racial hatred is ridiculous.

    Liz asked how I could explain his death from asphyxiation: he could have easily choked on his own mucus. PCP does seem to cause some individuals to have an increased production of mucus, which is why they are known to be heavy spitters by police. The officers had asked Mr. Prude to stop with the spitting at them multiple times, but he chose to continue. The police followed all of the proper procedures to safely contain Mr. Prude; the same procedures police all over the country use on a daily basis with no harm coming to the subject in custody.

    If you believe Floyd died because of the officer pressing on his neck for over 9 minutes, try it for yourself. The autopsy did not report any bruising to the back of Floyd’s neck. So take your fist and put pressure on the back of your neck, but not enough to cause bruising, and hold it there for 10 minutes. (Use a small hand weight or have someone else apply the pressure if you want). I tried it last night before writing this. I am still alive.

    Imagine: Unknown to me or anyone else, my years of loving fried food has resulted in my living with a large blood clot forming in one of my arms. One day, I resist arrest and struggle with officers after they try to arrest me for drunkenly trying to break into the Koalas exhibit at the zoo. During that struggle, as I am screaming that the officers on my back are killing me because I can’t breathe, the 3 inch long blood clot in my arm breaks off and travels to my brain causing me to have an aneurism and I die.

    Did the police kill me?

    NOW: Imagine that I was Black.

    Did the police kill me? (Extra points if you can name the movie that inspired this argument.)

    Do you think this would be national news based on the police’s actions or because of my race?

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did the police kill me? (Extra points if you can name the movie that inspired this argument.)

    A Time To Kill

    But, you didn't have to wait until 'tomorrow' if you were going to post this here! :)

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    But, you didn't have to wait until 'tomorrow' if you were going to post this here! :)

    I originally was not going to post it here, but when I realized that there were no comments concerning this subject matter from anyone, I decided to throw it back here and I am glad that you saw it!

    Congrats on getting the movie trivia question right, as well!

    -R

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks! That movie is pretty unforgettable, for that very argument ...

  71. [71] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    64|65

    Sometimes, a far away eye can see things that can't be seen up close.

    Sometimes, a far away eye sees nothing at all and just fills in what it thinks it sees.

    Actually, someone or other did. And, they are both named Clinton!

    So I said no one forced Comey into an announcement, and now you're arguing they did. So you've basically now abandoned your original weak-ass argument that (quoting you) "nobody strong-armed Comey into anything." Looks like you've made a little more progress, EM. Good for you.

    Try not to let your blind love of the Clintons distort your understanding of the reality of the situation.

    OMG! You could not be more wrong if you tried. The obvious disdain for the Clintons on your part does not magically somehow create any kind of "blind love of the Clintons" on anyone else's part. Your propensity to either go "all in" and to love or hate a politician in the extreme isn't a trait that everyone else shares. *laughs*

    Let me put that in a way that might resonate for you. Remember the other day when you commented how ignorant somebody was to choose the Beatles over the Rolling Stones? I remember thinking about it for a minute or two and deciding that I didn't have to choose either of them because I've got them both. :)

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    66

    Actually, I'd add another name to the list of someones and that is AG Loretta Lynch, who showed very poor judgement which may come as a result of being too close to the Clintons. Ahem.

    I've heard all your excuses for James Comey, EM. On the one hand, you argue in ridiculous fashion that no one could strong-arm Comey into any decision, and on the other hand when I insist that no one forced Comey to make the decisions he made, you insist that they did and name them.

    I am quite content to allow you to continue to sound ridiculous since you seem determined to keep right on doing it. :)

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    I didn't mean that the Clintons and Lynch strong-armed Comey into anything. What they did through their own lame-brained actions is put Comey in the position of having to choose a course of action from a selection of options that were all bad.

    To be clear, no one can strong-arm Comey. He's not that kind of guy.

    I hope this helps you to understand what happened. But, you could always listen to Comey's own testimony before Congress on this issue. He explains what happened better than I can, obviously. :)

  74. [74] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    73

    I didn't mean that the Clintons and Lynch strong-armed Comey into anything. What they did through their own lame-brained actions is put Comey in the position of having to choose a course of action from a selection of options that were all bad.

    Like I already said, you're making some progress on your repeated asinine denials on Comey's behalf. You have now progressed to the point where you've admitted that Comey could be influenced by others into making a decision. Try not to regress into the asinine position that Comey is some kind of superhuman who could never be strong-armed into doing something:

    Nobody strong-armed Comey into anything, least of all Rudy Giuliani. Sorry, couldn't let that false assertion go unanswered.

    ~ Elizabeth Miller

    *
    Congratulations on your slow yet obvious progress. You can argue semantics until the cows come home, but Comey is human and definitely has a past in New York and, as such, can be influenced by others. Clue in.

    To be clear, no one can strong-arm Comey. He's not that kind of guy.

    *laughs*

    I hope this helps you to understand what happened.

    I don't need any of your self-described "help to understand what happened." *laughs*

    But, you could always listen to Comey's own testimony before Congress on this issue. He explains what happened better than I can, obviously. :)

    You keep posting things about me as if they are facts when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I know what happened, and I promise you it isn't confined to "Comey's own testimony before Congress on this issue." You do realize that there was public testimony as well as private testimony before Congress, right? Rhetorical question. You seem blissfully unaware of a lot of things except your blind insistence that Comey is some kind of superhuman who could never be influenced by intimidation; he is a human and therefore he can and could. All humans can be influenced by intimidation... even the morons who insist they can't and never could be. :)

    Good talk.

Comments for this article are closed.