More background on the investigation into Trump's foreign policy team
Sundance lays out the case. Start with this twitter thread. This is a good piece for understanding how the investigations into Page, Papadopolous, Flynn, Manafort, and (recently revealed) Phares all link together, and also form the link from the pre-election illegal surveillance and the post-election Mueller investigation.
I would bet a huge amount of money that this is another incident of "fake hate", and another large amount of money that the "noose" was placed in Wallace's garage by Wallace himself or someone with authorized access to the garage who is an ideological fellow traveler of Wallace and BLM.
As for the idiot who had a plane fly the confederate flag over the track after the flag was banned, well, the jury is still out on that one. It would be an expensive stunt. (How much does it cost to hire a plane to fly a banner?) And while a flag may offend the easily offended, it's a long ways from the death threat that a noose consists of.
AG Barr announced that a DOJ attorney was resigning, but the attorney denied it and said he would remain in the post until his successor was confirmed by the Senate. The combination reveals the attorney (responsible for investigating Michael Cohen, among others in the Trump orbit) is a member of the Deep State. The attorney knows the Senate confirmation process will take forever, especially when the idea is to replace a Deep State ally, and if he remains in his current position he can wield power to defend his allies while giving Trump a black eye in the media. If Trump fires him (which he should), the attorney gets to play the martyr and start a gofundme to reap the riches of high profile political opposition to Trump.
Me, I speculate that one or two of the Justices on the right is signaling that he won't vote in favor, but doing it subtly. The large number of cases was an effort to find one that justice liked, but he didn't like any of them.
Speculating further: It's Roberts and he's being blackmailed.
It was Roberts and the usual four liberals in a 5-4 decision. Roberts claimed that Trump gave only a single reason for stopping the program and that wasn't enough. Trump's reason was that the program was outside of presidential authority and therefore unconstitutional. Apparently that's not good enough for Roberts.
The decision is horrible. Given Trump's power as President, he should be able to reverse any previous Presidential decree with or without a reason. Regardless, in this case he gave a reason, and a very good one that should be more than sufficient. The predictable result here is that Trump will simply further expound on that reason and win the next case. Of course, in between now and then there will likely be an election with a lot of hispanic voters who will presumably be freshly invigorated by being reminded of this issue. That's the real motive for Roberts and the left, or perhaps for whomever on the left has his hand stuck up Roberts' ass when he votes.
Fake news and Big Tech attacks competitor for comment section
NBC News has a unit dedicated to attacking competitors, and that unit published an article attacking a competing (and right-leaning) news website for content appearing in the comments section rather than the article itself. And got Google to either demonetize the whole website, or issue some sort of warning. It's not clear which.
What IS clear: 1) Section 230 prevents websites from being held accountable for what their users post when they are acting as a platform rather than a publisher. (The user is still accountable).
2) Google and NBC rely on that to avoid liability themselves...
3) But their terms of service for advertising apparently do not allow clients to rely on that protection, but instead require comments to be moderated...
4) Which would violate Section 230 by acting as a publisher rather than a platform and voiding those protections.
Roberts has been suspect for a while, but Gorsuch just wrote an opinion saying that "sex" means "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". It was a 6-3 decision: Gorsuch, Roberts, and the usual liberals.
So I guess Obama's blackmail squad found something on Gorsuch too.
These suspiciously commercial riots are happening so regularly in election years lately that I am seriously starting to wonder who is agitating them. Does the DNC just send people out into certain communities and start a whisper campaign that if you riot, and claim it's all about the latest questionable death, no one will stop you or make you give back anything you looted. Like a free pass to take the stuff you wanted and maybe burn a building or two.
That said, the facts in this resisting-arrest death do not seem favorable to the police. You can't just kneel on someone's throat until they die. It seems unlikely that death was actually intended, but it was certainly a foreseeable consequence. Some sort of negligent homicide is definitely on the table, depending on autopsy results. Please do investigate.
The person in charge of fact-checks on Twitter (and thus at least in an organizational sense is responsible for falsely fact-checking Trump's truthful tweet about mail in voting fraud) apparently has a history of anti-Trump tweets, to include claiming there are actual Nazis in the White House. And the decision to fact-check the President in an election year (and no one else) has led to Twitter becoming a target of legislation to remove their section 230 protections.
Trump to suspend environmental regulations to speed up infrastructure
Construction is certainly his area of expertise, so suspending certain regulations to speed things up seems reasonable. I don't like the idea of borrowing huge amounts of money to spend on nebulous "infrastructure" projects, but getting needless regulations out of the way is good.
We have now seen at least two incidents where people died while being arrested, and their last words were "I can't breathe". (Probably there are more than just two, but two became national news). I have some thoughts.
First, there's some unconventional wisdom. Like choking, if you can say "I'm choking", you're not choking. If you can say "I can't breathe", you can breathe. This is because you need to breathe to speak aloud. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some police officers use this as an informal test -- if someone is saying it, it means they aren't using too much force with their restraint. Especially when combined with...
Second, people are saying "I can't breathe" as a political protest, or a way to force police to back off their restraints or risk creating a political incident. That is, there are a lot of people who say "I can't breathe" when they really CAN breathe, just to create problems for police. This isn't a recipe for being taken seriously when there is a real issue. And finally...
Third, in certain medical conditions you can feel like you aren't able to breathe because you aren't getting oxygen to your body even if you actually can breathe and have some other problem mostly unrelated to a police restraint -- like a heart attack or seizure.
There's an argument that Floyd was facing exactly this, with fentanyl and meth in his system, compounded by police restraint. That is, he had a real medical problem, quite likely made worse by being arrested, which police may well have been trying to deal with according to their training (whether the training is right or not is another matter).
Those three factors make for a deadly combination. Two reasons for the police to ignore a potentially deadly medical condition.
I've known this argument was a winner for a while, the question is whether there are five honest votes on the Supreme Court for it. The recent cases regarding the ACA on a similar matter have suggested that maybe there are (and it would be especially embarassing to ignore recent and relevant precedent if some are wobbly).
I'd feel safer replacing one more liberal judge, but DOJ seems to think there's a significant risk of losing if they press the matter. That says good things about our chances.
Another interesting question is whether the Supreme Court will allow DOJ to drop the case since they have already granted cert. We'll find out, I think.