Thursday, September 26, 2024

Harris reveals 'a new way forward' for the middle class and small business, as review of Trump's economic record shows it was the worst since Herbert Hoover

Kamala Harris addresses the Economic Club of Pittsburgh (NY Times)

Kamala Harris, in a much-anticipated speech on the economy yesterday, said she is focusing on "a new way forward" for the middle class and small businesses, saying the country needs "pragmatic economic leadership." Matthew Cullen, at The New York Times Evening newsletter, provides details under the headline "Harris casts herself as a pro-business pragmatist." Cullen writes:

In a closely watched speech on economic policy this afternoon in Pittsburgh, Kamala Harris promised “a new way forward” for the middle class, and portrayed Donald Trump as on the side of billionaires.

During the address, Harris wove together her vows to lower costs for the middle class and help small businesses into a broader pitch for pragmatic economic leadership. “We shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead should seek practical solutions to problems,” Harris told the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, as her aides handed out a roughly 80-page policy paper on her economic plans.

Her speech, in which she said “I am a capitalist,” appeared designed to push back against Trump’s efforts to label her as a radical “communist.” It was also an attempt to appeal to the moderate swing voter s who have told pollsters that they trust Trump more on the economy. 

Harris also attacked Trump's economic plans,  which he outlined in a speech Thursday. Trump’s pitch is to cut taxes on American businesses, while imposing high tariffs on foreign competitors.

Why would anyone trust Trump on the economy? We have mountains of evidence that his economic stewardship during term No. 1 was terrible, perhaps the worst in U.S. history. Here are some assessments:

1. ABC News -- "Yet as he leaves after his one-term tenure, Trump has become the first president since Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression to depart office with fewer jobs in the country than when he entered."

2. Associated Press -- "The economic numbers expose a complicated reality during Trump’s time in the White House. His tax cuts never delivered the promised growth. His budget deficits surged and then stayed relatively high under Biden. His tariffs and trade deals never brought back all of the lost factory jobs.

And there was the pandemic, an event that caused historic job losses for which Trump accepts no responsibility as well as low inflation — for which Trump takes full credit."

3. Investopedia -- "Trump's trade policies included implementing tariffs on trading partners like Canada, China, Mexico, and the European Union. The administration said tariffs would benefit American workers, give the U.S. leverage for future trade agreements, and protect national security. However, research from the Brookings Institution shows this did not end up being the case. In fact, research published in early 2024 shows that tariffs the former president put on various goods from China did not increase or decrease the number of jobs in industries they aimed to, but also led to tariffs from other countries as retaliation that negatively impacted American workers

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Jack Smith gains victory re: oversized motion in election-interference case, a matter that could reveal secrets about ties between Putin, Russia, and Trump

Judge Tanya Chutkan (AP)
 

Special Counsel Jack Smith earned a victory yesterday in his election-interference case against former President and 2024 Republican nominee Donald Trump, according to a report at The Guardian. An important point to keep in mind: The unusual nature of the filing, and the secrecy surrounding it, could mean the document includes revelations about Vladimir Putin, Russia, and Donald Trump. We already know the filing includes classified documents. (See link in the 12th paragraph below, which begins "What issues could be at stake . . . ?)

Under the headline "Special counsel can file oversized motion in Trump election-interference case; Judge Tanya Chutkan grants Jack Smith’s request to file 180-page motion on presidential immunity in federal case," The Guardian's Victoria Bekiempis writes:

Special counsel Jack Smith can file an oversized, 180-page motion on presidential immunity in Donald Trump’s Washington DC federal court election interference case, a judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Tanya S Chutkan’s decision stems from prosecutors’ 21 September request to exceed the typical 45-page limit for opening motions and oppositions. Smith’s motion must be filed by Thursday and will include both legal arguments and evidence and could provide additional insight into Trump’s efforts to throw out election results, though it is unclear when the public might be able to see the material given that it will initially be filed under seal.

Trump faces four felony counts over his effort to subvert the 2020 election, though a July US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity threw the case into near disarray.

Why do prosecutors need the extra space? It appears that is because they intend to include a detailed discussion of immunity issues, along with a section on pled and unpled facts. Biekiempis writes:

The Supreme Ccourt held that Trump and other presidents enjoy immunity for official acts, but not unofficial ones, undermining charges related to his alleged pressure campaign on U.S. Justice Department officials.

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to Chutkan, who must decide which claims in Smith’s case are official acts, and which are not official. Smith filed a new indictment against Trump in August, which does not dramatically change this criminal case, but revamps some parts to stress that Trump was not acting in an official capacity in his attempt to overturn election results.

Prosecutors proposed in a 5 September hearing that they should file a brief on the immunity issue with “a comprehensive discussion and description of both pled and unpled facts … so that all parties and the court know the issues that the court needs to consider in order to make its fact-bound determinations that the Supreme Court has required”.

In green-lighting prosecutors’ request to file an unusually sizeable motion, Chutkan noted the Supreme Court’s direction that she needs to engage in a “close” and “fact-specific” examination of this indictment and related accusations.

“The length and breadth of the Government’s proposed brief reflects the uniquely ‘challenging’ and fact-bound nature of these determinations,” the judge said in her ruling. “The briefs’ atypical sequence and size thus both serve the efficient resolution of immunity issues in this case ‘at the earliest possible stage.’”

What issues could be at stake in the prosecution's document? In a 9/9/24 post here at Legal Schnauzer, under the headline "Jan. 6 case in D.C. takes a twist as Jack Smith files a super-secret document that might hold answers to questions about ties between Putin, Russia, and Trump,"we addressed a number of issues that could be raised:

Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a mysterious, sealed document in the Washington, D.C.-based election-interference case against Donald Trump . What could it mean? That's impossible to say at the moment, but let's consider these factors:

(1) The Smith filing came the same day that the Biden Administration announced it has developed a plan to thwart alleged efforts by Russia and President Vladimir Putin to meddle in the U.S. 2024 presidential election;

(2) Smith filed his documents in the same court, before the same judge (Tanya Chutkin),  who is overseeing the case involving Trump's actions on Jan. 6, 2021;

(3) Putin tried to laugh off the meddling allegations by claiming he was "endorsing" Democrat Kamala Harris over Trump. But U.S.-based news  organizations did not  seem to be falling for  that -- as they described his Harris endorsement as made "teasingly" (AP)"grinning" (CBS), and "smirking" (Newsweek)

How did such a peculiar set of circumstances come to pass? Newsweek provides details about Putin's unconvincing reaction under the headline "Smirking Putin Says He Supports Kamala Harris and Her 'Infectious Laugh'." Newsweek examines more serious aspects of the story, under the headline "Jack Smith Files Mystery Sealed Document in Donald Trump Case, as Flynn Nicholls writes:

In a new twist for the federal election-interference case against former President Donald Trump, special counsel Jack Smith has submitted a mystery document, hidden from the public and Trump's lawyers.

The filing was made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing the case.

A Wednesday court notice shows that Smith filed a document titled "Government's Classified, Ex Parte, In Camera, and Under Seal Notice Regarding Classified Discovery,"That is a formal way of saying the Department of Justice (DOJ) has submitted a confidential document that contains classified information in the case.

What is known at the moment about the Smith filing is certainly baffling. But Nicholls provides a handy breakdown that does provide some clarity:

  • Classified: The document includes sensitive or secret information that is restricted from public access for security reasons.
  • Ex Parte: This means the document was submitted by the government without notifying the defense. Only Chutkan is informed, and the defense does not get to see it.
  • In Camera: Chutkan will review this document privately, without the presence of either party's lawyers.
  • Under Seal: The document is kept completely confidential—it cannot be accessed by the public or other parties involved in the case.

Smith's team is prosecuting Trump on charges related to his alleged efforts to interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election.

This latest development comes just days after Chutkan granted Trump's request to waive his presence at an upcoming arraignment following a new indictment in the case.

The indictment comes after the July ruling by the Supreme Court that refined the boundaries of presidential immunity, leading to Smith revising the original indictment against Trump.

The revised indictment narrows its focus to Trump's actions as a private citizen, rather than official acts performed during his presidency. Trump, who has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and described the prosecutions against him as politically motivated, faces four counts of criminal charges for allegedly attempting to undermine the legitimate results of the 2020 election, including in his alleged involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

On Thursday, Trump, who was not in court, entered a not guilty plea to the revised charges through his team of lawyers. Chutkan will be setting a court timetable for the new charges to progress to trial.

MSNBC contributor Adam Klasfeld, who is in the court room, reported that Chutkan shut down Trump lawyer John F. Lauro, who was arguing that a too-hasty timetable would interfere with November's presidential election.

"We're talking about the presidency of the United States," Lauro said.

"I'm not talking about the presidency of the United States," Chutkan replied. "I'm talking about a four-count criminal indictment.

Trump's defense team was not happy with the favorable ruling for prosecutors. From The Independent report: 

Trump’s legal team had fought prosecutors’ request to file a lengthier brief, complaining that it would “quadruple the standard page limits” in the district. They also unsuccessfully opposed Smith’s filing of this brief now, and argued that immunity arguments shouldn’t take place until Trump files a motion to dismiss the case.

Prosecutors said in court filings that they are poised to file their briefing under seal, given the “substantial amount of sensitive material” and later file a public version that has redactions.

Most legal experts do not expect a full trial to take place before the Nov. 5 election. But Chutkan still could hold a "mini trial," which might reveal damaging information regarding the former president. From a 9/5/24 report at Politico

Special counsel Jack Smith and Donald Trump will be trading high-stakes legal filings — some potentially jammed with new and explosive evidence related to Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election — in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

A federal judge has given the special counsel’s team until Sept. 26 to detail what his team says will be a “comprehensive” slate of evidence detailing Trump’s alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election.

 Now that the Supreme Court has returned the case to the trial court, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan released a schedule Thursday for next steps. She largely agreed with a proposal a lawyer from Smith’s office laid out earlier in the day to have prosecutors kick off the next round of proceedings by making a detailed submission about what proof they want to present of Trump’s guilt if the case goes to trial.

Chutkan described Smith’s submission as an “opening brief” intended to support his argument that Trump is not immune from the criminal charges, despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the matter. Trump’s response to that brief will be due Oct. 17, and his lawyers similarly promised to pack it full of new information drawn from secret grand jury transcripts and other unreleased documents.

Smith will have the opportunity for a final reply on the presidential immunity issue Oct. 29 — one week before Election Day.

The prospect of damaging new information related to Trump’s effort to subvert the previous presidential election emerging in the closing days of the 2024 race adds a new, unpredictable element to the campaign’s final stretch — the definition of an October surprise. But it’s not yet clear how much of the filings the public will see: Chutkan could order redactions to some of the sensitive information that Smith or Trump seek to include in their briefs. But any revelations are likely to draw significant attention just as millions of voters are casting early ballots.

One silver lining for Trump in the schedule is that it seems exceedingly unlikely to result in any other public hearings in the case before Election Day. In Chutkan’s order Thursday, the Obama appointee did not indicate whether she plans to have such a hearing or will rule based solely on the legal briefs and exhibits. But the deadlines for the briefs suggest that any potential hearing would occur after Election Day.

The revised schedule also underscores the impossibility of a trial taking place until well into 2025. Chutkan and lawyers for both sides agreed that her ruling on immunity issues would result in an appeal that would again likely freeze the case for months. Chutkan said at a hearing earlier Thursday that trying to set a trial date under those circumstances would be “an exercise in futility.” 

During the hearing, Trump attorney John Lauro called the prospect of such filings amid the final weeks of the election deeply unfair. And Trump’s team warned that if the judge allows the prosecution to air previously unseen evidence, they will demand the opportunity to do the same with revelations that they claim would help exonerate the former president.

Chutkan rejected Lauro’s complaints, insisting that she would not tether her efforts to advance the case to the political calendar.

Indeed, her new schedule includes several other deadlines that will brush up against Election Day and beyond. For example, Chutkan is also setting an Oct. 24 deadline for Trump to challenge the validity of Smith’s appointment, with a response from Smith by Oct. 31 and a reply from Trump’s team by Nov. 7.

The timing of events and deadlines in the case is being closely watched not only for its potential impact on the current presidential contest but also because if Trump wins the race he will likely be able to shut down the case — or the Justice Department will drop it under longstanding policy barring federal prosecution of sitting presidents.

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

Can Birmingham's segregated communities of faith react effectively to the intrusion of mass gun violence in the city's most iconic entertainment district?


Those who did not survive (WVTM)

Authorities are searching for gunmen they believe were responsible for a mass shooting that left four people dead and 17 wounded on Saturday night in Birmingham, Alabama. Rewards totaling $100,000 are being offered for information in the case, which is thought to be a "hit" or perhaps a "murder-for-hire" related to another fatal shooting recently in the city's East Lake neighborhood. Saturday's shooting turned the popular Five Points South entertainment district from a boisterous setting of packed restaurants, clubs, and music venues to a scene of horrifying chaos and bloodshed. No arrests have been made in the case.

The shooting has received national and international news coverage, from The New York Times and Al Jazeera to BBC.com and People Magazine. An Alabama newspaper columnist placed blame for the shooting directly at the feet of Alabama's Republican leaders (including Gov. Kay Ivey), who have been silent on the issue throughout the weekend, plus GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Here is an update from AL.com, the largest news-gathering organization in Birmingham -- under the headline "Fourth victim killed in Birmingham mass shooting identified; 17 others wounded . Crime reporter Carol Robinson writes:

Authorities have released the name of the fourth person killed in a barrage of automatic gunfire in a mass shooting in a popular Birmingham entertainment district.

Roderick Lynn Patterson Jr., 26, of Birmingham, died at UAB Hospital shortly after Saturday’s nights shooting. Authorities previously identified the other homicide victims as Anitra Holloman, 21, Tahj Booker, 27, and Carlos McCain, 27.

Seventeen other people were reported injured after a hail of bullets were fired into a crowd outside of the Hush lounge in Five Points South.

Officer Truman Fitzgerald on Monday said four of the surviving victims have life-threatening injuries.

A press conference is set for this morning to provide additional updates in the ongoing investigation.

No arrests have been made.

It was just after 11 p.m. Saturday when Birmingham’s 911 dispatchers received multiple calls of shots fired.

While police were en route, officers learned multiple people were shot and the scene was quickly deemed a mass casualty incident.

Hollomon, Booker and McCaine were found unresponsive on the sidewalk. They were pronounced dead on the scene within moments.

Officers from the city’s other precincts were brought in to help control the chaos, and at least 50 Birmingham Fire and Rescue Service personnel – 15 units – also responded.

Police quickly cordoned off a blocks-wide perimeter as hundreds stood among the chaos, many crying and trying to find their loved ones and friends.

Witnesses said many of the victims were standing in line outside Hush when the bullets were unleashed.

Victims were treated at UAB Hospital, Princeton Baptist Medical Center, Brookwood Medical Center and St. Vincent’s.

Fitzgerald said the surviving 17 victims – both male and female – sustained injuries ranging from non-life-threatening to critical.

Police said the shooters are believed to have used machine gun conversion devices. More than 100 shell casings were collected at the scene.

AL.com columnist Roy S. Johnson writes under the headline "Birmingham’s blood is on the hands of Alabama Republicans and a silent Trump":

It wasn’t a typical Sunday morning. It couldn’t have been. Not in Birmingham. Not in or around the city that’s been my home now for more than a decade.

A fireman hoses blood off a sidewalk (AP)

Almost 65 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, said: “One of the shameful tragedies is that 11 o’clock on Sunday morning is one of the most segregated hours, if not the most segregated hour, in Christian America.”

That has changed little, alas, in more than six decades. Though on this past Sunday morning, Birmingham woke up hurting. Woke up hurting, sick, and angry. All of Birmingham. Every corner. Every culture.

Every faith. Unless. Unless you chose to ignore. To ignore that sick ache in your gut. That not again ache.

Unless you chose to ignore the piercing pain. Your neighbor’s pain. Your own. Your not again pain.

Typically, we gather at our particular places of worship on Sunday mornings, love on our fellow church members, maybe ask how they’re doing, nod our heads a few hymns from the choir — or at my church, the Praise team — and hear a Word from the preacher. Then go home.

Not this past Sunday. Too many of us knew. Maybe knew one of the more than 20 people senselessly shot or injured on the sidewalk outside a Birmingham nightclub just after 11 o’clock Saturday night in Five Points South, just hours before Sunday service. Maybe knew someone who knew one of them.

Maybe someone else who was there. Or could have been there.

“My niece, she was there,” a member of my church shared with me on Sunday morning. Thankfully, the young woman was not harmed. Not physically. “Now she’ll have to live with that night the rest of her life.”

Another member posted on social media about friends of her son who “witnessed the shooting, but were not injured … Thank you, Lord.”

At my church, we opened each service with hands lifted in prayer for our city. Prayers I am confident similar to those lifted in spaces throughout the region.

Like that awful Sunday 61 years ago, when a bomb planted by the Ku Klux Klan killed four young girls at 16th Street Baptist Church - and led to the deaths of two young boys, this was not a Sunday to cast the horror of the mass shooting — mass killing— as their concern.

It is ours, Birmingham. All of Birmingham, whether you live inside the defined lines of the city’s borders or beyond them in its metro regions.

All of us. Just like 61 years ago.

We’ll all live with it—with a night when four more lives were piled atop a mountain of homicides in the city, 123 in 2024, as of this writing. A mountain of death that feeds a river of blood flowing south to Montgomery, where feckless Republican lawmakers would rather watch Birmingham bleed out than enact legislation that will help address its ills.

Bleed out by making it legal to carry a firearm without a permit.

Bleed out by yawning at a bill during this year’s session that would have given teeth to the federal law banning Glock-like switches that turn ordinary guns into flailing killing machines. Sponsored by Montgomery Democrat Phillip Ensler, the state law would make possession of a weapon with a switching device a Class C felony in the state and allow state and local officials to arrest, charge, and prosecute without having to wait on federal action, and allow the state to establish its own penalties.

 



Monday, September 23, 2024

Within seconds, Birmingham's bustling Five Points South turns into a scene of chaos and bloodshed as the scourge of mass gun violence spreads to a special place

The iconic fountain in Five Points South (AL.com)
 

Birmingham, Alabama, the city where I gave birth to this blog 17 years ago, was the site Saturday night of a mass shooting that left 17 people injured and four people dead. Law-enforcement authorities say the incident appears to be a "hit," perhaps a murder-for-hire. They believe the target of the shooters was among those killed. The shooting took place in the popular Five Points South entertainment district, which is filled with bars, nightclubs, restaurants, and music venues. Witnesses said the district was bustling with activity when shots rang out Saturday night. Soon, blood could be seen pooling on sidewalks, near street corners and crosswalks, and vehicles parked nearby.

Five Points South is located just a few steps from the campus of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), where I worked for roughly 25 years before being cheated out of my job for daring to write a blog about legal and political corruption in the area, most of it with roots in Shelby County, which is well outside the Birmingham city limits. 

What happened to me at UAB? I might never know the full story. But I do have evidence that at least two lawyers were displeased  about my reporting and were concerned it might interfere with the haul they hoped to rake in from participation in a lawsuit that evolved from the HealthSouth Corporation accounting scandal. Both of these lawyers have enough ties to UAB and state government to get me fired for no reason -- and if they did not actually push for the firing, they almost certainly know who did. 

The Hush Lounge (NY Times)
 

Why start a blog about corruption in the Birmingham area? Well, because of a difficult neighbor named Mike McGarity (with an extensive criminal record), who moved in next door and kept trying to make our real property (our yard) his own, my wife Carol and I wound up in court trying to protect what was legally ours and to keep someone from getting hurt on our property, which likely would have caused our homeowner's insurance to skyrocket. I wrote in 2012 that I saw signs McGarity might be dangerous, and he later proved me correct by committing  felony assault by hitting me in the back with a roadside sign. I refused to press charges because Shelby County deputies would not bring the case as a felony, which it clearly was under state law (see here and here).

Carol and I kept running headlong into judges who served up rulings that had nothing to do with the actual law. This started with state-court judges in Shelby County named Ron Jackson, J. Michael Joiner, and, Dan Reeves. The mainstream media largely ignored the activities of rogue judges, so I figured citizens would have no idea how their taxpayer dollars were being wasted if I didn't step forward and tell them. That is how Legal Schnauzer was born.

In 2012, a Chicago-based  company called Cision, which bills itself as "a leading global provider of media relations software services and research solutions for public relations professionals" named us among the top 50 independent law blogs in North America.

We were ranked No. 37, and since we were not affiliated with any law firm, law school, media company, publishing house, business enterprise, group-blogging effort, or professional association we were one of only two truly independent blogs  on the list.

The only other independent blog on the list appears to be Grits for Breakfast, which focuses on the Texas criminal justice system and came in at No. 3. It is the work of Scott Henson, who describes himself as "a former journalist turned opposition researcher/political consultant, public policy researcher and blogger."

Henson has been an associate editor at Texas Observer and has worked for the ACLU, the Sunshine Project for Police Accountability, and the Innocence Project of Texas. He has an impressive background, and if I am alone in his company on the Cision list . . . well, that seems like a pretty good place to be.

Let's return to the subject of UAB and the mass shooting that turned the usually joy-filled Five Points South into a deadly setting.

As for UAB, why would the highly regarded university -- the driving engine of Birmingham's economy -- fire a veteran employee who engaged in activity that clearly was protected by the First Amendment, and I did it on my own time, with my own resources? In fact, UAB could not even settle on any offense I committed, certainly not a fireable offense. In a  grievance hearing, my supervisor Pam Powell admitted she had no evidence to support her actions against me, and a UAB IT employee named Sean Maher, said he had been asked to monitor my computer use for 30 days and found I had never opened my blog at work, much less actually worked on it. No one else in our group was subjected to such surveillance, only me. Why would Powell and her cohorts repeatedly deal with my situation in violation of the UAB Employee Handbook?

UAB's public-relations spin machine was an embarrassment, tossing out claims that ran wildly contrary to the findings of their own grievance committee. Gary Mans and Dale Turnbough were the main perpetrators of this hatchet job designed to destroy my reputation

If you get cheated out of your job, can you count on a federal judge to provide justice? Oh, no. My UAB case helped bring me into the presence of four federal judges -- William Marsh Acker Jr., Abdul Kallon, David Proctor, and Virginia Emerson Hopkins. Acker now is deceased, and two of the other three no longer are active federal judges. Acker's actions in my case were particularly grotesque. He granted summary judgment to the university without giving me a chance to conduct any discovery, which is a gross violation of both procedural and case law. (See Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia, 859 F. 2d 865 (11th Cir., 1988).) He told me in open court that he was going to cheat me repeatedly by abusing the process for a writ of mandamus, which is a form of interlocutory appeal

Despite periods of unpleasantness, I still hold many fond memories of UAB. And most anyone who has spent time in Birmingham, has been to Five Points South-- and it's hard not to enjoy the place, partly because of its eclectic mix of establishments -- from The Original Pancake House to Golden Temple Natural Grocery and Cafe to the now-defunct (but never forgotten) Charlemagne Records.

So, what exactly happened Saturday night in Five Points South? The chaotic nature of the incident, and the lack of time that has passed, make it difficult to piece together the facts. But here is one of the best accounts we've seen, from Carol Robinson, veteran crime reporter for Al.com (formerly The Birmingham News), plus Ruth Serven Smith, and Hannah Denham: 

Local and federal agents are searching for people with information about a deadly mass shooting that left four people dead and at least 17 others injured outside a Birmingham club Saturday night.

The shooting happened just after 11 p.m. in the 2000 block of Magnolia Avenue South, as people were standing in line to get into Hush, a hookah and cigar lounge.

Birmingham Police Chief Scott Thurmond said the shooting may have been a murder-for-hire and that more than 100 shell casings were collected at the scene.

Here’s what we know so far about the deadly shooting. This story will be updated as more information is available.

How can people help?

Police and Mayor Randall Woodfin are urging anyone with  information to speak with officers. Businesses in the area are being urged to share surveillance video.

You can submit information to police here. You can also call investigators at 205-254-1764 or Crime Stoppers at 205-254-7777.

Who was killed?

Sunday evening, police identified three of the four people killed as Antria Holloman, 21, Tahj Booker, 27, and Carlos McCain, 27. A fourth person died at the hospital.

Who was injured?

Police estimate that 17 people were hurt in the shooting and ensuing chaos.

Gabriel Eslami, 24, of Trussville, was among the many injured.

“It’s just gun smoke and peoples’ bodies laid out on the pavement,’’ he said. “Physically, it’s hard to walk, but by the Grace of God, it didn’t hit anything major.” 



Flowers mark the shooting scene (WVTM)


 

University of Alabama at Birmingham spokesperson Alicia Rohan said on Sunday evening that UAB Hospital has treated 12 victims, total.

“This included one deceased victim brought to UAB Hospital from the scene, per the Birmingham Police Department,” she said. “We are currently treating 4 victims with conditions ranging from good to critical.”

How did the shooting occur?

Multiple shooters pulled up in a car, Thurmond said, got out and fired shots and then drove away.

The targeted victim in the murder-for-hire was likely found at the scene by the shooters. “Wherever that (targeted) person was is where it was going to take place,” Thurmond said.

Who are suspects in the shooting?

As of Sunday morning, police have not identified the suspects or people of interest.

A related shooting?

On Sunday night, three people were shot in the South East Lake community, specifically the 700 block of 81st Place South. A man injured in that shooting died.

“One of our personnel received intel that this may be related (to the Five Points South shootings),’’ said Officer Truman Fitzgerald. “So anytime we have a community member willing to step up and give information, we’re going to investigate that the best we can.”

Was the Hush Lounge involved?

Ryan Pryor, who opened Hush in 2019 and retired after 20 years as a Birmingham police officer in March, was at his club when shots rang out.

“I would like to stress that this had nothing to do with Hush itself. My heart goes out to the families, and I stand with Birmingham on correcting this violence. This gun violence has to stop,” Pryor said.

On Sunday morning, Pryor was preparing to reopen the business.“We need to try to get back to some kind of normalcy,” he said.

Hush, at 2012 Magnolia Ave., is a speakeasy-style lounge located in the underground space at Pickwick Place retail center. The club often features bottle service, parties, DJs and recently celebrated its fifth-year anniversary in June.

What are officials saying?

Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin asked Sunday morning for help from state officials to regulate conversion devices that turn guns into automatic weapons.

“Converting a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon that discharges all bullets within seconds doesn’t belong on our domestic streets,” Woodfin said in a Facebook post Sunday morning. “This shouldn’t be up for debate. This morning, too many families have to pick up the pieces of an unfair new normal that doesn’t include their love one.”

Friday, September 20, 2024

As Trump is stuck in sludge, Harris draws support from Republicans, who reject Trump for "violating his oath of office" and bringing "danger to our country"

Kamala Harris makes it a point to attract GOP support (NY Times)

 

As Donald Trump's campaign is hitting one snag after another, a growing horde of Republicans is jumping on the "Good Ship Kamala Harris" for the 2024 presidential election, according to a report at The New Republic. (TNR). Under the headline "Flood of Republicans switching to Kamala Harris," TNR CEO Michael Caruso explains:

It’s unheard of in modern politics, especially in an era driven by fierce partisan division, for prominent members of one party to rush to support the other party’s nominee.

 

This week, a legion of former GOP officials came out with a full-throated endorsement of Kamala Harris—110 former members of Congress, defense secretaries, CIA directors, and many others.

 

Their letter makes clear that "any potential concerns" they would have about voting against the GOP "pale in comparison" to the threat posed by a second term from a man who "has violated his oath of office and brought danger to our country."

 

The co-signers of the letter join 17 officials from the Reagan administration who have endorsed Harris and 230 former George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney staffers who threw in for Harris in August.

 

That leaves Sarah Palin as the only living Republican who has been nominated for president or vice president who is still supporting Donald Trump’s reelection bid.

Talk about putting things in stark perspective. To repeat, Sarah Palin is the only living Republican who has been nominated for president or vice president who is still supporting Donald Trump’s reelection bid. In other words, Trump's support among the big names in his own party extends to the least qualified GOP candidate of the modern era -- and goes no further.

These appear to be grim times in Trump Land, and Harris is taking advantage by reeling in boatloads of Republican support. Caruso writes:

The new Republican supporters are part of a recent surge of support for the vice president. One week after her debate with Donald Trump, polling models show Harris has made incredible gains. 

 

Shortly after the debate last week, polling expert Nate Silver’s prediction model had Harris at a 38 percent chance of winning the presidency; this week, she jumped to 47.6 percent—making the race a toss-up in a polling model that’s been bullish on Trump for months. The polling firm that Silver founded, FiveThirtyEight, has even better news for Harris, projecting that she will sweep all the swing states and has a 61 percent chance of sweeping the electoral votes.

 

Thomas Miller, a data scientist at Northwestern University who correctly called the last election using a prediction model based on election betting markets, currently has Harris taking 55 percent of the vote.

 

Despite this recent good news, the election could go either way. Many polls still predict Trump has an Electoral College advantage, and many pundits say the Supreme Court is ready to help him out if the results are close.

Thursday, September 19, 2024

Kamala Harris' net favorability rating moves into positive territory, meaning would-be voters are taking plus views of her image, following the debate

(FiveThirtyEight)
 

Kamala Harris' net favorability rating is moving up in the political world, indicating poll respondents have a much more positive view of her image than was once the case, according to a report at Axios. Under the headline "Kamala Harris' polling renaissance," Zachary Basu writes:

Vice President Kamala Harris' net favorability rating crossed into positive territory yesterday for the first time since July 2021, according to FiveThirtyEight's polling average.

Why it matters: Harris has experienced an image makeover of epic proportions — the kind usually reserved for retired politicians, not a sitting vice president nearly four years into her term.

The link above includes a graph from FiveThirtyEight, tracking Harris' favorability rating and its move into positive territory. (The graph also can be viewed at the top of this post.) Basu provides background on the graph:

  • As recently as July 14, one week before President Biden dropped out of the race, Harris' net approval sat at -17 — among the worst VP ratings in modern polling history.
  • Today, with under 50 days until the election, Harris' success in erasing that deficit suggests she's winning the high-stakes, high-dollar war to define her candidacy.

Reality check: Those gains don't mean Harris will win the Electoral College, which will be decided by seven nail-biter contests in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Recent data, however shows that Harris' dominant debate performance strengthened her position against Donald Trump. Basu writes:

The big picture: The election remains exceedingly close, even with early indications that Harris is receiving a polling bump from her strong debate performance against former President Trump last week.

  • FiveThirtyEight's election model currently has Harris favored to win the election 61 times out of 100, while Trump is favored to win 39 times out of 100.
  • The Economist's polling average found Harris has opened up her largest lead yet in the national popular vote — 4.4 points over Trump — while its model gives her a 3 in 5 chance of winning the election.
  • Nate Silver, whose model has consistently favored Trump for the past several weeks, wrote today that Harris is "moving up in the polls enough that the model is converging back toward 50/50 in the Electoral College."
  • Recent polling data produces some odd outcomes, especially in states where you would not expect to see such oddities. Basu provides background:
  • Between the lines: While pundits and forecasters remain on the lookout for high-quality battleground polls, one of the most intriguing surveys of the past several days came from a red state.

  • A Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll by renowned pollster J. Ann Selzer found Trump edging Harris 47% to 43% among likely Iowa voters, shrinking an 18-point lead Trump had over Biden in June.
  • In a provocative Substack post on Sunday, Silver also flagged a rare poll from Alaska showing Harris trailing Trump by just five points.

The bottom line: For all the positivity around Harris' recent polls, she's still polling worse against Trump than both Biden and Hillary Clinton were at this point in 2020 and 2016, respectively.