Delayed reaction hurts Harris, allies

A delayed reaction set in, starting about twelve hours after the debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Immediately afterward, even influencers sympathetic to Trump felt he was off his game and did not achieve his objective. And that was the mildest criticism from that quarter. But those same influencers woke up next morning to find voters looking things up. And what they’ve found, has sufficed to turn the whole dire (for Trump) picture inside out.

First signs of the delayed reaction

As CNAV described, the first delayed reaction came out of Springfield, Ohio. Trump accused the Haitian “temporary protectees,” that now make up one-quarter of the town’s population, of consuming migratory birds. Worse, they were also consuming city pets (ducks in Snyder Park) and residents’ pets (dogs and especially cats). “Moderator” David Muir, of course, said in effect, “Mr. President, the City Manager of Springfield says you’re full of it.” Trump said, also in effect: “Are you going to believe a city manager caught letting these things happen? Or will you believe the residents who are finding their missing pets’ remains?”

And Kamala Harris, as soon as Trump sounded that alarm, stood there – at her custom-height podium – and burst out laughing. Was she laughing at Trump for saying something outrageous – or for getting upset at the spectacle? After all, what are a few dogs and cats against the need to “support” mendicant migrants?

Except for three things. First, the taking of migratory geese violates the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended, and several relevant treaties. (Title 16, U.S.C., §§ 703-712.) Second, loss of the ducks in Snyder Park – and family pets – is confirmed. (See this video by Tyler Oliveira, which you can now play without commercial interruption – which is a YouTube punishment.)

Third, no one can blithely assume that the Haitians, having taken geese and ducks, would stop at taking family pets. They don’t know – or care about – the difference.

More lies, which the mods didn’t catch, but others did

That was only the beginning. In point of fact, Muir and co-moderator Linsey Davis “fact-checked” Donald Trump six times – and didn’t “fact-check” Harris even once. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reacted in outrage.

Unfortunately, we had moderators who were clearly biased, who were constantly fact-checking Donald Trump. None of these whoppers that the vice president was saying, and none of her failure to really explain that, answer that first question, that very, very critical first question. They simply sat there on the sidelines and allowed that to pass.

That first question was Reagan’s original Are You Better Off question – which Harris didn’t answer.

Grant Stinchfield, on his podcast, flatly accused ABC of supplying questions in advance. Of course if that’s true, her failure to answer them bespeaks even less competence in public speaking. Stinchfield also accused ABC executive Dana Walden of orchestrating whatever help Harris got. As to moderator bias, Stinchfield reserved his ire strictly for David Muir.

Wayne Allen Root, assistant editor of The Gateway Pundit, caught Harris out in accusing “January 6 Event” participants of killing Capitol Police officers. The one Capitol Police officer, among those on the scene, who died afterward, died of a heart attack. In contrast, an out-of-control officer shot and killed Ashli Babbitt at point-blank range.

Concerning the Earrings Story, two versions of that are now in circulation. One was that she was wearing NOVA H1® Bluetooth earrings – which could have been a way to give illicit advice.

The other was that she wore Tiffany pearl earrings.

That might not violate the rules, but – as CNAV will show – it might have other, darker significance. Even so, the Germany-based Icebach Sound company trolled Harris unmercifully:

We do not know whether Mrs. Harris wore one of our products. The resemblance is striking and while our product was not specifically developed for the use at presidential debates, it is nonetheless suited for it. To ensure a level playing field for both candidates, we are currently developing a male version and will soon be able to offer it to the Trump campaign. The choice of colour is a bit challenging though as orange does not go well with a lot of colours.

Currently, we are unfortunately out of stock and also busy preparing a lawsuit against a big Chinese tech company breaching our patents. We are talking to investors in order to ramp up operations accordingly and are confident that we will ship again very soon.

The delayed reaction intensifies

As the day after the debate wore on, CNBC’s Rick Santelli concentrated on Biden-Harris economic policy failures. The ABC moderators, he said, didn’t address them, or Harris’ unrealistic policy prescriptions, according to Christina Laila (TGP).

Then Laila teed up another story: Jake Tapper of CNN accused Harris of “dodging multiple debate questions.”

After sundown Wednesday, a real sign of trouble emerged. Reuters ran a focus group of “undecided” voters – who swung to Trump, 6-3-1. They might not like him “as a person” (though what’s not to like, is far from clear). But they all admitted they were better off under Trump than now.

Yesterday morning came further confirmation of the story of Haitians eating pet dogs and cats. Influencer Rebekah Faidia confirmed that Haitians – in their native Haiti – do eat cats of the pet species.

This has even been a known fact for five and a half years, per The Haitian Report.

At midday, The Western Journal reported that Time had to correct itself – within hours – after calling Trump a liar. Trump accused Harris of supporting surgical mutilation and, presumably, hormonal poisoning of illegal migrants who request such treatment. (This treatment has the intent of transforming or “transitioning” a person to one of the opposite sex.) Harris, said Trump, had announced such support in 2019 while she was a Senator. Absurd, cried Time. How could Trump say a thing like that? Then confirmation came in. This had been known before the debate began.

Realizing more lies

An hour later, Jim Hoft released this story about Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon criticizing Harris for mischaracterizing a “report” with the Goldman Sachs name on it. That report allegedly suggests that a Harris win might give a “slight” boost to the economy. Solomon identified two problems:

1. The report didn’t come from Goldman Sachs, but from an independent firm of analysts.
2. The difference in policy effects between Trump’s and Harris’ policies would be 0.2%.

This was blown up into something far bigger than what it was intended to show.

Late in the afternoon, Brian Lupo (TGP) reversed David Muir on another of this “fact checks.” He and Trump argued on the rise of crime in America, particularly in our largest cities:

Muir: As you know, the FBI says overall violent crime is actually coming down in this country.

Trump: Excuse me, they were [fraudulent] statements. They didn’t include the worst cities. They didn’t include the cities with the worst crime. It was a fraud. Just like their number of 818,000 jobs that they said they created turned out to be a fraud.

The reason the FBI “didn’t include the cities with the worst crime,” was that the FBI changed its reporting system. One-third of America’s police agencies didn’t make the changes on time; that resulted in underreporting of crime.

The Sorority PAC(t)

Then came the worst part of the delayed reaction – and the one that makes those earrings relevant. Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) is a black sorority established wherever black women go to college or university. Kamala Harris and Linsey Davis are both alumni (make that alumnae) members. And neither Linsey Davis nor ABC said a word about that association to anyone. Furthermorer, AKA members signal one another with the wearing of pearls. So now the significance of those earrings, if they were Tiffany pearl earrings, becomes apparent. Lay aside that Tiffany pearls are way out of reach of most women in America today. Kamala Harris wore those as a signal to Davis to remember that they were both AKA Sisters.

Kristinn Taylor (TGP) mentioned last night that ABC failed to disclose the conflict of interest.

In fact, Davis mentioned as early as January 20, 2021 the significance of pearls as an AKA secret mark.

The “secret society tie” might not seem to be that powerful – except that AKA formed a Political Action Committee to support Harris’ current candidacy. That Linsey Davis would not know about the PAC, or feel constrained to take its orders, strains credulity.

Satire – and more delayed reaction

Overnight, the site Esspots published a self-declared satire saying ABC had fired Muir and Davis. (The link comes from the Wayback Machine.) The satirist “quoted” ABC as calling Muir and Davis “a disgrace to their profession.” That did not happen, though unfortunately many influencers picked up the story and ran with it. Had they scrolled down to the end, they would have seen the satire disclaimer. But the disgrace lies with ABC, who not only didn’t fire Muir or Davis, but gave them their marching orders.

This morning, Paul Ingrassia published the best analysis so far of the delayed reaction and its effects. He cited post-debate poll results clearly showing a movement toward Trump. According to one table, Trump has taken a total of two points from four other candidates to create a two-point lead over Harris.

Also this morning, Kristinn Taylor cited a “puff-piece profile” in the Los Angeles Times in which Davis avowed the slanted treatment of Trump and Harris. To give one example: Davis insisted, in the debate and to the Times,

There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.

The only way that’s true, is if “to kill” and “to allow to die” are two different acts. Because the consequences are the same, the law would treat them the same – in any context except abortion. In Minnesota – and in Gov. Ralph Northam’s Virginia – babies who survived an abortion are/were allowed to die. The careless amateur biographer even managed to confirm Grant Stinchfield’s statement about the involvement of Dana Walden in Harris’ debate preparations.

Wrapping up

At time of writing, the delayed reaction hasn’t stopped yet. Mark Penn, a former adviser to the Clintons, has demanded ABC investigate internally its own involvement in Harris debate preparations.

ABC denies that they furnished Harris the questions in advance. But that might not preclude their having shared topics in advance. Sharing topics would violate the rules, just as much as sharing questions. Nor does ABC address the fact-checking of Trump only, and not Harris. In fact someone has threatened to release an affidavit, over the weekend, corroborating both these charges.

The people see Harris lying, and the moderators covering for her in violation of the rules (and lying themselves). Any lawyer or trial judge will tell you: when a witness lies about a material point, that witness becomes unreliable. That proposition dates from the ancient fabulist, Aesop. On that ground, an increasing number of voters – especially “independent” (i.e., undecided) voters – are rejecting every word Kamala Harris said on that debate stage. It is the fastest negation of apparent debate victory since Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. Because election season is under way, it couldn’t have come at a worse time.