That headline may seem like something out of the 1920s, when Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was trying to rid the world of what she considered undesirable human stock – including the handicapped, mentally ill and Negros of any kind. She and her band of progressive eugenicists were pushing for abortions and forced sterilization of those they deemed unfit to propagate – and even live. If this sounds to you disturbingly like the social philosophy of Nazi Germany, you are not wrong. Sanger and her organization were in close touch with Hitler, who praised their efforts.
So, what is the deal with the headline?
Well it seems that a state senator in Ohio proposed that the new so-called “heartbeat law” limiting abortions not … repeat not … include African American women. They should continue to be aborting their offspring at record numbers.
One might assume that such a proposal would come from some white supremacist who, like Sanger, wants to reduce the number of little black babies coming into the world. That would make sense – wacko as it is. It would be consistent with the genocidal underpinning of Planned Parenthood today – which places most of their abortion operations in poor minority neighborhoods and aborts black babies disproportionate to the population demographics. While blacks represent 13 percent of the population, they account for more than 40 percent of the abortions. It is the reason that Martin Luther King’s niece, Alveda King, campaigns so vigorously against the “services” of Planned Parenthood.
Of course, such an exemption would violate the Constitution, which requires that all laws be equally applied. At least that is the general theory of it.
But hold on! The proposal to continue to abort black babies was not introduced by some old white racist. No. No. No. it was introduced by Ohio State Representative Janine Boyd – a black female Democrat. But what in God’s name could possibly motivate a black woman legislator to want to encourage the mass abortion of black children – exempting women from a law intended to protect the rights of ALL unborn human beings?
Boyd does explain her reasoning – although it does not make a lot of sense. But here it is. In urging her legislative colleagues to support her amendment, Boyd said:
“I consider the slave trade and how black slaves were once treated like cattle and put out to stud in order to create generations of more slaves. I consider the how many masters raped their slaves. I consider how many masters forced their slaves to have abortions, and I consider how many pregnant slaves self-induced abortions so that they would not contribute children they had to this slave system. … And so, I ask you, with all of your values, to consider that and vote yes to this amendment.”
She wants to allow black women to have abortions because slave owners forced them to have babies “to create generations of more slaves” and because slave owners “forced their slaves to have abortions” in order to reduce the number of black babies. Does Boyd’s reasoning suffer from a bit of inconsistency? She wants to preserve the ability of modern black women to have abortions because 150 years ago slave owners made them have babies and … made them have abortions. I just cannot get passed the head-scratching phase on that bit of reasoning.
She also notes that “pregnant slaves self-induced abortion so that they would not contribute children they had to the slave system.” Does this mean that Boyd sees today’s black women having abortions as some sort of historic tradition — some sort of cultural ritual?
I only had one college course in logic, so maybe I am missing something – but none of that seems to explain why black women should be granted an exclusive right to abort their unborn children under circumstances in which the children of white, Asian and Hispanic women are allowed to live. I would think that abortion, itself, draws a better comparison to slavery since both require the dehumanization of a person. But that’s just me.
It is interesting that Boyd’s outrageous proposal did not get very much attention from the left-wing east coast media – which is quick to give such local stories excessive national coverage if the outrageous news can be made to reflect badly on the Republicans and conservatives.
Reflecting the fact that there is still a modicum of sanity on our political process, the proposed amendment to Heartbeat Bill did not get very far. Whew!
So, there ‘tis.
It’s funny that any Democrat would think that they could present a challenge to Lindsey Graham’s South Carolina Senate seat in 2020, but I guess that is why South Carolina Democratic Party chairman, Jaime Harrison, chose to announce his bid to do so… in comic book fashion.
In a comic book-themed video posted on Facebook, Harrison highlights his humble roots in Orangeburg, S.C., and slammed Graham as “a guy who will say anything to stay in office.”
In the video announcement of his candidacy, Harrison tore at Graham’s shifting stance on President Donald Trump, whom he called a “bigot” who was “not fit to be president of the United States” when the two faced off for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Now, as you know, Graham has since been one of Trump’s most consistent defenders.
“Lindsey Graham can’t lead us in any direction because he traded his moral compass for petty political gain,” Harrison says in the video. “He’s forgotten about the people he represents.”
Who Is Jaimie Harrison?
Harrison, who was the state Democratic party’s first black chairman and served as an aide to Rep. James Clyburn, highlighted his “origin” story of being born to a teen mother, raised by his grandparents, and his education at Yale University and Georgetown Law School.
Upon hearing of his challenge to the incumbent Senator, The National Republican Senate Committee slammed Harrison as a “looney liberal.”
“Harrison is a looney liberal who was hand-picked to run by radical Washington Democrats,” NRSC spokesperson Nathan Brand told CBS News. “Lindsey Graham is one of the most popular U.S. Senators in the country because South Carolina voters know that he has delivered results and has been a tireless fighter for Palmetto State values.”
If Harrison were to somehow successfully unseat Graham, he would be the first Democrat from South Carolina to be elected to the Senate since 1998.
There are many problems associated with having a large field of presidential candidates – not the least of which is that it often results in the nomination of the most extreme – read that, unelectable – candidate.
While the 18 candidates who ran for the Republican nomination in 2016 and the 23 – and growing – Democrat candidates in for 2020, we often have a relatively large number of candidates. The only difference is that the media – and we the people – tend to ignore most of them.
In past elections, there were unwritten rules covering the handling a large field of candidates. It was to separate the wheat from the chaff – the serious contenders from those whose support does not extend beyond family and friends. If a candidate was polling below five percent, they were usually determined to be “not serious.”
Although I have never been involved in a presidential debate, as executive director of the City Club of Chicago, I negotiated several Senate, House, gubernatorial and other debates. Who would be on the stage was usually restricted by the unwritten rule of five percent. This was often the requirement of a co-sponsoring news organization. Though the rule was never officially cited, news coverage – or lack thereof – generally followed in that tradition.
On 2016, Republicans used a modified version of the rule to determine which candidates would be on the mainstage debate and which would be relegated to the separate kiddie pool event. There were some off-the-wall candidates who did not get invited to participate in either platform.
There has been a demonstrable change in terms of the long list of Democrat presidential candidates. They are taking a much more egalitarian approach. Every one of the candidates will be treated equally – well almost. The Democrats first presidential debate will take place over two nights.
The rule kept down the number of candidates because the marginal candidates – those with overblown egos – could get no traction. The news media ignored them – as did the funders. That is yet to befall those Democrat presidential candidates who languish in the less-than-one-percent polling level, but in the meantime, they are getting the treatment of serious contenders.
That is providing a huge communications benefit for the Democrats. With each of the 23 (so far) candidates getting media interviews and being invited to participate in several so-called “townhall meetings” and two-hour interviews characterized by softball questions, the Democrats anti-Trump, anti-Republican message is getting scores of hours of airtime – essentially political infomercials. In the media, it is essentially an 23 person ambush on Trump – with the media playing it to the Democrats advantage.
The two-hour appearances do not include all the pre-event promotion and post-event analysis – virtually all of which will be very positive. It was a recent townhall-as-infomercial that is supposed to restore former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke to some semblance of visibility and credibility. You will recall that he descended from being one of the most excited candidates in the early presidential field into the abyss of political irrelevancy in the Democrats game of Whack-a-Mole.
When the press and pundits wonder why some of these folks have jumped into the presidential race – with zero chance of even coming close – just look at all the exposure and publicity they are getting. For some, it may be a hope of getting noticed for a Cabinet position or even a vice presidential invitation. It is a level of recognition that they could not have possibly achieved without raising their head out of the hole – even if they eventually get whacked.
So. There ‘tis.
In a scathing letter to the Department of Justice, White House Counsel Emmet Flood, tore into Robert Mueller and his investigators, telling AG William Barr that the Special Counsel’s team included “political statements” in their Russia report and “failed” to act as traditional prosecutors — while stating President Trump reserves his right to invoke executive privilege on matters related to the report.
In the April 19 letter to the Justice Department obtained recently by Fox News, White Flood laid out a series of concerns with the Mueller report, specifically on the team’s handling of the investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice.
“The Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors,” Flood wrote, complaining that the report “suffers from an extraordinary legal defect” by failing to comply with the “requirements of governing law.”
Mueller Was Making Political Statements Instead of Doing His Job
Flood raised concerns that the team did not reach a determination on the obstruction question while still going into great detail about the probe’s findings and including a pointed passage that stated the probe did not exonerate the president. That passage read, “The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”
Flood noted prosecutors “simply are not in the business of establishing innocence” and described these and other quotes and summaries made by Mueller in the report as “political statements.”
In the letter, which was sent the day after the redacted version of the Mueller report was made public, Flood said, “the one thing the Special Counsel’s Office, (SCO) was obligated to do is the very thing the SCO — intentionally and unapologetically — refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question.” Flood complained that the report was instead “laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis.”
He also said Mueller “produced a prosecutorial curiosity,” describing the report as “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper.”
Flood, also maintained in the letter that Trump’s waiving executive privilege on the report does not constitute a blanket waiver, and he still has the right to invoke such privilege.
The letter comes as a defiant White House has signaled it intends to vigorously oppose subpoenas that might run up against executive privilege, a power sanctioned by the Supreme Court that allows the president and members of the executive branch to shield certain internal communications from disclosure, absent a compelling overriding justification.
This Thursday afternoon, Facebook announced that it had banned a number of prominent figures in conservative media from all social media platforms owned by the tech giant.
InfoWars founder Alex Jones and conservative media personalities Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Laura Loomer have all been booted from the platform. Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black nationalist Nation of Islam movement, also was banned.
The social media company headed by CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a public announcement on Thursday that it removed the accounts, fan pages, and group pages associated with these individuals from Facebook and Instagram after reexamining their content and activities on and off these platforms.
Alex Jones and his media outfit Infowars were banned from Facebook last August but had still maintained a presence of Instagram – a social media platform that’s also owned by Facebook. On Thursday, Facebook declared that Jones and Infowars would also be removed from Instagram.
In a statement given to Fox News, Facebook said, “We’ve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”
A few of these individuals who fell under Facebook’s guidelines against ‘dangerous’ individuals and organizations, reacted to the ban on their respective accounts during the period of time between when Facebook officially announced the ban and when they actually deleted the accounts. On her Instagram, Laura Loomer rejected the notion that she at any time had violated the company’s terms of service, and appealed for people to follow her on a different platform, adding, “Looks like you guys will probably never hear from me again.”
Yiannopoulos also published a final post on Instagram.”
Paul Joseph Watson took to Twitter – a platform which he has yet to be banned from – to write, “In an authoritarian society controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley giants, all dissent must be purged.”
Yiannopoulos also published a final post on Instagram. He mentioned that Laura Loomer was making “thinly veiled suicide threats because of the way she has been treated” and encouraged her friends to check on her.
Apparently, Facebook executives had been holding discussions as to whether they should label these individuals as ‘dangerous’ and ban Alex Jones and InfoWars for some time before actually pulling the trigger.
Business Insider obtained email correspondences between Facebook executives who argued about whether or not they should scrub these people’s accounts.
At the time these things were being discussed, a Facebook spokesperson told CNN Business, “As this email correspondence shows, we continually monitor and review whether people are involved in organized hate on our platform. We’ve already taken down InfoWars’ Facebook Page, but Alex Jones has a network of presences online and we are evaluating how to appropriately enforce our policies against him as an individual. We’re committed to being diligent and will share an update when that process has run its course.”
Following the bans, Twitter saw a burst of outrage from conservatives and moderates alike who deemed the actions as evidence of blatant censorship ahead of the U.S. 2020 elections.
If you were unaware that the annual White House Correspondents Dinner has come and gone, you are not alone. Compared to last year — when the absence of President Trump and the tasteless and humorless pillaring of the President and White House staffers made headlines for days afterward – the 2019 event was barely noticed beyond the Beltway.
This is not only as it should be, but what the Dinner had been for decades before it was taken over by Hollywood.
During my time in D.C., I had the pleasure of attending the Dinner. That was back in the late-1960s and early 1970s. It was an important political and social even for the Washington political and press communities – but it received very little reporting in the rest of the country.
While much was made of President Trump’s declining his invitation to participate, it was never a “must attend” for presidents. Some attended sometimes, but not all that often. In fact, most presidents were AWOL when it came to the dinner – although not because of the friction that has marked the relationship between Trump and the major news media.
Previous dinners were more of a private social event to allow members of the press corps and the politicians they cover to mingle in a friendly setting. There was always a bit of a comedic roast, but not with the Partisan viciousness that has arisen since the Trump election. Mostly it was good-spirited pokes at the pomposity of the press and the politicians – what is better known as self-effacing humor.
The event changed dramatically during President Obama’s administrations. He brought a glitzy Hollywood glamour not seen in Washington since President Kennedy’s days of Camelot. In fact, it is arguable that it was Hollywood that helped destroy the purpose and the reputation of the Dinner – two things the White House Correspondents Association hoped to correct this year.
Rather than make the event a platform for the biased and nasty comedy of Michelle Wolfe — last year’s featured celebrity – the Dinner sponsors chose historian and author Ron Chernow – author of the biography of Alexander Hamilton that was the inspiration for the popular Broadway production.
It was a move that would assure minimal humorous content. Chernow promised to deliver a few knee-slappers but proved that humor is an art form in which historians are relatively unskilled. The best he could elicit from the audience was an occasional round of polite chuckles.
The association took away what Hollywood had brought to the event – the iconic red carpet. Oh yeah, there was still a red runway, but it was not lined by cameras, entertainment reporters and gawkers. If there were those exaggerated poses in front of a multi-labeled advertising backdrop, not may photos of the posers to be seen in the next morning news reports – largely because there was very little reporting on the event … period.
The Association was smart in toning down the event. He had become weaponized by a biased media to attack their political adversaries – specifically President Trump, Vice President Pence, the White House Staff, the Cabinet, congressional Republicans, conservative Supreme Court Justices, FOX News, conservative icons and millions of Americans who do not share the media’s political perspective.
One can only hope that the White House press corps – and the media outlets they represent – and follow the lead of the White House Correspondents’ Association and restore a bit of unbiased civility and integrity to the profession in general.
So, there ‘tis.
Attorney General William Barr is supposed to testify before Congress twice this week, however, one of those appearances is apparently in jeopardy. Based on current negotiations over his appearance, Barr will likely be a “no-show” at a long-awaited hearing on Thursday before the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee, a source on the committee told Fox News on Sunday.
The emerging spat comes after Barr has endured withering attacks from congressional Democrats, who have outright accused him of sacrificing his integrity to appease President Trump. It was Barr who spearheaded the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report in recent weeks, and he has largely become a punching bag for progressives frustrated that Mueller’s probe found no evidence to back up claims that the Trump team colluded with Russians.
Fox News has learned that Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wants to have Judiciary Committee staff — rather than members of Congress — question Barr on his handling of Mueller’s report. But DOJ officials say members should conduct the inquiry.
“The attorney general agreed to appear before Congress; therefore Congress does the questioning,” a DOJ official told Fox News.
Not a Done Deal
Discussions about Thursday’s hearing are ongoing, so it is not yet definitive that Barr will not appear as scheduled. Barr is also scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. There have been no objections for Barr to appear before the GOP-led Senate committee, where Barr is expected to face “normal” rounds of member questioning – and not the partisan attacks he would be subject to in Thursday’s testimony before the House Committee.
Justice officials also told the committee that they are opposed to the panel’s plan to go into a closed session if members want to discuss redacted portions of Mueller’s report, a Democratic senior committee aide told The Associated Press.
“Attorney General Barr wasn’t asked to testify before the committee—he offered,” a spokesperson for House Judiciary Committee Republicans told Fox News. “He provided the Mueller report voluntarily. He invited Democrat leaders to view the less redacted report in person. Yet the only thing, apparently, that will satisfy Democrats, who refuse to read the less redacted report, is to have staff pinch hit when a cabinet-level official appears before us.”
The Republican spokesperson added, “What actual precedent is there for our committee making such demands of a sitting attorney general as part of our oversight duties? The attorney general isn’t a fact witness, and this committee’s investigations—as Democrat leadership reminds us daily—don’t constitute impeachment, so Democrats have yet to prove their demands anything but abusive and illogical in light of the transparency and good faith the attorney general has shown our committee.”
It is unusual for committee counsels to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year, for example, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
Barr Vs the Democrats
This conflict between Barr and U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., chair of the House Judiciary Committee, comes as tensions have escalated sharply between House Democrats and the Trump administration over full access to Mueller’s report and government witnesses who have defied congressional subpoenas to testify. Democrats have been eagerly anticipating the hearing with Barr as they try to build on Mueller’s findings with their own investigations into the president.
According to Fox News, House Democrats have subpoenaed the Justice Department for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying material gathered from the investigation. In response, the Justice Department has said they will make the full report, minus grand jury material (which legally must be withheld), available to a limited group of members — an offer that Democrats have so far refused. The dispute could eventually end up in court.
Nadler has also invited Mueller to testify, and subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn. McGahn was a vital witness for Mueller in the report, which recounted the president’s outrage over the Mueller investigation and his efforts to curtail it. The White House has asserted it will fight the McGahn subpoena.
Former Vice-President Joe Biden has now officially entered the race for the 2020 Democratic nomination for the presidency, but without a key endorsement.
After weeks of speculation and anticipation, Biden announced his run for president in an online video. But one thing conspicuously absent from his announcement was an endorsement from the man at the top of his former ticket.
After his announcement, Biden was asked why President Obama, isn’t publicly backing him.
“I asked President Obama not to endorse,” Biden told Fox News on Thursday outside an Amtrak station in Delaware, adding that “whoever wins this nomination should win it on their own merits.”
But Obama’s people did, however, release a statement praising Biden, but it did fall short of an explicit endorsement of the former VP by his ex-boss of eight years.
“President Obama has long said that selecting Joe Biden as his running mate in 2008 was one of the best decisions he ever made,” Obama spokeswoman Katie Hill said in a statement Thursday morning. “He relied on the Vice President’s knowledge, insight, and judgment throughout both campaigns and the entire presidency. The two forged a special bond over the last 10 years and remain close today.”
President Obama Remaining on the Sidelines
According to Obama’s team, the 44th President intends to remain on the sidelines of the quest for the Democratic nomination – at least for the time being.
Sources close to the Obamas have told Fox News that the former president has made clear that he doesn’t plan on endorsing early in the primary process—if at all.
“President Obama is excited by the extraordinary and diverse talent exhibited in the growing lineup of Democratic primary candidates,” a source close to Obama told Fox News. “He believes that a robust primary in 2007 and 2008 not only made him a better general election candidate but a better president, too. And because of that, it’s unlikely that he will throw his support behind a specific candidate this early in the primary process – preferring instead to let the candidates make their cases directly to the voters.”
However, many, such as this reporter, see the non-endorsement as a rejection of Biden by the former president. RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that “Obama has “chosen *not* to endorse his right-hand man.”
However, former communications director for the Democratic National Committee and former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign Mo Elleithee said he doesn’t view the decision as a snub, saying it is appropriate for Obama to remain on the sidelines.
“I think it’s pretty clear that President Obama wants to play a neutral role in the primary process, and there are a number of candidates in this field that he has a relationship with,” Elleithee, a Fox News contributor and executive director of Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, told Fox News. “I think he wants to focus more on helping set the table for a successful election for the party, rather than necessarily helping to pick the candidate.”
Elleithee said that Obama has praised a number of candidates in the race, but said “he hasn’t put out a statement like he did for Biden today for anyone else.”
Despite a lack of an Obama endorsement, Biden was met with support quickly after his official announcement. Sens. Bob Casey, D-Penn. and Chris Coons, D-Del., were among the first to officially get behind his campaign.
As for President Trump, he reacted to Biden’s announcement with a classic Trump tweet, “Welcome to the race Sleepy Joe. I only hope you have the intelligence, long in doubt, to wage a successful primary campaign,” Trump tweeted, repeating a nickname he’s tagged Biden with and questioning his intelligence and political aptitude.
In his tweet, Trump also tossed an insult at the rest of the 19 Democrats in the primary contest to be the party’s nominee, saying Biden would be dealing with “people who truly have some very sick & demented ideas.”
A number of members of the White House press corps have called for Press Secretary Sarah Sanders to be removed. Last year, I penned a commentary suggesting that it was then time to replace her. It is now well past the time.
To be perfectly clear, my opinion has nothing to do with the highly politicized reasons given by some of the most disreputable members of the White House scribblers. For them, Sanders is just another person surrounding Trump who should be demonized by the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement within the Fourth Estate.
When it comes to anyone not buying into their pernicious and persistent anti-Trump narrative, the media weapon of choice is character assassination. That is why their contempt and hatred goes beyond Trump and members of his administration to the more than 100 million Americans who they derogatorily refer to as “Trump’s base.”
While they see evil in the work of Sanders, I do not. I think she is a very good person doing a very difficult job – made more difficult by many members of a press corps with all the characteristics of a pack of political jackals.
My reason for replacing Sanders is much more compassionate of the person – but unimpressed with the job she has been doing for quite a long time. I do believe she is doing the best she can, but she is not suited for that role.
It has long been my impression that she is on the defensive too often – and not good even at that. She does not take command of the podium, but rather pushes back occasionally by engaging in what can only be described as bickering. She has a so’s-your-old-man level of engagement that does not put her above the fray. In the defensive mode, she is not persuasive – looking more like a fighter on the ropes.
She may respond, but often does not sell her points effectively – and too often walks into traps set by the more antagonistic members of the White House press corps. She also lacks a sense of humor – even mocking humor. She has no flair for the put-down that is essential in verbal combat. It is the old issue of not what you say, but how you phrase it.
She would do well to learn from President Reagan, who could use both humor and anger with devastating effect. Reagan at the podium was a joy to watch and hear. Sanders elicits more of a wincing pain.
Oddly, the person who seems to have the best attributes for the role of presidential press secretary is Anthony Scaramucci, who survived in the job as White House Communications Director for a mere 10 days because of in-house political intrigue – not his innate communications ability. He still appears regularly on various cable news shows – and remains one of the more articulate and effective defenders and representatives of President Trump and administration policies.
The only reason not to replace Sanders immediately is the fact that it would be interpreted as a chest-pounding victory of the members of the Resistance Movement within the press corps. But it should happen as we get into the headwinds of the 2020 presidential campaign.
So, there ‘tis.
Charges have been dropped against a woman who attacked White House top aide, Kellyanne Conway.
The Maryland woman, Mary Elizabeth Inabinett, 63, was originally charged with assaulting White House counselor Kellyanne Conway during a confrontation last year at a restaurant in a Washington suburb. Inabinett’s trial was scheduled to start Monday morning in Montgomery County, Maryland. Instead, a county prosecutor asked a judge to dismiss the charges.
Police had charged Inabinett last November with second-degree assault and disorderly conduct.
Conway declined to comment on the dismissal.
According to Fox News, Conway had told police she was attending a birthday party with her teenage daughter at a Mexican restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland, last October when she felt somebody grab her shoulders from behind and shake her. The woman who confronted Conway yelled, “Shame on you” and “other comments believed to be about Conway’s political views,” according to a charging document prepared by Montgomery County police.
According to the court documents, Conway suffered no injuries in the incident.
Montgomery County prosecutor Kathy Knight said Inabinett sent Conway a letter apologizing for the incident. “She has apologized for choosing this time and place to vent her political views,” Knight said. “That was inappropriate.”
Knight noted Inabinett had never been arrested for a crime before.
Ramon Korionoff, a spokesman for the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office said dropping the charges is “the best resolution for this particular set of circumstances.”
Maraya Pratt, an attorney for Inabinett, said Monday that she couldn’t immediately comment. Another attorney for Inabinett, William Alden McDaniel, Jr., said in a statement in February that his client didn’t assault Conway and was merely exercising her right to express her personal opinions about a public figure in a public place.
While Conway did not comment on the dismissal, in an earlier interview with CNN after the incident, she said she was standing next to her middle school-aged daughter and some of her daughter’s friends when the woman began shaking her “to the point where I thought maybe somebody was hugging me.” She said it felt “weird” and “a little aggressive,” so she turned around to face the woman.
“She was just unhinged. She was out of control,” she said. “Her whole face was terror and anger.”
According to the Associated Press, the restaurant’s manager told police the woman who confronted Conway had to be forcibly removed from the premises. Conway told police the woman yelled and gestured at her for 8 to 10 minutes before she was escorted out of the restaurant. Conway’s daughter provided officers with a short video clip and photograph of the encounter.