Monthly Archives: April 2021

"); var pScript = document.createElement("script"); pScript.type = 'text/javascript'; pScript.src = '//embed.sendtonews.com/player3/embedcode.js?fk=' + fkId + '&cid=5945&offsetx=0&offsety=0&floatwidth=400&floatposition=bottom-right'; pScript.async = true; pScript.setAttribute('data-type', 's2nScript'); //pScript['data-type'] = 's2nScript'; elem.append(pHtml); elem.append(pScript); }, insertVideoFuel: function(channelId) { var u = 'https://spreadsheets.google.com/feeds/list/1jVoUBFY2Xpt9g_eSOhoUipSA_OOh7hMbPDYAqYWx3nI/1/public/values?alt=json'; $.ajax({ type: 'GET', url: u, cache: true, dataType: 'json', success: function (response) { if ( typeof(response.feed) !== 'undefined' ) { var img_url = 'https://res.cloudinary.com/review-journal/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,c_scale,w_1200/v1611081380/webdev/New7at7onGray.jpg'; //response.feed.entry[0]['gsx$imageurl']['$t']; var description = response.feed.entry[0]['gsx$description']['$t']; var elem = $('#stn-in-article-player'); var pHtml = $('',{'data-channel':channelId,'data-poster-image':img_url,'data-autoplay':'true','data-muted':'true','data-floating':'true'}); var click_url = '/7at7/?utm_campaign=7at7&utm_medium=insert_widget&utm_source=article_page'; var f_title = $('',{'class':'f-title'}).append( $('',{'href':click_url, 'alt':'7at7'}).append( $('',{'html':'Watch '}) ).append( $('',{'alt':'logo-7at7','src':'https://res.cloudinary.com/review-journal/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto,c_scale,w_50/v1611100661/webdev/seven2.png'}) ).append( $('',{'html':' now streaming'}) ) ); var f_desc = $('',{'class':'f-desc','html':description}) var pScript = document.createElement("script"); pScript.type = 'text/javascript'; pScript.src = 'https://fuel-streaming-prod01.fuelmedia.io/player/1.0/player.min.js'; pScript.async = true; pScript.setAttribute('id', 'fuel-player-script'); elem.addClass('rj-fuel-77'); elem.append(pHtml); elem.append(f_title); elem.append(f_desc); elem.append(pScript); } }, error: function (xhr, ajaxOptions, thrownError) { console.log('rj_xhr.status:' + xhr.status + '_error:' + thrownError); } }); }, videoIDs: { 'category-local': {'id': '7395798e-4c30-417b-8b1a-b3d7bad8ff98', 'provider':'fuel'}, 'tag-coronavirus': {'id': 'u37v495p'}, 'category-politics-and-government': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-mc-opinion': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-mc-crime': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'tag-2020-election': {'id': 'kqRvD0a8'}, 'rj-main-category--science-and-technology': {'id': 'j88hQyle'}, 'tag-mc-news': {'id': 'pCyFtg5f'}, 'tag-mc-business': {'id': '31shkzyP'}, 'rj-main-category--raiders': {'id': 'bpswZwKM'}, 'tag-mc-sports': {'id': 'dbx2WkwF'}, 'rj-main-category--food': {'id': '3DQjoZb7'}, 'tag-mc-entertainment': {'id': 'YBuF2XdP'}, 'tag-mc-life': {'id': 'aaWqdJ5u'}, 'tag-mc-autos': {'id': 'kag2nBSV'}, 'tag-mc-homes': {'id': 'HPa6ehMQ'} }, getVideoId: function() { //var fkId = false, var vdo_k = false; for (var checkClass in stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs) { if (stnInArticleVideo.wrapper.hasClass(checkClass)) { //fkId = videoIDs[checkClass].id; vdo_k = checkClass; break; } } return vdo_k; //fkId; }, run: function() { stnInArticleVideo.wrapper = $('article.rj-story.rj-story-full'); if (stnInArticleVideo.wrapper && stnInArticleVideo.canInsertVideo()) { var vdo_k = stnInArticleVideo.getVideoId(); if (vdo_k) { if (stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].hasOwnProperty('provider') && stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].provider == 'fuel') { stnInArticleVideo.insertVideoFuel(stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].id); } else { stnInArticleVideo.insertVideo(stnInArticleVideo.videoIDs[vdo_k].id); } } } } }; stnInArticleVideo.run(); });})(jQuery);

Here is the original post:

Will Donald Trump run for president again, win in 2024? Bet on it - Las Vegas Review-Journal

The former US President became the subject of fresh controversy last week after MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski revisited the time Mr Trump allegedly claimed his wife had never undergone a cosmetic intervention.Following the purported remarks, Mr Trump claimed Ms Brzezinski was "bleeding badly from a face lift, something that the journalist branded as face shaming.

Ms Brzezinski addressed the infamous remarks, which Mr Trump issued on his now-defunct Twitter account, in a new interview for the New Abnormal podcast.

According to the presenter, the woman to woman conversation took place in the couples bedroom about eight weeks after Mr Trump had won the election.

She said: Melania was very curious about [the procedure].

"I'm talking to Melania about it, woman to woman, then Donald came up and said, 'you know, Melania has had no work done. She's perfect.'

Im like, 'that's great.

In response to the podcast interview, Twitter users took to the social media platform to voice their opinion about the claims, with some accusing Mr Trump of lying.

One Twitter user wrote: You knew Trump was lying because he was breathing.

Another person added: She looks like a whole new person!!

Come on now, please. Shes beginning to look like an old cat now.

See the original post:

Donald Trump savagely mocked on Twitter over claims Melania had no work done Lying - Daily Express

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or onbangordailynews.com.

Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University.

President Joe Bidens bid to retool the U.S. economy has me thinking about the parallels with earlier transformational presidents: FDR and Reagan. One of the most interesting aspects of these previous administrations was that the big changes they implemented actually began under their predecessors of the opposite party. Just as Ronald Reagan expanded on Jimmy Carters accomplishments, and Franklin D. Roosevelt got a running start from Herbert Hoover, Biden is benefiting from a change in momentum that began under Donald Trump.

Reagans economic program consisted of three main pillars: tax cuts, deregulation and tight money. But the latter two were actually hallmarks of the Carter administration.

Libertarians were no fans of Carter when he was president, but theyve come to realize that he was actually a very vigorous deregulator in many ways, more so than Reagan himself. The economic double threat of stagnation and inflation in the 1970s created a general consensus that the government needed to reduce its control over prices and participation in specific sectors of the economy, particularly transportation and energy.

A little of this happened under Gerald Ford, but mostly it happened under Carter. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 removed all kinds of federal controls over what routes airlines were allowed to fly and what prices they were allowed to charge and how easy it was to start a new airline. The Staggers Rail Act and the Motor Carrier Act did similar things for rail and trucking. Carter also removed many of the price controls on oil and natural gas implemented during the Nixon administration. Reagan also did some deregulation, but he was mostly just continuing down the path that Carter had already laid out.

The high inflation of the 1970s also created a general consensus that monetary policy needed to be tightened up. This was done by Paul Volcker, whom Carter appointed in 1979 as chair of the Federal Reserve. Volckers interest rate increases began under Carter (and the recession they caused probably contributed to Carters 1980 electoral defeat).

So a lot of what we tend to think of as the Reagan Revolution began under Carter. This echoes another historical episode: the New Deal. Though Herbert Hoover eventually became a bitter opponent of Roosevelts programs, as president he was widely hailed as a champion of policy activism. An engineer by trade, Hoover tried to encourage cooperation between government and industry. When the Great Depression hit, he responded with a flurry of programs that boosted spending by almost 50 percent and increased regulation of agriculture; he created laws to prop up wages and signed a pro-union bill. All of these represented unprecedented levels of government intervention in the economy, and foreshadowed actions FDR would eventually take under the New Deal.

Thus, its very normal throughout history for economic policy revolutions to start under presidents from the opposite party of the one who eventually gets the credit. A similar progression looks likely to play out with Trump and Biden.

Trumps economic policies were, generally speaking, shambolic and unfocused. He didnt appear to be following any intellectual paradigm or school of thought; instead, he lashed out at whoever annoyed him in the moment, be it China, U.S. allies or American companies that shipped factories overseas. But by doing that, he broke with the most important and powerful consensus in elite policy circles: free trade.

This consensus, which was shared by almost all economists, was so strong that perhaps only a maverick like Trump could smash through it. Below the level of elite opinion, dissatisfaction with free trade had been boiling for years. Though worries over competition from Japan and Europe in the 1980s turned out to be overblown, China had proved to be the real thing. In the 2000s, substantial numbers of American workers lost their careers to Chinese competition and never recovered. Meanwhile, the U.S. industrial commons eroded, calling the entire nations competitiveness into question:

Though Biden is suspending tariffs on U.S. allies, hes keeping the ones on China. In fact, Bidens entire China policy essentially continues in the direction that Trump laid out. Bidens economic program, though it doesnt involve the president yelling at companies to put jobs in America, revolves around industrial policy and the reshoring of supply chains; in this sense it shares a basic goal with Trump.

Trumps break with orthodoxy wasnt complete, of course. In many ways he governed as a typical Republican, cutting taxes and regulation and increasing work requirements for welfare programs. But on trade and industrial policy, he blazed a trail by neutering his own partys opposition to change. On these topics, a fair number of conservative think tanks and politicians are joining the bandwagon.

Perhaps thats how big policy changes ultimately happen. Carter wont go down in history as the great champion of deregulation, nor Hoover of big government. And if Biden ultimately succeeds in reorienting American economic policy away from free trade in a systematic and effective manner, hell likely be the one who gets associated with that shift by future generations. But it was Trumps stumbling, erratic approach that paved the way.

View original post here:

Opinion: Donald Trump blazed a trail that clears the way for Joe Biden - Bangor Daily News

John Boehner, a Republican predecessor, concedes that Nancy Pelosi may be the most powerful House speaker in history. Pelosi provided George W Bush with the votes he needed to prevent a depression, as Republicans balked. She helped make Obamacare the law of the land.

Pelosi repeatedly humbled Donald Trump. Already this year, she has outlasted his acolytes invasion of the Capitol and helped jam Joe Bidens Covid relief through Congress. Hers is an iron fist wrapped in a Gucci glove, in the words of Susan Page and John Bresnahan of Punchbowl.

This latest Pelosi biography traces her trajectory from Baltimore to DC. Geographically circuitous, Pelosis ascent was neither plodding nor meteoric.

Page delivers a worthwhile and documented read, a running interview with her subject together with quotes from friends and foes. Andy Card, chief of staff to Bush, and Newt Gingrich, a disgraced House speaker, both pay grudging tribute to the congresswoman from San Francisco.

In the same spirit, Steve Bannon, Trumps pardoned White House counselor, is caught calling Pelosi an assassin. He meant it as a compliment.

Page is Washington bureau chief for USA Today. She has covered seven presidencies and moderated last falls vice-presidential debate. She also wrote Matriarch, a biography of Barbara Bush.

Madam Speaker makes clear that the speakership was not a job Pelosi spent a lifetime craving but it is definitely a role she wanted and, more importantly, mastered. She understood that no one relinquishes power for the asking. Rather, it must be taken.

Pelosi took on the boys club and won. Ask Steny Hoyer, the No2 House Democrat. Her tire tracks cover his back. As fate would have it, their younger selves worked together in the same office for the same boss.

Catholicism and the New Deal were foundational and formational. Thomas DAlesandro Jr, Pelosis father, served in Congress and as mayor of Baltimore, a position later held by her brother. Pelosi is a liberal, albeit one with an eye toward the practical. Utopia can wait. AOC is not her cup of tea.

As a novice congressional candidate, Pelosi was not built for the stump. She chaired the California Democratic party and the finance committee of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Her specialty was the inside game. No matter. In a spring of 1987 special election, Pelosi reached out to Bay area Republicans. They provided her margin of victory.

Once in Congress, Pelosi became the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee and climbed to join the party leadership. Fundraising skills and attention to detail helped.

Pelosi also made common cause with unusual suspects. Page records her friendship with the late John Murtha, a gruff ex-marine and congressman from western Pennsylvania God and Guns country.

Murtha furnished Pelosi with ammo and cover in opposing the Iraq war. He also managed her quest for the speakership. After Murtha lost to Hoyer in an intra-party contest in 2006, the Pennsylvanian announced his retirement.

Among Murthas notes found by Page was one that read: More liberal than I but she has ability to get things done and shes given a tremendous service to our Congress and country. Another one: Able to come to a practical solution.

Pages book chronicles Pelosis capacity to judge talent. She took an early shine to a young Adam Schiff, another east coast transplant, but held a dimmer view of Jerrold Nadler, a long-in-the-tooth congressman from Manhattans Upper West Side and chair of the judiciary committee.

A former federal prosecutor, Schiff wrested his California seat from James Rogan, a Republican. Nadler could not control his own committee. After a raucous hearing in September 2019, the die was set. Schiff, not Nadler, would be riding herd in Trumps first impeachment. Seniority and tradition took a back seat to competence.

Context mattered as well. Pelosis relationship with Bush was fraught, yet she squashed Democratic moves to impeach him over Iraq a move Trump actually advocated. She had witnessed Bill Clintons impeachment and concluded that harsh political judgments were generally best left to the electorate. Impeachment was not politics as usual. Or another tool in the kit.

Trump was different. Practically speaking, draining the swamp translated into trampling norms and the law. Bill Barr, his second attorney general, had an expansive view of executive power and a disdain for truth and Democrats. His presence emboldened Trump.

For more than two years, Pelosi resisted impeachment efforts by firebrands in her party. She acceded when Trumps Ukraine gambit became public. He had frozen military aid to Russias embattled neighbor, seeking to prod the country into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden.

Trump made the personal political and vice versa. Pelosi had a long memory and kept grudges. But this was different. After Bidens election victory, Pelosi called Trump a psychopathic nut. A mother of five and grandmother to nine, she knew something about unruly children.

Pelosi is not clairvoyant. She predicted a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 and Democratic triumphs down-ballot four years later. Instead, Clinton watches the Biden presidency from the sidelines, the Senate is split 50-50 and Pelosis margin in the House is down to a handful of votes.

To her credit, Pelosi quickly internalized that Trump was a would-be authoritarian whose respect for electoral outcomes was purely situational: heads I win, tails I still win. Populism was only for the part of the populace that embraced him.

Hours after the Capitol insurrection, at 3.42am on 7 January 2021, the rioters were spent, the challenges done, the election certified.

To those who strove to deter us from our responsibility, Pelosi declared: You have failed.

Biden sits behind the Resolute desk. Pelosi wields her gavel.

Read the original:

Madam Speaker review: how Nancy Pelosi bested Bush and Trump - The Guardian

People are using $5 ladders to climb over sections of the $15 billion southern border wall built under former President Donald Trump's administration, Texas Monthly reported.

US Border Patrol officials who monitor the wall, which has been built along parts of the US-Mexico border, frequently find discarded ladders left by unauthorized migrants crossing into southern Texas along certain parts of the wall, the report said.

The Texas Monthly report cited Scott Nicol, an activist and Texas resident, who said, "These ladders are probably $5 worth of hardware, and they're defeating a wall that cost $12 million a mile in that location."

He added: "Unlike the wall, these ladders are functional."

Trump's pledge to build a wall was one of his central campaign promises in 2016. There have been multiple reports since then that migrants are able to climb parts of the wall and scale down the other side.

A viral video published in 2019 showed a person who had scaled the wall using a ladder then sliding down the other side.

The ladders, often made from scrap lumber, are reportedly common along the stretch of the wall between the Texas cities of Granjeno and Hidalgo, whereas rope ladders are more commonly used farther up the Rio Grande river.

Border Patrol agents reportedly drive their vehicles over the ladders to destroy them, tossing them into piles that have to be hauled off to landfills, Texas Monthly reported.

The stretch between Hidalgo and Granjeno was partially constructed under Trump and partially during Barack Obama's administration, Texas Monthly reported, with the cost of the Trump section of the wall reaching $27 million a mile.

Trump's pledge to build a complete 1,000-mile wall along the US-Mexico border was never finished, Insider's Tom Porter reported.

He built 80 extra miles of wall during his presidency and much of his presidency was spent reinforcing 400 miles of fences and barriers that had been installed during previous administrations.

He had pledged that Mexico would fund the work, but the estimated $15 billion in fundinginstead came from federal taxes.

Read the original:

People are climbing over Trumps $15 billion border wall with $5 ladders - Business Insider

Donald Trump Jr has value. No, really. Its the same sort of value a nuclear accident has. Toxic waste spewing out of a badly run power plant has a horrific impact but it sometimes leads to safety improvements. Maybe the same could be true of the toxic waste spilling out of Donnies social media feeds on the subject of the police.

His crass response to the conviction of Derek Chauvin for murdering George Floyd was to cheer a right-wing websites post of a Die Hard meme (he says its his favourite Christmas movie) alluding to calls for police reform.

Large Turnout At Memorial For Hans Gruber Who Was Thrown From A Building By A Police Officer, said the post, referencing the baddie played by the late Alan Rickman, who is thrown from the Nakatomi Plaza by police officer John McClane.

For the uninitiated, McClane is the super cop who manages to keep encountering groups of crazed criminals while hes off duty and has to wage a lonely struggle to foil their dastardly plots while rescuing groups of scared hostages.

McClane is a walking, talking trope. Hes someone weve seen in a million and one cop shows and movies. Hes world-weary, has a messy personal life, and has to battle not just the bad guys but also myopic and uncaring officialdom along the way (the films, at least the early ones, work because of their execution).

What Don Jr inadvertently demonstrated with his post was the power of this messaging. Enough power to play a role in the marked reluctance of previous juries to convict cops when they commit criminal offences while on duty? Maybe so.

Ask yourself why companies spend billions of pounds/dollars on TV ads. The reason is: because it works. A friend of mine working in that sphere once described advertising as a science.

It involves repeatedly pumping the same message into peoples homes so that it sinks in and shapes their thinking. This is why certain drinks brands seem young, attractive and the sort of thing you chug after playing sports in the sun, even though they patently arent healthy.

Certain fast foods will make your kids smile, and the burgers always look scrumdiddlyumptious. You see the ad and you want to buy one. And why on earth would you want to be seen with a cheaper phone that might work better when all cool kids have the same brand?

When the commercial break is over its back to the world-weary cops who bend, even break, the rules in their fight against both the criminals and a system designed to protect the bad guys.

Seriously, the only cops like Derek Chauvin you typically see on screen are those from the Office of International Affairs (known as complaints investigation in the UK).

Theyre all snakes, determined to fit up our heroes for the most minor infractions. To properly protect you and your family the cops need to be left alone with the power of judge, jury, and executioner. Even if you live in nice suburbs with white picket fences and manicured lawns where your chances of an encounter with violent crime are about as great as witnessing a member of the Trump family saying you know what, maybe I was wrong about that.

I know people are mostly aware that what theyre seeing is fiction when they tune into a cop show or movie. But when those dramas ram home the same message again and again its bound to have an impact as Don Jr, whose political antennae are quite sharp despite the buffoonery he indulges in, demonstrated by calling upon that Die Hard reference.

Its true that these days we do sometimes get to see the very different experience of policing black people have on screen. Thereve been awards winners like if Beale Street Could Talk, more action-packed affairs such as the Queen & Slim, or even Black & Blue. In Britain, weve had Steve McQueens Red, White and Blue, part of the Small Axe anthology on the BBC, but lets not kid ourselves that all is sweetness and light on these shores. Just ask any black teenager who takes a walk to the shops while wearing a hoodie.

Netflix has Two Distant Strangers, a hot tip for the best short film Oscar, which warps the premise of Groundhog Day to devastating effect, showing its protagonist unable to escape getting killed by a police officer again and again when he just wants to get home to his dog.

Its doesnt make for easy viewing. Don Jr and his acolytes are probably never going to watch it. The same may sadly be true of middle America. I had to hunt around for it. Despite its Oscar nod, the algorithm didnt cough it up on my home screen.

These perspectives really need to find their way into the crime dramas people consume daily, because if the entertainment industry were to reform its messaging to give a more nuanced view of policing, it might help to further the goal of the police reform thats clearly badly needed.

Perhaps its time for an Internal Affairs series focussing on the people who police the police? But do the real-life versions deserve it? Or perhaps the question is: If the Internal Affairs cops were doing their jobs well in the first place, would we even be here?

Original post:

Could Donald Trump Jrs crass Die Hard meme on policing inadvertently encourage reform? - The Independent

In the case of modern presidents, for the official record, we rely on transcriptions of all their speeches collected by the national government.

But in the case of President Donald Trump, that historical record is likely to have a big gap. Almost 10% of his public speeches as president are excluded from the official record. That means a false picture of the Trump presidency is being created in the official record for posterity.

In 1957, the National Historical Publications Commission, a part of the National Archives, recommended developing a uniform system so all materials from presidencies could be archived. They did this to literally save presidential records from the flames: President Warren G. Harding's wife claimed to have burned all his records, and Robert Todd Lincoln burned all his father's war correspondence. Other presidents who had their records intentionally destroyed include Chester A. Arthur and Martin Van Buren.

So the government collects and retains all presidential communications including executive orders, announcements, nominations, statements, and speeches. This includes any public verbal communications by presidents, which are also placed in the Compilation of Presidential Documents.

These are part of the official record of any administration, published by the National Archives. In most presidencies, the document or transcript is available a few days to a couple of weeks after any event. At the conclusion of an administration, these documents form the basis for the formal collections of the Public Papers of the President.

As a political scientist, I'm interested in where presidents give speeches. What can be learned about their priorities based on their choice of location? What do these patterns tell us about administrations?

For example, President Barack Obama primarily focused on large media markets in states that strongly supported him. Trump went to supportive places as well, including small media markets such as Duluth and Mankato, Minnesota, where the airport was not even large enough to accommodate the regular Air Force One.

I found something odd when I began to organize my own database of locations for Trump's speeches. I was born and raised in Louisville, so I pay attention to Kentucky. I knew that on March 20, 2017, he addressed a rally in Louisville, a meandering speech that touched on everything from coal miners to the Supreme Court, China to building a border wall, and the "illegal immigrants" who were, he said, robbing and murdering Americans.

But when I looked at the compilation a few months later, I couldn't find the speech. No problem, I thought. They are running behind and will put it in later.

A year later, it was still not there. Furthermore, others were missing. These were not any speeches, only the rallies. By my count, 147 separate transcripts for public speaking events are missing from Trump's official records just above 8% of his presidential addresses.

A 1978 law says administrations must retain "any documentary materials relating to the political activities" of the president or his staff if such activities "relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out" of the president's official or ceremonial duties.

An administration may exclude records that are purely private or don't have an effect on official duties. All public events are included, such as quick comments on the South Lawn, short exchanges with reporters and all public speeches, radio addresses, and even public telephone calls to astronauts aboard space shuttles.

But Trump's widely attended rallies, and what he said at them, have so far been omitted from the public record his administration supplied to the Compilation of Presidential Documents. And while historians and the public could make transcripts from publicly available videos, that still does not address the need to have a complete official collection of the 45th president's statements.

Federal law says presidents may exclude "materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of ... duties of the President."

This has been interpreted to mean an administration could omit notes, emails, or other documentation from what it sends to the compilation. While many presidents do not provide transcripts for speeches at private fundraising events, rallies covered by America's press corps do not likely fall under these exclusions.

Government documents are among the primary records of who we are as a people.

These primary records speak to Americans directly; they are not what others tell us or interpret for us about our history. The government compiles and preserves these records to give an accurate accounting of the leaders the country has chosen. They provide a shared history in full, instead of an excerpt or quick clip shown in a news report.

Since 1981, the public has legally owned all presidential records. As soon as a president leaves office, the National Archivist gets legal custody of all of them. Presidents are generally on their honor to be good stewards of history. There is no real penalty for noncompliance.

But these documents have so far always been available to the public and they've been available quickly. All public speeches of every president since Bill Clinton have been available online. Until Trump, there was nothing missing.

By removing these speeches, Trump is creating a false perception of his presidency, making it look more serious and traditional than it was.

That Louisville speech, for example, is still among the missing.

Shannon Bow O'Brien is an assistant professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. She wrote this originally for The Fulcrum.

More here:

National View: Trump loves rallies; so why aren't they all part of the historical record? - Duluth News Tribune