Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is Ann Coulter's latest column.

As I've been saying. . . . (Thanks to John Sullivan for the link.)

Here.

To the Editor:

Donald Trump says he will wait until the election is over before deciding if he agrees with the results. Why shouldn’t he?

Given the negative onslaught by the media, the outlandish disparagement of his character by Hillary Clinton’s vicious campaign of lies, the resistance to him from establishment Republicans and his allegations of rigged elections—why shouldn’t he withhold judgment?

OTIS PAGE

Arroyo Grande, Calif.

Note from KBJ: Many leftists never accepted the legitimacy of George W. Bush's victory in 2000. And now they insist that Donald Trump declare, in advance of the election, that he will accept the result. Can you say "hypocrisy"?

Here.

The Cleveland Indians have advanced to the World Series. They beat the Toronto Blue Jays in five games, by scores of 2-0, 2-1, 4-2, 1-5, and 3-0. The vaunted Blue Jays offense scored eight runs in five games. If you take away the game they won, they scored three runs in four games. Didn't Cleveland's team just win the NBA title? Next up: a Super Bowl for the Browns. Not!

Here's the formula followed by the mainstream media (e.g., CNN and the New York Times):

1. Donald Trump says something vague, ambiguous, figurative, or provocative. (Please note that almost all utterances are either vague [to some degree] or ambiguous.)
2. The media put the worst spin on it, i.e., they give Trump the detriment of the doubt. Examples: He didn't say that some Mexicans are rapists (which is obviously true); he said that all or most Mexicans are rapists (which is obviously false). He wasn't speaking figuratively when he said he would build a wall between Mexico and the United States; he was speaking literally. He wasn't wondering aloud whether Ted Cruz's father was an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald's; he was asserting that they were (and implying that Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of President Kennedy). He wasn't criticizing Miss Universe for breaching her contract; he was assailing women. He wasn't claiming that the media have abdicated their role as watchdogs and become part of a conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton elected; he was saying that Democrats are engaged in voter fraud (which of course they are). I could go on, but you get the idea.
3. The media—count to 10—gasp in horror. CNN has panels the members of which take turns expressing shock, dismay, frustration, and anger. The editorial board of the New York Times calls Trump names. Even the Never Trumpers, whose livelihoods and influence are threatened by a Trump presidency, get in the act.

The American people see what's happening. Civility requires giving people the benefit of the doubt. Hillary Clinton always gets the benefit of the doubt, because she's the anointed one. Trump not only never gets the benefit of the doubt; he always gets the detriment of the doubt. This isn't journalism. It's propaganda. The election of 2016 will go down in history as the election in which the American people bitch slapped the mainstream media.

I find it hard to believe that your paper dedicated four pages on Donald Trump issues and never once mentioned the unbelievable issues that have come to light regarding Hillary Clinton. Your endorsement for Clinton clearly shows how biased the news media is. You should be ashamed!

You should present the facts for both, not slam one candidate as the news media have done. The Herald backed a liar and pay-for-play candidate who does not put our country first. Her interest has—and always will be—Clinton first.

ART AUGUST,

MIAMI

Here.

Scott Adams has some thoughts about tonight's debate and the presidential campaign in general.