MONDAY, MAY 6, 2024
Also, Welker's repeated question: Kudos to the Washington Post for what it has started to try to do.
In a lengthy report by David Nakamura, the paper has now started to try to explain the legal basis on which Donald J. Trump has been charged with a felony—actually, with 34 felonies—in the ongoing "hush money" trial.
The report appeared online this very morning at 5 o'clock Eastern. Online, a pair of headlines say this:
This obscure N.Y. election law is at the heart of Trump’s hush money trial
Prosecutors say a misdemeanor state conspiracy statute spells out the underlying crime Trump aimed to conceal when he made hush money payments in 2016.
The N.Y. election law is obscure, and the legal theory involved in the matter seems to be complex. We want to take another day to work through what Nakamura has written, but this type of report is long overdue, and the Post deserves our somewhat belated applause.
We feel differently about Kristen Welker's repeated question for Tim Scott. On yesterday's Meet the Press, she asked the question again and again, and then again and again.
She asked the question at least six times. The effort started like this:
WELKER (5/5/24): Well, senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024, bottom line?
SCOTT: At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump, and I'm excited to get back to low inflation, low unemployment—
WELKER: Wait— Wait, senator, yes or no? Yes or no? Will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins?
SCOTT: That is my statement.
The effort continued from there. To peruse the full back-and-forth, you can just click here.
For the record, Welker didn't just ask the question six times. She kept asking for a "yes or no answer," a highly unhelpful type of journalistic practice.
Question:
How can you ask a pol to declare that he'll accept the result of an election which hasn't yet taken place? Suppose some real irregularity happens this time in some state? Is a pol really supposed to say, in advance, that he'll just let it go?
Example:
Candidate Gore challenged the initial results in Florida in Election 2000. There's no reason why he shouldn't have done so, and it would have been silly to make him pledge, before the fact, that he'd never do such a thing.
Or did Welker mean something different by her repeated question? We have no sympathy for Scott in this matter, or for his tedious, time-killing non-answer answers. But it seems to us that Welker's question made and makes little sense, and it makes absolutely no sense as a "yes or no" type of question.
Are we the people bright enough to run a so-called democracy? That's one of the questions we'll be asking over the next few months.
The Post has started to try to explain the legal basis for the Gotham "hush money" trial. We think the Post deserves at least two cheers, but we don't think Welker's (rather familiar) question made a whole lot of sense.
The Zionist experiment has failed. It’s time to pull the plug.
ReplyDeleteZionism succeeded in purging Jews from Western countries, which was their goal, so in that respect, as a subversive, antisemitic movement, it was a tremendous, though short-lived, success.
DeleteThe majority of Jews now live secular lives in the US, and primarily vote for the blue tribe, meanwhile Israeli Jews live in constant turmoil, so in that respect, Zionism has been an utter failure.
Israel is failing because society at large no longer is comfortable with apartheid.
Were Israel to move away from a right wing agenda, and integrate Palestinians into their country as citizens with all the same rights and privileges as Jews, Israel would be heralded as a tremendous success.
There is a myth that Israel plays some role in keeping America safe, but there is no substance to this, it is pure poppycock. It is time to use the weight of America to end Israel's failed attempt at a theocratic ethnostate.
Palestinians need to stop the suicide bombings if they want to be embraced as citizens.
Delete“ Suppose some real irregularity happens this time in some state? Is a pol really supposed to say, in advance, that he'll just let it go?”
ReplyDeleteScott could have said that. He did not. The GOP is committed to the idea that the 2020 election was rigged, in the absence of any evidence. Public servants should at the very least assure the public that the election system in the United States is fundamentally sound, that fraud is practically nonexistent. So Scott’s non-answer is telling. It is part of the Republican playbook to undermine faith in public institutions.
Vote for Trump likes it the last election you'll have any say in, because if Trump wins, it will be.
ReplyDeleteElections suck. The Swamp breeds too many Soros trolls.
Delete3:49,
DeleteThat's what the Deep State wants you to believe. Don't be a sucker.
Anonymouse 2:11pm, just out of curiosity, how can you say that fraud in voting is practically nonexistent when Democrats questioned both elections of G.W. Bush, Trump 2016, Trump 2020 ( disappearing mail boxes) and have cried voter disenfranchisement for decades?
DeleteA recount showed that Gore won in 2000, the fraud was not with the voting but with the Supreme Court stopping a normal recount in order to hand the presidency to Bush (largely because O'Connor wanted to retire, as she was suffering from the onset of dementia).
DeleteIn 2016 Dems made claims, based on evidence, about election interference and voter suppression. They did not claim voter fraud, and they did accept the results.
In 2020, there were audits and they did confirm some voter fraud on the part of Republicans but that it did not determine any outcomes. There remained at that time issues of interference and voter suppression from Republicans, and that continues to this day. Trump then tried to steal the election, while Dems accepted the result.
More mail-in ballots with no signature verification and no cutoff date will fix all our problems.
DeleteAnonymouse 5:24pm, here’s the voter fraud rhetoric on both sides for 2004 presidential election.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies#:~:text=Two%20poll%20workers%20in%20Cuyahoga,raised%20issues%20of%20election%20irregularities.
Will you go on record as categorically accepting the outcome of the 2024 election?
In the same way Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh went on record saying Roe v Wade was settled law?
DeleteOh, come on! Our Host is pretending not to know what happened following the last presidential election. That's the only possible explanation I can come up with for saying Kristen Welker's question to Tim Scott "made and makes no sense."
ReplyDeleteLast time round, the incumbent Trump plainly and flatly came in second. The many states followed their own election laws and, like every other time a presidential election has been held, they submitted their Electoral College votes to be counted.
There were no irregularities. Every state certified its result. Every question raised about the process and the results was answered with finality. Trump lost.
In any other year, with any other candidate, the result would have been decisive. As we all well know, candidate Trump undertook a new campaign, one of insinuation, accusation, and deception. He refused to "accept the outcome of the election," despite all of the checking and rechecking of results. He sent his surrogates around to news outlets to tell wild tales of ballot box stuffing, suitcases full of fake votes, middle of the night "dumps" of votes, and many other invented irregularities. He even orchestrated a plan to have phony electors submit unauthorized votes to the Electoral College. Finally, he called on tens of thousands of his supporters to invade our Capitol during the counting of votes to try to forestall his defeat.
So how does it "make no sense" for a journalist to ask whether a would-be running mate for Trump's latest campaign whether we're going to see a rerun? It would make no sense for a journalist *not* to ask.
QiB, it makes no sense for a journo to demand that Sen. Scott go on record as to whether he will unquestionably support the result of any future election, for the reason Bob stated.
DeleteBTW: Scott accepted the election in 2020.
We don’t know what will happen in the next election. That’s a fact.
If Trump wins 2024 will anonymices accept the election without question? Will they refrain from attributing it Russian influence, etc?
Before Donald J Chickenshit fouled our fair nation and tried to lead an insurrection and steal the election, it went without saying that the loser would gracefully concede the election.
DeleteBut I agree with you, Cecelia, idiots in the media need to stop begging these maggots to promise to behave in a civilized manner. It's not up to Tim Scott or Donald J Chickenshit to decide if he lost. Fuck em.
This is why the prosecution of those fake electors is so important. Republican state officials made a trial run of overturning the 2020 election, but did not succeed. They might try again, unless they fear prosecution. Remember, the election was fair, but Republicans tried to overturn it. Remember that, Cecelia. I realize it was no big deal to Somerby, who treated it like some kind of joke.
DeleteSomerby wants us to believe that the straightforward Trump porn star hush money case is complex and murky.
ReplyDeleteSomerby also wants us to believe that it is not reasonable, considering the context of Jan 6, to push for Republicans to say they will accept the election results.
Brother, please. Nobody is buying Somerby's nonsense, he is preaching to the choir - his tiny cohort of right wing fanboys, who come around here looking for their daily emotional hit of owning the libs.
Last week, at his rallies, Trump said the GOP is going downhill, and that Biden did a good job his first year being president, and that GDP is growing.
ReplyDeleteTrump wanted to say something about infrastructure, but could not pronounce the word, and then did his now famous trailing off glitch thing.
Trump did perk up when excitedly talking about how when he was a kid he used to play with Master Locks as a toy, and he proceeded to demonstrate how he would play, adding in wild hand gestures and all kinds of sfx with his mouth. (Master Lock makes locks, not toys.)
No, really, this all happened. It was weird and disturbing, and crickets from Bob, who otherwise rushes to post about Biden stuttering, a condition Biden has had his whole life, or any other innocuous gaff from the blue tribe that he can weaponize towards his empty and disingenuous goal.
It's so heartwarming that Soros-bots and idiot-moonbats faithfully listen to every Donald Trump's speech.
DeleteCope.
DeleteWhat does it mean to “accept” or “not accept” an election? Trump does accept Biden’s election in the sense that he obeys actions legally done by the president. Hillary accepted Trump’s victory for the same reason.
ReplyDeleteNow Trump and Hillary are free to say that the election was stolen or rigged. But IMO that does not mean that they don’t. “accept” the result. In our democratic system the loser is not required agree that the election was fair. The winner takes office anyway.
Go fuck yourself, David.
DeleteWere you out of the country in early 2021? Then-president Trump gave us a clear example of what it means to "not accept" the outcome of an election.
DeleteQiB, google videos of some city streets on Trump’s Inauguration Day.
Deletehttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna889531
DeleteBTW I can recall numerous Dems chanting "Not my President!" after Trump won in 2016. That's their right to free speech, But, I also recall various federal agencies choosing to be uncooperative with Trump. That's real world, meaningful failure to accept an election
DeleteA significant minority of Hillary Clinton supporters said Trump's victory was illegitimate at the time.
DeleteHillary conceded. You can’t expect all of her supporters to be happy about it.
DeleteBut, I also recall various federal agencies choosing to be uncooperative with Trump.
DeleteBut you're a fucking LIAR, Dickhead in Cal.
Scott and other republicans, led by Trump, aren’t talking about past elections. They are telling us they will refuse to accept the next election results if Trump doesn’t win. They do not issue any caveat like “well, I will accept Trump’s defeat it if there are no major provable flaws.”
DeleteDiC: Are you equating 'Not my president" and "Hang Mike Pence "?
DeleteIf Trump wins in November (a big if), I want a photo of David in Cal's face as he is crammed into a cattle car, along with the rest of the Jews, by Trump's henchmen.
DeleteDavid, Hillary didn’t make it out of her hotel room the night Trump won and she continued to say that we don’t know whatreally happened.
ReplyDeleteHey, Hillary can we get you on record for 2024 if Trump wins?
Hillary wrote an entire book about the 2016 election titled "What Happened"
Deletehttps://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1501175564
She did not maintain or continue to say that we don't know what really happened. Of course, the truth about Russian collusion continues to come out, as do details about how Trump rigged his "catch and kill" election interference scheme, for example. There are many things like this that we will continue to find out more about during Trump's trials.
Anonymouse 6:32pm, the left won’t say that there was no evidence of Trump collusion with Russia after the Mueller Report said it. Let alone getting Tim Scott on record as to 2024.
DeleteThere was evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia from the time he said “Russia if you’re listening..” and actually way before.
DeleteHillary phoned Trump that night and was on the platform for the peaceful transfer of power. You really are a stupid, vile Kunt Cecelia.
DeleteAnonymouse 6:57pm, even a Disney Princess like yourself should be able to understand how that gesture is trivialized by what she has said later.
DeleteHer official concession far outweighs anything unofficial.
DeleteThe Russia story was "engineered" by Clinton from the beginning.
Delete"Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”
Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant ― with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright demagoguery.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-the-russia-spin-got-so-much-torque_b_5906e5f6e4b03b105b44ba15
Hillary isn’t running for anything, so how is this relevant to anything?
DeleteIt's relevant to candidates besides Trump not accepting the results of the election.
DeleteMaggots are so funny trying to hide dear Donald J Chickenshit behind Hillary's skirt. I can't wait to watch Donald J Chickenshit testify in his insurrection trial and explain that Hillary did the same thing. Bwahahahaha!!!!!
DeleteThe insurrection charge is a joke. The rioters did terrible things, but Trump's blame cannot be proved.
DeleteHe didn't tell anyone to go into the Capitol or to riot. On the contrary, he told his people to demonstrate "peacefully". Later (perhaps too much later) he sent a message telling the rioters to disperse.
Now, it's quite possible that in his heart of hearts, Trump may have been pleased with the riot. But, how can that be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
Let Jack Smith try, David.
DeletePeople like Bob and David have been insisting Jan 6 and other MAGA crimes couldn’t be proved, where impossible to understand, couldn’t be called what courts ultimately called them, etc., etc.
DeleteThey have now been proven wrong hundreds of times.
Bob piously insists he just doesn’t like to see people go to jail. But when Republicans chanted “lock her up!” He
was mute. Obviously David had no problem with it.
If Trump wins (big if) two of the major
investigations will be thrown away in more naked corruption from a man Bob insists is mentally ill. He can’t touch Georgia, hopefully. But it’s important to
understand screwballs like Bob and David always hated the American system, believed might makes right, and are no decent person’s friend.
For many year idiots like these posters here could make anything go away just by saying “Hillary.” That’s party on us.
DeleteThe "Russia story" wasn't engineered. And it wasn't a hoax. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat this. There are certain facts involved in the story, plus there are very reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. I think you might be trying too hard to prove that you can't be "conned" by mainstream "narratives" or something. And btw, Clinton wasn't that bad of a candidate either. I remember being impressed by how well prepared she was for the debates and how well she did during them. The polling showed most people thought she won every one of them. She wasn't perfect of course, but no candidate is, and it should go without saying that she would have been an infinitely better president than Trump.
DeleteNo, it was an engineered hoax from the git go. It started the last week of July 2016, right after the convention.
Delete"Reasonable conclusions that can be drawn"? That doesn't mean shit. Trump was accused of colluding with Russia. Dems said over and over they had seen actual evidence of the Campaign participating with Russia in their election interference crimes. But they never produced any such evidence. People are going to call that a hoax. Sorry.
Was that before or after the DNC and Clinton campaign were hacked by Russian Goons, shit for brains?
DeleteIt's too bad Trump obstructed the investigation and tampered with witnesses and dangled pardons and refused to answer questions under oath to Mueller. Makes you look like a damn raving lunatic.
David, you really got to be one big dumb motherfucker to believe the Jan 6 Federal Indictment only pertains to the attack on our Capitol which Donald J Chickenshit sat on his fat corrupt ass and watched for hours without lifting a finger to stop it. Go fuck yourself, David.
DeleteIf the case is such a joke, I wonder why Donald J Chickenshit is moving heaven and earth to prevent getting his day in court.
Some people have a problem with being reminded that a bunch of Right-wing snowflakes threw a childish temper tantrum at the United States Capitol, just because black people's votes were counted in the 2020 Presidential election.
DeleteLuckily for all of us, Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez managed to stop it, by fearlessly standing in front of the crowd and pleading to fellow citizens to disperse and go home.
DeleteI especially enjoyed watching Josh Hawley running like a scared rabbit. I wonder if Trump shat his pants while watching on TV?
DeleteRussia, if you're listening, tell me 2:02's post is satire.
Deletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html
ReplyDeleteActually, until Trump came along, it’s hard to imagine a Pol who WOULDN’T commit to accepting the results of an election that hadn’t taken place (in the U.S. anyway) . The obvious danger in abandoning that norm would have been apparent to virtually anyone.
ReplyDeleteBob’s last sincere, intelligent defenders actually seem to be peeling off. I feel bad for them and can only advise “run and don’t look back.”
There is nothing wrong with yes or no questions, obviously they are quite useful administered fairly. Again, not long ago, asking a pol if they believed election results must be respected was not a question that needed to be asked in ANY form.
The yes or no question for today should be “do you really think Bob will feel bad if Trump wins?”
Democrats deserve to lose if they run Biden ... one of the most unpopular, uncharismatic, disliked presidents in our history.
DeleteYou left out the part where he won in 2020 by a huge popular vote margin. How unpopular is that?
DeleteBiden is one of the most unpopular, uncharismatic, disliked presidents in our history. The part where he won in 2020 by a huge popular vote margin doesn't change that. In 2020 he was popular and not hugely disliked. Now, it's not 2020 and people's opinion of him is not the same as it was then. Now, he is not liked and not popular. He currently has the lowest approval rating of any American president in the past 75 years.
DeleteAmericans don't like him, don't trust him and don't want him to be president. That is crystal clear. Democrats deserve to lose if they run him. Actually, running him as a candidate is an act of insanity.
@8:25, that is a load of crap too big to fit in even Trump's diapers. What you are saying is entirely inconsistent with the polls. Disinformation like this is just lying and trolling.
DeleteJoe Biden Is the Least Popular President in 75 Years
DeletePublished May 06, 2024
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-least-popular-1897537#:~:text=President%20Joe%20Biden%20is%20the,to%20win%20his%20party's%20nomination.
People HATE Biden. More and more every day.
DeleteNo, they don’t. You are a useless person, you long ago choked whatever humanity to death. Hatred is all you can see because it’s all you understand.
DeleteBiden is the least popular president in 7 decades. A majority of people in his own party don't want him to run. People don't like him. That will turn into blinding white-hot hate as we get closer to the election. It couldn't be more obvious he's far too old for the job. If he loses, it's the fault of the DNC and Democrats for not being honest about how weak a candidate he is.
DeleteWhen he wins be sure to come here and apologize.
DeleteApologize for what?
DeleteOur obnoxious, self-righteous, self-impressed lefty continues to trash a decent man doing a perfectly decent job of running the country -- a man who at this point is literally the only *realistic* hope we have of preventing a sick, twisted, vengeful sociopath from becoming the first dictator of the U.S. If you thought Trump's first term was bad (Supreme Court, Muslim ban, separation of children from parents at the border, extortion, obstruction of justice, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum), just wait.
DeleteInstead of repeating how much Biden is supposedly "hated" by a misinformed and under-informed portion of the populous, how about trying to educate them instead? Biden has a solid record to run on, and the media has exaggerated the "he's too old and senile" storyline.
There's nothing controversial. A majority of people disapprove of President Biden's job performance. Many cite issues such as the economy, inflation, the conflict in the Middle East, and Biden's failure to deliver on campaign promises as reasons for their decreased enthusiasm. He's not popular. People clearly do not like him. It's not my job to campaign for him. If he has such a solid record, he can talk to the the press and people about it. Democrats could hold a primary Biden could defend his record against a number of challengers. That shouldn't be a problem if his record is so good and he's not too old. Then he can have a series of televised debates and debate Trump about his solid record while giving interview after interview to convince the people of why they should change the way they feel about him and his performance.
DeleteBut he won't do that because he can't do it. Physically and mentally, he's not capable. He's a doddering old man who shits and falls all over the place and can't even read a teleprompter. Mike, I hope you are working for the DNC when you say all this and are not a true believer. That would be really sad. I'm going to assume you are an information agent defending the Biden brand for some NGO and you are just doing your job. If you are a real person though, I will tell you - the emperor is not wearing any clothes and Democrats have to get that turd out of there asap. He can't even begin to cut it.
9:19: Trump's approval rating in 2021 sunk to 34% compared with Biden's averaging 38% over the last 3 months. This is because of his mismanagement of Covid and a dramatically sinking economy that Biden inherited. Biden is by no means the best candidate to run against Trump but by the time November rolls around Republicans will wonder what they were thinking in running the one candidate that Biden can and will beat as he did easily in 2020, a candidate who will by that time be mumbling word salad on a daily basis and live up to the moniker Von Shitzinpants, accounting for his observed stench. Hygiene issues go hand in hand with dementia and Trump is a case in point here. But good luck in promoting that criminal/rapist, comrade, as long as it pulls in a paycheck. Thirteen Russian individuals and 3 organizations were ultimately indicted for their role in subverting the 2016 election, so you can claim to be carrying on a tradition.
Delete@9:32 PM "That will turn into blinding white-hot hate as we get closer to the election."
DeleteI don't think people really hate Biden. He's an 80 y.o. man, for chrissakes.
Soros-bots hate, people don't. But most people don't like the situation engineered by the current regime, of which Biden is a symbol: the prices, the border situation, the credible threat of a nuclear war, most of the dominant ideology. And they still remember the good days, the Trump presidency.
Polls are not showing Trump is the one candidate that Biden can beat. Polls are showing people like and trust Trump more than Biden. People are rejecting Biden because he's a strange, unlikeable insider corporate politician who is far too old to even be considered for any job.
Delete"And they still remember the good days, the Trump presidency" meaning the tanking economy, record setting national debt and mismanaged pandemic. As is usual, the Trump cultists like to pretend his presidency lasted 2 years that only resulted in massively expanding the national debt, rather than the 4 that demonstrated his complete nincompetence. But don't ask me. The Democrats could run a successful campaign this fall with 15 second spots featuring dozens of administration officials during that regime who would attest to his unfitness for the job. Sprinkled in with the complete gibberish that has been coming out of his mouth lately. Meanwhile the threat of nuclear war may influence voter turnout as his followers will be holed up in their basements surrounded by stacks of canned goods.
DeleteThis stuff won't help him much either:
Deletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/newly-unsealed-grand-jury-testimony-090028716.html
The Soros-bot 6:53 AM believes the people trust administration officials over their own eyes and bank statements. Typical.
DeletePeople really do not like Biden.
DeleteTrump's outright contempt for Republican voters is something the media should emulate.
DeleteThe billionaire donor class is lining up again behind Donald J Chickenshit grateful for his promised huge tax cuts. Very hush hush you know.
DeleteSecretive conservative donor group meets to draw up 2024 plans — with a call-in from Trump</B/
Election interference! Where's Alvin Bragg?
DeleteAlvin Bragg is doing his job, shit-for-brains. Trump is too much of a dumb fuck to realize the investigation began under his administration.
DeleteI haven't heard of this job description. Must be Democrat-specific.
DeleteI can't help it if you have shit for brains.
Delete
DeleteI noticed that most moonbat fantasies are disturbingly defecation-related. Why is that?
Well, considering that George Soros is 93 years old, it's not completely surprising, I suppose.
Ever since it was revealed that Donald J Chickenshit wears diapers and shits his pants and people can't stand sitting next to him in court all day, maggots don't know whether to shit or go blind.
DeleteWhy not both?
DeleteSo, no alternative explanation for your (and your comrades') perpetual defecation-related fantasies, idiot-moonbat?
DeleteIt's okay, though, I don't really care. So, moonbats are closely associated with defecation. No big deal.
Russia, if you're listening, provide 9:24 with an explanation to his nonsense query.
DeleteMaggots are trying to use reverse psychology, it makes them uncomfortable for us to keep reminding them of Von Schitzinpantz.
DeleteOff Topic -- A defense of Israel
ReplyDeleteBorder Crossing Where Humanitarian Aid Enters Gaza Has Been Blown Up. Hamas is Taking Credit.
Hamas terrorists claimed credit for a rocket attack on Sunday targeting the Kerem Shalom border crossing between Israel and Gaza near the Egyptian border, the main entry point for humanitarian aid headed into the enclave....
At least three IDF soldiers were killed and more were injured in the Hamas attack which was launched by the Iran-backed terrorists in Rafah.
In a post on X, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett laid bare what the move means. "Yes, they’re bombing their own lifeline of food and aid," he said of the rocket attack. "This is yet another example of Hamas’ perverse strategy: to Kill their own people in order to hurt Israel...Following the Hamas attack, the crossing was shut down for investigation, meaning Hamas — once again — is solely responsible for a pause in the processing and moving of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2024/05/06/hamas-blew-up-the-entry-point-for-humanitarian-aid-headed-to-gaza-n2638654