Mr. Peanut is dead at age 104, Planters announces in Super Bowl commercial

Mr. Peanut is dead at the age of 104, Planters announced Wednesday. “It is with heavy hearts that we confirm that Mr. Peanut has died at 104,” the company said. “In the ultimate selfless act, he sacrificed himself to save his friends when they needed him most. Please pay your respects with #RIPeanut.”

The company released a video that appears to be a teaser for a 2020 Super Bowl commercial showing Mr. Peanut driving the NUTmobile to the upcoming NFL championship game with Matt Walsh (“Veep”) and Wesley Snipes. When he swerves to avoid hitting an armadillo, they go off a cliff and jump out, grabbing onto a branch – but they’re “too heavy” so Mr. Peanut tips his hat and lets go to save Walsh and Snipes. “Maybe he’ll be alright,” Snipes says as Mr. Peanut falls to the bottom, next to the wrecked vehicle. Then the NUTmobile explodes. “Maybe not.”

According to a press release, the teaser video will air during the Super Bowl pre-game show on Sunday, Feb. 2. Then Planters’ official big game ad will show Mr. Peanut’s funeral during the third quarter. It’s unclear if the company plans to introduce a new mascot, or if it’s all just a marketing stunt to promote a new product. An online “obituary” says he lived from 1916 to 2020. Fans have been mourning the “loss” on social media.

https://www.syracuse.com/entertainment/2020/01/mr-peanut-is-dead-at-age-104-planters-announces-in-super-bowl-commercial.html

Pollak: Did Adam Schiff Out Himself as Leaker to Washington Post?

Lead House impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) may have been an anonymous source for the Washington Post as it reported allegations that have led to the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Schiff may have outed himself during his opening arguments in the Senate trial of the president on Wednesday, as he cited an opinion article written by the Post editorial board — an odd reference in a presentation of factual evidence. The House Intelligence Committee chairman cited a Sep. 5, 2019 editorial titled: “Trump tries to force Ukraine to meddle in the 2020 election.” He said:

On September 25th [sic], the Washington Post editorial board reported concerns that President Trump was withholding military assistance for Ukraine, and a White House meeting, in order to force President Zelensky to announce investigations of Vice President Biden and purported Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election. The Post editorial board wrote: “[W]e are reliably told that the president has a second and more venal agenda. He is attempting to force Mr. Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. Mr. Trump is not just soliciting Ukraine’s help with his presidential campaign; he is using military aid the country desperately needs in an attempt to extort it.

Schiff used the editorial as factual evidence that Trump was “on notice” that his “scheme” had been discovered. Notably, the Sep. 5 editorial closely tracked the accusations that were contained in the so-called “whistleblower” complaint, whose claims were not yet known to the public at the time. The “whistleblower” had written to Schiff and to Sen. Richard Burr (R-MO) on Aug. 12, saying that he (or she) had received information that the president “is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.” Schiff was eager to see that complaint released, urging the administration to provide it to his committee. On Sep. 13, the Wall Street Journal reported that Schiff had issued a subpoena to the Acting Director of National Intelligence to compel him to release the complaint.

At the time, Schiff maintained the conceit that he was not familiar with the content of the complaint, which was finally published Sep. 26. However, the New York Times exposed Schiff’s deception on Oct. 2, when it reported that the “whistleblower” had early contact with Schiff’s committee staff. Given Schiff’s urgency to see the complaint reported and released, it is plausible that he — or someone close to him — was the source who “reliably told” the editorial board about the “whistleblower” allegations against the president.