theguardian--2020-02-20--Elizabeth Warren's strong debate performance inspires best fundraising day yet

Elizabeth Warren has seemingly revived her flagging bid to become US president after a fiery Democratic debate performance in Las Vegas garnered her widespread praise and a slew of much-needed campaign donations .
Warren , who repeatedly excoriated billionaire rival Mike Bloomberg during the Nevada debate , enjoyed the best fundraising day of her entire campaign on the back of the event .
The Massachusetts senator raised $ 2.8m in donations on Wednesday , according to her campaign team .
Warren was roundly declared the victor of an often tempestuous televised debate which for the first time on stage featured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reshaped the contest through an overwhelming campaign advertising blitz that has helped him surge in the polls as he splashed out more than $ 400m .
Bloomberg ’ s dramatic emergence made him a target for all of the other candidates but it was Warren who landed the most telling blows , comparing comments made by the former New York City mayor to Donald Trump just minutes into the debate .
“ I ’ d like to talk about who we ’ re running against , ” Warren said .
“ A billionaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians ’ .
And no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” The debate was a welcome tonic to the Warren campaign , which has floundered in recent months after previously vying with former vice-president Joe Biden for frontrunner status in a crowded field of Democratic candidates .
Warren ’ s performance was garlanded on social media , as well as by TV network pundits .
“ This was a disaster for Bloomberg , ” said Van Jones , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on CNN .
“ Bloomberg went in as the Titanic , the billion-dollar machine Titanic .
Titanic – meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren .
She took him to task in a way in I ’ ve never seen in a debate.
” As the debate unfolded Warren proceeded to attack Bloomberg over his controversial deployment of police “ stop-and-frisk ” tactics when he was New York mayor , a regime critics say led to racist profiling .
Bloomberg has since apologized for its “ overuse ” .
In a resurfaced interview from 2015 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority neighborhoods “ because that ’ s where all the crime is ” .
Bloomberg ’ s treatment of women , particularly his use of non-disclosure agreements with those who have sued him over sexual harassment allegations , was another line of attack for Warren .
The criticism visibly unsettled Bloomberg , who said : “ None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they didn ’ t like a joke I told , ” to scattered boos from the audience .
“ They signed the agreements , and that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live with , ” he said , before touting the amount of women he has in leadership positions in his eponymous media company .
This failed to deter Warren , who demanded the women be released from the agreements so they could speak publicly .
“ We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many non-disclosure agreements and the drip , drip , drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against , ” she said .
In an exchange that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another .
This country has worked for the rich for a long time and left everyone else in the dirt.
” Both Biden and Warren endured a disappointing start in the primary voting process , which is rolling out in each state , trailing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire .
The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is now a clear leader in the polls and is only narrowly behind Pete Buttigieg , the Afghanistan veteran and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in total declared Democratic delegates .
Buttigieg was involved in the other major clash during the Las Vegas debate , criticizing fellow moderate Amy Klobuchar , a Minnesota senator , for failing to know the name of Mexico ’ s president , Andrés Manuel López Obrador , in a recent interview .
Klobuchar defended herself with a terse retort : “ Are you trying to say that I ’ m dumb ?
Are you mocking me , Pete ?
” The candidates were broadly in agreement over the need to urgently address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scramble and the embrace of far-right nationalism by the Trump administration .
There are clear differences in approaches to fix America ’ s often dysfunctional healthcare system , however , with Sanders ’ plan for universal coverage provided for by the government-run Medicare derided as unrealistic and a vote loser by both Buttigieg and Bloomberg .
Registered Democrats will vote for their favored candidate in Nevada on Saturday , before the contest moves on to South Carolina on 29 February .
A pivotal moment in the race will occur on 3 March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 states , including California and Texas , will vote at once .

Elizabeth Warren has seemingly revived her flagging bid to become US president after a fiery Democratic debate performance in Las Vegas garnered her widespread praise and a slew of much-needed campaign donations.
Warren, who repeatedly excoriated billionaire rival Mike Bloomberg during the Nevada debate, enjoyed the best fundraising day of her entire campaign on the back of the event. The Massachusetts senator raised $2.8m in donations on Wednesday, according to her campaign team.
Warren was roundly declared the victor of an often tempestuous televised debate which for the first time on stage featured Bloomberg, the media mogul who has reshaped the contest through an overwhelming campaign advertising blitz that has helped him surge in the polls as he splashed out more than $400m.
Bloomberg’s dramatic emergence made him a target for all of the other candidates but it was Warren who landed the most telling blows, comparing comments made by the former New York City mayor to Donald Trump just minutes into the debate.
“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” Warren said. “A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians’. And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
This video has been removed. This could be because it launched early, our rights have expired, there was a legal issue, or for another reason. Democratic rivals attack Bloomberg in punishing debate debut – video
The debate was a welcome tonic to the Warren campaign, which has floundered in recent months after previously vying with former vice-president Joe Biden for frontrunner status in a crowded field of Democratic candidates. Warren’s performance was garlanded on social media, as well as by TV network pundits.
“This was a disaster for Bloomberg,” said Van Jones, a former adviser to Barack Obama, on CNN. “Bloomberg went in as the Titanic, the billion-dollar machine Titanic. Titanic – meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren. She took him to task in a way in I’ve never seen in a debate.”
As the debate unfolded Warren proceeded to attack Bloomberg over his controversial deployment of police “stop-and-frisk” tactics when he was New York mayor, a regime critics say led to racist profiling. Bloomberg has since apologized for its “overuse”. In a resurfaced interview from 2015, Bloomberg said that police should focus on minority neighborhoods “because that’s where all the crime is”.
Bloomberg’s treatment of women, particularly his use of non-disclosure agreements with those who have sued him over sexual harassment allegations, was another line of attack for Warren.
The criticism visibly unsettled Bloomberg, who said: “None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” to scattered boos from the audience. “They signed the agreements, and that’s what we’re going to live with,” he said, before touting the amount of women he has in leadership positions in his eponymous media company.
This failed to deter Warren, who demanded the women be released from the agreements so they could speak publicly. “We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many non-disclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against,” she said.
In an exchange that provoked applause from the audience, Warren said: “Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. This country has worked for the rich for a long time and left everyone else in the dirt.”
Both Biden and Warren endured a disappointing start in the primary voting process, which is rolling out in each state, trailing badly in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is now a clear leader in the polls and is only narrowly behind Pete Buttigieg, the Afghanistan veteran and former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, in total declared Democratic delegates.
Buttigieg was involved in the other major clash during the Las Vegas debate, criticizing fellow moderate Amy Klobuchar, a Minnesota senator, for failing to know the name of Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, in a recent interview. Klobuchar defended herself with a terse retort: “Are you trying to say that I’m dumb? Are you mocking me, Pete?”
The candidates were broadly in agreement over the need to urgently address the climate crisis and to reverse the deregulatory scramble and the embrace of far-right nationalism by the Trump administration. There are clear differences in approaches to fix America’s often dysfunctional healthcare system, however, with Sanders’ plan for universal coverage provided for by the government-run Medicare derided as unrealistic and a vote loser by both Buttigieg and Bloomberg.
Registered Democrats will vote for their favored candidate in Nevada on Saturday, before the contest moves on to South Carolina on 29 February. A pivotal moment in the race will occur on 3 March, also known as Super Tuesday, when 14 states, including California and Texas, will vote at once.


theguardian--2020-02-20--Debate shows Bernie Sanders could win most votes but be denied nomination

Amid the Mike Bloomberg pile-on and the Pete Buttigieg-Amy Klobuchar squabbling , there was a key point that slipped by almost unnoticed during Wednesday ’ s tumultuous Democratic debate – one that could potentially prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee .
Towards the end , each of the six candidates was asked if – at the Democratic national convention this summer in Milwaukee – they would support the person who has won the most delegates – even if that person hasn ’ t achieved a majority .
Five of the candidates said they would not .
The Democratic socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It might seem a wonky , opaque detail , but it raises the prospect that Sanders , who has a commanding lead in the polls and has emerged as the frontrunner , could win the most pledged delegates – those allocated on the basis of votes during the marathon Democratic primaries – but be swindled , at the last , by the Democratic party elite .
Superdelegates , who are chosen by the central Democratic party , are different from pledged delegates , who are effectively voted for during the primaries .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lead in terms of pledged delegates , with 22 to Sanders ’ 21 .
But Sanders is better-placed than Buttigieg to pick up more pledged delegates in Nevada on Saturday and South Carolina the following week .
He is also likely to add to his total again on Super Tuesday , when 14 states vote , yielding a total of 1,357 delegates .
If Sanders ’ popularity endures , he could amass more delegates than his rivals by the time of the July convention , when the pledged delegates effectively vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting that is meant to pick the nominee .
However , if Sanders does not have an absolute majority – more than 50 % – during the first ballot when the pledged delegates line up behind their chosen nominee , then it is the superdelegates who will join the vote in a second round of voting .
Superdelegates , who in the past have aligned with the center , “ establishment ” wing of the Democratic party , will be free to wade in and vote for whomever they choose in this second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Democratic terms – he sits as an independent in the Senate , and had to sign a pledge last year committing to the party – he is unlikely to be a favorite of these party grandees .
If the superdelegates vote for a more centrist figure , that could mean Sanders – even if he has secured a majority of votes in the primaries – would be pipped at the post , and not be the nominee .
That ’ s why that moment in the Nevada debate was so important .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even if they were losing at the Democratic national convention , they were open to the unelected superdelegates weighing in in their favor , potentially gifting them the nomination even though they did not win the support of the most actual voters in the whole race .
It ’ s a prospect that would leave Sanders ’ supporters irate – and even upset some non-supporters .
Marianne Williamson , Sanders ’ erstwhile rival for the nomination , was among those to criticize the process on Wednesday night .
“ The Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even think about using superdelegates to take the nomination from someone who has the plurality of delegates going into Milwaukee , we the people will not take it lying down , ” Williamson wrote on Twitter .
The superdelegate rules were changed in 2018 after criticism from Sanders and others .
Until then , superdelegates could vote for whomever they chose in the first round of the convention , and an overwhelming majority supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 , although she was also ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates and rank-and-file votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 change “ an important step forward in making the Democratic party more open , democratic and responsive to the input of ordinary Americans ” .
With the prospect of superdelegate interference once again looming over his presidential chances , however , it is likely Sanders feels more reforms are needed .

Amid the Mike Bloomberg pile-on and the Pete Buttigieg-Amy Klobuchar squabbling, there was a key point that slipped by almost unnoticed during Wednesday’s tumultuous Democratic debate – one that could potentially prevent Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee.
Towards the end, each of the six candidates was asked if – at the Democratic national convention this summer in Milwaukee – they would support the person who has won the most delegates – even if that person hasn’t achieved a majority.
Five of the candidates said they would not. The Democratic socialist and Vermont senator said he would.
It might seem a wonky, opaque detail, but it raises the prospect that Sanders, who has a commanding lead in the polls and has emerged as the frontrunner, could win the most pledged delegates – those allocated on the basis of votes during the marathon Democratic primaries – but be swindled, at the last, by the Democratic party elite.
That’s because of superdelegates.
Superdelegates, who are chosen by the central Democratic party, are different from pledged delegates, who are effectively voted for during the primaries. As of 20 February, Buttigieg is in the lead in terms of pledged delegates, with 22 to Sanders’ 21.
But Sanders is better-placed than Buttigieg to pick up more pledged delegates in Nevada on Saturday and South Carolina the following week. He is also likely to add to his total again on Super Tuesday, when 14 states vote, yielding a total of 1,357 delegates.
If Sanders’ popularity endures, he could amass more delegates than his rivals by the time of the July convention, when the pledged delegates effectively vote for the nominee in a first round of voting that is meant to pick the nominee.
However, if Sanders does not have an absolute majority – more than 50% – during the first ballot when the pledged delegates line up behind their chosen nominee, then it is the superdelegates who will join the vote in a second round of voting.
Superdelegates, who in the past have aligned with the center, “establishment” wing of the Democratic party, will be free to wade in and vote for whomever they choose in this second ballot.
With Sanders a resolute outsider in Democratic terms – he sits as an independent in the Senate, and had to sign a pledge last year committing to the party – he is unlikely to be a favorite of these party grandees.
If the superdelegates vote for a more centrist figure, that could mean Sanders – even if he has secured a majority of votes in the primaries – would be pipped at the post, and not be the nominee.
That’s why that moment in the Nevada debate was so important. Five of the candidates were effectively saying that even if they were losing at the Democratic national convention, they were open to the unelected superdelegates weighing in in their favor, potentially gifting them the nomination even though they did not win the support of the most actual voters in the whole race.
It’s a prospect that would leave Sanders’ supporters irate – and even upset some non-supporters. Marianne Williamson, Sanders’ erstwhile rival for the nomination, was among those to criticize the process on Wednesday night.
“The Democratic Party should be on notice: if you even think about using superdelegates to take the nomination from someone who has the plurality of delegates going into Milwaukee, we the people will not take it lying down,” Williamson wrote on Twitter.
The superdelegate rules were changed in 2018 after criticism from Sanders and others. Until then, superdelegates could vote for whomever they chose in the first round of the convention, and an overwhelming majority supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, although she was also ahead of Sanders in pledged delegates and rank-and-file votes.
At the time, Sanders called the 2018 change “an important step forward in making the Democratic party more open, democratic and responsive to the input of ordinary Americans”.
With the prospect of superdelegate interference once again looming over his presidential chances, however, it is likely Sanders feels more reforms are needed.


theguardian--2020-02-20--Democratic debate: key takeaways from the bust-up in Las Vegas

There were lots of disagreements on Wednesday ’ s debate stage in Las Vegas , but one thing that everyone agreed on was that the event marked the most intense and combative debate of the primary cycle .
Bloomberg went after Sanders , Buttigieg went after Klobuchar , and Warren pretty much went after everyone .
The combative debate served as the final moment for the candidates to make their case ahead of the Nevada caucuses on Saturday ; the first primary contest in the west , and a high-stakes test with a far more diverse electorate than Iowa or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defined by Mike Bloomberg ’ s closely watched debut on the debate stage .
Here ’ s what you need to know : Bloomberg under attack from the outset “ Mayor Bloomberg , there ’ s a lot for you to respond to , ” NBC ’ s Lester Holt said after the former New York mayor had faced a barrage of attacks from the other Democrats on stage .
Criticism of the billionaire candidate has built in recent days , as Bloomberg ’ s standing rose in the polls even though he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and New Hampshire primaries , and many had predicted Bloomberg would face the brunt of fellow Democrats ’ ire during his debate debut .
On Wednesday , the candidates did not hold back .
Biden argued that with his stop-and-frisk policy , Bloomberg had thrown “ up to 5 million black men up against the wall ” .
Buttigieg accused him of not actually being a Democrat .
Sanders , relishing another chance to rage against the 1 % , characterized Bloomberg ’ s wealth as “ grotesque and immoral ” .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I hear he ’ s getting pounded tonight , ” the president told a crowd of supporters during a rally in Arizona , as the debate carried on .
Bloomberg looked tired , at times annoyed , and often sunk back instead of cutting in .
He found himself apologizing often .
Addressing his stop-and-frisk policy , he said : “ I ’ ve sat , I ’ ve apologized , I ’ ve asked for forgiveness .
We stopped too many people.
” Following disappointing results in Iowa and New Hampshire , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of this weekend ’ s caucuses in Nevada .
And she delivered .
Her voice hoarse with a cold , Warren spoke the longest of any candidate on stage , jumping on every chance to call out her opponents ’ policies and contrast them with her own .
Ripping through the other candidates ’ healthcare plans , Warren said what Buttigieg had was a “ PowerPoint ” .
“ Amy ’ s plan is even less ; it ’ s a Post-it note , ” she continued .
And while Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she added , “ his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question ” about it .
She also landed one of the punchiest attacks on Bloomberg , bringing the attention to his history of derogatory remarks about women : “ So I ’ d like to talk about who we ’ re running against : a billionaire who calls women ‘ fat broads ’ and ‘ horse-faced lesbians ’ , ” she said , “ And , no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and energetic performance seems to have paid off .
Warren ’ s campaign said she raised record amounts of money during the debate .
Klobuchar and Buttigieg take aim at one another There didn ’ t seem to be much love lost between the two midwestern contenders .
Klobuchar , who in past debates has homed in on the South Bend mayor and has repeatedly argued he lacks experience to take up the presidency , escalated her critiques on Wednesday night .
When Buttigieg questioned her record on immigration , Klobuchar hit back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bunch of talking points , ” she said , addressing Buttigieg .
“ You ’ re not in the arena.
” When Buttigieg referenced an interview in which Klobuchar forgot the name of Mexico ’ s president , Andrés Manuel López Obrador , Klobuchar didn ’ t take kindly .
“ Are you calling me dumb ?
Are you mocking me ?
” she asked Buttigieg .
Sanders is still the frontrunner Sanders is the frontrunner in Nevada and has a double-digit lead over his opponents in the most recent national polls .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man to beat on stage .
Even Warren spared him the third degree .
Sanders faced challenges over some of his supporters ’ online attacks , in particular reports that Sanders supporters harassed leaders of Nevada ’ s powerful culinary union after it criticized his healthcare plan .
“ If there are a few people who make ugly remarks , who attack trade union leaders , I disown those people – they are not part of my campaign , ” Sanders said .
But he benefited from the other candidates ’ arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presenting himself as the candidate who could bring revolutionary change .
And he easily brushed off Bloomberg ’ s accusation that he was championing communism as a “ cheap shot ” .

There were lots of disagreements on Wednesday’s debate stage in Las Vegas, but one thing that everyone agreed on was that the event marked the most intense and combative debate of the primary cycle. Bloomberg went after Sanders, Buttigieg went after Klobuchar, and Warren pretty much went after everyone.
The combative debate served as the final moment for the candidates to make their case ahead of the Nevada caucuses on Saturday; the first primary contest in the west, and a high-stakes test with a far more diverse electorate than Iowa or New Hampshire. The night was also defined by Mike Bloomberg’s closely watched debut on the debate stage.
Here’s what you need to know:
Bloomberg under attack from the outset
“Mayor Bloomberg, there’s a lot for you to respond to,” NBC’s Lester Holt said after the former New York mayor had faced a barrage of attacks from the other Democrats on stage.
Criticism of the billionaire candidate has built in recent days, as Bloomberg’s standing rose in the polls even though he didn’t compete in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, and many had predicted Bloomberg would face the brunt of fellow Democrats’ ire during his debate debut. On Wednesday, the candidates did not hold back.
Biden argued that with his stop-and-frisk policy, Bloomberg had thrown “up to 5 million black men up against the wall”. Buttigieg accused him of not actually being a Democrat. Sanders, relishing another chance to rage against the 1%, characterized Bloomberg’s wealth as “grotesque and immoral”.
Even Donald Trump took a shot. “I hear he’s getting pounded tonight,” the president told a crowd of supporters during a rally in Arizona, as the debate carried on.
Bloomberg looked tired, at times annoyed, and often sunk back instead of cutting in. He found himself apologizing often. Addressing his stop-and-frisk policy, he said: “I’ve sat, I’ve apologized, I’ve asked for forgiveness. We stopped too many people.”
“You need a different apology,” Warren shot back.
Warren had a blistering performance
Following disappointing results in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Massachusetts senator needed to rally support ahead of this weekend’s caucuses in Nevada. And she delivered.
Her voice hoarse with a cold, Warren spoke the longest of any candidate on stage, jumping on every chance to call out her opponents’ policies and contrast them with her own. Ripping through the other candidates’ healthcare plans, Warren said what Buttigieg had was a “PowerPoint”.
Elizabeth Warren with Bernie Sanders. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters
“Amy’s plan is even less; it’s a Post-it note,” she continued. And while Sanders’ proposal is “good start”, she added, “his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question” about it.
She also landed one of the punchiest attacks on Bloomberg, bringing the attention to his history of derogatory remarks about women: “So I’d like to talk about who we’re running against: a billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians’,” she said, “And, no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
Her fiery barbs and energetic performance seems to have paid off. Warren’s campaign said she raised record amounts of money during the debate.
Klobuchar and Buttigieg take aim at one another
There didn’t seem to be much love lost between the two midwestern contenders. Klobuchar, who in past debates has homed in on the South Bend mayor and has repeatedly argued he lacks experience to take up the presidency, escalated her critiques on Wednesday night.
When Buttigieg questioned her record on immigration, Klobuchar hit back. “You’ve memorized a bunch of talking points,” she said, addressing Buttigieg. “You’re not in the arena.”
When Buttigieg referenced an interview in which Klobuchar forgot the name of Mexico’s president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Klobuchar didn’t take kindly. “Are you calling me dumb? Are you mocking me?” she asked Buttigieg.
Sanders is still the frontrunner
Sanders is the frontrunner in Nevada and has a double-digit lead over his opponents in the most recent national polls. And yet he didn’t appear the man to beat on stage. Even Warren spared him the third degree.
Sanders faced challenges over some of his supporters’ online attacks, in particular reports that Sanders supporters harassed leaders of Nevada’s powerful culinary union after it criticized his healthcare plan. “If there are a few people who make ugly remarks, who attack trade union leaders, I disown those people – they are not part of my campaign,” Sanders said.
But he benefited from the other candidates’ arguments and stuck to his talking points, presenting himself as the candidate who could bring revolutionary change. And he easily brushed off Bloomberg’s accusation that he was championing communism as a “cheap shot”.


theguardian--2020-02-20--Roger Stone has 'very good chance of exoneration', says Trump – video

Donald Trump said his longtime ally Roger Stone had a ‘ very good chance of exoneration ’ , addressing the @ @ @ @ @ since his former associate was sentenced at a Las Vegas event on Thursday 20 February @ @ @ @ @ jury foreman in Stone ’ s case was ‘ totally tainted ’ and an an @ @ @ @ @ After he issued a series of commutations and pardons earlier this week , speculation that @ @ @ @ @ intensified • Roger Stone sentenced to 40 months in prison despite request for new trial @ @ @ @ @ Trump pardon after being sentenced to 40 months – live

Donald Trump said his longtime ally Roger Stone had a 'very good chance of exoneration', addressing the case for the first time since his former associate was sentenced at a Las Vegas event on Thursday 20 February. Trump also said the jury foreman in Stone’s case was 'totally tainted' and an an 'anti-Trump activist'. After he issued a series of commutations and pardons earlier this week, speculation that Trump will pardon Stone has intensified


theguardian--2020-02-21--$45m in 90 days: How Bloomberg bought your Facebook feed

Mike Bloomberg ’ s unorthodox presidential campaign has many asking if a billionaire can buy the presidency .
He can certainly buy Americans ’ Facebook feeds , a Guardian analysis shows .
In the first six weeks of 2020 , more than 1.6bn of the 2.4bn presidential campaign ads shown to US Facebook users were from the Bloomberg campaign .
Since launching his campaign in mid-November , the former mayor of New York City has spent nearly $ 45m on Facebook ads – more than all his opponents combined .
And Bloomberg ’ s spending doesn ’ t just dwarf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s giant re-election effort on Facebook looks paltry in comparison .
The Trump campaign ’ s Facebook operation has been notable for running a huge volume of advertisements , launching tens of thousands of ads seen by just a handful of people and testing hundreds of minor variations of different messages .
In recent weeks , the Bloomberg campaign has begun running three times as many ads as Trump .
To understand how and why Bloomberg is spending so much money on Facebook , the Guardian built a database of the 142,937 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 15 November 2019 , when he first started running campaign ads , and 18 February .
The data comes from Facebook ’ s political ad archive application programming interface , or API .
What emerges is a portrait of a campaign operating at an unprecedented scale that at times stoops to Trumpian tactics – and has such large reserves of cash it can afford to spend extravagantly .
The result is both scattershot and overwhelming , suggesting that when a campaign never has to make any difficult choices , the choices it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among the more perplexing moves : Bloomberg has spent more money showing ads about wildfires to voters in Ohio than voters in California .
Facebook ads are just one aspect of Bloomberg ’ s unusual campaign .
( He ’ s sitting out the first four primary states , for example . )
The billionaire has spent more than $ 250m on television ads and more than $ 40m on Google and YouTube ads .
His campaign is also pioneering new modes of digital campaigning that are not captured by the transparency tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ following the 2016 election .
He enlisted the digital marketing firm behind the ill-fated Fyre Fest to run a campaign paying Instagram influencers to post Bloomberg memes to their social media followers , the New York Times reported .
He is also paying part-time “ deputy digital organizers ” to lobby their personal contacts via text message on his behalf , according to the Wall Street Journal .
On Thursday , his campaign shared a video on Instagram and Twitter that used edited footage to create a false narrative of what happened in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg ’ s official Facebook ads – both the messages they convey and the way in which they are targeted – provide valuable insight into the campaign of a candidate who has barely been tested in unscripted settings , appearing in just one debate so far and dodging difficult interviews with the press .
The Bloomberg campaign did not respond to a request to comment on the record .
At first glance , Bloomberg ’ s Facebook strategy tracks with his overall approach to the campaign : skip the first four primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Super Tuesday .
The campaign ’ s extraordinary spending largely aligns with a strategy of targeting delegate-rich states whose primaries fall on Super Tuesday or later .
He has spent the most overall on California , Texas and Florida – three of the four states with the largest number of delegates – followed by Illinois and North Carolina .
On a per-delegate basis , the campaign is spending the most in Texas , North Carolina , Arkansas , Virginia and Tennessee .
Much of Bloomberg ’ s messaging focuses on Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next are some of the issues of most concern to Democratic voters .
Healthcare represents a significant portion of the campaign , as does Bloomberg ’ s signature issue : guns .
Other major topics include the environment and the climate crisis , immigration , education , and infrastructure .
There are ads with messages targeted specifically to women , African Americans and Latinos , though the campaign spent less on the African American and Latino ads than on ads about wildfires .
( This analysis only refers to those ads that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and does not mean that Bloomberg was not attempting to reach those voters with other messages . )
The campaign ’ s spending on ads with messaging about women or reproductive health is substantial .
Overall , the campaign ’ s ads have been shown to significantly more women than men .
But other aspects of the Facebook campaign raise questions about Bloomberg ’ s strategy , and whether it goes beyond throwing money at voters ’ Facebook Timelines to see what sticks .
In mid-January , as news of the Australian brush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ images of the climate crisis , the Bloomberg presidential campaign debuted a new Facebook ad targeting California voters .
“ Wildfire prevention needs to be part of our climate plan , ” read the caption above a photograph of a wooded mountain in flames .
“ Mike will get it done.
” Targeting California voters with a message about wildfires is the kind of savvy political move that one might expect from a campaign that is competently run – and sparing no expense .
Democratic voters overwhelmingly support government action on climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Americans on the west coast , according to recent polling by the Pew Research Center .
And yet , in subsequent weeks , the Bloomberg campaign began targeting wildfire ads at voters in states where wildfires are not a threat – and where polling shows other climate-related issues are of much greater interest to voters .
The Bloomberg campaign has thus far spent more money on wildfire ads targeting voters in Texas ( more than $ 60,000 ) , Ohio and Illinois ( more than $ 45,000 each ) than California ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the $ 567,700 his campaign has spent in total on wildfire ads , just 15 % has gone to voters in Pacific and mountain states where wildfires tend to occur .
The wildfire ads are emblematic of the at-times distorted logic of Bloomberg ’ s campaign spending .
To an average campaign , half a million dollars is a significant amount of money that would require , for example , 27,000 donations from Bernie Sanders supporters ( whose donations average $ 18.53 ) or multiple trips to a wine cave .
Amy Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 544,000 on all Facebook advertising since Bloomberg entered the race in November .
But to Bloomberg , the amount is insignificant .
The half-million dollar expenditure to a man with a fortune estimated at $ 65.2bn is comparable to the average American ( median household net worth of $ 97,300 ) spending 85 cents .
Some of the campaign ’ s state targeting is also puzzling .
It has spent at least $ 125,000 targeting voters in Vermont , Sanders ’ home state .
This isn ’ t a case of Vermont voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; most of the spending comes from ads that received 95 % or more of their impressions in Vermont , suggesting intentional targeting .
On a per capita basis , the Bloomberg campaign has spent more money reaching Vermont voters than voters in any other state .
Unlike his opponents , Bloomberg is not using Facebook ads to fundraise , so he is not running the kind of urgent appeals and contests that Trump and other candidates employ .
Some of his ads do still resemble Trump-style clickbait , however , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ images of imperiled animals .
“ Mike saves animals ” , reads the message on one set of ads that closely mirror Facebook ads run by the Trump campaign .
“ You be the one to tell this sea turtle that her species has no future ” , reads the caption on a video ad starring a heart-wrenching baby sea turtle .
And then there ’ s the invective .
Trump is by far the most common topic of Bloomberg ’ s ads , and a frequent message is that the president is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads often mimic some of the very behaviors that define Trump ’ s communication style , calling him “ dangerous ” , “ unhinged ” , “ unfit ” , “ embarrassing ” , “ a sell out ” , “ a con man ” , a “ madman ” , “ a bully ” and “ crazy ” .
In some ads , the campaign adopts Trump ’ s habit of giving opponents demeaning nicknames , referring to him as “ crazy Donald ” .
Many ads refer to Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s tweets make you just want to get away ?
” one reads .
“ Mike Bloomberg will put an end to the dysfunction and bring calm , steady leadership.
” Perhaps the campaign is relying on the fact that most Facebook users do not use Twitter .
If they did , they might have noticed that over the last several days , Bloomberg has himself been engaged in a decidedly puerile Twitter fight , with Trump .

Mike Bloomberg’s unorthodox presidential campaign has many asking if a billionaire can buy the presidency. He can certainly buy Americans’ Facebook feeds, a Guardian analysis shows.
In the first six weeks of 2020, more than 1.6bn of the 2.4bn presidential campaign ads shown to US Facebook users were from the Bloomberg campaign. Since launching his campaign in mid-November, the former mayor of New York City has spent nearly $45m on Facebook ads – more than all his opponents combined.
And Bloomberg’s spending doesn’t just dwarf that of other Democrats; Donald Trump’s giant re-election effort on Facebook looks paltry in comparison.
The Trump campaign’s Facebook operation has been notable for running a huge volume of advertisements, launching tens of thousands of ads seen by just a handful of people and testing hundreds of minor variations of different messages. In recent weeks, the Bloomberg campaign has begun running three times as many ads as Trump.
To understand how and why Bloomberg is spending so much money on Facebook, the Guardian built a database of the 142,937 Facebook ads launched by the Bloomberg campaign between 15 November 2019, when he first started running campaign ads, and 18 February. The data comes from Facebook’s political ad archive application programming interface, or API. What emerges is a portrait of a campaign operating at an unprecedented scale that at times stoops to Trumpian tactics – and has such large reserves of cash it can afford to spend extravagantly.
The result is both scattershot and overwhelming, suggesting that when a campaign never has to make any difficult choices, the choices it does make can defy common sense. Among the more perplexing moves: Bloomberg has spent more money showing ads about wildfires to voters in Ohio than voters in California.
Facebook ads are just one aspect of Bloomberg’s unusual campaign. (He’s sitting out the first four primary states, for example.) The billionaire has spent more than $250m on television ads and more than $40m on Google and YouTube ads. His campaign is also pioneering new modes of digital campaigning that are not captured by the transparency tools put in place by Facebook and Google following the 2016 election.
He enlisted the digital marketing firm behind the ill-fated Fyre Festival to run a campaign paying Instagram influencers to post Bloomberg memes to their social media followers, the New York Times reported. He is also paying part-time “deputy digital organizers” to lobby their personal contacts via text message on his behalf, according to the Wall Street Journal. On Thursday, his campaign shared a video on Instagram and Twitter that used edited footage to create a false narrative of what happened in Wednesday’s debate.
Taken together, Bloomberg’s official Facebook ads – both the messages they convey and the way in which they are targeted – provide valuable insight into the campaign of a candidate who has barely been tested in unscripted settings, appearing in just one debate so far and dodging difficult interviews with the press.
The Bloomberg campaign did not respond to a request to comment on the record.
Money, money, money, money
At first glance, Bloomberg’s Facebook strategy tracks with his overall approach to the campaign: skip the first four primary states while pouring vast amounts of money into Super Tuesday.
The campaign’s extraordinary spending largely aligns with a strategy of targeting delegate-rich states whose primaries fall on Super Tuesday or later. He has spent the most overall on California, Texas and Florida – three of the four states with the largest number of delegates – followed by Illinois and North Carolina. On a per-delegate basis, the campaign is spending the most in Texas, North Carolina, Arkansas, Virginia and Tennessee.
(Facebook provides data for ad spending and impressions – the number of times a user was shown an ad – as a range. For this article, we used the lower number, meaning that our data on dollars spent or impressions received represents the minimum amount.)
Much of Bloomberg’s messaging focuses on Donald Trump and the impact of his presidency. Next are some of the issues of most concern to Democratic voters. Healthcare represents a significant portion of the campaign, as does Bloomberg’s signature issue: guns.
Other major topics include the environment and the climate crisis, immigration, education and infrastructure. There are ads with messages targeted specifically to women, African Americans and Latinos, though the campaign spent less on the African American and Latino ads than on ads about wildfires. (This analysis only refers to those ads that are explicitly referencing African Americans or Latinos, and does not mean that Bloomberg was not attempting to reach those voters with other messages.)
The campaign’s spending on ads with messaging about women or reproductive health is substantial. Overall, the campaign’s ads have been shown to significantly more women than men.
But other aspects of the Facebook campaign raise questions about Bloomberg’s strategy, and whether it goes beyond throwing money at voters’ Facebook Timelines to see what sticks.
Where’s the smoke?
In mid-January, as news of the Australian brushfires filled social media feeds with devastating images of the climate crisis, the Bloomberg presidential campaign debuted a new Facebook ad targeting California voters.
“Wildfire prevention needs to be part of our climate plan,” read the caption above a photograph of a wooded mountain in flames. “Mike will get it done.”
Targeting California voters with a message about wildfires is the kind of savvy political move that one might expect from a campaign that is competently run – and sparing no expense. Democratic voters overwhelmingly support government action on climate change, and wildfires are of particular concern to Americans on the west coast, according to recent polling by the Pew Research Center.
And yet, in subsequent weeks, the Bloomberg campaign began targeting wildfire ads at voters in states where wildfires are not a threat – and where polling shows other climate-related issues are of much greater interest to voters. The Bloomberg campaign has thus far spent more money on wildfire ads targeting voters in Texas (more than $60,000), Ohio and Illinois (more than $45,000 each) than California (more than $44,000). Of the $567,700 his campaign has spent in total on wildfire ads, just 15% has gone to voters in Pacific and mountain states where wildfires tend to occur.
The wildfire ads are emblematic of the at-times distorted logic of Bloomberg’s campaign spending. To an average campaign, half a million dollars is a significant amount of money that would require, for example, 27,000 donations from Bernie Sanders supporters (whose donations average $18.53) or multiple trips to a wine cave. Amy Klobuchar’s campaign has spent just $544,000 on all Facebook advertising since Bloomberg entered the race in November.
But to Bloomberg, the amount is insignificant. The half-million-dollar expenditure to a man with a fortune estimated at $65.2bn is comparable to the average American (median household net worth of $97,300) spending 85 cents.
Some of the campaign’s state targeting is also puzzling. It has spent at least $125,000 targeting voters in Vermont, Sanders’ home state. This isn’t a case of Vermont voters seeing ads intended for a national audience; most of the spending comes from ads that received 95% or more of their impressions in Vermont, suggesting intentional targeting. On a per-capita basis, the Bloomberg campaign has spent more money reaching Vermont voters than voters in any other state.
Unlike his opponents, Bloomberg is not using Facebook ads to fundraise, so he is not running the kind of urgent appeals and contests that Trump and other candidates employ. Some of his ads do still resemble Trump-style clickbait, however, such as a number of advertisements that feature heart-tugging images of imperiled animals.
“Mike saves animals”, reads the message on one set of ads that closely mirror Facebook ads run by the Trump campaign. “You be the one to tell this sea turtle that her species has no future,” reads the caption on a video ad starring a heart-wrenching baby sea turtle.
‘Crazy Donald’
And then there’s the invective. Trump is by far the most common topic of Bloomberg’s ads, and a frequent message is that the president is unfit for the presidency. But the ads often mimic some of the very behaviors that define Trump’s communication style, calling him “dangerous”, “unhinged”, “unfit”, “embarrassing”, “a sell out”, “a con man”, a “madman”, “a bully” and “crazy”.
In some ads, the campaign adopts Trump’s habit of giving opponents demeaning nicknames, referring to him as “crazy Donald”.
Many ads refer to Trump’s use of Twitter. “Do President Trump’s tweets make you just want to get away?” one reads. “Mike Bloomberg will put an end to the dysfunction and bring calm, steady leadership.”
Perhaps the campaign is relying on the fact that most Facebook users do not use Twitter. If they did, they might have noticed that over the last several days, Bloomberg has himself been engaged in a decidedly puerile Twitter fight, with Trump.
Michael Barton and Joseph Smith contributed reporting


theguardian--2020-02-21--How Trump's immigration policies hurt people's lives – in pictures

Exhibit at the Bronx Documentary Center , the first in a year-long series , aims to document the current president @ @ @ @ @ of American immigration policy and law , and its profound effects on American society and @ @ @ @ @ image : Pastor Jonathan and his wife Gladys at their wedding photoshoot in front of @ @ @ @ @ Tijuana , Mexico .
The border is a symbolic place for Jonathan and Gladys , @ @ @ @ @ California but now live in Tijuana separated from their family .
Photograph : Griselda San @ @ @ @

Exhibit at the Bronx Documentary Center, the first in a year-long series, aims to document the current president’s overturning of decades of American immigration policy and law, and its profound effects on American society and the lives of immigrants
Main image: Pastor Jonathan and his wife Gladys at their wedding photoshoot in front of the US-Mexico border fence in Tijuana, Mexico. The border is a symbolic place for Jonathan and Gladys, who both grew up in California but now live in Tijuana separated from their family. Photograph: Griselda San Martin/Courtesy Bronx Documentary Center


theguardian--2020-02-21--Democrats prepare to vote in Nevada amid controversy over Trump, Stone and Russia – live coverage

Afghan , international and Taliban forces will observe the reduced violence period beginning at midnight ( 1930 GMT ) , @ @ @ @ @ leaders said earlier .
“ Following lengthy negotiations between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and @ @ @ @ @ , both parties agreed to sign the finalised accord in the presence of international observers @ @ @ @ @ said in a statement .
Both sides would also make arrangements for the release of @ @ @ @ @ said .
Separately , Pompeo said in a statement that the United States and the @ @ @ @ @ talks to facilitate a political settlement in Afghanistan and to reduce the U.S. presence in @ @ @ @ @ will be signed upon the successful implementation of an understanding with the Taliban on a @ @ @ @ @ violence , Pompeo added .
The agreement could represent a chance for peace in the @ @ @ @ @ and a U.S. troop presence that dates back to 2001 .

22 Feb 2020 01.14 GMT Evening Summary That does it for me here on the west coast as we close out the blog after a busy afternoon. Let’s take a quick look back at some of the day’s biggest news items: News of the day goes to the revelation that both Trump and Sen. Sanders have been the apparent beneficiaries of Russian interference. But while Trump has continued to minimize and downplay whatever impact Russian trolls may have played in the 2016 election as well as the campaign for re-election in 2020, Sanders has made clear he’s no friend of Vladimir Putin. “He is an autocratic thug,” Sanders said of the Russian leader. Check out my colleagues Joan’s latest story to read more. Days after Sen. Elizabeth Warren eviscerated Mike Bloomberg onstage at the democratic debate, she again blasted the former NYC mayor for releasing only three accusers from non-disclosure agreements that hav until now bound them to silence. Warren called Bloomberg to issue a blanket release of all accusers if he’s serious about transparency. And as Trump capped a 4-day visit to the western US, he took the opportunity to mock his foes at a mid-day rally. That included more taking more shots at the Oscars and mocking former VP Joe Biden for a lifelong speech impediment that has been widely reported on.
22 Feb 2020 00.29 GMT Kari Paul Democrats in Nevada have once again changed plans for how votes will be tracked in the caucuses, the day before voters cast their ballots. Voters sign in on tablet computers at an early voting location in the Chinatown Plaza, in Las Vegas. Photograph: John Locher/AP After announcing results would be relayed online via Google form last week, Democrats have seemingly reversed course and decided instead to instruct precinct leaders to call and text votes in to a dedicated hotline, the New York Times reported on Friday. The change was announced through a memo sent by Alana Mounce, the state party’s executive director, to the presidential campaigns. “The hotline report will be the primary source of the precinct caucus results reported on Caucus Day,” Ms. Mounce wrote. The email made no mention of the Google document forms initially slated to be used for the caucuses. Nevada Democrats initially planned to use the app used in the Iowa caucuses but abandoned those plans after the first state’s caucus went terribly wrong due to technological issues. Nevada, like Iowa, adopted new rules from the Democratic National Committee this year requiring states to report three sets of numbers from the caucuses: the initial vote number, the number of votes a candidate receives after “realignment” – when voters choose new candidates if their top choice fails to receive enough support – and the number of state delegates ultimately awarded to candidates. In order to report these numbers, volunteers are expected to use a caucus “tool” on iPads distributed by the Democratic party to precinct chairs. This is meant to help avoid some of the technical difficulties experienced in Iowa by chairs unable to download the app. Nevada Democrats were reportedly consulting with Google on best practices for using the document forms, but Google did not confirm. Nevada Democrats did not respond to request for comment regarding the change.
22 Feb 2020 00.21 GMT Cash-strapped democratic candidates are relying more and more on super PACs, which can raise unlimited money. That’s one takeaway from a new report from Politico, which says it got its first look this week at how the start of the presidential primaries are shaping the money chase. Other takeaways include: The Democratic Party’s biggest donors are getting in on the action. “Priorities USA, the main Democratic super PAC preparing to back the party’s nominee against Trump, took in $5 million from hedge fund magnate Donald Sussman in January — more than double the biggest check Sussman cut in 2019. The super PAC also raised $2 million from financier and philanthropist George Soros’ Democracy PAC, which didn’t give to any big Democratic PACs in 2019. And it raised $1 million from real estate broker George Marcus, who only donated big money to downballot causes in 2019,” Politico reports. Big differences in cash will lead to big differences in airtime. Sanders, Bloomberg and financier Tom Steyer have all dropped big money on TV ads and bought more than $2m of upcoming airtime. Bloomberg has earmarked $10m for ads in coming days. Joe Biden and ex-South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, don’t have any television airtime currently reserved in Super-Tuesday states. Klobuchar’s third-place finish in New Hampshire primary was preceded by January fundraising bump She took in $5.5m in January — close to Buttigieg’s $6.6 million but well shy of Biden’s $8.9 m. Trump’s cash dwarfs the rest of the field’s. Except Bloomberg’s. Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee have netted $452 million since January 2019. Bloomberg, meanwhile, has said he may spend $1 billion to defeat Trump this year. The former NYC mayor has nearly outspending every other candidate after spending $409 million through January, according to Politico.
Updated at 00.26 GMT
21 Feb 2020 23.50 GMT Warren responds to Bloomberg's position on NDA's Mike Bloomberg said Friday that three women who made complaints against him and until now have been covered by non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, can be released from the agreements and speak openly about their experiences. CNN has publicly identified a woman behind one of those NDAs, reporting: “A senior Bloomberg adviser tells CNN that the woman behind one of the three NDAs is Sekiko Garrison, who accused Bloomberg in the 1990s of repeatedly saying crass things in the workplace. Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser has said that Bloomberg “did not make any of the statements alleged in the Sekiko Garrison case.” But Elizabeth Warren, who took Bloomberg to the woodshed on live TV during this week’s debate, quickly called out the former New York mayor, saying that the situation calls for a blanket release of all accusers. Warren responds to Bloomberg release of three women from their NDAs pic.twitter.com/up1g1mCaR3 — Annie Linskey (@AnnieLinskey) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 23.26 GMT Maanvi Singh Here’s a dispatch from our west coast political reporter Maanvi Singh from Nevada, where she’s on the ground keeping an eye on the lead up to tomorrow’s caucus: Another group that 2020 hopefuls are hoping to win over are senior citizens. Several campaigns have stopped by the MLK senior center in North Las Vegas. Jill Biden didn’t make it to a monthly birthday celebration there today, choosing not to cross a Carpenters Union picket line protesting working conditions at a nearby construction site, according to the Biden campaign. The campaign offered to transport anyone interested to a Biden rally in the evening.
On Thursday, Joaquin Castro dropped by the center. And Tom Steyer visited last week.
At the Friday event — where attendees were happy to eat and dance with or without Biden — Marshall Collins, 90, said he’d already voted early. “I voted for Biden,” he said -- though he’s happy to vote for any Democrats. “I hope things come together in the election. There’s too many Democrats right now.”
Collins’ second choice is Steyer, he said. “All I care” — regardless of who the candidate is — “is if he does what he says he’s going to do,” Collins said. David Outland, 60, was another Biden supporter. “I like sleepy Joe,” he chuckled. “He probably had more experience than anyone else.”
Outland said he wishes the candidates would reach out more to older Nevadans. “Boots on the ground, like we used to do,” he said.
He’d like to know more about the other candidates, he said. “Right now it’s too confusing.” The former Vice President is the only one he’s familiar with.
Yvette, 62, who said didn’t want to use her full name because she didn’t want Trump supporters to come after her on Facebook, said she’s going to vote for any Democrat.
“I just don’t want to lose my benefits because Trump got pissed,” she said. “Or to have our kids locked up.”
21 Feb 2020 23.15 GMT As we blog, pundits on CNN discuss the interesting dynamic between Sanders and Trump that today’s news on Russian interference sets up. While Sanders has both acknowledged and condemned Russian interference across the board, Donald Trump and his supporters have continued to dismiss and downplay the role Russian actors may have played in getting him elected. The New York Times reported today that US intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign in an effort to re-elect Trump. The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing. During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that he had been tough on Russia and that he had strengthened European security... Mr. Trump has long accused the intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s 2016 interference as the work of a “deep state” conspiracy intent on undermining the validity of his election. Intelligence officials feel burned by their experience after the last election, when their work became a subject of intense political debate and is now a focus of a Justice Department investigation. Pundits note that it will be interesting to see how Trump responds as he’s potentially pulled between two conflicting impulses: To throw mud at Sanders and his position as a frontrunner versus the desire to protect the legitimacy of his presidency.
21 Feb 2020 22.59 GMT Today’s surprise Russian-interference news aside, Sanders’ campaign marches on in their efforts to reach out to Latino voters in often overlooked corners of California. Sanders emerged early on as a front-runner in California, a position his campaign has attributed to a massive ground game across the Golden State. Young Latino voters in particular have embraced the Vermont senator for his history of supporting unions and taking to the streets in protest. Reuters has more on the efforts in California: A record 32 million Latinos are projected to be eligible to vote in the general election, exceeding the number of black eligible voters for the first time, according to the Pew Research Center. About 62% of Latino registered voters identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 34% affiliate with or lean to the Republican Party, the organization says... Across California, and in neighboring Nevada and Texas, the Sanders campaign has also put on soccer matches and house parties, some billed as “Tamales for Tío Bernie,” an affectionate Spanish-language term for “Uncle Bernie.” The campaign wants to be deeply embedded in Latino communities, said Bianca Recto, communications director for the campaign in Nevada. She said at least half of the 200 paid staff on the ground ahead of the caucuses are people of color, many of them locals. “It’s Bernie’s message that resonates to the economic hardships of people and not treating constituencies as if they’re a monolith, as if they’re a one-issue voter,” Recto said.
21 Feb 2020 22.42 GMT As news trickles out that the Russian government is currently working to aid Sen. Sanders through online disinformation tactics, the Vermont Senator has suggested that a recent dust-up over purported Sanders supporters and culinary workers in Nevada can be traced to Russian bots. Sanders said in a statement:“In 2016, Russia used Internet propaganda to sow division in our country, and my understanding is that they are doing it again in 2020. Some of the ugly stuff on the Internet attributed to our campaign may well not be coming from real supporters.” After the culinary union distributed flyers that was critical of Sanders’ health care plan and broadly supportive of Warren’s, members of the union-members said they received threatening messages from who they believed to be Sanders supporters, or so-called Bernie Bros. So far no evidence has been reported that ties Russian interference to the controversy.
21 Feb 2020 22.24 GMT Reports: Sanders knew about Russian interference a month ago US officials told Bernie Sanders that the Russian government is working to help him secure the Democratic nomination, the Washington Post reported Friday. And new reports are emerging that Sanders knew a month ago about the interference. Asked why the news is only coming out now, Sanders pointed to the Nevada caucuses and suggested media was to blame. Unlike Trump, who has repeatedly dismissed the role Russia may have played in the last election, Sanders has acknowledged the meddling, but has worked to distance himself from Russia and Putin. “I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do. Here’s the video: pic.twitter.com/JpOljo2PIE — Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) February 21, 2020
Updated at 22.45 GMT


theguardian--2020-02-21--Roger Stone is a friend of Trump – does that mean he's above the law?

Any other convict , in Roger Stone ’ s place , might find cause for despair .
Sentenced by judge Amy Berman Jackson to 40 months in federal prison on Thursday , Stone , 67 , the piratical politico , was also on the receiving end of a stern rebuke for making threatening social media posts during the trial and for generally acting as if the rules did not apply to him .
“ This is intolerable to the administration of justice , ” Jackson told Stone , “ and the court can not sit idly by , shrug its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just Roger being Roger ’ .
” Stone was sentenced for lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks in 2016 and witness tampering in an effort to shield Trump .
But Stone , who likes to dress up as the Joker , has a major ace up his sleeve , and everyone knows it .
He is a friend of Donald Trump , and in the United States in 2020 , legal observers say , that appears to be enough to seriously diminish , if not destroy , the binding force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t believe that his friends , and people he personally likes or who he feels can somehow serve his interests – he doesn ’ t feel they should be treated the same as everybody else , ” said Patrick Cotter , a former federal prosecutor in the eastern district of New York .
“ Friends of the president get special treatment , and people who aren ’ t friends of the president don ’ t .
“ And I expect that Mr Stone will , sooner or later , get his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ post-impeachment spree of testing the limits on his power when it comes to manipulating the US criminal justice system , in the judgment of numerous former justice department officials – and he hasn ’ t found any yet .
Since his acquittal by Senate Republicans on 5 February , Trump has taken steps to prosecute his political opponents ; initiated reviews of his allies ’ criminal cases ; attacked Jackson , a juror , and prosecutors tied to the Stone case ; and proclaimed himself “ the chief law enforcement officer of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued pardons and commutations to nearly a dozen convicts with almost exactly Stone ’ s profile : ageing white men with personal ties to Trump found guilty of public corruption .
Trump is putting the Department of Justice through a historic stress test it might not recover from , numerous former justice department officials warned .
“ The Department of Justice has been , at least during my adult lifetime , sort of this independent , executive branch office that worked really hard to , for the most part , keep itself separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Wendy Olson , a former US attorney for the district of Idaho appointed by Barack Obama .
“ But I think we ’ re in a very perilous moment in the role of the Department of Justice in the United States , to figure out if that ’ s going to continue to be what the Department of Justice is going to be , going forward.
” Stone is only the most recent , visible face of Trump ’ s efforts to erase the supposed boundaries guarding justice department independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of presidential clemency for 11 federal convicts , including the former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik , the former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and the former junk bond king Michael Milken .
Each case was a pet cause of Trump campaign donors or intimates such as Sheldon Adelson and Rudy Giuliani .
“ The problem is that Trump is giving grants to the politically connected and the wealthy – people who are the least in need of this power , ” Rachel Barkow , a New York University law school professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email .
“ It ’ s a list of political cronies , big donors and people with friends in high places .
You don ’ t see the regular people who need a pardon so they can get an occupational license .
And the crimes themselves overwhelmingly involve fraud and corruption and white collar offenses , even though most of the people with federal convictions have them for drug offenses.
” The pardons followed Trump ’ s intervention in the Stone case in the form of a tweet calling prosecutors ’ sentencing recommendation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
The attorney general , William Barr , caused the recommendation to be changed , prompting a call for his resignation from more than 2,600 former justice department officials .
Jan Miller , a former US attorney for central Illinois appointed by George W Bush , said that Barr ’ s intervention in the Stone case after Trump ’ s tweet had called justice department independence into question .
“ It ’ s hard for me to believe that it would not be causing a tremendous amount of stress for line prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , ” Miller said .
“ When you move a line on something like this , it becomes dangerous , potentially .
I ’ m not one of those people who say the sky is falling , and this is all going to come crashing down now , but you do worry about the lasting effect that it has both on the institution and the people within it.
” Stone does not face immediate imprisonment .
He has moved for a retrial , and he separately was expected to appeal his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take months .
Trump indicated on Thursday that he did not plan on pardoning Stone immediately , but as he did so he launched yet another attack on the criminal justice system , saying , “ this has not been a fair process ” .
“ I want the process play out , I think that ’ s the best thing to do , ” Trump said .
“ Because I ’ d love to see Roger exonerated , and I ’ d love to see it happen because I personally think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no exoneration for Stone , who was convicted by a jury of his peers on seven felony counts .
But his friend the president may well help him avoid prison time , Cotter said .
“ Certainly , unfortunately , everything the president has done over the last several months – but especially the last week-and-a-half , ” Cotter said , “ strongly suggests that a pardon will eventually arrive .
”

Any other convict, in Roger Stone’s place, might find cause for despair.
Sentenced by Judge Amy Berman Jackson to 40 months in federal prison on Thursday, Stone, 67, the piratical politico, was also on the receiving end of a stern rebuke for making threatening social media posts during the trial and for generally acting as if the rules did not apply to him.
“This is intolerable to the administration of justice,” Jackson told Stone, “and the court cannot sit idly by, shrug its shoulders and say, ‘That’s just Roger being Roger.’”
Stone was sentenced for lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks in 2016 and witness tampering in an effort to shield Trump. But Stone, who likes to dress up as the Joker, has a major ace up his sleeve, and everyone knows it. He is a friend of Donald Trump, and in the United States in 2020, legal observers say, that appears to be enough to seriously diminish, if not destroy, the binding force of the law.
“Mr Trump doesn’t believe that his friends, and people he personally likes or who he feels can somehow serve his interests – he doesn’t feel they should be treated the same as everybody else,” said Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor in the eastern district of New York. “Friends of the president get special treatment, and people who aren’t friends of the president don’t.
“And I expect that Mr Stone will, sooner or later, get his pardon.”
Trump has been on a post-impeachment spree of testing the limits on his power when it comes to manipulating the US criminal justice system, in the judgment of numerous former justice department officials – and he hasn’t found any yet.
Since his acquittal by Senate Republicans on 5 February, Trump has taken steps to prosecute his political opponents; initiated reviews of his allies’ criminal cases; attacked Jackson, a juror and prosecutors tied to the Stone case; and proclaimed himself “the chief law enforcement officer of the country”.
Trump also this week issued pardons and commutations to nearly a dozen convicts with almost exactly Stone’s profile: ageing white men with personal ties to Trump found guilty of public corruption.
Trump is putting the Department of Justice through a historic stress test it might not recover from, numerous former justice department officials warned.
“The Department of Justice has been, at least during my adult lifetime, sort of this independent, executive branch office that worked really hard to, for the most part, keep itself separate from the politics of the executive itself,” said Wendy Olson, a former US attorney for the district of Idaho appointed by Barack Obama.
“But I think we’re in a very perilous moment in the role of the Department of Justice in the United States, to figure out if that’s going to continue to be what the Department of Justice is going to be, going forward.”
Stone is only the most recent, visible face of Trump’s efforts to erase the supposed boundaries guarding justice department independence.
Trump is giving grants to the politically connected and the wealthy – people who are the least in need of this power Rachel Barkow
On Tuesday, Trump announced acts of presidential clemency for 11 federal convicts, including the former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, the former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and the former junk bond king Michael Milken. Each case was a pet cause of Trump campaign donors or intimates such as Sheldon Adelson and Rudy Giuliani.
“The problem is that Trump is giving grants to the politically connected and the wealthy – people who are the least in need of this power,” Rachel Barkow, a New York University law school professor and clemency expert, said in an email.
“It’s a list of political cronies, big donors and people with friends in high places. You don’t see the regular people who need a pardon so they can get an occupational license. And the crimes themselves overwhelmingly involve fraud and corruption and white-collar offenses, even though most of the people with federal convictions have them for drug offenses.”
The pardons followed Trump’s intervention in the Stone case in the form of a tweet calling prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation “a horrible and very unfair situation”. The attorney general, William Barr, caused the recommendation to be changed, prompting a call for his resignation from more than 2,600 former justice department officials.
Jan Miller, a former US attorney for central Illinois appointed by George W Bush, said that Barr’s intervention in the Stone case after Trump’s tweet had called justice department independence into question.
“It’s hard for me to believe that it would not be causing a tremendous amount of stress for line prosecutors and US attorney’s offices around the country,” Miller said.
“When you move a line on something like this, it becomes dangerous, potentially. I’m not one of those people who say the sky is falling, and this is all going to come crashing down now, but you do worry about the lasting effect that it has both on the institution and the people within it.”
Stone does not face immediate imprisonment. He has moved for a retrial, and he separately was expected to appeal against his sentence, in a process that could take months.
Trump indicated on Thursday that he did not plan on pardoning Stone immediately, but as he did so he launched yet another attack on the criminal justice system, saying, “this has not been a fair process”.
“I want the process to play out, I think that’s the best thing to do,” Trump said. “Because I’d love to see Roger exonerated, and I’d love to see it happen because I personally think he was treated very unfairly.”
There will be no exoneration for Stone, who was convicted by a jury of his peers on seven felony counts. But his friend the president may well help him avoid prison time, Cotter said.
“Certainly, unfortunately, everything the president has done over the last several months – but especially the last week and a half,” Cotter said, “strongly suggests that a pardon will eventually arrive.”


theguardian--2020-02-21--House members reportedly told Russia is working to get Trump re-elected – as it happened

Maguire had been considered a leading candidate to be nominated for the post of DNI , White House aides had said .
But Trump ’ s opinion shifted last week when he heard from a GOP ally that the intelligence official in charge of election security , who works for Maguire , gave a classified briefing last Thursday to the House Intelligence Committee on 2020 election security .
It is unclear what the official , Shelby Pierson , specifically said at the briefing that angered Trump , but the president erroneously believed that she had given information exclusively to Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee chairman , and that the information would be helpful to Democrats if it were released publicly , the people familiar with the matter said .
Schiff was the lead impeachment manager , or prosecutor , during Trump ’ s Senate trial on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The president was furious with Maguire and blamed him for the supposed transgression involving Pierson when the two met the next day .
‘ There was a dressing down ’ of Maguire , said one individual , who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter .
‘ That was the catalyst ’ that led to the sidelining of Maguire in favor of Grenell , the person said .

Lois Beckett in San Francisco (now), and Joan E Greve in Washington and Martin Belam  (earlier)

21 Feb 2020 03.04 GMT Late evening summary It was another evening of late-breaking news. Here’s a summary as our live politics coverage ends for the night: House members were reportedly warned by intelligence officials last week that Russia is interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get Trump re-elected, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported. The account Trump heard of the briefing reportedly enraged him, prompting him to lash out at his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire , who had expected to stay in the position.
re-elected, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported. The account Trump heard of the briefing reportedly enraged him, prompting him to lash out at his acting director of national intelligence, , who had expected to stay in the position. Instead, Trump replaced Maguire with Richard Grenell, a hardcore Trump loyalist, the current US ambassador to Germany, and a person with no intelligence experience.
a hardcore Trump loyalist, the current US ambassador to Germany, and a person with no intelligence experience. One sign of how Grenell will operate in this role: one of his new senior advisers, in his new role as the top intelligence official for the Trump White House, is Kash Patel, a former Hill staffer who made his reputation as the lead author of a Republican report “questioning the conduct of FBI and DOJ officials investigating Russia’s election interference,” Politico reported.
a former Hill staffer who made his reputation as the lead author of a Republican report “questioning the conduct of FBI and DOJ officials investigating Russia’s election interference,” Politico reported. Also: among the new information reportedly shared with lawmakers at the House intelligence briefing: “Russia intends to interfere with the ongoing Democratic primaries as well as the general election,” the Times reported.
as well as the general election,” the Times reported. Meanwhile: Democrats discussed what they will do if Bernie Sanders wins the most voters in the Democratic primary, but not an outright majority of votes, a contentious issue.
wins the most voters in the Democratic primary, but not an outright majority of votes, a contentious issue. Elizabeth Warren renewed her demand that Michael Bloomberg release former employees who sued him or his company from their non-disclosure agreements, so they can speak promptly and publicly about the behavior that prompted their lawsuits.
renewed her demand that release former employees who sued him or his company from their non-disclosure agreements, so they can speak promptly and publicly about the behavior that prompted their lawsuits. At a rally in Colorado, Trump complained that Parasite, a South Korean film, had won the best picture Oscar. “Can we get Gone with the Wind back. please?” he asked.
21 Feb 2020 02.32 GMT Elizabeth Warren is not done with her demans that Michael Bloomberg, billionaire former New York mayor and late entrant into the 2020 Democratic primary, release former employees who have brought lawsuits against Bloomberg and his company from their nondisclosure agreements. The goal, Warren has said: allowing women to talk candidly about the behavior that prompted the lawsuits, and ensuring transparency in the primary. Elizabeth Warren opens her CNN town hall by saying she brought something with her -- a contract she wrote up that she says would release former Bloomberg employees from NDAs.
"I used to teach contract law... All he has to do is sign it. I’ll text it." — Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 01.27 GMT Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, speaking alongside the president at a rally for Trump supporters in Colorado Springs, is now attacking “the normalization of socialism by Bernie Sanders.” Gardner, facing a rocky path to reelection this year, pledged to fight hard to keep Republican control of the Senate and the White House. “They want to take our guns. They want to take our healthcare. That’s their platform,” Gardner said of the Democratic Party.
21 Feb 2020 01.22 GMT Former Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told the Washington Post that none of the Democratic presidential primary candidates should get the nomination with less than a majority of delegates. Reid was pushing back on “suggestions from Sanders and his supporters that he should become the nominee if he finishes with a plurality lead ahead of the still large pack of candidates,” the Post reported. “Reid even suggested that a group of moderate candidates, trailing Sanders overall, could assemble a coalition ahead of the Democratic convention in July in Milwaukee to hand the nomination to someone else.” Bloomberg’s campaign has already been pushing to position himself as a candidate who could benefit from the support of other “moderate” candidates like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg in this situation, Politico reported earlier today. Harry Reid still doesn't mince words, on Bernie or anything:
“Let’s say that he has 35 percent. Well, 65 percent he doesn’t have. ... I do not believe anyone should get the nomination unless they have 50-plus-one.”
1st cut from HMR-PK talk. https://t.co/Gh7IycMtTy — Paul Kane (@pkcapitol) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 01.04 GMT A group co-founded by Hollywood actor Eva Longoria and DNC Finance Chair Henry R. Muñoz III has endorsed Joe Biden for president. NEW: @latinovictoryus announces they are endorsing @JoeBiden for President, just 2 days ahead of the Nevada caucuses
"Our country will need an experienced leader who will hit the ground running on day one, and that candidate is Vice President Biden,” the groups chair says — Johnny Verhovek (@JTHVerhovek) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 00.57 GMT A Democratic political strategist notes that Trump’s praise at this Colorado Springs rally for Sen. Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican facing a tough reelection campaign, will likely be used in attack ads against him. “Cory was with us all the way. He didn’t move, he didn’t budge,” Trump added later in the speech, saluting Gardner for voting against impeaching him, a vote that was reportedly a tough one for Gardner. Coming soon to a million Democratic ads this fall! https://t.co/oKDjNq59bX — Emmy Bengtson (@EmmyA2) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 00.45 GMT President Trump is now at a rally in Colorado complaining that the Oscar for Best Picture went to Parasite, a film from South Korea, and complaining that the country has trade problems with South Korea. “Can we get Gone with the Wind back please?” Trump asked. Trump goes off on the Oscars for giving Best Picture to Parasite because it's a South Korean movie pic.twitter.com/GUGKdExTbw — Claudia Koerner (@ClaudiaKoerner) February 21, 2020
Updated at 00.49 GMT
21 Feb 2020 00.37 GMT John Brennan, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a prominent public critic of Donald Trump, weighs in on the significance of the new report about Trump being furious about an intelligence briefing for members of Congress that included the conclusion that Russia is still attempting to interfere in the 2020 election with the goal of supporting him. We are now in a full-blown national security crisis. By trying to prevent the flow of intelligence to Congress, Trump is abetting a Russian covert operation to keep him in office for Moscow’s interests, not America’s. https://t.co/Vj6lUV5ZNu — John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) February 21, 2020
21 Feb 2020 00.30 GMT “Russia intends to interfere with the ongoing Democratic primaries as well as the general election.” That’s key new information that House lawmakers heard during an intelligence briefing last week, according to the New York Times. The briefing, which reportedly angered the president, once again conveyed to lawmakers the conclusion from intelligence officials that Russia was interfering in the election with goal of electing Trump. Last week’s briefing did contain what appeared to be new information, according to NYT, including that Russia intends to interfere with the ongoing Democratic primaries as well as the general election. https://t.co/NEdqx6ee8b — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 21, 2020
20 Feb 2020 23.30 GMT Mike Bloomberg is quietly lobbying Democratic Party officials and donors allied with moderate opponents like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg to flip their allegiance to him —and defeat Bernie Sanders — if Democrats fail to choose a presidential nominee during the first round of voting, Politico reports. “It’s a presumptuous play for a candidate who hasn’t yet won a delegate or even appeared on a ballot,” Politico’s David Siders writes. “And it could also bring havoc to the convention, raising the prospect of party insiders delivering the nomination to a billionaire over a progressive populist.” if Bernie Sanders goes into the Democratic National Convention with a plurality and Mike Bloomberg signs up superdelegates to wrest it away from him, as this story suggests, I am genuinely uncertain what will happen to the Democratic Party https://t.co/SHasxfe5Hv — Matt Pearce 🦅 (@mattdpearce) February 20, 2020
20 Feb 2020 23.19 GMT A heavily edited video posted by the Bloomberg campaign to Instagram on Thursday paints a flattering, and false, portrait of the former New York mayor’s widely panned debate performance. My colleague Kari Paul reports on how tech companies are responding to this kind of misleading political content. Facebook and Instagram: nothing. Twitter: would be flagged as misleading... under a new policy that hasn’t started yet. Twitter told me this video should be flagged as misleading under its new policy regarding disinformation, but that policy doesn't go into effect until March 5 https://t.co/WXoqWPZJaS https://t.co/xtB2ttGLuu — Kari Paul (@kari_paul) February 20, 2020
20 Feb 2020 23.10 GMT The Washington Post obtained a recording of a private speech in London at which the acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, said that the United States desperately needs more immigrants to fuel its economy, a position starkly different from the senior White House adviser Stephen Miller and others who have pushed to reduce any kind of immigration.
“We are desperate – desperate – for more people,” Mulvaney said, according to the Post. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” The Trump administration wants those immigrants to come in a “legal fashion”, Mulvaney said, according to the Post. "We are desperate -- desperate -- for more people," Mulvaney said during private speech in London. "We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth that we’ve had in our nation over the last four years. We need more immigrants.” w/@nickmiroff: https://t.co/q1WtDMYYwd — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) February 20, 2020
Updated at 23.15 GMT
20 Feb 2020 22.13 GMT House members reportedly told Russia interfering in 2020 election House members were reportedly warned by intelligence officials last week that Russia is interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get Trump re-elected, mirroring the country’s meddling in the 2016 race. The New York Times reports: The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, Mr. Trump berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump cited the presence in the briefing of Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who led the impeachment proceedings against him, as a particular irritant.
During the briefing to the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s allies challenged the conclusions, arguing that Mr. Trump has been tough on Russia and strengthened European security. Some intelligence officials viewed the briefing as a tactical error, saying that had the official who delivered the conclusion spoken less pointedly or left it out, they would have avoided angering the Republicans. That intelligence official, Shelby Pierson, is an aide to Mr. Maguire who has a reputation of delivering intelligence in somewhat blunt terms. The president announced on Wednesday that he was replacing Mr. Maguire with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany and long an aggressively vocal Trump supporter. The Washington Post reported earlier today about the confrontation between Trump and Maguire, but the content of the intelligence briefing was not previously known. Trump has repeatedly pushed back against the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 race to help him defeat Hillary Clinton. During the impeachment inquiry and trial, some of the president’s allies tried to peddle the baseless conspiracy theory that it was actually Ukraine who meddled in the 2016 race. That claim was dismissed by Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, as a “fictional narrative” pushed by Vladimir Putin’s government.
Updated at 23.15 GMT
20 Feb 2020 22.03 GMT Evening summary That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Lois Beckett, will take over the blog for the next few hours. Here’s where the day stands so far: Trump said he would not yet pardon Roger Stone, his former associate who was sentenced to 40 months in prison today, and would instead wait for “the process to play out”. But the president added he thinks Stone has a “very good chance of exoneration”.
said he would not yet pardon his former associate who was sentenced to 40 months in prison today, and would instead wait for “the process to play out”. But the president added he thinks Stone has a “very good chance of exoneration”. While delivering Stone’s sentence, Judge Amy Berman Jackson denounced Stone’s actions and warned that his disregard for the truth represented “a threat to the very foundation of this democracy”.
denounced Stone’s actions and warned that his disregard for the truth represented “a threat to the very foundation of this democracy”. Trump reportedly lashed out against the acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire last week, after one of his staffers privately testified to the House intelligence committee on election security. The president announced yesterday that Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany and a Trump loyalist, would replace Maguire.
last week, after one of his staffers privately testified to the House intelligence committee on election security. The president announced yesterday that the US ambassador to Germany and a Trump loyalist, would replace Maguire. Nearly 20 million people, a new record for a Democratic primary debate, watched last night’s event. That could be bad news for Mike Bloomberg, whose first debate performance was widely panned. Lois will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
Updated at 23.16 GMT
20 Feb 2020 21.49 GMT Coming off her strong debate performance, Elizabeth Warren said her campaign has raised more than $5 million since she took the stage last night. Since I stepped on the #DemDebate stage, our grassroots campaign has raised more than $5 million. We’ve not only reached our critical goal of raising $7 million before the Nevada caucuses—we're now raising it to $12 million. I'm so grateful. Keep it up! https://t.co/9kjAWYs2zq — Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) February 20, 2020 Warren had set a goal of raising $7 million before Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, and she is now raising that number to $12 million. But Warren is also attracting some criticism today for refusing to distance herself from a new super PAC supporting her candidacy. NEW: Here is video of Warren declining to disavow the new super PAC supporting her:
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I'll lead the charge. But that's how it has to be. It can't be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only 1 or 2 don’t.” pic.twitter.com/byxQRjGMfs — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) February 20, 2020 The Massachusetts senator said she would support all the candidates disavowing super PACs but would not be the sole opponent. (This comes after Warren previously said she would reject the groups’ support.)
20 Feb 2020 21.30 GMT Shortly after Roger Stone was sentenced today, senator Lindsey Graham tweeted that Trump “has all the legal authority in the world to review this case.” This presidential power is available to all presidents in all cases brought before our justice system.
This is the way our legal system is intended to work and provides a brilliant and intricate system of checks and balances we should all honor. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 20, 2020 The tweet was read as a possible indication that Trump’s congressional allies will not push back much if the president chooses to pardon his former associate. In contrast, House intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff said such a move would be a “breathtaking act of corruption.”