hotair--2020-02-13--Texas big: Houston's mayor endorses Bloomberg, "Mike for Black America"

Michael Bloomberg ’ s campaign announced a notable endorsement in Texas on Thursday – that of Houston ’ s Mayor Sylvester Turner .
The battle for African-American voters in Texas is on .
Mayor Turner , an African-American Democrat and thirty-year political career politician will provide a boost to the Bloomberg campaign in the all-important black vote in the Democrat primary .
Early voting in Texas begins in just five days .
Texas is one of the states that vote on Super Tuesday .
228 pledged delegates in Texas are up for grabs in the primary .
Turner points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City as a plus for running the country .
He has supported Bloomberg ’ s gun-grabbing organization , Every Town for Gun Safety , including participating in public marches for the cause .
Like Bloomberg , Turner is a Never-Trumper .
Turner also participates in Women ’ s Marches in Houston .
So , his connection to Bloomberg isn ’ t new .
Without a black contender in the primary race , it ’ s reasonable that Turner chose Bloomberg .
Most affected here will be Joe Biden .
Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since he entered the race .
While he had a very strong lead in past months , his lead has shrunk to 9 points as of today ’ s Real Clear Politics averaging .
Granted , there hasn ’ t been a lot of polling , but I wouldn ’ t be surprised if his lead is even less than that after his dismal showing in the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire .
I think Bloomberg will be a choice that Texas Democrats who are not a part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be comfortable making .
Bloomberg was in fourth place at RCP after the last polling at the end of January .
Warren was in third place after Biden and Sanders but Bloomberg should be able to do better than her after her poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire .
I can easily see a contest between Sanders and Bloomberg shaping up in Texas .
Bloomberg is certainly giving it his best .
His political ads continue to run 24/7 everywhere , whether it is network television or cable television .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the keynote speaker at the annual Johnson , Rayburn Richards Dinner , a fundraiser dinner for the Harris County Democrat Party .
After dinner , he will go to the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum where he will launch the Mike for Black America .
There is nothing subtle about Bloomberg ’ s campaign , that ’ s for sure .
The endorsement comes as Bloomberg is scheduled to be in Houston on Thursday night to launch a new initiative called Mike for Black America , which is supposed to help address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost voter turnout .
Bloomberg is announcing that program just after 8 p.m. at the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum at 3816 Caroline St.
It ’ s already Bloomberg ’ s third visit to Houston in the last six weeks .
And in each of those visits , he ’ s been focused on the black community .
In his last visit just two weeks ago , Bloomberg was promoting an economic program he plans to launch that he says will create one million more black homeowners and 100,000 new black-owned businesses .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s diversity and made smart investments that brought better infrastructure and greater opportunity to all five boroughs , ” Turner said .
Here ’ s the thing – lots of mayors and local legislators across the country are beholden to Michael Bloomberg for his past support – his financial donations to campaigns .
Bloomberg has very cleverly set himself up through the years to now call in lots of favors from politicians for endorsements now as he runs for president .
He has already announced the endorsements of San Francisco Mayor London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muriel Bowser , former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter , and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa .
Now Houston ’ s mayor adds his name to the list .
Former Houston Mayor Bill White and former El Paso Mayor John Cook have also previously been announced as endorsers of Bloomberg .
Houston is the nation ’ s fourth-largest city and a Democrat stronghold .
Harris County though is America ’ s third most populous county .
Harris County , once a solidly red county , has turned purple as the 2016 elections showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters who make the difference .
They chose Hillary over Trump in 2016 .
It pains me greatly to say that .
The saying is that as Harris County goes , so goes Texas .
We ’ ll see how that shakes out this cycle .
With Joe Biden clearly not up to the task , Bloomberg is a natural back-up plan for moderate Democrats .
Mayor Pete is too young and wet behind the ears in politics and Amy Klobuchar doesn ’ t have a compelling narrative or personality .
Who else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York billionaire willing to buy the presidency at any cost and punch back at Trump on Twitter and during interviews ?
We may very well end up with two New York billionaires in November – Trump , and Bloomberg .
All of that depends on the success of Bloomberg ’ s strategy of skipping the early states and banking on Super Tuesday .
Bloomberg is working the South hard .
His support among black voters jumped to 22 percent in the last Quinnipiac Poll .
He is moving up .
Will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters over the heft of Mayor Turner ’ s endorsement ?
That remains to be seen .
Turner seems to have made peace with it .
Turner said he and Bloomberg have had conversations about the “ stop-and-frisk ” policy over the last few months — prior to the audio ’ s release .
He added that Bloomberg and him went to breakfast together in January and that the presidential candidate “ worshipped with him at his church , ” but his endorsement “ didn ’ t come easily.
” “ It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an acknowledgment that ‘ stop and frisk ’ was flawed and to get an apology for it .
He acknowledged it was flawed policy to me and if he had not , I would not be standing with him , ” Turner told The Texas Tribune .
“ If you ’ re willing to publicly indicate its wrong , the question now is : Where are we going from here ?
” So far , the clip hasn ’ t stopped the billionaire from amassing support among black elected officials .
Prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Caucus endorsed Bloomberg .
As it turns out , Thursday is a big day for Democrat presidential candidates in Houston .
Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign is scheduled to open a new office in Houston on Thursday night and Tom Steyer opened his first Texas office in Houston Thursday morning .

Michael Bloomberg’s campaign announced a notable endorsement in Texas on Thursday – that of Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner. The battle for African-American voters in Texas is on.
Mayor Turner, an African-American Democrat and thirty-year political career politician will provide a boost to the Bloomberg campaign in the all-important black vote in the Democrat primary. Early voting in Texas begins in just five days. Texas is one of the states that vote on Super Tuesday. 228 pledged delegates in Texas are up for grabs in the primary.
Turner points to Bloomberg’s experience as Mayor of New York City as a plus for running the country. He has supported Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing organization, Every Town for Gun Safety, including participating in public marches for the cause. Like Bloomberg, Turner is a Never-Trumper. Turner also participates in Women’s Marches in Houston. So, his connection to Bloomberg isn’t new. Without a black contender in the primary race, it’s reasonable that Turner chose Bloomberg.
As Mayor, I know that cities are ultimately made up of two things – people and places. We need a president who knows how cities run and who will help create economic opportunity for all. I am proud to announce my endorsement of @MikeBloomberg for President of the United States. pic.twitter.com/g4WgZbZ6QW — Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) February 13, 2020
.@MikeBloomberg knows cities can go farther when leaders are responsive to concerns. We cannot allow American cities to be divided into haves and have nots. We must do the hard work of overhauling our nation’s infrastructure so citizens can go about their lives more efficiently. — Sylvester Turner (@SylvesterTurner) February 13, 2020
Most affected here will be Joe Biden. Biden has polled in first place in Texas polls since he entered the race. While he had a very strong lead in past months, his lead has shrunk to 9 points as of today’s Real Clear Politics averaging. Granted, there hasn’t been a lot of polling, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his lead is even less than that after his dismal showing in the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. I think Bloomberg will be a choice that Texas Democrats who are not a part of the Sanders’ wing of the party will be comfortable making. Bloomberg was in fourth place at RCP after the last polling at the end of January. Warren was in third place after Biden and Sanders but Bloomberg should be able to do better than her after her poor showing in Iowa and New Hampshire.
I can easily see a contest between Sanders and Bloomberg shaping up in Texas. Bloomberg is certainly giving it his best. His political ads continue to run 24/7 everywhere, whether it is network television or cable television. He’s all over social media. Bloomberg will be the keynote speaker at the annual Johnson, Rayburn Richards Dinner, a fundraiser dinner for the Harris County Democrat Party. After dinner, he will go to the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum where he will launch the Mike for Black America. There is nothing subtle about Bloomberg’s campaign, that’s for sure.
The endorsement comes as Bloomberg is scheduled to be in Houston on Thursday night to launch a new initiative called Mike for Black America, which is supposed to help address issues important to the black community and boost voter turnout. Bloomberg is announcing that program just after 8 p.m. at the Buffalo Soldiers National Museum at 3816 Caroline St. It’s already Bloomberg’s third visit to Houston in the last six weeks. And in each of those visits, he’s been focused on the black community. In his last visit just two weeks ago, Bloomberg was promoting an economic program he plans to launch that he says will create one million more black homeowners and 100,000 new black-owned businesses. “As mayor, Mike embraced New York’s diversity and made smart investments that brought better infrastructure and greater opportunity to all five boroughs,” Turner said.
Here’s the thing – lots of mayors and local legislators across the country are beholden to Michael Bloomberg for his past support – his financial donations to campaigns. Bloomberg has very cleverly set himself up through the years to now call in lots of favors from politicians for endorsements now as he runs for president. He has already announced the endorsements of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, former Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Now Houston’s mayor adds his name to the list. Former Houston Mayor Bill White and former El Paso Mayor John Cook have also previously been announced as endorsers of Bloomberg.
Houston is the nation’s fourth-largest city and a Democrat stronghold. Harris County though is America’s third most populous county. Harris County, once a solidly red county, has turned purple as the 2016 elections showed. It’s the suburban women voters who make the difference. They chose Hillary over Trump in 2016. It pains me greatly to say that. The saying is that as Harris County goes, so goes Texas. We’ll see how that shakes out this cycle.
With Joe Biden clearly not up to the task, Bloomberg is a natural back-up plan for moderate Democrats. Mayor Pete is too young and wet behind the ears in politics and Amy Klobuchar doesn’t have a compelling narrative or personality. Who else would moderates turn to but the successful New York billionaire willing to buy the presidency at any cost and punch back at Trump on Twitter and during interviews? We may very well end up with two New York billionaires in November – Trump, and Bloomberg.
All of that depends on the success of Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping the early states and banking on Super Tuesday. Bloomberg is working the South hard. His support among black voters jumped to 22 percent in the last Quinnipiac Poll. He is moving up. Will the “stop and frisk” controversy sway voters over the heft of Mayor Turner’s endorsement? That remains to be seen. Turner seems to have made peace with it.
Turner said he and Bloomberg have had conversations about the “stop-and-frisk” policy over the last few months — prior to the audio’s release. He added that Bloomberg and him went to breakfast together in January and that the presidential candidate “worshipped with him at his church,” but his endorsement “didn’t come easily.” “It was important from the very beginning to get an acknowledgment that ‘stop and frisk’ was flawed and to get an apology for it. He acknowledged it was flawed policy to me and if he had not, I would not be standing with him,” Turner told The Texas Tribune. “If you’re willing to publicly indicate its wrong, the question now is: Where are we going from here?” So far, the clip hasn’t stopped the billionaire from amassing support among black elected officials. Prior to Turner, three members of the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Bloomberg.
As it turns out, Thursday is a big day for Democrat presidential candidates in Houston. Bernie Sanders’s campaign is scheduled to open a new office in Houston on Thursday night and Tom Steyer opened his first Texas office in Houston Thursday morning.


hotair--2020-02-13--Wait, does Trump want a quid pro quo with ... New York?

I saw this tweet the instant it was posted and laughed at how it reminds me of the famous July 25th call between Trump and Zelensky .
He doesn ’ t explicitly say , “ If you want this public benefit from me , I need a personal benefit from you , ” but by linking the two in the same communication it ’ s clear in context what he ’ s proposing .
He met Cuomo today to discuss the federal Global Entry program for “ trusted travelers ” at airports .
A week ago DHS announced that New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to the state ’ s passage of a “ Green Light Law.
” The Green Light Law is designed to protect illegal immigrants , who are allowed to apply for driver ’ s licenses in New York .
It keeps the feds from being able to access the state ’ s DMV database , which could be used by ICE to target illegals for deportation , without a court order .
If we can ’ t see the database then you can ’ t be part of Global Entry , countered DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington to see if some sort of compromise might be worked out .
So far , so good .
It ’ s the bit in the tweet about “ unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment ” ( or “ harassment ” ) that ’ s noteworthy .
Various lawsuits have been filed by New York against the Trump administration but that ’ s par for the course with a Democratic state and a Republican administration or vice versa .
The lawsuits in New York that have made headlines are the ones the state has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of them , from the successful effort to shut down his foundation ( which resulted in a $ 2 million payment to various charities by the president ) to an investigation of the Trump Organization ’ s finances to the coming Supreme Court battle over whether the Manhattan D.A .
can subpoena Trump ’ s tax returns from his accountants .
“ Harassment ” is clearly a reference to those personal lawsuits .
Public lawsuits by a state against the feds are cumbersome but S.O.P .
in politics .
Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in them .
If he ’ s being “ harassed , ” it ’ s by the politically motivated investigations into his and his business ’ s finances .
And so , in context , it looks like he ’ s saying that if Cuomo wants a deal on Global Entry , making those investigations go away would help oil the gears a bit .
Democrats saw the tweet too and are going nuts about it : Politico notes this passage from House Dems ’ brief in the impeachment trial : There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but access to Global Entry for New Yorkers is obviously a benefit .
Meanwhile , New York ’ s attorney general chimed in to tell him that Cuomo doesn ’ t get to make deals about lawsuits : In the Ukraine matter , his defense to charges that he ’ d abused his power was that it ’ s in the public interest to investigate possible corruption by a former high official like Joe Biden .
( Why he wanted a country like Ukraine which he regarded as untrustworthy to carry out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) He wasn ’ t going after Joe because he thought Biden would be his opponent in the election , he insisted , he was going after him in the name of draining the swamp .
In this case I ’ m guessing the defense will be that he was only referring to the lawsuits filed against his administration , not against him or his business — although whether it ’ d be appropriate for the president to condition a public benefit on a state withdrawing a possibly meritorious lawsuit against his government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be defended as also in the public interest , I suppose .
Leaning on them to withdraw a personal suit is far more dubious .
He could always go with the old “ no quid pro quo ” defense and insist that he didn ’ t mean to imply that Global Entry ’ s fate in New York is linked to his personal fate in New York courts .
The program ’ s not named in the tweet , is it ?
Maybe he just happened to be thinking of Cuomo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject of their meeting , and his mind turned to those lawsuits .
Or he could do what he did with Ukraine ’ s military aid and squeeze Cuomo and New Yorkers for as long as possible before finally relenting when the political heat gets too hot .
“ We readmitted New York to Global Entry in the end , didn ’ t we ?
So what ’ s the problem ?
” Maybe he won ’ t bother offering a defense .
He doesn ’ t really need to .
Pelosi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be that she ’ s in no mood to chase new Trump scandals , including the big one right now involving Bill Barr and Roger Stone .
Democrats are ready to get back on message policy-wise so he ’ s free to use public benefits as personal leverage as he deems fit .
Ah well .
Here ’ s something fun that ’ s impeachment-related — Adam Schiff admitting that Hunter Biden accepting a position at a company he had no business joining maybe wasn ’ t the best optics .

I saw this tweet the instant it was posted and laughed at how it reminds me of the famous July 25th call between Trump and Zelensky. He doesn’t explicitly say, “If you want this public benefit from me, I need a personal benefit from you,” but by linking the two in the same communication it’s clear in context what he’s proposing.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1228023660457480194
He met Cuomo today to discuss the federal Global Entry program for “trusted travelers” at airports. A week ago DHS announced that New Yorkers would be excluded from that program due to the state’s passage of a “Green Light Law.” The Green Light Law is designed to protect illegal immigrants, who are allowed to apply for driver’s licenses in New York. It keeps the feds from being able to access the state’s DMV database, which could be used by ICE to target illegals for deportation, without a court order. If we can’t see the database then you can’t be part of Global Entry, countered DHS. Trump and Cuomo got together today in Washington to see if some sort of compromise might be worked out.
So far, so good. It’s the bit in the tweet about “unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment” (or “harassment”) that’s noteworthy. Various lawsuits have been filed by New York against the Trump administration but that’s par for the course with a Democratic state and a Republican administration or vice versa. The lawsuits in New York that have made headlines are the ones the state has filed against Trump personally. There are a lot of them, from the successful effort to shut down his foundation (which resulted in a $2 million payment to various charities by the president) to an investigation of the Trump Organization’s finances to the coming Supreme Court battle over whether the Manhattan D.A. can subpoena Trump’s tax returns from his accountants.
“Harassment” is clearly a reference to those personal lawsuits. Public lawsuits by a state against the feds are cumbersome but S.O.P. in politics. Trump himself would rarely have reason to get involved in them. If he’s being “harassed,” it’s by the politically motivated investigations into his and his business’s finances.
And so, in context, it looks like he’s saying that if Cuomo wants a deal on Global Entry, making those investigations go away would help oil the gears a bit.
Democrats saw the tweet too and are going nuts about it:
Trump abused his power to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations for his personal benefit by freezing military aid. Now, he's using his powers to coerce states to stop investigations into him and his businesses. Different corrupt purpose, same corrupt President. https://t.co/4pBqY8gAnI — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) February 13, 2020
Dear @SenateGOP, This is what another quid pro quo by the President of the United States looks like. 👇 https://t.co/7E4PbxevBG — Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) February 13, 2020
Trump is publicly admitting that he is holding Global Entry for New Yorkers hostage in exchange for dropping lawsuits against him and his family’s lawbreaking behavior. This is corrupt, illegal, and authoritarian. Hope Collins and Murkowski are proud of their vote. https://t.co/I49Ksj7VAm — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 13, 2020
As we predicted, the president is now expanding his abuse of power to blackmailing U.S. states (threatening millions of people he supposedly works for). In this case, he's holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud. https://t.co/dZKhhVhMZd — Rep. Val Demings (@RepValDemings) February 13, 2020
Politico notes this passage from House Dems’ brief in the impeachment trial:
“An acquittal would also provide license to President Trump and his successors to use taxpayer dollars for personal political ends … Presidents could also hold hostage federal funds earmarked for States — such as money for natural disasters, highways, and healthcare — unless and until State officials perform personal political favors,” the House wrote in its impeachment trial brief. “Any Congressional appropriation would be an opportunity for a President to solicit a favor for his personal political purposes — or for others to seek to curry favor with him. Such an outcome would be entirely incompatible with our constitutional system of self-government.”
There’s no appropriation at stake this time but access to Global Entry for New Yorkers is obviously a benefit.
Meanwhile, New York’s attorney general chimed in to tell him that Cuomo doesn’t get to make deals about lawsuits:
When you stop violating the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, we will stand down. Until then, we have a duty and responsibility to defend the Constitution and the rule of law. BTW, I file the lawsuits, not the Governor. https://t.co/tsOLeEgiQp — NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) February 13, 2020
In the Ukraine matter, his defense to charges that he’d abused his power was that it’s in the public interest to investigate possible corruption by a former high official like Joe Biden. (Why he wanted a country like Ukraine which he regarded as untrustworthy to carry out that investigation has never been fully explained.) He wasn’t going after Joe because he thought Biden would be his opponent in the election, he insisted, he was going after him in the name of draining the swamp. In this case I’m guessing the defense will be that he was only referring to the lawsuits filed against his administration, not against him or his business — although whether it’d be appropriate for the president to condition a public benefit on a state withdrawing a possibly meritorious lawsuit against his government is itself an open question. That could be defended as also in the public interest, I suppose. Leaning on them to withdraw a personal suit is far more dubious.
He could always go with the old “no quid pro quo” defense and insist that he didn’t mean to imply that Global Entry’s fate in New York is linked to his personal fate in New York courts. The program’s not named in the tweet, is it? Maybe he just happened to be thinking of Cuomo and New York, without regard to the subject of their meeting, and his mind turned to those lawsuits. Or he could do what he did with Ukraine’s military aid and squeeze Cuomo and New Yorkers for as long as possible before finally relenting when the political heat gets too hot. “We readmitted New York to Global Entry in the end, didn’t we? So what’s the problem?”
Maybe he won’t bother offering a defense. He doesn’t really need to. Pelosi’s being as clear as she can be that she’s in no mood to chase new Trump scandals, including the big one right now involving Bill Barr and Roger Stone. Democrats are ready to get back on message policy-wise so he’s free to use public benefits as personal leverage as he deems fit.
Ah well. Here’s something fun that’s impeachment-related — Adam Schiff admitting that Hunter Biden accepting a position at a company he had no business joining maybe wasn’t the best optics.


hotair--2020-02-13--Chait wonders: Why is no one talking about Bloomberg's #MeToo issues?

Because we ’ re too busy discussing his racism ?
Besides , we had this conversation earlier , when Michael Bloomberg first began doing some throat-clearing late last year about a run for the Democratic presidential nomination .
That was fourteen months after The Atlantic first raised the issue of Bloomberg ’ s treatment of women during his career .
Jonathan Chait raises it again in the context of the oppo research emerging over Bloomberg ’ s old defenses of stop-and-frisk .
Bloomberg ’ s # MeToo issues should create an even bigger problem for him , Chait argues ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Chait ’ s argument about which story is bigger , let ’ s recall Megan Garber ’ s initial report in September 2018 about Bloomberg ’ s office comportment : In an interview with the paper , Bloomberg defends stop-and-frisk .
And , voicing “ doubt ” about some of the revelations that have been made in the course of # MeToo , Bloomberg mentions as an example Charlie Rose , who had broadcast his show from a space in Bloomberg ’ s corporate offices .
He declined to say , specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Rose .
“ Let the court system decide , ” the former mayor said .
What is not fully addressed in the Times article , however—and what is not fully explored in the many similar pieces that consider the current iteration of Mike Bloomberg ’ s presidential ambitions—is a series of stories about him , accumulated over decades , that suggests in the aggregate a distinct pattern when it comes to his treatment of women : reports of disparaging comments made about women ’ s bodies and appearances .
Allegations of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bloomberg founded and , for many years , ran .
Stories that linger like exhaust in the air every time Mike Bloomberg is mentioned as , potentially , the next president of the United States .
… From 1996 to 1997 , four women filed sexual-harassment or discrimination suits against Bloomberg the company .
One of the suits included the following allegation : When Sekiko Sakai Garrison , a sales representative at the company , told Mike Bloomberg she was pregnant , he replied , “ Kill it !
” ( Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutter , “ Great , No .
16 ” —a reference , her complaint said , to the 16 women at the company who were then pregnant . )
To these allegations , Garrison added another one : Even prior to her pregnancy , she claimed , Bloomberg had antagonized her by making disparaging comments about her appearance and sexual desirability .
“ What , is the guy dumb and blind ?
” he is alleged to have said upon seeing her wearing an engagement ring .
“ What the hell is he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having made those comments , claiming that he passed a lie-detector test validating the denial but declining to release the results .
( He also reportedly left Garrison a voicemail upon hearing that she ’ d been upset by the comments about her pregnancy : “ I didn ’ t say it , but if I said it , I didn ’ t mean it.
” ) What Bloomberg reportedly did concede is that he had said of Garrison and other women , “ I ’ d do her.
” In making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had believed that to “ do ” someone meant merely “ to have a personal relationship ” with them .
Some of this has seeped into the political campaign already , especially Bloomberg ’ s alleged demand to “ Kill it !
” Pro-life voters have followed that story , at least .
That comment and the “ I ’ d do her ” remark made it into the New York Times ’ profile of Bloomberg ’ s potential # MeToo problems last November , along with quite a few others of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a party guest of “ look at the ass on her.
” That , by the way , was while Bloomberg was mayor of the Big Apple and not just a private-sector mogul .
The NYT ran that story as a way to explain Bloomberg ’ s attempt to pre-empt the attacks Chait suggests now .
It seems to have worked , at least until now : “ Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong , ” said a spokesman , Stu Loeser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s City Hall press secretary and is now advising his prospective presidential bid .
“ He believes his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life.
” Mr. Bloomberg is loath to admit fault , and the statement stops short of an apology .
But it signals a recognition among aides that his behavior — little-known outside New York City circles — will face heavy scrutiny should he enter the 2020 presidential race , at a time when questions of gender and workplace conduct have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficed for the past three months , even after the eruption of the stop-and-frisk comments .
Contra Chait , however , that is the bigger issue .
Bloomberg ’ s alleged # MeToo issues revolve around his personal conduct ; the stop-and-frisk issues revolve around Bloomberg ’ s use of executive authority and civil rights .
Both of them are potentially big issues , but the latter has a whole lot more implication for how a potential president would behave .
Whichever team is running the current oppo-research drop on Bloomberg might have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
That might tell us something about the source of the stop-and-frisk comments on audio and video lately , although both have been hiding in plain sight for years .
Which candidate in the 2020 chase needs to split minority voters away from Bloomberg without raising # MeToo/misogyny visibility too high ?
Don ’ t rush to answer that , because … there are multiple correct answers to this question .

Because we’re too busy discussing his racism? Besides, we had this conversation earlier, when Michael Bloomberg first began doing some throat-clearing late last year about a run for the Democratic presidential nomination. That was fourteen months after The Atlantic first raised the issue of Bloomberg’s treatment of women during his career. Jonathan Chait raises it again in the context of the oppo research emerging over Bloomberg’s old defenses of stop-and-frisk.
Bloomberg’s #MeToo issues should create an even bigger problem for him, Chait argues (via Twitchy):
Bloomberg is also going to have to answer for his treatment of women. I think this is going to be a bigger problem for him than stop and frisk. https://t.co/sSCuE5FQRQ — Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) February 13, 2020
Before we get to Chait’s argument about which story is bigger, let’s recall Megan Garber’s initial report in September 2018 about Bloomberg’s office comportment:
In an interview with the paper, Bloomberg defends stop-and-frisk. And, voicing “doubt” about some of the revelations that have been made in the course of #MeToo, Bloomberg mentions as an example Charlie Rose, who had broadcast his show from a space in Bloomberg’s corporate offices. He declined to say, specifically, whether he believed the many allegations against Rose. “Let the court system decide,” the former mayor said. What is not fully addressed in the Times article, however—and what is not fully explored in the many similar pieces that consider the current iteration of Mike Bloomberg’s presidential ambitions—is a series of stories about him, accumulated over decades, that suggests in the aggregate a distinct pattern when it comes to his treatment of women: reports of disparaging comments made about women’s bodies and appearances. Allegations of a deeply sexist work environment at the company that Bloomberg founded and, for many years, ran. Stories that linger like exhaust in the air every time Mike Bloomberg is mentioned as, potentially, the next president of the United States. … From 1996 to 1997, four women filed sexual-harassment or discrimination suits against Bloomberg the company. One of the suits included the following allegation: When Sekiko Sakai Garrison, a sales representative at the company, told Mike Bloomberg she was pregnant, he replied, “Kill it!” (Bloomberg went on, she alleged, to mutter, “Great, No. 16”—a reference, her complaint said, to the 16 women at the company who were then pregnant.) To these allegations, Garrison added another one: Even prior to her pregnancy, she claimed, Bloomberg had antagonized her by making disparaging comments about her appearance and sexual desirability. “What, is the guy dumb and blind?” he is alleged to have said upon seeing her wearing an engagement ring. “What the hell is he marrying you for?” Bloomberg denied having made those comments, claiming that he passed a lie-detector test validating the denial but declining to release the results. (He also reportedly left Garrison a voicemail upon hearing that she’d been upset by the comments about her pregnancy: “I didn’t say it, but if I said it, I didn’t mean it.”) What Bloomberg reportedly did concede is that he had said of Garrison and other women, “I’d do her.” In making the concession, however, he insisted that he had believed that to “do” someone meant merely “to have a personal relationship” with them.
Some of this has seeped into the political campaign already, especially Bloomberg’s alleged demand to “Kill it!” Pro-life voters have followed that story, at least. That comment and the “I’d do her” remark made it into the New York Times’ profile of Bloomberg’s potential #MeToo problems last November, along with quite a few others of note, including a 2012 party comment about a party guest of “look at the ass on her.” That, by the way, was while Bloomberg was mayor of the Big Apple and not just a private-sector mogul.
The NYT ran that story as a way to explain Bloomberg’s attempt to pre-empt the attacks Chait suggests now. It seems to have worked, at least until now:
“Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong,” said a spokesman, Stu Loeser, who served as Mr. Bloomberg’s City Hall press secretary and is now advising his prospective presidential bid. “He believes his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life.” Mr. Bloomberg is loath to admit fault, and the statement stops short of an apology. But it signals a recognition among aides that his behavior — little-known outside New York City circles — will face heavy scrutiny should he enter the 2020 presidential race, at a time when questions of gender and workplace conduct have taken center stage.
That’s sufficed for the past three months, even after the eruption of the stop-and-frisk comments. Contra Chait, however, that is the bigger issue. Bloomberg’s alleged #MeToo issues revolve around his personal conduct; the stop-and-frisk issues revolve around Bloomberg’s use of executive authority and civil rights. Both of them are potentially big issues, but the latter has a whole lot more implication for how a potential president would behave.
Whichever team is running the current oppo-research drop on Bloomberg might have more interest in one than another, too. That might tell us something about the source of the stop-and-frisk comments on audio and video lately, although both have been hiding in plain sight for years. Which candidate in the 2020 chase needs to split minority voters away from Bloomberg without raising #MeToo/misogyny visibility too high? Don’t rush to answer that, because … there are multiple correct answers to this question.


hotair--2020-02-13--"I need to level with you": Warren warns donors she's done soon if they don't start kicking in cash

Not the first time we ’ ve seen the Oral Roberts approach to fundraising this campaign .
But it ’ s bracing to see it from someone who surged high enough in October to have briefly led Joe Biden in the national polls .
She ’ s raised $ 6 million in the 10 days since Iowa , which is okay in the abstract but pales by comparison to some of her competition .
It wouldn ’ t surprise me if the Sanders small-donor machine matched that sum in the first 24 hours after he declared victory in New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount in just four hours after her surprisingly strong third-place finish on Tuesday night .
Let ’ s say Warren ’ s plan works , though .
What then ?
Watch , then read on .
Her dream of overcoming Bernie to become the progressive champion in the race is over and has been for awhile .
If there were only one strong moderate remaining — Biden , Buttigieg , Klobuchar , or Bloomberg — she could train her fire on them at the next debate and hope to knock them back far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fence would start stampeding towards her as a supposedly more electable , somewhat less radical alternative to Sanders .
But there isn ’ t one strong moderate remaining .
There are four semi-viable ones .
How does she elbow past all of them in a week to assert herself as the only true Not Bernie candidate in the race , especially with Bloomberg keeping his powder dry until Super Tuesday ?
Warren ’ s strategy from the start was to try to be a goldilocks candidate , a compromise figure around whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders is too socialist for the center and Biden et al .
are too not-socialist for the left , well , guess what .
There ’ s someone who checks both boxes .
Sort of .
But it didn ’ t happen .
The Bernie cultists seemed to view her as a pale imitation .
And the moderates may have been scared off by her magic math in proposing how to pay for Medicare for All .
She ended up finishing fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire among moderate voters , behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even some of her supporters now admit , she ’ s done .
Yeah , if not for Klomentum — which almost certainly won ’ t last all the way through caucus night in Nevada — Warren could at least offer a “ last woman standing ” pitch to women voters next week .
Not even that now .
As I said in the last post , I think her strategy at this point is just to pull the pin on a rhetorical grenade at next Wednesday ’ s debate and lob it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy so far has been to attack Trump relentlessly , knowing that lots of rank-and-file Democrats will find that satisfying in a visceral way .
Warren ’ s going to use a version of the same approach on Bloomy himself , lambasting him as a plutocrat , slashing him for his record on racial issues , pummeling him with Wall Street excesses , and on and on .
She ’ s better suited for that task than the progressive Sanders is , as Bernie isn ’ t personally confrontational .
So if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bloodies Bloomberg ’ s nose , maybe some Nevada lefties who aren ’ t married to Sanders yet will feel stirred to caucus for her and she ’ ll end up with a surprisingly strong finish .
( Whether anything short of an outright victory will save her campaign is a separate question . )
I think her attacks on Bill Barr over the past few days , up to and including proposing impeachment , are a variation of that same idea .
She ’ s going to indulge the progressive id by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that that sparks some interest .
If it doesn ’ t , she ’ s done .

Not the first time we’ve seen the Oral Roberts approach to fundraising this campaign. But it’s bracing to see it from someone who surged high enough in October to have briefly led Joe Biden in the national polls.
She’s raised $6 million in the 10 days since Iowa, which is okay in the abstract but pales by comparison to some of her competition. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Sanders small-donor machine matched that sum in the first 24 hours after he declared victory in New Hampshire. Amy Klobuchar raised nearly half that amount in just four hours after her surprisingly strong third-place finish on Tuesday night.
Let’s say Warren’s plan works, though. What then? Watch, then read on.
Elizabeth Warren records video telling supporters "I need to level with you: Our movement needs to raise critical funds so I can remain competitive in this race through Super Tuesday." pic.twitter.com/RdKeP2wNxU — Steadman™ (@AsteadWesley) February 13, 2020
Her dream of overcoming Bernie to become the progressive champion in the race is over and has been for awhile. If there were only one strong moderate remaining — Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Bloomberg — she could train her fire on them at the next debate and hope to knock them back far enough that centrist voters who are on the fence would start stampeding towards her as a supposedly more electable, somewhat less radical alternative to Sanders.
But there isn’t one strong moderate remaining. There are four semi-viable ones. How does she elbow past all of them in a week to assert herself as the only true Not Bernie candidate in the race, especially with Bloomberg keeping his powder dry until Super Tuesday? Warren’s strategy from the start was to try to be a goldilocks candidate, a compromise figure around whom lefties and centrists could coalesce. If Sanders is too socialist for the center and Biden et al. are too not-socialist for the left, well, guess what. There’s someone who checks both boxes. Sort of.
But it didn’t happen. The Bernie cultists seemed to view her as a pale imitation. And the moderates may have been scared off by her magic math in proposing how to pay for Medicare for All. She ended up finishing fifth in both Iowa and New Hampshire among moderate voters, behind even Sanders. And so, as even some of her supporters now admit, she’s done.
“She’s done,” [a high-profile] campaign surrogate told Insider in a text Tuesday night… “She couldn’t find/doesn’t have a lane — die hard progressives went with Bernie when they saw his health scare wasn’t lasting,” the surrogate, who asked for anonymity because they weren’t authorized by the campaign to speak publicly, said in a text message. “She couldn’t be the woman/centrist candidate with Klobuchar already there.”
Yeah, if not for Klomentum — which almost certainly won’t last all the way through caucus night in Nevada — Warren could at least offer a “last woman standing” pitch to women voters next week. Not even that now.
As I said in the last post, I think her strategy at this point is just to pull the pin on a rhetorical grenade at next Wednesday’s debate and lob it at Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s strategy so far has been to attack Trump relentlessly, knowing that lots of rank-and-file Democrats will find that satisfying in a visceral way. Warren’s going to use a version of the same approach on Bloomy himself, lambasting him as a plutocrat, slashing him for his record on racial issues, pummeling him with Wall Street excesses, and on and on. She’s better suited for that task than the progressive Sanders is, as Bernie isn’t personally confrontational. So if she lets it all hang out and righteously bloodies Bloomberg’s nose, maybe some Nevada lefties who aren’t married to Sanders yet will feel stirred to caucus for her and she’ll end up with a surprisingly strong finish. (Whether anything short of an outright victory will save her campaign is a separate question.) I think her attacks on Bill Barr over the past few days, up to and including proposing impeachment, are a variation of that same idea. She’s going to indulge the progressive id by battering the left’s enemies and hope that that sparks some interest. If it doesn’t, she’s done.


hotair--2020-02-13--House Democrats: With Sanders as the nominee 'we will probably lose seats'

Earlier today CNN ’ s Manu Raju asked Rep. Dean Phillips what he thought about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination .
Phillips is a freshman Democrat from Minnesota who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2018 .
CNN ’ s Chris Cillizza pointed out that Rep. Joe Cunningham , another freshman House Democrat , made similar comments yesterday : “ South Carolinians don ’ t want socialism , ” Cunningham said .
“ We want to know how you are going to get things done and how you are going to pay for them .
Bernie ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone is not something the Lowcountry wants and not something I ’ d ever support.
” Asked if he would support Sanders if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee , Cunningham rejected the question ’ s premise .
“ Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee , ” he said .
And just yesterday the Associated Press reported on the same concerns from more freshmen Democrats : “ I ’ m a proud capitalist , ” said freshman Rep. Ben McAdams , D-Utah , in pointed contrast with Sanders .
McAdams , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Bloomberg and whose Salt Lake City district will be among the toughest for Democrats to defend , said having a liberal like Sanders atop his party ’ s ticket “ would probably give me more opportunities to show my independence ” from the party .
Another freshman from a competitive district , Rep. Tom Malinowski , D-N.J. , said Democrats need a presidential nominee who “ doesn ’ t scare all those future former Republicans more than Trump scares them.
” And while acknowledging that Republicans plan to tar all Democrats with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s one candidate for whom that would not be a lie.
” Rep. Dina Titus , D-Nev. , who backs the candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden , warned a group of Democratic voters this week in Carson City , Nevada , that with Sanders atop the ticket , “ you ’ re not going to take back the Senate .
There ’ s not any way , because everybody ’ s going to be tarred with the same brush .
We will probably lose seats in the House.
” In private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One House Democrat said colleagues from swing districts are scared by the prospects of a Sanders nomination , while another said moderates are increasingly concerned that a Sanders candidacy would devastate their prospects for winning the White House and retaining the House .
The lawmakers insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations .
Here ’ s Cillizza ’ s take on why Democrats are right to be nervous : Cunningham is one of 31 House Democrats who hold seats in districts that Trump carried in the 2016 election , seats that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they try to win back the majority they lost in the last midterm election .
( Republicans need to net 18 seats to regain the majority . )
That these majority-maker Democrats are already willing to speak publicly about their belief that Sanders could cost the party the House speaks to the level of concern his ongoing rise is creating among those who would have to share the ballot with the senator from Vermont .
It ’ s not just the White House that Sanders is likely to lose .
Having him at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that some freshman Democrats in red districts will lose their seats .
And if we see a blowout of the kind Jeremy Corbyn suffered last December in the UK , Republicans could retake the House .
According to Roll Call , it has been 30 years since Republicans gained 20 seats in a presidential election year , but I think a Sanders nomination would change the dynamic .
And clearly , that ’ s what a lot of House Democrats think too .

Earlier today CNN’s Manu Raju asked Rep. Dean Phillips what he thought about the possibility of Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination. Phillips is a freshman Democrat from Minnesota who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2018.
Asked Rep. Dean Phillips, a freshman from a swing MN district and Klobuchar backer, if he thinks Bernie Sanders atop the ticket could have a disastrous impact on down-ballot races. “To be forthright, yes, I do. I think it would have some significant down-ballot effects.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 13, 2020
“There are probably 25-30 seats that absolutely would be impacted directly by having a self-avowed socialist at the top of the ticket. And I say that…you know….he's not a Democrat, you know, and that's something that I wish was better understood,” Phillips added — Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 13, 2020
CNN’s Chris Cillizza pointed out that Rep. Joe Cunningham, another freshman House Democrat, made similar comments yesterday:
“South Carolinians don’t want socialism,” Cunningham said. “We want to know how you are going to get things done and how you are going to pay for them. Bernie’s proposals to raise taxes on almost everyone is not something the Lowcountry wants and not something I’d ever support.” Asked if he would support Sanders if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, Cunningham rejected the question’s premise. “Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee,” he said.
And just yesterday the Associated Press reported on the same concerns from more freshmen Democrats:
“I’m a proud capitalist,” said freshman Rep. Ben McAdams, D-Utah, in pointed contrast with Sanders. McAdams, who is supporting former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and whose Salt Lake City district will be among the toughest for Democrats to defend, said having a liberal like Sanders atop his party’s ticket “would probably give me more opportunities to show my independence” from the party. Another freshman from a competitive district, Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., said Democrats need a presidential nominee who “doesn’t scare all those future former Republicans more than Trump scares them.” And while acknowledging that Republicans plan to tar all Democrats with the socialist label, ”There’s one candidate for whom that would not be a lie.” Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., who backs the candidacy of former Vice President Joe Biden, warned a group of Democratic voters this week in Carson City, Nevada, that with Sanders atop the ticket, “you’re not going to take back the Senate. There’s not any way, because everybody’s going to be tarred with the same brush. We will probably lose seats in the House.” In private conversations, other Democrats are more succinct. One House Democrat said colleagues from swing districts are scared by the prospects of a Sanders nomination, while another said moderates are increasingly concerned that a Sanders candidacy would devastate their prospects for winning the White House and retaining the House. The lawmakers insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations.
Here’s Cillizza’s take on why Democrats are right to be nervous:
Cunningham is one of 31 House Democrats who hold seats in districts that Trump carried in the 2016 election, seats that Republicans are planning to spend heavily on as they try to win back the majority they lost in the last midterm election. (Republicans need to net 18 seats to regain the majority.) That these majority-maker Democrats are already willing to speak publicly about their belief that Sanders could cost the party the House speaks to the level of concern his ongoing rise is creating among those who would have to share the ballot with the senator from Vermont.
It’s not just the White House that Sanders is likely to lose. Having him at the top of the ticket makes it likely that some freshman Democrats in red districts will lose their seats. And if we see a blowout of the kind Jeremy Corbyn suffered last December in the UK, Republicans could retake the House.
According to Roll Call, it has been 30 years since Republicans gained 20 seats in a presidential election year, but I think a Sanders nomination would change the dynamic. And clearly, that’s what a lot of House Democrats think too.


hotair--2020-02-14--UK Judge: Police acted like the gestapo when they went to man's workplace over a tweet

A former police officer named Harry Miller posted some tweets about trans rights last year which prompted a visit from the police after one anonymous person complained .
Today , Miller won a partial court victory in the case with the judge suggesting police had gone too far by showing up at Miller ’ s office and , in effect , threatening him into silence : Mr Justice Julian Knowles said that the police ’ s actions towards Mr Miller , 55 , “ disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression ” after officers visited him at work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
“ The effect of the police turning up at [ the claimant ’ s ] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated , ” the judge told the High Court .
“ To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom .
In this country we have never had a Cheka , a Gestapo or a Stasi .
We have never lived in an Orwellian society.
” … Mr Miller , 55 , was visited last year after the force received the complaint about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about transgender people and one saying : “ I was assigned mammal at birth but my orientation is fish .
Don ’ t mis-species me.
” He was told that his tweets would be recorded as a “ non-crime hate incident ” and that any “ escalation ” would result in prosecution .
He said that PC Gul , who visited him , had told him : “ I need to check your thinking.
” Now that they have lost this case , it ’ s the police who need to check their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the Miller case , the judge ruled that there was no evidence Miller ’ s tweets “ were ‘ designed ’ to cause deep offence ” , adding that : “ The tweets were not directed at the transgender community .
They were primarily directed at the claimant ’ s Twitter followers.
” The tweets were lawful and there was not “ the slightest risk ” that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet , he ruled .
Knowles stressed “ the vital importance of free speech ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inoffensive , but the irritating , the contentious , the eccentric , the heretical , the unwelcome and the provocative ” .
In his judgment , Knowles said : “ I conclude that the police ’ s actions led him , reasonably , to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression about transgender issues on pain of potential criminal prosecution.
” While the portion of the case involving the actions of the police was a clear win for Miller , the judge handed him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Miller had argued that the underlying guidance police relied upon in the case violated his rights and needed to be reviewed .
The judge sided with the College of Policing , ruling that the guidance itself was lawful even if the police ’ s actions based on the guidance crossed a line .
The BBC offered some history on the non-crime hate incident guidance : The police guidance on non-crime hate incidents was developed after the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in a racist attack in 1993 .
Its aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they escalate into serious hate crimes .
Each year more than 25,000 such non-crime hate incidents are logged by UK police .
The bulk relate to race and disability .
Today ’ s ruling will make the job of policing such incidents increasingly challenging for the police .
Where does a comment or statement leave the boundaries of free speech and become a hate incident short of a crime ?
Despite the ruling in its favor , the College of Policing is already reviewing that guidance .
Also , the judge said Miller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the case and Miller announced after the verdict that he intended to take the matter to the Supreme Court .
It seems like a very good thing that a judge has drawn a bright line between actual hate and harassment on the one hand and someone tweeting an opinion about a current topic of debate .
Hopefully police will be a lot more careful in future before showing up at someone ’ s workplace and telling them to adjust their thinking .

A former police officer named Harry Miller posted some tweets about trans rights last year which prompted a visit from the police after one anonymous person complained. Today, Miller won a partial court victory in the case with the judge suggesting police had gone too far by showing up at Miller’s office and, in effect, threatening him into silence:
Mr Justice Julian Knowles said that the police’s actions towards Mr Miller, 55, “disproportionately interfered with his right of freedom of expression” after officers visited him at work over tweets he had posted about transgender people. “The effect of the police turning up at [the claimant’s] place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated,” the judge told the High Court. “To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.”… Mr Miller, 55, was visited last year after the force received the complaint about his tweets, which included a limerick about transgender people and one saying: “I was assigned mammal at birth but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me.” He was told that his tweets would be recorded as a “non-crime hate incident” and that any “escalation” would result in prosecution. He said that PC Gul, who visited him, had told him: “I need to check your thinking.”
Now that they have lost this case, it’s the police who need to check their thinking. The Guardian has more:
In the Miller case, the judge ruled that there was no evidence Miller’s tweets “were ‘designed’ to cause deep offence”, adding that: “The tweets were not directed at the transgender community. They were primarily directed at the claimant’s Twitter followers.” The tweets were lawful and there was not “the slightest risk” that he would commit a criminal offence by continuing to tweet, he ruled. Knowles stressed “the vital importance of free speech”, saying it included “not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative”. In his judgment, Knowles said: “I conclude that the police’s actions led him, reasonably, to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression about transgender issues on pain of potential criminal prosecution.”
While the portion of the case involving the actions of the police was a clear win for Miller, the judge handed him a loss with another portion of the case. Miller had argued that the underlying guidance police relied upon in the case violated his rights and needed to be reviewed. The judge sided with the College of Policing, ruling that the guidance itself was lawful even if the police’s actions based on the guidance crossed a line. The BBC offered some history on the non-crime hate incident guidance:
The police guidance on non-crime hate incidents was developed after the murder of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence in a racist attack in 1993. Its aim is to deal with hate incidents before they escalate into serious hate crimes. Each year more than 25,000 such non-crime hate incidents are logged by UK police. The bulk relate to race and disability. Today’s ruling will make the job of policing such incidents increasingly challenging for the police. Where does a comment or statement leave the boundaries of free speech and become a hate incident short of a crime?
Despite the ruling in its favor, the College of Policing is already reviewing that guidance. Also, the judge said Miller could appeal the loss of this portion of the case and Miller announced after the verdict that he intended to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
It seems like a very good thing that a judge has drawn a bright line between actual hate and harassment on the one hand and someone tweeting an opinion about a current topic of debate. Hopefully police will be a lot more careful in future before showing up at someone’s workplace and telling them to adjust their thinking.


hotair--2020-02-14--Air Force uniform updates to accommodate Sikhs and Muslims

New guidance has been issued to accommodate airmen and airwomen wearing religious apparel in uniform .
Specifically , this is an accommodation for Muslims and Sikhs serving in the U.S. Air Force .
Going forward uniform guidance for permission to wear hijabs , turbans , and beards will be made in a timely fashion .
As long as they are “ neat and conservative ” and present a professional and well-groomed appearance , permission will granted across the board .
Both Muslims and Sikhs make up a very small part of the U.S. military .
The military service requires conformity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the uniform dress code .
Up until now , the process for religious accommodation has been on a case-by-case basis using the granting of waivers to the dress code .
The process can take many months .
Last week the Air Force issued new guidelines .
The emphasis is on a neat , clean , and professional image .
The guide is very detailed .
Chapter 12 deals with uniforms and exceptions .
The first section of Attachment 8 deals with expediency issues for requests of religious accommodations and the second section speaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beards .
There are several photo examples for each of the requirements to meet the standards for religious accommodations .
A8.1 .
Airmen may request a waiver to permit wear of neat and conservative ( defined as , discreet , tidy , and not dissonant or showy in style , size , design , brightness , or color ) religious apparel .
Final review will take place within 30 days for cases arising within the U.S. and within 60 days for all other cases , with strict limitations on exception for exigent circumstances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dress and personal appearance for religious accommodation will be approved when accommodation would not adversely affect mission accomplishment in accordance with DoDI 1300.17 .
For requests for religious accommodation when accommodation would adversely affect mission acomplishment , in accordance with Title 42 , United States Code Section 2000bb-1 , requests for religious accommodation from a military policy , practice , or duty that substantially burdens a Service member ’ s exercise of religion may be denied only when the military policy , practice , or duty : ( a ) furthers a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest .
A8.1.3 .
The following wear and appearance standards below apply to all Airmen with an accommodation permitting the following faith practices : the wear of a hijab ; the wear of a beard ; and the wear of a turban or under-turban/patka , with uncut beard and uncut hair .
A8.1.3.1 .
Hijab ( Head Scarf ) .
An accommodated Airman may wear a hijab ( head scarf ) made of a subdued material in a color that closely resembles the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , green , tan , or navy blue as appropriate ) , see figure 8.1 .
The material will be free of designs or markings , except that an Airmen wearing the ABU or OCP may wear a hijab in a camouflage pattern matching the uniform .
When directed by a commander , the Airman may be required to wear a hijab made of fire-resistant material .
The hijab will be worn in a neat and conservative manner that presents a professional and well-groomed appearance .
The hijab must be closely fitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and may not cover the eyebrows , eyes , cheeks , nose , mouth , or chin .
The bottom edges of the hijab will be tucked under the Airman ’ s uniform top and all required headgear will still be worn .
Hair underneath the hijab must be worn in a hairstyle authorized for the Airmen according to paragraph 3.1.3 .
The bulk of the Airman ’ s hair and hijab may not impair the ability to wear protective equipment ; impede the ability to operate an assigned weapon , military equipment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ability to perform the assigned military duties .
The real difference here is that the process will speed up when requests are made .
Final reviews will be required within 60 days , instead of dragging out for sometimes up to 8 months .
As I mentioned , this will really only affect a very small population within the Air Force .
The new guidelines also only apply to the Air Force at this time .
As you might imagine , special interest groups are now demanding that the new policy applies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once an accommodation is granted , it will follow the airman throughout his career .
The Sikh Coalition commends the United States Air Force ’ s recent move to clarify the uniform and grooming accommodation process for religiously observant minorities , including Sikh Americans , who wish to serve .
We are also proud to share that our client , Airman 1st Class ( A1C ) Gurchetan Singh , is the first Sikh American to secure a religious accommodation to serve in the Air National Guard .
“ No Sikh American should have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their career ambitions , ” said Giselle Klapper , Sikh Coalition Staff Attorney .
“ Sikhs have served honorably and capably in the U.S. Armed Forces and other militaries around the world , and while we are eager for a blanket proclamation that all observant Sikh Americans can serve in every branch of the military without seeking accommodations , this policy clarification is a great step forward towards ensuring equality of opportunity and religious freedom in the Air Force.
” To date , the Sikh Coalition has helped more than 20 Sikh Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military , and our advocacy work in favor of policy changes across all military branches has paved the way for more than 60 observant Sikh Americans to serve with distinction .
Securing further permanent policy changes to end discrimination by our nation ’ s largest employer , the U.S. Department of Defense , will be critical to ending discrimination in workplaces across the country .
The Council of American-Islamic Relations ( CAIR ) weighed in , too .
Denials can still be made by the Air Force if it “ furthers a compelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation demands it , as for safety reasons , like the potential of the use of gas masks if an airman has a beard .

New guidance has been issued to accommodate airmen and airwomen wearing religious apparel in uniform. Specifically, this is an accommodation for Muslims and Sikhs serving in the U.S. Air Force. Going forward uniform guidance for permission to wear hijabs, turbans, and beards will be made in a timely fashion. As long as they are “neat and conservative” and present a professional and well-groomed appearance, permission will granted across the board.
Both Muslims and Sikhs make up a very small part of the U.S. military. The military service requires conformity and regulations and this is found within the uniform dress code. Up until now, the process for religious accommodation has been on a case-by-case basis using the granting of waivers to the dress code. The process can take many months. Last week the Air Force issued new guidelines. The emphasis is on a neat, clean, and professional image. The guide is very detailed. Chapter 12 deals with uniforms and exceptions. The first section of Attachment 8 deals with expediency issues for requests of religious accommodations and the second section speaks to the hijabs, turbans, and beards. There are several photo examples for each of the requirements to meet the standards for religious accommodations.
A8.1. Airmen may request a waiver to permit wear of neat and conservative (defined as,discreet, tidy, and not dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color) religious apparel. Final review will take place within 30 days for cases arising within the U.S. and within 60 days for all other cases, with strict limitations on exception for exigent circumstances (T-0). Exceptions to policy of dress and personal appearance for religious accommodation will be approved when accommodation would not adversely affect mission accomplishment in accordance with DoDI 1300.17. For requests for religious accommodation when accommodation would adversely affect mission acomplishment, in accordance with Title 42, United States Code Section 2000bb-1, requests for religious accommodation from a military policy, practice, or duty that substantially burdens a Service member’s exercise of religion may be denied only when the military policy, practice, or duty: (a) furthers a compelling governmental interest and (b) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. A8.1.3. The following wear and appearance standards below apply to all Airmen with an accommodation permitting the following faith practices: the wear of a hijab; the wear of a beard; and the wear of a turban or under-turban/patka, with uncut beard and uncut hair.
A8.1.3.1. Hijab (Head Scarf). An accommodated Airman may wear a hijab (head scarf) made of a subdued material in a color that closely resembles the assigned uniform (generally black, brown, green, tan, or navy blue as appropriate), see figure 8.1. The
material will be free of designs or markings, except that an Airmen wearing the ABU or OCP may wear a hijab in a camouflage pattern matching the uniform. When directed by a commander, the Airman may be required to wear a hijab made of fire-resistant material.
The hijab will be worn in a neat and conservative manner that presents a professional and well-groomed appearance. The hijab must be closely fitted to the contours of the head and neck and may not cover the eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, nose, mouth, or chin. The bottom edges of the hijab will be tucked under the Airman’s uniform top and all required headgear will still be worn. Hair underneath the hijab must be worn in a hairstyle authorized for the Airmen according to paragraph 3.1.3. The bulk of the Airman’s hair and hijab may not impair the ability to wear protective equipment; impede the ability to operate an assigned weapon, military equipment, or machinery; or interfere with the ability to perform the
assigned military duties.
The real difference here is that the process will speed up when requests are made. Final reviews will be required within 60 days, instead of dragging out for sometimes up to 8 months.
As I mentioned, this will really only affect a very small population within the Air Force. The new guidelines also only apply to the Air Force at this time. As you might imagine, special interest groups are now demanding that the new policy applies to all branches of the military. Once an accommodation is granted, it will follow the airman throughout his career.
The Sikh Coalition commends the United States Air Force’s recent move to clarify the uniform and grooming accommodation process for religiously observant minorities, including Sikh Americans, who wish to serve. We are also proud to share that our client, Airman 1st Class (A1C) Gurchetan Singh, is the first Sikh American to secure a religious accommodation to serve in the Air National Guard. “No Sikh American should have to choose between their religious beliefs and their career ambitions,” said Giselle Klapper, Sikh Coalition Staff Attorney. “Sikhs have served honorably and capably in the U.S. Armed Forces and other militaries around the world, and while we are eager for a blanket proclamation that all observant Sikh Americans can serve in every branch of the military without seeking accommodations, this policy clarification is a great step forward towards ensuring equality of opportunity and religious freedom in the Air Force.” To date, the Sikh Coalition has helped more than 20 Sikh Americans secure accommodations to serve in the U.S. military, and our advocacy work in favor of policy changes across all military branches has paved the way for more than 60 observant Sikh Americans to serve with distinction. Securing further permanent policy changes to end discrimination by our nation’s largest employer, the U.S. Department of Defense, will be critical to ending discrimination in workplaces across the country.
The Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) weighed in, too.
“We support these new guidelines as a step toward religious accommodation and inclusion for military personnel of all faiths,” Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, said in a statement.
Denials can still be made by the Air Force if it “furthers a compelling governmental interest.” Also, if a situation demands it, as for safety reasons, like the potential of the use of gas masks if an airman has a beard.


hotair--2020-02-14--Unexpected: Poll shows Bernie winning one-on-one races with every other Democrat in the field

This isn ’ t supposed to happen according to the conventional wisdom .
Bernie ’ s progressive fan base constitutes a third or so of the party , we ’ re told , possibly 40 percent on a good day .
Low ceiling !
Which means the task for centrists is ( theoretically ) simple : Unite behind one candidate and watch that guy or gal steamroll Sanders , 60/40 , in state after state .
But it ’ s not that simple , is it ?
That was also the game plan for the GOP establishment four years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how that worked out .
Getting centrists to unite behind one person is easier said than done .
On top of that , not every voter who prefers centrist candidate A necessarily also prefers centrist candidate B as their second choice over the populist outsider in the race .
Doubtless there are many working-class Joe Biden supporters who ’ d take Bernie over Pete Buttigieg if forced to choose , for instance .
Making it worse , momentum is real .
Stopping Bernie by uniting behind a moderate when he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan .
Stopping him after he ’ s won three of the four early states plus the lion ’ s share of Super Tuesday states is more complicated .
As a matter of pure delegate math , the Democrats ’ proportional system makes it exceedingly difficult even in a two-man race for the candidate who ’ s trailing to make up the gap .
He ’ d have to win consistently by wide margins .
But worst of all , per this new YouGov/Yahoo News poll , it may not even be true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-on-one if that match could be engineered .
To the contrary : I believe it , but there are at least three caveats .
1 .
Bernie must have an advantage to some degree in terms of pure name recognition over most of the candidates there .
He ’ s the only person on the board who ran for president in 2016 and he just won the first two states .
The one guy more famous than he is , Joe Biden , just suffered a pair of demoralizing losses in Iowa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still competitive here with Sanders .
What would these numbers look like if someone else won Nevada and South Carolina , and/or the majority of states on Super Tuesday ?
2 .
One of Sanders ’ s opponents has a mountain of money earmarked to introduce him to the public in states holding elections soon and , potentially , to start tearing down opponents like Bernie .
Let ’ s see what these numbers look like after Bloomberg runs $ 50 million in ads calling Bernie a commie symp with citations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 million in ads explaining to confused Democrats that “ Medicare for All ” means the end of their private health insurance and a big middle-class tax hike .
The Free Beacon noticed that Bernie didn ’ t do so well in the three counties in Iowa with the highest percentage of voters who have private insurance .
Bloomberg can and will weaponize that .
3 .
Even YouGov/Yahoo News see a major liability in Bernie ’ s socialist brand : Yet there may be trouble ahead .
Sixty-two percent of Americans — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — say that Sanders is a “ socialist.
” Only a quarter of Americans ( 26 percent ) have a favorable view of socialism , while almost half ( 47 percent ) have an unfavorable view… Regardless , only 35 percent of Americans said they would even consider voting in a general election for a candidate who called themselves a “ democratic socialist.
” Forty-six percent said no , while another 18 percent said they weren ’ t sure .
Among independents , those numbers were even less favorable to Sanders : 31 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22 percent not sure .
Meanwhile , most Americans ( 52 percent ) said only “ some ” or “ a few ” of their peers would consider voting for a democratic socialist .
In the poll , no other candidate characteristic seemed to have such a strong negative effect on electability .
It ’ s a problem for him .
But look — given the dire straits in which Biden and Warren now find themselves and the deep hole Buttigieg and Klobuchar are in per the data above , it may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realistically compete with Sanders going forward by matching him in money and organization .
And we shouldn ’ t count too heavily on Bloomy either : This same poll found him trailing every Democrat in the race head-to-head , and not narrowly either .
His closest competitor was Klobuchar , who leads him by five points .
Whether that ’ s because a lot of Democrats haven ’ t paid Bloomberg any attention yet or because they *have* but decided against nominating a plutocratic Wall Street former Republican is unclear .
But if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks unstoppable .
Speaking of which , we got our first poll of Nevada in more than a month this morning .
Guess who ’ s leading .
That ’ s not a bad showing for Joe , who told donors last night that he expects to finish first or second in Nevada and then to win South Carolina .
A close second to Bernie in NV would finally give him some semi-encouraging buzz ; in light of the results here , and considering his potential strength with Latino voters , he looks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off .
The question is how he goes forward and out-competes two well-funded candidates in Sanders and Bloomberg plus a determined Pete Buttigieg .
Ads are airing in Super Tuesday states now .
How is Biden going to avert being swamped ?
By the way , here ’ s what the betting market on a brokered convention looks like today over at PredictIt : More likely than not !
Here ’ s Bernie a few nights ago warning that it would be very divisive indeed for a candidate who won a plurality of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a contested convention .
Oddly , when he was the runner-up a few years ago , he felt differently .

This isn’t supposed to happen according to the conventional wisdom. Bernie’s progressive fan base constitutes a third or so of the party, we’re told, possibly 40 percent on a good day. Low ceiling! Which means the task for centrists is (theoretically) simple: Unite behind one candidate and watch that guy or gal steamroll Sanders, 60/40, in state after state.
But it’s not that simple, is it? That was also the game plan for the GOP establishment four years ago at this time against Trump and we know how that worked out. Getting centrists to unite behind one person is easier said than done. On top of that, not every voter who prefers centrist candidate A necessarily also prefers centrist candidate B as their second choice over the populist outsider in the race. Doubtless there are many working-class Joe Biden supporters who’d take Bernie over Pete Buttigieg if forced to choose, for instance.
Making it worse, momentum is real. Stopping Bernie by uniting behind a moderate when he’s only won two states is a straightforward plan. Stopping him after he’s won three of the four early states plus the lion’s share of Super Tuesday states is more complicated. As a matter of pure delegate math, the Democrats’ proportional system makes it exceedingly difficult even in a two-man race for the candidate who’s trailing to make up the gap. He’d have to win consistently by wide margins.
But worst of all, per this new YouGov/Yahoo News poll, it may not even be true that a moderate champion would lead Bernie one-on-one if that match could be engineered. To the contrary:
I believe it, but there are at least three caveats.
1. Bernie must have an advantage to some degree in terms of pure name recognition over most of the candidates there. He’s the only person on the board who ran for president in 2016 and he just won the first two states. The one guy more famous than he is, Joe Biden, just suffered a pair of demoralizing losses in Iowa and New Hampshire — and yet he’s still competitive here with Sanders. What would these numbers look like if someone else won Nevada and South Carolina, and/or the majority of states on Super Tuesday?
2. One of Sanders’s opponents has a mountain of money earmarked to introduce him to the public in states holding elections soon and, potentially, to start tearing down opponents like Bernie. Let’s see what these numbers look like after Bloomberg runs $50 million in ads calling Bernie a commie symp with citations. Or, maybe more effectively, $50 million in ads explaining to confused Democrats that “Medicare for All” means the end of their private health insurance and a big middle-class tax hike. The Free Beacon noticed that Bernie didn’t do so well in the three counties in Iowa with the highest percentage of voters who have private insurance. Bloomberg can and will weaponize that.
3. Even YouGov/Yahoo News see a major liability in Bernie’s socialist brand:
Yet there may be trouble ahead. Sixty-two percent of Americans — and a near-identical 61 percent of independents — say that Sanders is a “socialist.” Only a quarter of Americans (26 percent) have a favorable view of socialism, while almost half (47 percent) have an unfavorable view… Regardless, only 35 percent of Americans said they would even consider voting in a general election for a candidate who called themselves a “democratic socialist.” Forty-six percent said no, while another 18 percent said they weren’t sure. Among independents, those numbers were even less favorable to Sanders: 31 percent yes, 47 percent no and 22 percent not sure. Meanwhile, most Americans (52 percent) said only “some” or “a few” of their peers would consider voting for a democratic socialist. In the poll, no other candidate characteristic seemed to have such a strong negative effect on electability.
It’s a problem for him. But look — given the dire straits in which Biden and Warren now find themselves and the deep hole Buttigieg and Klobuchar are in per the data above, it may well be that no one except Bloomberg can realistically compete with Sanders going forward by matching him in money and organization. And we shouldn’t count too heavily on Bloomy either: This same poll found him trailing every Democrat in the race head-to-head, and not narrowly either. His closest competitor was Klobuchar, who leads him by five points. Whether that’s because a lot of Democrats haven’t paid Bloomberg any attention yet or because they *have* but decided against nominating a plutocratic Wall Street former Republican is unclear. But if it’s the latter then Bernie looks unstoppable.
Speaking of which, we got our first poll of Nevada in more than a month this morning. Guess who’s leading.
Sanders led the pack with 25 percent of respondents expressing support, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden (18 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (13 percent). Businessman Tom Steyer (11 percent), former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (10 percent) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (10 percent) were clustered close behind.
That’s not a bad showing for Joe, who told donors last night that he expects to finish first or second in Nevada and then to win South Carolina. A close second to Bernie in NV would finally give him some semi-encouraging buzz; in light of the results here, and considering his potential strength with Latino voters, he looks to have a shot at pulling it off. The question is how he goes forward and out-competes two well-funded candidates in Sanders and Bloomberg plus a determined Pete Buttigieg. Ads are airing in Super Tuesday states now. How is Biden going to avert being swamped?
By the way, here’s what the betting market on a brokered convention looks like today over at PredictIt:
More likely than not! Here’s Bernie a few nights ago warning that it would be very divisive indeed for a candidate who won a plurality of delegates not to be awarded the nomination at a contested convention. Oddly, when he was the runner-up a few years ago, he felt differently.


hotair--2020-02-14--Guilty! Avenatti convicted on all three counts in Nike trial

Attorney Michael Avenatti has been convicted on all three counts he was facing in his Manhattan trial involving his attempted extortion of Nike .
The New York Post opens with the perfect line : Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was convicted in Manhattan court on all counts Friday for attempting to shake down Nike for as much as $ 25 million over claims it illegally funneled payments to college basketball players .
He now faces up to more than 40 years behind bars when sentenced June 17 .
Avenatti half-smiled and flexed his hands behind his back as he stared straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal court .
I bet his hands weren ’ t the only muscles flexing when he heard the verdict .
NBC says the statutory maximum is 20 years but whatever the case he ’ s not likely to get off with probation .
Also , his law license is probably history .
Avenatti ’ s legal team came out of the courthouse after the verdict and said her client was “ in a bit of a state of shock ” but added that he would continue fighting .
But before he can fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials to worry about , one in New York for allegedly taking $ 300,000 of Stormy Daniels ’ money and one in California for similar fraud .
Those trials are coming up in a few months .
One thing I find interesting is that CNN ’ s story on Avenatti ’ s conviction says nothing about how this creep became a household name in the first place .
Same for NBC ’ s story .
You have to click over to Fox News for that reminder : Avenatti became prominent during frequent cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as journalists courted him for information about porn star Stormy Daniels .
She made claims about a Trump tryst before he became president and a payoff to remain silent about it .
At the peak of his notoriety , Avenatti even considered running for president .
That ’ s actually pretty tame .
Remember how in love CNN was with this guy ?
It wasn ’ t just on air it was behind the scenes too ?
Now that he ’ s been convicted , CNN has no recall of any of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after-verdict statement by Avenatti ’ s lawyers : Finally , here ’ s a reminder from the Free Beacon that the left and the media ( but I repeat myself ) made this guy a major star .

Attorney Michael Avenatti has been convicted on all three counts he was facing in his Manhattan trial involving his attempted extortion of Nike. The New York Post opens with the perfect line:
The jury just did it. Disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti was convicted in Manhattan court on all counts Friday for attempting to shake down Nike for as much as $25 million over claims it illegally funneled payments to college basketball players. He now faces up to more than 40 years behind bars when sentenced June 17. Avenatti half-smiled and flexed his hands behind his back as he stared straight ahead when he heard the verdict in federal court.
I bet his hands weren’t the only muscles flexing when he heard the verdict. NBC says the statutory maximum is 20 years but whatever the case he’s not likely to get off with probation. Also, his law license is probably history.
Avenatti’s legal team came out of the courthouse after the verdict and said her client was “in a bit of a state of shock” but added that he would continue fighting. But before he can fight this verdict, Avenatti has two more trials to worry about, one in New York for allegedly taking $300,000 of Stormy Daniels’ money and one in California for similar fraud. Those trials are coming up in a few months.
One thing I find interesting is that CNN’s story on Avenatti’s conviction says nothing about how this creep became a household name in the first place. Same for NBC’s story. You have to click over to Fox News for that reminder:
Avenatti became prominent during frequent cable television program appearances in 2018 and 2019 as journalists courted him for information about porn star Stormy Daniels. She made claims about a Trump tryst before he became president and a payoff to remain silent about it. At the peak of his notoriety, Avenatti even considered running for president.
That’s actually pretty tame. Remember how in love CNN was with this guy?
People are missing the best thing about the April Ryan party pic with Avenatti. She tags CNN. pic.twitter.com/3IzEvxGNTa — Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) February 14, 2020
It wasn’t just on air it was behind the scenes too?
Now that he’s been convicted, CNN has no recall of any of that it seems. Here’s the after-verdict statement by Avenatti’s lawyers:
Finally, here’s a reminder from the Free Beacon that the left and the media (but I repeat myself) made this guy a major star.