hotair--2020-02-14--NYT: Durham digging into CIA officials' motives for Russia-collusion analysis

Just how much can we actually glean about an investigation from a limited subset of questions being asked , leaked by those who are annoyed at answering them ?
That question hangs over a New York Times report about the ongoing probe helmed by John Durham over the potential politicization of intelligence during the 2016 Russian interference operation .
Last night ’ s analysis that Durham seemingly intends to target high-ranking intelligence officials for manipulating information and protecting other sources depends on an assumption that we have the full set of questions — and comprehend all the motives for asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that be ?
The people running the inquiry , or the potential subjects and targets of the probe ?
Needless to say , that matters as to whether we get a complete picture of what Durham is doing , or whether we ’ re just getting a preview of the defense case down the road .
Since his election , President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win , fostering a narrative that they sought to delegitimize his victory .
He has long promoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prosecutor examining their actions , as a potential pathway to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him .
Questions asked by Mr. Durham , who was assigned by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize the early actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials struggling to understand the scope of Russia ’ s scheme , suggest that Mr. Durham may have come to view with suspicion several clashes between analysts at different intelligence agencies over who could see each other ’ s highly sensitive secrets , the people said .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the C.I.A.
, under its former director John O. Brennan , had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal , the people said .
This uses a fallacy that we often see when analyzing Supreme Court hearings .
Questions asked do not necessarily equate to conclusions drawn .
In fact , sometimes questions get asked to preclude the conclusions that they imply .
A proper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ directions with plenty of overlap , in order to get to the truth .
That will make people uncomfortable , to be sure , but a criminal investigation isn ’ t supposed to make people comfortable .
It ’ s supposed to make them uncomfortable , off-balance , and for those who have something to hide , afraid .
If the leaks coming out of the intel community over Durham ’ s investigation are an indication , it looks like he ’ s succeeding .
That doesn ’ t mean he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does mean that Durham appears to be conducted a broad and comprehensive investigation that will settle that question once and for all .
The NYT includes this as a hint of Durham ’ s success in this regard : So was taking an oppo-research effort and turning it into a counter-intelligence operation , and then turning that into a criminal investigation .
That was the problem from the start of Operation Crossfire Hurricane .
In order to get to the bottom of those decisions , Durham has to walk backwards through all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken and intelligence politicized to interfere with an election .
We won ’ t know what Durham ’ s really thinking , or what he ’ s finding , until he closes out his investigation .
What we should know is that we can ’ t characterize it by assuming we ’ re getting the whole truth from leaks coming from the people Durham ’ s investigating .

Just how much can we actually glean about an investigation from a limited subset of questions being asked, leaked by those who are annoyed at answering them? That question hangs over a New York Times report about the ongoing probe helmed by John Durham over the potential politicization of intelligence during the 2016 Russian interference operation. Last night’s analysis that Durham seemingly intends to target high-ranking intelligence officials for manipulating information and protecting other sources depends on an assumption that we have the full set of questions — and comprehend all the motives for asking them:
Trump administration officials investigating the government’s response to Russia’s election interference in 2016 appear to be hunting for a basis to accuse Obama-era intelligence officials of hiding evidence or manipulating analysis about Moscow’s covert operation, according to people familiar with aspects of the inquiry.
Which “people” would that be? The people running the inquiry, or the potential subjects and targets of the probe? Needless to say, that matters as to whether we get a complete picture of what Durham is doing, or whether we’re just getting a preview of the defense case down the road.
Since his election, President Trump has attacked the intelligence agencies that concluded that Russia secretly tried to help him win, fostering a narrative that they sought to delegitimize his victory. He has long promoted the investigation by John H. Durham, the prosecutor examining their actions, as a potential pathway to proving that a deep-state cabal conspired against him. Questions asked by Mr. Durham, who was assigned by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize the early actions of law enforcement and intelligence officials struggling to understand the scope of Russia’s scheme, suggest that Mr. Durham may have come to view with suspicion several clashes between analysts at different intelligence agencies over who could see each other’s highly sensitive secrets, the people said. Mr. Durham appears to be pursuing a theory that the C.I.A., under its former director John O. Brennan, had a preconceived notion about Russia or was trying to get to a particular result — and was nefariously trying to keep other agencies from seeing the full picture lest they interfere with that goal, the people said.
This uses a fallacy that we often see when analyzing Supreme Court hearings. Questions asked do not necessarily equate to conclusions drawn. In fact, sometimes questions get asked to preclude the conclusions that they imply. A proper investigation asks lots of questions in multiple directions with plenty of overlap, in order to get to the truth. That will make people uncomfortable, to be sure, but a criminal investigation isn’t supposed to make people comfortable. It’s supposed to make them uncomfortable, off-balance, and for those who have something to hide, afraid.
If the leaks coming out of the intel community over Durham’s investigation are an indication, it looks like he’s succeeding. That doesn’t mean he’ll find anything criminal took place, but it does mean that Durham appears to be conducted a broad and comprehensive investigation that will settle that question once and for all. The NYT includes this as a hint of Durham’s success in this regard:
The Durham investigation has rattled current and former intelligence officers. Little precedent exists for a criminal prosecutor to review the analytic judgment-making process of intelligence agencies, said Michael Morrell, a former acting C.I.A. director who left the government in 2013. “This whole thing is so abnormal,” Mr. Morrell said.
So was taking an oppo-research effort and turning it into a counter-intelligence operation, and then turning that into a criminal investigation. That was the problem from the start of Operation Crossfire Hurricane. In order to get to the bottom of those decisions, Durham has to walk backwards through all those decisions to determine whether laws were broken and intelligence politicized to interfere with an election.
We won’t know what Durham’s really thinking, or what he’s finding, until he closes out his investigation. What we should know is that we can’t characterize it by assuming we’re getting the whole truth from leaks coming from the people Durham’s investigating.


hotair--2020-02-14--Hmmm: Bloomberg jumps to first place in Florida?

This won ’ t help quell the Biden-collapse anxiety within the Democratic Party .
Less than a month ago , Joe Biden had the Florida primary race well in hand , grabbing 41 % of the vote in a St. Pete poll , more than doubling up Michael Bloomberg .
Today , both candidates have had double-digit changes in support , and now Bloomberg edges out the former frontrunner , 27/26 with just a month to go before Democratic voters go to the polls .
That ’ s within the margin of error , but that ’ s not really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selected Bloomberg as their top choice .
Biden secured just under 26 % support in the survey .
That ’ s within the poll ’ s margin of error , which is 1.8 percentage points .
But it marks a drastic shift from the previous snapshot of the race taken by St. Pete Polls .
That version showed Bloomberg in second place with 17 % support .
Biden , meanwhile , received 41 % of the vote .
That ’ s a loss of 15 percentage points for Biden in just two weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What changed ?
Well , for one , Iowa and New Hampshire voters have now had their say in the race .
While the pair of states represent a tiny fraction of the Democratic electorate — and are far more white than the party ’ s base as a whole — Biden has nevertheless taken a hit among some voters because of his poor performances in those states .
He placed fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire .
Oh my .
Bloomberg hadn ’ t even been included in polling until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of support in the first St. Pete and Florida Atlantic polls .
A few hundred million ad dollars later , Bloomberg now looks very much like a player in the Sunshine State .
If that ’ s all it takes to undercut Biden , then he wasn ’ t ever going to survive a frontal collision with Donald Trump .
What about Biden ’ s strength with minority voters ?
Biden ’ s still doing well with black voters , but Bloomberg ’ s coming on strong , 41.5/22.7 .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 35.4/19.7 , and Bloomberg ’ s also edging out Biden among women , 27.9/25.7 .
That ’ s not a good sign for Biden ’ s firewall in other states , including South Carolina , where Tom Steyer — the other billionaire — is cultivating the ground with his own greenbacks .
This is no quick-and-dirty survey , either .
It uses an automated system , which some consider a less than reliable method , but it also has a sample of over 3,000 respondents .
It ’ s a consistent method @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so while the precise landing point in this poll might be in question , the trend is not .
Going from a Biden +24 to a Bloomberg +1 in three weeks has the hallmarks of a frontrunner collapse in a state that will matter greatly in a fragmented primary .
What makes that worse is that the three frontrunners in New Hampshire barely show up in this poll .
Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders barely cross over the 10 % mark , while Amy Klobuchar gets only 8.6 % .
Elizabeth Warren only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of a bump for anyone who finished in the money in either New Hampshire or Iowa , which means that they ’ ll get few if any delegates and the fragmentation will get worse rather than better .
Bloomberg still might not perform to expectations with voters , Byron York warns : With the Democratic presidential field beyond the New Hampshire primary in flux , former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become the subject of intense discussion .
Might he save Democrats from a lackluster lineup of candidates ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he defeat President Trump ?
Maybe , maybe , and maybe .
But there is another question : Would anyone be discussing Bloomberg absent his $ 55 billion fortune ?
The answer , of course , is no .
But , for the moment , with Bloomberg having never been in a debate , with few voters having seen him , and with none having had a chance to vote when his name is on the ballot , Bloomberg attracts more than his share of media attention .
… What made Bloomberg different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg has risen in the polls on the strength of more than $ 300 million spent so far , with untold hundreds of millions more to come .
But there is still that question of the voters .
Many a campaign has appeared to have mojo until its first contact with voters .
For Bloomberg , that test lies a few weeks , and many millions of dollars , ahead .
The money might be enough , but it ’ s more likely to prompt a backlash at some point .
But when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to blunt Bernie Sanders ’ march to the nomination , the Bernie Bros will revolt while the Democrats ’ establishment look to one of their own for the nomination .
That ’ s why Trump is shifting his focus to highlight Bloomberg as his punching bag du jour .
It ’ s an Operation Chaos without all of the messy organizing on the ground … and it seems to be working .

This won’t help quell the Biden-collapse anxiety within the Democratic Party. Less than a month ago, Joe Biden had the Florida primary race well in hand, grabbing 41% of the vote in a St. Pete poll, more than doubling up Michael Bloomberg. Today, both candidates have had double-digit changes in support, and now Bloomberg edges out the former frontrunner, 27/26 with just a month to go before Democratic voters go to the polls.
That’s within the margin of error, but that’s not really the point:
More than 27% selected Bloomberg as their top choice. Biden secured just under 26% support in the survey. That’s within the poll’s margin of error, which is 1.8 percentage points. But it marks a drastic shift from the previous snapshot of the race taken by St. Pete Polls. That version showed Bloomberg in second place with 17% support. Biden, meanwhile, received 41% of the vote. That’s a loss of 15 percentage points for Biden in just two weeks, while Bloomberg gained 10 points. What changed? Well, for one, Iowa and New Hampshire voters have now had their say in the race. While the pair of states represent a tiny fraction of the Democratic electorate — and are far more white than the party’s base as a whole — Biden has nevertheless taken a hit among some voters because of his poor performances in those states. He placed fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire.
Oh my. Bloomberg hadn’t even been included in polling until recently, and only scored a modest level of support in the first St. Pete and Florida Atlantic polls. A few hundred million ad dollars later, Bloomberg now looks very much like a player in the Sunshine State. If that’s all it takes to undercut Biden, then he wasn’t ever going to survive a frontal collision with Donald Trump.
What about Biden’s strength with minority voters? Biden’s still doing well with black voters, but Bloomberg’s coming on strong, 41.5/22.7. However, Bloomberg has blown Biden out among Hispanics, 35.4/19.7, and Bloomberg’s also edging out Biden among women, 27.9/25.7. That’s not a good sign for Biden’s firewall in other states, including South Carolina, where Tom Steyer — the other billionaire — is cultivating the ground with his own greenbacks.
This is no quick-and-dirty survey, either. It uses an automated system, which some consider a less than reliable method, but it also has a sample of over 3,000 respondents. It’s a consistent method and scope for this particular series, so while the precise landing point in this poll might be in question, the trend is not. Going from a Biden +24 to a Bloomberg +1 in three weeks has the hallmarks of a frontrunner collapse in a state that will matter greatly in a fragmented primary.
What makes that worse is that the three frontrunners in New Hampshire barely show up in this poll. Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders barely cross over the 10% mark, while Amy Klobuchar gets only 8.6%. Elizabeth Warren only draws 4.8%. There is no sense of a bump for anyone who finished in the money in either New Hampshire or Iowa, which means that they’ll get few if any delegates and the fragmentation will get worse rather than better.
Bloomberg still might not perform to expectations with voters, Byron York warns:
With the Democratic presidential field beyond the New Hampshire primary in flux, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has become the subject of intense discussion. Might he save Democrats from a lackluster lineup of candidates? Is he the great centrist hope? Can he defeat President Trump? Maybe, maybe, and maybe. But there is another question: Would anyone be discussing Bloomberg absent his $55 billion fortune? The answer, of course, is no. But, for the moment, with Bloomberg having never been in a debate, with few voters having seen him, and with none having had a chance to vote when his name is on the ballot, Bloomberg attracts more than his share of media attention. … What made Bloomberg different was one thing: his money. Bloomberg has risen in the polls on the strength of more than $300 million spent so far, with untold hundreds of millions more to come. But there is still that question of the voters. Many a campaign has appeared to have mojo until its first contact with voters. For Bloomberg, that test lies a few weeks, and many millions of dollars, ahead.
The money might be enough, but it’s more likely to prompt a backlash at some point. But when? If Bloomberg takes enough delegates early on to blunt Bernie Sanders’ march to the nomination, the Bernie Bros will revolt while the Democrats’ establishment look to one of their own for the nomination. That’s why Trump is shifting his focus to highlight Bloomberg as his punching bag du jour. It’s an Operation Chaos without all of the messy organizing on the ground … and it seems to be working.


hotair--2020-02-14--Biologists propose radical concept that there are only two genders/sexes

I know a couple of people who are going to be in trouble with the Woke Science Community .
Colin M. Wright , an evolutionary biologist at Penn State , and Emma N. Hilton , a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester , have collaborated on an article published in the Wall Street Journal this week .
They put forth the revolutionary and highly controversial theory that human beings are born as one of two distinct sexes , male and female .
And no amount of philosophical meandering is going to change the incontrovertible medical fact that sex is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of “ spectrum.
” First , they deal with the argument that because roughly 0.02 % of the population is born intersex – having some combination of genetic anomalies resulting in the formation of both male and female sexual characteristics – this means that there is at least a “ third gender.
” ( All emphasis added . )
The argument is that because some people are intersex—they have developmental conditions resulting in ambiguous sex characteristics—the categories male and female exist on a “ spectrum , ” and are therefore no more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and female are merely arbitrary groupings , it follows that everyone , regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female , or to reject sex entirely in favor of a new bespoke “ gender identity.
” To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement .
It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution .
After patiently explaining that human beings produce two primary types of sex cells ( sperm and eggs ) , the authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambiguous arguments which seek to claim that “ gender identity ” is somehow unlinked from biological reality .
Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “ gender identity ” is not merely an eccentric academic theory .
It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women , homosexuals and children .
Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections .
Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault .
Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty .
The different reproductive roles of males and females require laws to safeguard women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere .
The falsehood that sex is rooted in subjective identity instead of objective biology renders all these sex-based rights impossible to enforce .
The authors describe in brutal detail how the current claptrap about “ gender identity ” that ’ s been making the rounds actually serves to undermine the rights and safety of women , children , gays , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve covered here at length in the past , but it ’ s simply refreshing to see some much-needed pushback coming from the science community .
Far too many doctors and medical professional associations have begun caving to woke social pressure and stopped treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness , which it is .
These same groups have also largely ignored the rapid rise of so-called “ rapid-onset gender dysphoria ” for what it is : the result of social and media pressure that ’ s producing harmful distortions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many children .
This article should be printed out and tucked in the pockets of several families in Connecticut who have now gone to court in an effort to prevent “ transgender girls ” from competing in girls ’ high school sports in that state .
This is a real-world example of one of the negative effects of all of this transgender fetishism described by the professors in this article .
Will this produce any positive results in the broader debate ?
I ’ m not getting my hopes up .
The vast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever the woke brigades want them to say , all while remaining deeply in denial of both science and reality .
But this ship can ’ t be allowed to go down without a fight .

I know a couple of people who are going to be in trouble with the Woke Science Community. Colin M. Wright, an evolutionary biologist at Penn State, and Emma N. Hilton, a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester, have collaborated on an article published in the Wall Street Journal this week. They put forth the revolutionary and highly controversial theory that human beings are born as one of two distinct sexes, male and female. And no amount of philosophical meandering is going to change the incontrovertible medical fact that sex is binary and does not exist on some sort of “spectrum.”
First, they deal with the argument that because roughly 0.02% of the population is born intersex – having some combination of genetic anomalies resulting in the formation of both male and female sexual characteristics – this means that there is at least a “third gender.” (All emphasis added.)
The argument is that because some people are intersex—they have developmental conditions resulting in ambiguous sex characteristics—the categories male and female exist on a “spectrum,” and are therefore no more than “social constructs.” If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favor of a new bespoke “gender identity.” To characterize this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.
After patiently explaining that human beings produce two primary types of sex cells (sperm and eggs), the authors move on to the more vague, ambiguous arguments which seek to claim that “gender identity” is somehow unlinked from biological reality.
Denying the reality of biological sex and supplanting it with subjective “gender identity” is not merely an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children. Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections. Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault. Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls don’t have to face competitors who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty. The different reproductive roles of males and females require laws to safeguard women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The falsehood that sex is rooted in subjective identity instead of objective biology renders all these sex-based rights impossible to enforce.
The authors describe in brutal detail how the current claptrap about “gender identity” that’s been making the rounds actually serves to undermine the rights and safety of women, children, gays, and lesbians. Much of this is material we’ve covered here at length in the past, but it’s simply refreshing to see some much-needed pushback coming from the science community. Far too many doctors and medical professional associations have begun caving to woke social pressure and stopped treating gender dysphoria as a mental illness, which it is. These same groups have also largely ignored the rapid rise of so-called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” for what it is: the result of social and media pressure that’s producing harmful distortions in the perceptions and behavior of far too many children.
This article should be printed out and tucked in the pockets of several families in Connecticut who have now gone to court in an effort to prevent “transgender girls” from competing in girls’ high school sports in that state. This is a real-world example of one of the negative effects of all of this transgender fetishism described by the professors in this article.
Will this produce any positive results in the broader debate? I’m not getting my hopes up. The vast majority of the media will continue parroting whatever the woke brigades want them to say, all while remaining deeply in denial of both science and reality. But this ship can’t be allowed to go down without a fight.


hotair--2020-02-16--Phone hearing this week for Roger Stone

Phone hearing this week for Roger Stone

A phone hearing is scheduled this week for convicted felon and seersucker suit enthusiast Roger Stone .
POLITICO reports the meeting will happen Tuesday between the Justice Department and Stone ’ s attorneys just two days before he ’ s scheduled to be sentenced .
It ’ s unclear whether the judge will decide to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled , given the latest motion for a new trial and questions about how easily prosecutors will be able to respond to it with those most familiar with the case having formally stepped back from it and , in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some former Justice Department prosecutors are urging Jackson to inquire into the abrupt withdrawal of the trial team last week and the reversal in the government ’ s position , but she has not yet signaled any plans to do that .
As recently as Friday , the judge seemed intent on moving toward sentencing , issuing an order requiring the government to respond to the latest new trial motion — which remains under seal — by midnight Tuesday .
The sentencing question is interesting following the resignation of all four prosecutors last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of delay would happen given the number of federal prosecutors the Justice Department can tap for Stone ’ s sentencing .
Appeals are obviously coming which means a new team can handle that process whenever it starts or should Stone win a new trial .
All this is going on while a petition effort has been launched in hopes of getting Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s resignation .
Project Democracy crowed about 1100 signatures from former Justice Department employees .
We welcome Attorney General Barr ’ s belated acknowledgment that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be independent of politics ; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters , either to punish his opponents or to help his friends ; and that the President ’ s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department ’ s credibility .
But Mr. Barr ’ s actions in doing the President ’ s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words .
Those actions , and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice ’ s reputation for integrity and the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resign .
But because we have little expectation he will do so , it falls to the Department ’ s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan , apolitical justice .
It ’ s highly doubtful the petition will lead to Barr ’ s resignation and this petition will probably be used by Democrats to promise on bated breath their DoJ will be more impartial than Trump ’ s .
Not that anyone should believe it .
It ’ s not like other administrations have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on charges ( ex 1 : James Clapper ) .
It is doubtful Stone will get a new trial and will likely spend several years in prison .
His arguments appear rather weak based on analysis by David French and Ken White of Popehat .
Whether the judge goes with the recommended sentence or decides to do something else is up to her and her alone .
It ’ s mostly likely Trump eventually pardons or commutes Stone ’ s sentence so he avoids major prison time .
Still makes 2020 a fun @ @ @ @ @ @ @

A phone hearing is scheduled this week for convicted felon and seersucker suit enthusiast Roger Stone. POLITICO reports the meeting will happen Tuesday between the Justice Department and Stone’s attorneys just two days before he’s scheduled to be sentenced.
It’s unclear whether the judge will decide to proceed with the sentencing as scheduled, given the latest motion for a new trial and questions about how easily prosecutors will be able to respond to it with those most familiar with the case having formally stepped back from it and, in one instance, quit his job altogether. Some former Justice Department prosecutors are urging Jackson to inquire into the abrupt withdrawal of the trial team last week and the reversal in the government’s position, but she has not yet signaled any plans to do that. As recently as Friday, the judge seemed intent on moving toward sentencing, issuing an order requiring the government to respond to the latest new trial motion — which remains under seal — by midnight Tuesday.
The sentencing question is interesting following the resignation of all four prosecutors last week. It’s unlikely any sort of delay would happen given the number of federal prosecutors the Justice Department can tap for Stone’s sentencing. Appeals are obviously coming which means a new team can handle that process whenever it starts or should Stone win a new trial.
All this is going on while a petition effort has been launched in hopes of getting Attorney General Bill Barr’s resignation. Project Democracy crowed about 1100 signatures from former Justice Department employees.
We welcome Attorney General Barr’s belated acknowledgment that the DOJ’s law enforcement decisions must be independent of politics; that it is wrong for the President to interfere in specific enforcement matters, either to punish his opponents or to help his friends; and that the President’s public comments on DOJ matters have gravely damaged the Department’s credibility. But Mr. Barr’s actions in doing the President’s personal bidding unfortunately speak louder than his words. Those actions, and the damage they have done to the Department of Justice’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, require Mr. Barr to resign. But because we have little expectation he will do so, it falls to the Department’s career officials to take appropriate action to uphold their oaths of office and defend nonpartisan, apolitical justice.
It’s highly doubtful the petition will lead to Barr’s resignation and this petition will probably be used by Democrats to promise on bated breath their DoJ will be more impartial than Trump’s. Not that anyone should believe it. It’s not like other administrations have ever been untruthful to Congress and skirted on charges (ex 1: James Clapper).
It is doubtful Stone will get a new trial and will likely spend several years in prison. His arguments appear rather weak based on analysis by David French and Ken White of Popehat.
Whether the judge goes with the recommended sentence or decides to do something else is up to her and her alone. It’s mostly likely Trump eventually pardons or commutes Stone’s sentence so he avoids major prison time. Still makes 2020 a fun year, doesn’t it?


hotair--2020-02-16--Bloomberg: Cashing in favors for votes

Bloomberg: Cashing in favors for votes

No one quite knows the direction Democrats will take in the 2020 presidential primary .
The basics are obvious : whoever wins the nomination will prefer some sort of intrusive government solution to alleged problems including higher spending and further erode the legislative process set up in the Constitution .
Whether it ’ s the populist democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders , the blank slate of Pete Buttigieg or the so-called ‘ return to normalcy ’ of Joe Biden is yet to be seen .
One possible wildcard is Michael Bloomberg .
The billionaire isn ’ t the choice of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the despicable stop and frisk policy he pushed while New York City mayor but also because he was a ‘ Republican ’ for most of his time in office .
One must not forget the only reason Bloomberg registered Republican from Democrat was to ride Rudy Giuliani ’ s coattails into City Hall .
He also has yet to appear on the debate stage and is spending most of his money on television and web ads .
Yet , endorsements are pouring in for Bloomberg mainly from mayors .
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to invest in people and places .
Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called Bloomberg someone who wants to increase the quality of life for all and ex-Flint Mayor Karen Weaver suggested a potential Bloomberg presidency would focus on clean air and clean water .
More than 100 other U.S mayors are part of Bloomberg ’ s Mayors for Mike campaign .
Why are all these endorsements rolling in ?
Graft or , at least , the appearance of it .
A search of Bloomberg Philanthropies ’ annual report and the Mayors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossover between names .
At least eight mayors endorsing Bloomberg ’ s run for president are from cities that received money from Bloomberg Philanthropies .
These include the aforementioned Turner and Villaraigosa along with Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles , Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer , and Huntington Mayor Steve Williams .
Two former mayors , Michael Nutter of Philadelphia and Bill White of Houston , saw money come to their cities via Bloomberg although both were after they were out of office .
Former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz endorsed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sarcasm ) to be on the Bloomberg Philanthropies board .
Bloomberg ’ s involvement in Democratic Party politics is astounding .
His Independence USA PAC spent $ 110M in 2019 on congressional candidates .
Former Virginia Governor Terry McAullife told The New York Times he believed Bloomberg was one of the most important Democratic donors over the last several election cycles .
McAuliffe has yet to make an endorsement in 2020 but he did appear with Bloomberg at a news conference last month .
The campaign may be working .
Bloomberg was recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters in the Democratic presidential primary .
He placed third in North Carolina ’ s most recent poll and fourth in Texas ’ most recent poll , just five points out of third .
T.A .
Frank at Vanity Fair suggested Bloomberg ’ s rise could end up hurting Sanders the most because the former might take over the so-called center lane in the Democratic primary .
This ignores the fact , pointed out by Matt Lewis at The Daily Beast , that Bloomberg is an authoritarian of the highest degree and praised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dictator ” to PBS last September .
His bizarre reasoning was Xi has a constituency to answer to even though he ’ s not elected by the people .
And you thought Sanders ’ decision to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union was bad .
So much for that ‘ center lane.
’ Bloomberg would likely get more of a welcome by the establishment and so-called centrist Democrat voters because he ’ s not a populist .
Populist forces tend to be more strident in their support and can resort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bloomberg is corrupt in the sense he ’ s using his philanthropic network to garner endorsements from those who are fearful the money train might suddenly switch off .
One has to wonder if Bloomberg ’ s philanthropical efforts are simply a calculated move to ascend to the presidency at the right time .
Those who might consider a Bloomberg vote due to local support need to follow the money before casting any ballots .

No one quite knows the direction Democrats will take in the 2020 presidential primary. The basics are obvious: whoever wins the nomination will prefer some sort of intrusive government solution to alleged problems including higher spending and further erode the legislative process set up in the Constitution. Whether it’s the populist democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders, the blank slate of Pete Buttigieg or the so-called ‘return to normalcy’ of Joe Biden is yet to be seen.
One possible wildcard is Michael Bloomberg. The billionaire isn’t the choice of the social media commentariat, partially for the despicable stop and frisk policy he pushed while New York City mayor but also because he was a ‘Republican’ for most of his time in office. One must not forget the only reason Bloomberg registered Republican from Democrat was to ride Rudy Giuliani’s coattails into City Hall. He also has yet to appear on the debate stage and is spending most of his money on television and web ads.
Yet, endorsements are pouring in for Bloomberg mainly from mayors. Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner lauded Bloomberg as someone who recognized the need to invest in people and places. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa called Bloomberg someone who wants to increase the quality of life for all and ex-Flint Mayor Karen Weaver suggested a potential Bloomberg presidency would focus on clean air and clean water. More than 100 other U.S mayors are part of Bloomberg’s Mayors for Mike campaign.
Why are all these endorsements rolling in? Graft or, at least, the appearance of it.
A search of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ annual report and the Mayors for Mike campaign finds a rather astonishing crossover between names. At least eight mayors endorsing Bloomberg’s run for president are from cities that received money from Bloomberg Philanthropies. These include the aforementioned Turner and Villaraigosa along with Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles, Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, and Huntington Mayor Steve Williams. Two former mayors, Michael Nutter of Philadelphia and Bill White of Houston, saw money come to their cities via Bloomberg although both were after they were out of office. Former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz endorsed Bloomberg and also just happens (note sarcasm) to be on the Bloomberg Philanthropies board.
Quite curious of a coincidence.
Bloomberg’s involvement in Democratic Party politics is astounding. His Independence USA PAC spent $110M in 2019 on congressional candidates. Former Virginia Governor Terry McAullife told The New York Times he believed Bloomberg was one of the most important Democratic donors over the last several election cycles. McAuliffe has yet to make an endorsement in 2020 but he did appear with Bloomberg at a news conference last month.
The campaign may be working. Bloomberg was recently first in a poll of likely Florida voters in the Democratic presidential primary. He placed third in North Carolina’s most recent poll and fourth in Texas’ most recent poll, just five points out of third.
T.A. Frank at Vanity Fair suggested Bloomberg’s rise could end up hurting Sanders the most because the former might take over the so-called center lane in the Democratic primary. This ignores the fact, pointed out by Matt Lewis at The Daily Beast, that Bloomberg is an authoritarian of the highest degree and praised Chinese President Xi Jianping as “not a dictator” to PBS last September. His bizarre reasoning was Xi has a constituency to answer to even though he’s not elected by the people. And you thought Sanders’ decision to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union was bad.
So much for that ‘center lane.’
Bloomberg would likely get more of a welcome by the establishment and so-called centrist Democrat voters because he’s not a populist. Populist forces tend to be more strident in their support and can resort to violence when they feel necessary. However, Bloomberg is corrupt in the sense he’s using his philanthropic network to garner endorsements from those who are fearful the money train might suddenly switch off. One has to wonder if Bloomberg’s philanthropical efforts are simply a calculated move to ascend to the presidency at the right time.
Those who might consider a Bloomberg vote due to local support need to follow the money before casting any ballots.


hotair--2020-02-16--The face of transgender child abuse

The face of transgender child abuse

If you happened to catch last Wednesday night ’ s edition of NBC Nightly News , you may have seen the profile they did of 9-year-old Jacob Lemay .
So what is it about a child of that tender age that would merit a chunk of NBC ’ s prime news space ?
Jacob wasn ’ t always Jacob , you see .
And “ he ” was born a she .
Yes , Jacob is a transgender child .
Now , given how many of these tragic stories we hear about and the way the mainstream media loves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have been all that surprising .
But this story comes with a couple of decided twists that make it worth our time to bring up .
When you find out how and when her “ transition ” process began , you ’ ll understand how this is probably a disaster in the making that would be considered child abuse in any sane society .
( Newsbusters ) NBC ’ s primetime slot featured trans boy Jacob Lemay for the second time since his transition from a biological female .
Bear in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started transitioning when “ he ” was only two years old .
The network reported it straight as if it was some beautiful fact of life and a lesson for the rest of us .
NBC journalist Kate Snow sat down with Jacob in his home to discuss his life as a trans kid .
Her report started with the LGBTQ propaganda immediately .
She described Jacob as a “ typical fourth grader in every way but one , ” and asked him directly about his decision to switch genders .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ It ’ s not how you act or what you wear or anything like that .
It ’ s just how you really are inside , ” he said .
Ah , yes , America , adjust your values accordingly .
Jacob added , “ You just feel like you got put in the wrong body.
” There ’ s no question that Jacob has all the standard trans agenda talking points down pat .
How and where she learned all of that is left up to the viewer to decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s not the truly alarming part .
As mentioned in the excerpt above and repeated throughout the interview , Jacob ’ s parents insist that this process began when their child was two years old .
Yes , you read that correctly .
A 2-year-old little girl supposedly began insisting that she was a boy and informing her parents of this .
I ’ m sorry ( not really ) , but give me a break .
At the age of two , the vast majority of children don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of gender beyond some words separating the brothers from the sisters .
That ’ s barely old enough for preschool , so it wasn ’ t coming from any sort of peer pressure .
And it ’ s long , long before any sort of sexual development questions begin to arise .
In short , that came from the mother , the father , or both .
But why might we suspect that one of them had some sort of an agenda ?
Oh… I suppose it could be because mom has some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on the subject of ( I ’ m sure you couldn ’ t have possibly guessed already ) transgender transitioning .
Or maybe they just really wanted a son .
You ’ d have to ask them .
But even that ’ s not the end of the bad news .
The NBC reporter informs us that little Jacob “ has decided ” to take a hormone blocker to stop puberty .
So you ’ re now telling us that a nine-year-old is somehow competent enough to make that sort of decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a doctor willing to go along with this madness .
So not only has the child been confused about her gender since she was a toddler , now drugs are going to be pumped into her to prevent the natural onset of puberty .
As far as I ’ m concerned , everyone can do with their own body as they wish as adults , providing you ’ re willing to accept responsibility and live with the consequences .
But we ’ re talking about children here .
Small children who know nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their parents teach them .
And this is simply a tragedy .
As I mentioned above , as these cases come to light they need to be brought to the public ’ s attention until such time as we can ( hopefully ) get some sort of judicial intervention .
This should be considered child abuse and dealt with accordingly .
And the doctor prescribing this medication doesn ’ t need to just have their license taken away .
They should be in jail .
But without some sort of court taking charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nobody who can rescue this kid .
It ’ s enough to make you want to scream .

If you happened to catch last Wednesday night’s edition of NBC Nightly News, you may have seen the profile they did of 9-year-old Jacob Lemay. So what is it about a child of that tender age that would merit a chunk of NBC’s prime news space? Jacob wasn’t always Jacob, you see. And “he” was born a she. Yes, Jacob is a transgender child.
Now, given how many of these tragic stories we hear about and the way the mainstream media loves to fawn over them, this probably wouldn’t have been all that surprising. But this story comes with a couple of decided twists that make it worth our time to bring up. When you find out how and when her “transition” process began, you’ll understand how this is probably a disaster in the making that would be considered child abuse in any sane society. (Newsbusters)
NBC’s primetime slot featured trans boy Jacob Lemay for the second time since his transition from a biological female. Bear in mind, NBC actually reported that Jacob started transitioning when “he” was only two years old. The network reported it straight as if it was some beautiful fact of life and a lesson for the rest of us. Lord help us. NBC journalist Kate Snow sat down with Jacob in his home to discuss his life as a trans kid. Her report started with the LGBTQ propaganda immediately. She described Jacob as a “typical fourth grader in every way but one,” and asked him directly about his decision to switch genders. “What does being transgender mean to you?” “It’s not how you act or what you wear or anything like that. It’s just how you really are inside,” he said. Ah, yes, America, adjust your values accordingly. Jacob added, “You just feel like you got put in the wrong body.”
There’s no question that Jacob has all the standard trans agenda talking points down pat. How and where she learned all of that is left up to the viewer to decide, but you can probably guess. But that’s not the truly alarming part. As mentioned in the excerpt above and repeated throughout the interview, Jacob’s parents insist that this process began when their child was two years old. Yes, you read that correctly. A 2-year-old little girl supposedly began insisting that she was a boy and informing her parents of this.
I’m sorry (not really), but give me a break. At the age of two, the vast majority of children don’t even have a fully formed concept of gender beyond some words separating the brothers from the sisters. That’s barely old enough for preschool, so it wasn’t coming from any sort of peer pressure. And it’s long, long before any sort of sexual development questions begin to arise.
In short, that came from the mother, the father, or both. But why might we suspect that one of them had some sort of an agenda? Oh… I suppose it could be because mom has some books to sell. And the book is on the subject of (I’m sure you couldn’t have possibly guessed already) transgender transitioning. Or maybe they just really wanted a son. You’d have to ask them.
But even that’s not the end of the bad news. The NBC reporter informs us that little Jacob “has decided” to take a hormone blocker to stop puberty. So you’re now telling us that a nine-year-old is somehow competent enough to make that sort of decision? And clearly the parents have found a doctor willing to go along with this madness. So not only has the child been confused about her gender since she was a toddler, now drugs are going to be pumped into her to prevent the natural onset of puberty.
As far as I’m concerned, everyone can do with their own body as they wish as adults, providing you’re willing to accept responsibility and live with the consequences. But we’re talking about children here. Small children who know nothing of the world around them except what their parents teach them. And this is simply a tragedy.
As I mentioned above, as these cases come to light they need to be brought to the public’s attention until such time as we can (hopefully) get some sort of judicial intervention. This should be considered child abuse and dealt with accordingly. And the doctor prescribing this medication doesn’t need to just have their license taken away. They should be in jail. But without some sort of court taking charge of the situation, there may be nobody who can rescue this kid. It’s enough to make you want to scream.


hotair--2020-02-16--Sam Donaldson endorses Bloomberg - Trump is "mean" and "corrupt"

Veteran White House correspondent and former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson is the new face of liberal media bias at the tender age of 85 .
He wrote an op-ed for CNN about the 2020 presidential election and endorsed Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg .
Ironically , some of the very reasons Donaldson points to as advantageous to candidate Bloomberg are the same as those President Trump gave for his candidacy in 2016 .
There has never been any doubt that Donaldson is a Democrat voter , at least not in my mind .
I grew up watching him pepper presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
After Donaldson left the White House beat , he was rewarded with a sweet gig as a news anchor on ABC News .
Donaldson begins his op-ed by stating that he was independent of the political process while working as a reporter in D.C.- he didn ’ t go to fundraisers or donate to candidates .
He didn ’ t register with a political party .
That all may be true but his political leanings came out in his questioning of politicians , no matter how discreet he thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now after seven years of a mostly quiet retirement stage of his life , he feels so strongly that Trump must not be re-elected that he is endorsing another old , white New York billionaire .
He just can ’ t remain silent anymore , you see .
There is too much at stake .
Maybe I ’ m just too cynical at this point but my first thought was what ’ s in it for Donaldson ?
Why now is Donaldson providing conservatives with further proof of the mainstream media ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just still so Trump-deranged that he is scared ( rightfully so ) that the cast of characters on the Democrat side won ’ t stop Trump ’ s re-election ?
Or has Bloomberg called in a favor , as seems to be the case from so many other endorsees across the country ?
Why now , at the age of 85 , is Donaldson publicly dropping the mask of political independence ?
Donaldson describes Bloomberg as a “ self-made man , an entrepreneur ” , which sounds just like how Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary race .
He even argues that Bloomberg won ’ t be beholden to anyone if he were to win – a page from Trump ’ s own stump speeches in 2015 .
Trump , too , was wealthy enough that he could go it alone , he told voters .
Trump is slowly draining the swamp that has produced the distrust of Americans in their government .
He is helping Americans lead better lives with his economic policies that have produced record low unemployment , record high minority employment , and encourages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument for continuing on with Trump , not to replace him with a new president .
70 % of Americans say that their lives are good with today ’ s economy .
Donaldson reminisces about a different time when politicians worked more closely together , an age of more unity .
He sites LBJ ’ s work to bring Republicans on board to support the Civil Rights Act .
Without Republican support , that would have never passed and Donaldson rightfully credits Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen .
There was a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that was also a time when Republicans were not in a majority in either the House or the Senate .
Republicans had to go along to get along in order to get any of their agenda passed .
I still remember the feeling of excitement I felt when the Republican revolution of 1994 ushered in majorities in the House and Senate for the first time in my life .
Eventually , that fell away and we were stuck with what is called the Uniparty – an often undistinguishable difference between Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off so many voters and ushered in the victory of Donald Trump .
He promised something new .
Donaldson ’ s pitch for Bloomberg sounds like that of Trump supporters in 2016 .
Remember when Trump asked black voters , “ What the hell do you have to lose ?
” Bloomberg 2020 is the 2016 version of Trump .
Instead of American First which was attractive to conservative and Independent voters , Bloomberg promises a national nanny state of higher taxes , more government regulations , gun-grabbing , climate change alarmism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberals and Independents .
The main sticking point in what Bloomberg offers is that Trump has a record of success as president and has kept most of his campaign promises .
As for the unity Donaldson promises during a Bloomberg presidency , how does that square with all the stories coming out about Bloomberg ’ s own problems with what is seen as a racist , sexist past ?
He ’ s been sued for his company ’ s toxic workplace for women .
He used “ Stop and Frisk ” in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the race and rising in the polls , the more stories will come out as opposition research from other campaigns and former employees .
To the charge of corruption against Trump – how does that square with the stories of Bloomberg funding Attorney Generals across the country to provide legal assistance to his liberal agenda of climate change , for example ?
Sam Donaldson dropped his mask .
There is no longer even a smidge of doubt as to his political leaning .
The question is , why now ?
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media surrogate for the Democrat Party .

Veteran White House correspondent and former ABC News anchor Sam Donaldson is the new face of liberal media bias at the tender age of 85. He wrote an op-ed for CNN about the 2020 presidential election and endorsed Democrat candidate Michael Bloomberg. Ironically, some of the very reasons Donaldson points to as advantageous to candidate Bloomberg are the same as those President Trump gave for his candidacy in 2016.
There has never been any doubt that Donaldson is a Democrat voter, at least not in my mind. I grew up watching him pepper presidents and their administration officials with questions at the White House. After Donaldson left the White House beat, he was rewarded with a sweet gig as a news anchor on ABC News. Donaldson begins his op-ed by stating that he was independent of the political process while working as a reporter in D.C.- he didn’t go to fundraisers or donate to candidates. He didn’t register with a political party. That all may be true but his political leanings came out in his questioning of politicians, no matter how discreet he thinks he was being at the time.
Now after seven years of a mostly quiet retirement stage of his life, he feels so strongly that Trump must not be re-elected that he is endorsing another old, white New York billionaire. He just can’t remain silent anymore, you see. There is too much at stake.
When I retired seven years ago, I fully expected to remain a political observer. But there is too much at stake in the next election to remain silent. So, I am speaking out now in support of the candidate I believe is most qualified to be president and most able to defeat Donald Trump. That candidate is Mike Bloomberg.
Maybe I’m just too cynical at this point but my first thought was what’s in it for Donaldson? Why now is Donaldson providing conservatives with further proof of the mainstream media’s liberal bias? Is it that he’s just still so Trump-deranged that he is scared (rightfully so) that the cast of characters on the Democrat side won’t stop Trump’s re-election? Or has Bloomberg called in a favor, as seems to be the case from so many other endorsees across the country? Why now, at the age of 85, is Donaldson publicly dropping the mask of political independence?
Donaldson describes Bloomberg as a “self-made man, an entrepreneur”, which sounds just like how Trump described himself in 2015 in the GOP primary race. He even argues that Bloomberg won’t be beholden to anyone if he were to win – a page from Trump’s own stump speeches in 2015. Trump, too, was wealthy enough that he could go it alone, he told voters.
When he wins, he will owe no favors to anyone, nor will he be beholden to any special interest. He will make sure our government regains the trust of the American people, restores our standing in the world, and helps all Americans lead better and happier lives.
Trump is slowly draining the swamp that has produced the distrust of Americans in their government. He is helping Americans lead better lives with his economic policies that have produced record low unemployment, record high minority employment, and encourages entrepreneurial ventures. Donaldson actually makes the argument for continuing on with Trump, not to replace him with a new president. 70% of Americans say that their lives are good with today’s economy.
Donaldson reminisces about a different time when politicians worked more closely together, an age of more unity. He sites LBJ’s work to bring Republicans on board to support the Civil Rights Act. Without Republican support, that would have never passed and Donaldson rightfully credits Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen. There was a time when the country wasn’t so divided but that was also a time when Republicans were not in a majority in either the House or the Senate. Republicans had to go along to get along in order to get any of their agenda passed. I still remember the feeling of excitement I felt when the Republican revolution of 1994 ushered in majorities in the House and Senate for the first time in my life. Eventually, that fell away and we were stuck with what is called the Uniparty – an often undistinguishable difference between Democrats and Republicans.
That Uniparty is what turned off so many voters and ushered in the victory of Donald Trump. He promised something new. Donaldson’s pitch for Bloomberg sounds like that of Trump supporters in 2016. Remember when Trump asked black voters, “What the hell do you have to lose?” Bloomberg 2020 is the 2016 version of Trump. Instead of American First which was attractive to conservative and Independent voters, Bloomberg promises a national nanny state of higher taxes, more government regulations, gun-grabbing, climate change alarmism, and micro-management that he hopes appeals to liberals and Independents. The main sticking point in what Bloomberg offers is that Trump has a record of success as president and has kept most of his campaign promises.
As for the unity Donaldson promises during a Bloomberg presidency, how does that square with all the stories coming out about Bloomberg’s own problems with what is seen as a racist, sexist past? He’s been sued for his company’s toxic workplace for women. He used “Stop and Frisk” in New York City. The longer Bloomberg is in the race and rising in the polls, the more stories will come out as opposition research from other campaigns and former employees.
To the charge of corruption against Trump – how does that square with the stories of Bloomberg funding Attorney Generals across the country to provide legal assistance to his liberal agenda of climate change, for example?
Sam Donaldson dropped his mask. There is no longer even a smidge of doubt as to his political leaning. The question is, why now? He’s proven himself to be just another media surrogate for the Democrat Party.


hotair--2020-02-16--Jeffrey Toobin: You know, I feel a little snookered by Michael Avenatti

A dose of schadenfreude to brighten up your Sunday afternoon .
Righties have been righteously dunking on the media for their relentless promotion of Avenatti since the verdict in the Nike trial was handed down a few days ago , but apart from Toobin ’ s sheepish admission here examples of self-reflection are hard to find .
In almost 15 years of covering politics daily I can ’ t think of a person who achieved greater ubiquity as a guest on cable news than Avenatti did in the first half of 2018 .
Interviews every day , sometimes more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks , day after day after day for months .
Not always strictly related to the facts of the Stormy Daniels case , either ; no one could sustain a media habit at that pace with a single topic .
He was the perfect CNN subject — pugnacious , a news-maker , aggressively anti-Trump , and seemingly willing and able to do their archenemy in the White House some real damage legally .
They were addicted .
But I don ’ t know that any of us understood at the time how addicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he reveled in it — the dude showed up at the MTV Video Music Awards at the height of his fame , because of course he did — but some reporters ’ recollections of their interactions with him make his narcissism sound even more pathological than we ’ ve all come to assume .
Graeme Wood wrote at the Atlantic about meeting him once in the MSNBC green room after Avenatti had just finished an interview on Joe Scarborough ’ s show .
What happened next has the vibe of a junkie who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly lost in the high : Even that morning , I saw signs that he was a strange man .
When Avenatti came back to the green room , Sunstein and I talked with him , and I congratulated him on milking the segment for maximum drama .
I ’ m quite sure I did not sound sarcastic ; I was genuinely impressed .
Then the commercial break ended , and the hosts , Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski , began discussing the exciting news that Avenatti had just delivered .
We heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room .
In mid-sentence , Avenatti stopped talking with us , turned his back , and approached the television , standing very close to it—utterly hypnotized by the clips they were running of his interview .
I tried to talk with Avenatti and offered him a pastry , but his eyes had glazed over in a way that suggested a higher level of consciousness .
All attempts to converse with him were in vain , as if we were trying to interrupt a monk in his third decade of silent meditation .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandal first blew up that Donald Trump wouldn ’ t be the most weirdly narcissistic figure in that drama .
Emily Jane Fox of Vanity Fair recalled interviewing Avenatti after everything had begun to fall apart for him , following his arrest and indictment in California on dozens of charges .
You ’ d think a man in that situation would clam up , not wanting to risk further legal jeopardy .
But he needed his fix , still clinging to fantasies of grandeur despite facing ruin : In the interview , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about why he would have made the right candidate to face off against Trump in 2020—a gutter fighter-meets-media-generator fit to handle this particular era and this particular president… He talked about how he felt like the government was going after him because he was “ one of the biggest threats , if not the biggest threat ” to Trump .
“ Anyone who thinks differently is a fool , ” he said .
We talked about the media attention he got , how he f***ing loved it and sought it out and bathed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe how unbelievably great everything was , ” he told me , retelling stories he ’ d already told me , about the cable appearances he ’ d made and speeches he ’ d given and crowds he drew and compliments strangers delivered .
And we talked about his own hubris or ego or narcissism or the cocktail of all three .
It takes a certain type of person to be allegedly defrauding clients , extorting major corporations , failing to pay taxes , stealing money from one of the most public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the presidency and frequenting every greenroom this country has to offer .
Avenatti ’ s downfall resembles the downfall of an addict .
First came the initial euphoria of celebrity ; for him , that was the media attention to the Stormy Daniels case .
He fed the developing addiction relentlessly with his cable news appearances .
He began to disassociate , believing he might run for president — or maybe the presidential chatter was just another way to protect his supply of the drug , giving the media another reason to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Stormygate having lost some momentum and Democrats beginning to pay attention to more credible presidential contenders , he resorted to desperate action in search of another hit , barging into the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing with the dubious Julie Swetnick allegations .
He was allegedly deeply in debt too , frantic to preserve a lavish lifestyle he seemingly couldn ’ t afford but which broadcast his VIP status .
By the end , if all of the allegations against him are true , he was the equivalent of a junkie knocking over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And in a way , it was even more pathetic than all of that suggests .
Avenatti ’ s mammoth ego was sufficiently fragile that he was known to reach out and lambaste random people for saying an unkind word about him .
According to Ken “ Popehat ” White , Avenatti once called him out of the blue and proceeded to rant at him about how much better of a lawyer he was than White after White had said something critical of him somewhere .
I myself was once the lucky recipient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter that he and Michael Cohen would form one of the most bad-ass prison gangs in the federal system .
He saw that somehow — possibly he was searching Twitter for mentions of his name , eager for any reminder that he was still an Important Person — and sent me a three-word direct message in response .
The first word was “ Go , ” the third word was “ yourself.
” I ’ ll let you guess what the second word was .
I ’ m not going to be seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think .
Here ’ s Toobin , via RCP .

A dose of schadenfreude to brighten up your Sunday afternoon. Righties have been righteously dunking on the media for their relentless promotion of Avenatti since the verdict in the Nike trial was handed down a few days ago, but apart from Toobin’s sheepish admission here examples of self-reflection are hard to find. In almost 15 years of covering politics daily I can’t think of a person who achieved greater ubiquity as a guest on cable news than Avenatti did in the first half of 2018. Interviews every day, sometimes more than one a day, sometimes on multiple networks, day after day after day for months. Not always strictly related to the facts of the Stormy Daniels case, either; no one could sustain a media habit at that pace with a single topic. He was the perfect CNN subject — pugnacious, a news-maker, aggressively anti-Trump, and seemingly willing and able to do their archenemy in the White House some real damage legally. They were addicted.
But I don’t know that any of us understood at the time how addicted Avenatti was to the attention. Obviously he reveled in it — the dude showed up at the MTV Video Music Awards at the height of his fame, because of course he did — but some reporters’ recollections of their interactions with him make his narcissism sound even more pathological than we’ve all come to assume. Graeme Wood wrote at the Atlantic about meeting him once in the MSNBC green room after Avenatti had just finished an interview on Joe Scarborough’s show. What happened next has the vibe of a junkie who’s just injected himself and is suddenly lost in the high:
Even that morning, I saw signs that he was a strange man. When Avenatti came back to the green room, Sunstein and I talked with him, and I congratulated him on milking the segment for maximum drama. I’m quite sure I did not sound sarcastic; I was genuinely impressed. Then the commercial break ended, and the hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, began discussing the exciting news that Avenatti had just delivered. We heard them on the television in the green room. In mid-sentence, Avenatti stopped talking with us, turned his back, and approached the television, standing very close to it—utterly hypnotized by the clips they were running of his interview. I tried to talk with Avenatti and offered him a pastry, but his eyes had glazed over in a way that suggested a higher level of consciousness. All attempts to converse with him were in vain, as if we were trying to interrupt a monk in his third decade of silent meditation.
I would not have guessed when the Stormy scandal first blew up that Donald Trump wouldn’t be the most weirdly narcissistic figure in that drama.
Emily Jane Fox of Vanity Fair recalled interviewing Avenatti after everything had begun to fall apart for him, following his arrest and indictment in California on dozens of charges. You’d think a man in that situation would clam up, not wanting to risk further legal jeopardy. But he needed his fix, still clinging to fantasies of grandeur despite facing ruin:
In the interview, which we published last spring, Avenatti talked about why he would have made the right candidate to face off against Trump in 2020—a gutter fighter-meets-media-generator fit to handle this particular era and this particular president… He talked about how he felt like the government was going after him because he was “one of the biggest threats, if not the biggest threat” to Trump. “Anyone who thinks differently is a fool,” he said. We talked about the media attention he got, how he f***ing loved it and sought it out and bathed in it. “I couldn’t believe how unbelievably great everything was,” he told me, retelling stories he’d already told me, about the cable appearances he’d made and speeches he’d given and crowds he drew and compliments strangers delivered. And we talked about his own hubris or ego or narcissism or the cocktail of all three. It takes a certain type of person to be allegedly defrauding clients, extorting major corporations, failing to pay taxes, stealing money from one of the most public clients in history while contemplating a bid for the presidency and frequenting every greenroom this country has to offer.
Avenatti’s downfall resembles the downfall of an addict. First came the initial euphoria of celebrity; for him, that was the media attention to the Stormy Daniels case. He fed the developing addiction relentlessly with his cable news appearances. He began to disassociate, believing he might run for president — or maybe the presidential chatter was just another way to protect his supply of the drug, giving the media another reason to cover him. By late 2018, with Stormygate having lost some momentum and Democrats beginning to pay attention to more credible presidential contenders, he resorted to desperate action in search of another hit, barging into the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing with the dubious Julie Swetnick allegations. He was allegedly deeply in debt too, frantic to preserve a lavish lifestyle he seemingly couldn’t afford but which broadcast his VIP status. By the end, if all of the allegations against him are true, he was the equivalent of a junkie knocking over convenience stores to feed his habit.
And in a way, it was even more pathetic than all of that suggests. Avenatti’s mammoth ego was sufficiently fragile that he was known to reach out and lambaste random people for saying an unkind word about him. According to Ken “Popehat” White, Avenatti once called him out of the blue and proceeded to rant at him about how much better of a lawyer he was than White after White had said something critical of him somewhere. I myself was once the lucky recipient of an Avenatti-gram when I joked on Twitter that he and Michael Cohen would form one of the most bad-ass prison gangs in the federal system. He saw that somehow — possibly he was searching Twitter for mentions of his name, eager for any reminder that he was still an Important Person — and sent me a three-word direct message in response. The first word was “Go,” the third word was “yourself.” I’ll let you guess what the second word was.
I’m not going to be seeing him much on Twitter anymore, I think. Here’s Toobin, via RCP.


hotair--2020-02-16--Klobuchar lurches left in Nevada, flip flops on immigration

Hey , remember when Amy Klobuchar was considered one of the moderates in the Democrat presidential primary race ?
Apparently she has decided she doesn ’ t like running in that lane .
It sure looks like she is doing all she can to move farther left as she campaigns in Nevada ahead of this week ’ s caucuses .
Recently Ed wrote about the scrutiny Klobuchar is receiving now that she ’ s made it this far in the primary race .
The issue that really jumps out is that of immigration .
She is striking an apologetic tone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator in 2007 on immigration issues like the wall and designating English as the national language .
In 2007 , Klobuchar supported a bill to increase the length of the border wall and also increase the number of Border Patrol agents .
Her yes vote was the same as Hillary Clinton ’ s and Barack Obama ’ s at the time .
Bernie Sanders , however , voted no .
Sanders was opposed to the bill because he thought it would bring too many low-skilled guest workers into the country .
Now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer tolerate any support for ICE or the Border Patrol agents working on the border , Klobuchar is , for the first time , facing scrutiny on her past votes .
After taking office in 2007 , she voted in favor of a bill that called for 370 miles ( 595 kilometers ) of “ triple-layered ( border ) fencing ” and 500 miles ( 800 kilometers ) of vehicle barriers .
It also sought to roughly double the number of Border Patrol agents from about 12,000 at the time , adding 11,600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton also voted for the bill .
Sanders voted no .
He said in 2015 that he opposed the 2007 bill because it included a guest worker program that would allow too many low-wage workers into the U.S. Klobuchar said Friday that she took “ a lot of heat ” during the 2006 Senate race for being too lenient on immigration , saying that almost every ad run against her was about immigration but that her support for immigrants “ has not wavered.
” “ Immigrants don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said in Reno on Friday afternoon .
Now that questions are being asked and she is being held accountable for positions that still seem perfectly reasonable – supporting a border wall and increasing Border Patrol numbers – she conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration .
Pete Buttigieg , another candidate in the so-called moderate lane , is calling her out , without specifically naming her , for voting to confirm Kevin McAleenan , U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner .
“ I ’ ve heard some people say that , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because you have to have Washington experience in order to become a president , ” Buttigieg said during a forum hosted by the League of United Latin American Citizens , the largest Hispanic civil rights organization .
“ But some of those same voices are among those who voted to confirm Kevin McAleenan as the CBP head who presided over , for example , the horrifying conditions that children were kept in , and we have to look at what kind of judgment that experience has brought.
” She claims that she voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others recommended she do so .
Senator Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada also voted for his confirmation .
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted against him .
Now Klobuchar says she disagrees “ vehemently ” with the Trump administration ’ s border policies .
There is also the matter of that vote Klobuchar took in 2007 to reverse President Clinton ’ s executive order requiring federal agencies to provide materials in languages other than English .
She was one of 17 Democrats that voted yes .
The vote was 64-33 but the larger immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates can ’ t support an amendment to declare English as the national language of the United States , you know .
There is simply no room for common sense .
Other red-state Democrats supported the bill .
Bernie and Joe Biden both voted no , as well as Harry Reid and Barack Obama .
Now she is back-peddling as fast as she can – that was way back then .
“ I think that when you look at a state like this state , and a country like ours that is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have that provision in law because then it would be very difficult to have , say , government documents and other things translated into other languages , ” she said Friday .
“ So that is not a position I take .
I did vote that way , but way back then , along with many other people.
” “ I embrace immigrants , ” Klobuchar said following a tour of the Culinary Health Center , which serves members of the majority female and Latino Culinary Union , among the most powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to win Hispanic votes in Nevada .
This is Klobuchar ’ s first experience in a state like Nevada .
She has to convince voters that she isn ’ t just flip-flopping for political expediency .
One social justice organizer called her past votes as “ a huge red flag for our community.
” Klobuchar isn ’ t a charismatic candidate so she has to rely on trying to sound sincere on her change of thought .
Mostly she just sounds like she is trying too hard .
Speaking of trying too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Maher ’ s HBO show Friday night produced a strange misstatement from the candidate .
She went along with Maher ’ s claim that Thomas Jefferson was only 5′ 4″ in height .
It happened when Maher and Klobuchar were talking about Trump ’ s tweets about “ Mini Mike ” Bloomberg .
Trump says that Bloomberg is 5′ 4″ but his medical records have his height recorded as 5′ 7″ .
Klobuchar is 5′ 4″ herself and said so .
Then it got weird .
Oh boy .
That was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was that height was James Madison , not Thomas Jefferson .
Jefferson was 6′ 2″ , which makes him one of the tallest presidents .
Did she not want to correct Maher in front of his audience or is she so easily prone to misspeak when the pressure to perform is on ?
On a more serious note , Klobuchar couldn ’ t name the president of Mexico when asked to do so on Thursday night by a Telemundo reporter after the League of United Latin American Citizens ( LULAC ) presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
Steyer didn ’ t vote for USMCA , though .
Klobuchar did .
Shouldn ’ t she at least have known the names of the leaders involved in that international trade agreement ?

Hey, remember when Amy Klobuchar was considered one of the moderates in the Democrat presidential primary race? Apparently she has decided she doesn’t like running in that lane. It sure looks like she is doing all she can to move farther left as she campaigns in Nevada ahead of this week’s caucuses.
Recently Ed wrote about the scrutiny Klobuchar is receiving now that she’s made it this far in the primary race. The issue that really jumps out is that of immigration. She is striking an apologetic tone for her votes taken as a new senator in 2007 on immigration issues like the wall and designating English as the national language.
In 2007, Klobuchar supported a bill to increase the length of the border wall and also increase the number of Border Patrol agents. Her yes vote was the same as Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s at the time. Bernie Sanders, however, voted no. Sanders was opposed to the bill because he thought it would bring too many low-skilled guest workers into the country. Now that the far left open borders crowd no longer tolerate any support for ICE or the Border Patrol agents working on the border, Klobuchar is, for the first time, facing scrutiny on her past votes.
After taking office in 2007, she voted in favor of a bill that called for 370 miles (595 kilometers) of “triple-layered (border) fencing” and 500 miles (800 kilometers) of vehicle barriers. It also sought to roughly double the number of Border Patrol agents from about 12,000 at the time, adding 11,600 agents over five years. Obama and then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton also voted for the bill. Sanders voted no. He said in 2015 that he opposed the 2007 bill because it included a guest worker program that would allow too many low-wage workers into the U.S. Klobuchar said Friday that she took “a lot of heat” during the 2006 Senate race for being too lenient on immigration, saying that almost every ad run against her was about immigration but that her support for immigrants “has not wavered.” “Immigrants don’t diminish America — they are America,” she said in Reno on Friday afternoon.
Now that questions are being asked and she is being held accountable for positions that still seem perfectly reasonable – supporting a border wall and increasing Border Patrol numbers – she conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration. Pete Buttigieg, another candidate in the so-called moderate lane, is calling her out, without specifically naming her, for voting to confirm Kevin McAleenan, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner.
“I’ve heard some people say that, you know, my experience is not relevant because you have to have Washington experience in order to become a president,” Buttigieg said during a forum hosted by the League of United Latin American Citizens, the largest Hispanic civil rights organization. “But some of those same voices are among those who voted to confirm Kevin McAleenan as the CBP head who presided over, for example, the horrifying conditions that children were kept in, and we have to look at what kind of judgment that experience has brought.”
She claims that she voted to confirm McAleenan because Obama officials and others recommended she do so. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada also voted for his confirmation. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren voted against him. Now Klobuchar says she disagrees “vehemently” with the Trump administration’s border policies.
There is also the matter of that vote Klobuchar took in 2007 to reverse President Clinton’s executive order requiring federal agencies to provide materials in languages other than English. She was one of 17 Democrats that voted yes. The vote was 64-33 but the larger immigration bill failed. Today’s Democrat candidates can’t support an amendment to declare English as the national language of the United States, you know. There is simply no room for common sense. Other red-state Democrats supported the bill. Bernie and Joe Biden both voted no, as well as Harry Reid and Barack Obama. Now she is back-peddling as fast as she can – that was way back then.
“I think that when you look at a state like this state, and a country like ours that is so diverse, you don’t want to have that provision in law because then it would be very difficult to have, say, government documents and other things translated into other languages,” she said Friday. “So that is not a position I take. I did vote that way, but way back then, along with many other people.” “I embrace immigrants,” Klobuchar said following a tour of the Culinary Health Center, which serves members of the majority female and Latino Culinary Union, among the most powerful union in Nevada politics.
Political candidates have to win Hispanic votes in Nevada. This is Klobuchar’s first experience in a state like Nevada. She has to convince voters that she isn’t just flip-flopping for political expediency. One social justice organizer called her past votes as “a huge red flag for our community.” Klobuchar isn’t a charismatic candidate so she has to rely on trying to sound sincere on her change of thought. Mostly she just sounds like she is trying too hard.
Speaking of trying too hard – Klobuchar’s appearance of Bill Maher’s HBO show Friday night produced a strange misstatement from the candidate. She went along with Maher’s claim that Thomas Jefferson was only 5′ 4″ in height. It happened when Maher and Klobuchar were talking about Trump’s tweets about “Mini Mike” Bloomberg. Trump says that Bloomberg is 5′ 4″ but his medical records have his height recorded as 5′ 7″. Klobuchar is 5′ 4″ herself and said so. Then it got weird.
“I am the only one that is truly 5 foot 4,” Klobuchar said in the interview that aired Friday. But then Maher chimed in with an incorrect statement: “Thomas Jefferson was 5 foot 4.” Klobuchar pointed at the HBO host in agreement: “Exactly!” “There is a president that was 5 foot 4. Jefferson,” Klobuchar said.
Oh boy. That was a little crazy, right? The president who was that height was James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was 6′ 2″, which makes him one of the tallest presidents. Did she not want to correct Maher in front of his audience or is she so easily prone to misspeak when the pressure to perform is on?
On a more serious note, Klobuchar couldn’t name the president of Mexico when asked to do so on Thursday night by a Telemundo reporter after the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) presidential forum. Tom Steyer couldn’t, either.
“I forgot,” said billionaire Steyer, when asked if he could name Mexico’s president. “No,” admitted Klobuchar, a senator from Minnesota. Showing them up was Pete Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana mayor and youngest of the eight candidates battling for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Lopez Obrador… I hope,” he answered, hesitatingly.
Steyer didn’t vote for USMCA, though. Klobuchar did. Shouldn’t she at least have known the names of the leaders involved in that international trade agreement?