hotair--2020-02-21--CNN sources: Intel deputy overstated claim at briefing that Russia is planning to help Trump in the

CNN sources: Intel deputy overstated claim at briefing that Russia is planning to help Trump in the election

To understand this Jake Tapper thread you need to have read the WaPo and NYT stories I wrote about yesterday .
WaPo claimed Trump decided to oust Joseph Maguire as acting DNI because he believed — mistakenly — that Maguire ’ s deputy gave Adam Schiff a secret briefing about something having to do with election security that Democrats might be able to use against him .
Schiff received no secret briefing , a source told the Post .
The full House Intelligence Committee was briefed , with Republicans present .
As for the subject of the mysterious briefing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , WaPo didn ’ t say .
But the Times did say .
Supposedly , Maguire deputy Shelby Pierson told the committee that U.S. intelligence showed Russia was “ interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected , ” in the NYT ’ s words .
The Times didn ’ t mention anything about a secret briefing for Schiff causing Trump concern ; rather , he seemed to object that this information was shared with the full committee , fearing that Schiff and other Dems in attendance would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A well-founded fear , as it turned out . )
But them ’ s the breaks : If American intel has good reason to believe Russia is planning to meddle again , particularly on behalf of one candidate , members of Congress tasked with intelligence oversight need to know .
Just one wrinkle .
What if American intel has good reason to believe Russia ’ s planning to meddle but *doesn ’ t* have good reason to believe they ’ re planning to meddle on behalf of a specific candidate ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Tapper ’ s sources , Pierson exaggerated that conclusion — an unconscionable mistake after the country ’ s Russiagate ordeal .
CNN to the rescue ?
It sounds like the intel is more along the lines of “ Russia isn ’ t working against the president ” than “ Russia is working on his behalf.
” I ’ m intrigued by the detail too that Democrats were challenging Pierson on her conclusion .
Maybe that was a case of them stress-testing the information to see how solid it was before they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , not wanting to have another big Trump/Russia scoop go bust on them after a round of hype .
( Although they went ahead and leaked it anyway , so… ? )
But maybe too it was evident during the briefing that Pierson ’ s conclusion was shaky and both parties took to trying to pin her down on it , wanting to see just how much support she had for such an explosive scoop .
If in fact this story leaked to the Times despite even Democrats having doubts about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even by the standards of American politics in 2020 .
Essentially the NYT story amounts to sources shouting , “ Yes , Pierson told us Russia will meddle again for Trump !
” and then whispering , sotto voce , “ but we didn ’ t actually believe her.
” Tapper ’ s sources also don ’ t seem to know anything about Trump mistakenly believing that Schiff had been secretly briefed about this .
Trump ’ s concerns with Maguire and Pierson as described here are more understandable : I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at discovering that Pierson had dropped a bombshell that could ignite Russiagate 2.0 despite her core conclusion not being real solid — assuming that it isn ’ t solid , of course , per Tapper ’ s sources .
No doubt reporters at various papers are working their own contacts today trying to decipher exactly what Pierson said and what was understood in the room .
It ’ s conceivable that Trump-friendly sources reached out to Tapper to put the worst possible spin on the briefing in order to discredit last night ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … unlikely , given that CNN wouldn ’ t logically be Team Trump ’ s first choice for sympathetic treatment , but who knows how officials choose their targets for leaks .
Maybe it ’ s precisely because a Trump-friendly report from Tapper would be taken more seriously by Trump critics than the same report from Fox News would be that they chose him .
But that ’ s not to suggest that the report is wrong either .
Maybe Pierson really did screw up and CNN ’ s just the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will want to fire her when he sees Tapper ’ s thread , although that would put him in a political dilemma : If he cans her , critics will claim he ’ s retaliating against her for exposing Russia ’ s latest plot to benefit him , but if he doesn ’ t can her , he ’ s stuck with someone on staff who ’ s either incompetent or out to get him per the Tapper version of all this .
He chimed in about last night ’ s stories earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday , I don ’ t know that Russia would have a preference between him and a socialist .
I do think they ’ d prefer him to a hawkish mainstream Democrat for the simple reason that Trump ’ s much more likely to withdraw internationally than a neoliberal is , and because a Democratic president of any stripe would come under pressure from his base to exact some sort of revenge on Russia for meddling in 2016 .
But just because they ’ d have a reason to prefer Trump to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean they ’ re doing anything or would do anything to make that preference clear .
It ’ s often said that Russia ’ s game-playing with presidential elections is a psy op designed to breed distrust and bitterness between Americans .
They don ’ t actually need to put a thumb on the scale for one candidate or the other to achieve that particular goal , only to make us think they might .

To understand this Jake Tapper thread you need to have read the WaPo and NYT stories I wrote about yesterday. WaPo claimed Trump decided to oust Joseph Maguire as acting DNI because he believed — mistakenly — that Maguire’s deputy gave Adam Schiff a secret briefing about something having to do with election security that Democrats might be able to use against him. Schiff received no secret briefing, a source told the Post. The full House Intelligence Committee was briefed, with Republicans present.
As for the subject of the mysterious briefing and why it might have been juicy to Democrats, WaPo didn’t say.
But the Times did say. Supposedly, Maguire deputy Shelby Pierson told the committee that U.S. intelligence showed Russia was “interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected,” in the NYT’s words. The Times didn’t mention anything about a secret briefing for Schiff causing Trump concern; rather, he seemed to object that this information was shared with the full committee, fearing that Schiff and other Dems in attendance would leak it to damage him. (A well-founded fear, as it turned out.) But them’s the breaks: If American intel has good reason to believe Russia is planning to meddle again, particularly on behalf of one candidate, members of Congress tasked with intelligence oversight need to know.
Just one wrinkle. What if American intel has good reason to believe Russia’s planning to meddle but *doesn’t* have good reason to believe they’re planning to meddle on behalf of a specific candidate? That’s the politically explosive part. But according to Tapper’s sources, Pierson exaggerated that conclusion — an unconscionable mistake after the country’s Russiagate ordeal. CNN to the rescue?
2/ "What's been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again. But the intelligence doesn't say that,” the official says… — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
4/ “It's more that they understand the president is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker. But not that they prefer him over Sanders or Buttigieg or anyone else. So it may have been mischaracterized by Shelby" at the House Intel briefing last week… — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
5/ “And by the way,” the official says, “both Democrats and Republicans were challenging this at the briefing.” Then there’s the matter of the tense meeting between President Trump and erstwhile Acting Director of National Intelligence Admiral Maguire… — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
It sounds like the intel is more along the lines of “Russia isn’t working against the president” than “Russia is working on his behalf.” I’m intrigued by the detail too that Democrats were challenging Pierson on her conclusion. Maybe that was a case of them stress-testing the information to see how solid it was before they went running to the media to leak it, not wanting to have another big Trump/Russia scoop go bust on them after a round of hype. (Although they went ahead and leaked it anyway, so…?) But maybe too it was evident during the briefing that Pierson’s conclusion was shaky and both parties took to trying to pin her down on it, wanting to see just how much support she had for such an explosive scoop. If in fact this story leaked to the Times despite even Democrats having doubts about it, it’d be witheringly cynical even by the standards of American politics in 2020. Essentially the NYT story amounts to sources shouting, “Yes, Pierson told us Russia will meddle again for Trump!” and then whispering, sotto voce, “but we didn’t actually believe her.”
Tapper’s sources also don’t seem to know anything about Trump mistakenly believing that Schiff had been secretly briefed about this. Trump’s concerns with Maguire and Pierson as described here are more understandable:
6/ “The President was upset that he had to hear about an intelligence conclusion from a Member of the House Republicans rather than from the intelligence community. So he was out of joint with Maguire on that process." — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
8/ ALSO none of this disputes that the Russians (and others) are attempting to interfere in the US election again. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 21, 2020
I’m thinking he may have been peeved too at discovering that Pierson had dropped a bombshell that could ignite Russiagate 2.0 despite her core conclusion not being real solid — assuming that it isn’t solid, of course, per Tapper’s sources. No doubt reporters at various papers are working their own contacts today trying to decipher exactly what Pierson said and what was understood in the room. It’s conceivable that Trump-friendly sources reached out to Tapper to put the worst possible spin on the briefing in order to discredit last night’s big scoop. Which would seem … unlikely, given that CNN wouldn’t logically be Team Trump’s first choice for sympathetic treatment, but who knows how officials choose their targets for leaks. Maybe it’s precisely because a Trump-friendly report from Tapper would be taken more seriously by Trump critics than the same report from Fox News would be that they chose him.
But that’s not to suggest that the report is wrong either. Maybe Pierson really did screw up and CNN’s just the first to hear about it. No doubt Trump will want to fire her when he sees Tapper’s thread, although that would put him in a political dilemma: If he cans her, critics will claim he’s retaliating against her for exposing Russia’s latest plot to benefit him, but if he doesn’t can her, he’s stuck with someone on staff who’s either incompetent or out to get him per the Tapper version of all this.
He chimed in about last night’s stories earlier today:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230879049460764672
Yeah, as I said yesterday, I don’t know that Russia would have a preference between him and a socialist. I do think they’d prefer him to a hawkish mainstream Democrat for the simple reason that Trump’s much more likely to withdraw internationally than a neoliberal is, and because a Democratic president of any stripe would come under pressure from his base to exact some sort of revenge on Russia for meddling in 2016. But just because they’d have a reason to prefer Trump to, say, Joe Biden or Mike Bloomberg doesn’t mean they’re doing anything or would do anything to make that preference clear. It’s often said that Russia’s game-playing with presidential elections is a psy op designed to breed distrust and bitterness between Americans. They don’t actually need to put a thumb on the scale for one candidate or the other to achieve that particular goal, only to make us think they might.


hotair--2020-02-21--Collins balks at Trump offer: Take this ODNI job and ... Update: "Four grea

Collins balks at Trump offer: Take this ODNI job and ... Update: "Four great candidates"? Update: Sandbagged?

… er , “ pick somebody appropriate for that job.
” It didn ’ t take Doug Collins long to shoot down a Donald Trump trial balloon that could have resolved an internecine fight over a Senate seat .
Yesterday , Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he would make a decision soon on a permanent appointment for the director of national intelligence , and that Rep. Doug Collins ( R-GA ) was a leading candidate : During a flight on Air Force One late Thursday , Trump told reporters that he is considering the Republican congressman after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for acting director , Richard Grenell , would not fill the position permanently .
Collins , the outgoing ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee , was one of Trump ’ s closest allies in the House throughout the impeachment process .
He will soon have to leave his leadership positions after announcing that he would be running for U.S. Senate in Georgia against the Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler .
“ Congratulations to you , ” Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo greeted Collins earlier this morning , “ what an honor to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an awkward moment when Collins declined the honor : Collins , in an interview on Fox Business Network , said he was humbled that Trump was considering him for the post of permanent director of national intelligence but that he was focused on his Senate campaign .
“ I know the problems of our intelligence community , but this is not a job that is of interest to me .
At this time , it ’ s not one that I would accept , ” the Georgia Republican said .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate for that job.
” Bartiromo seems to be pushing lightly for Collins to reconsider his position .
She notes that Kelly Loeffler has the support of the governor ( and maybe the president ) for the Senate primary , and that the intelligence communities need a good housecleaning .
Collins , however , refuses to budge on the issue , saying that he can do more from the Senate — and that Loeffler is too weak to guarantee the seat in November .
Is this spite , or is it a rational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slam dunk for the position , Politico notes : The president ’ s proposal to install Collins as national intelligence director on a permanent basis was also likely to have elicited significant criticism — especially given that it is not the first time Trump has explored choosing a fierce congressional ally for the job .
Trump previously nominated Rep. John Ratcliffe ( R-Texas ) to become national intelligence director in July , but Ratcliffe withdrew himself from consideration just five days later in the face of heavy scrutiny .
Ratcliffe previously served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern District of Texas , but had minimal experience in the intelligence community beyond his six-month tenure on the House Intelligence Committee .
Both Ratcliffe and Collins were vocal defenders of the president amid former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation and the House impeachment proceedings .
Whatever the motivation , Collins ’ demurral leaves Trump and the GOP back at square one in both positions .
Collins won ’ t take another job to avoid a head-on collision in the Republican primary with Loeffler , and Trump doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , either .
The latter would likely be better coming out of current or former military command ranks anyway , where a lifetime of service would count for greater credibility even if the candidate is a reliable clean-house sort of appointee .
In the Georgia primary , the situation is now all but unavoidable , and all the GOP and NRSC can do now is limit the fallout from it .
Update : Trump still sounds upbeat about his ODNI search : Looks like the White House was prepared for a rebuff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Was Trump just riffing ?
If true , then Collins got sandbagged .
Given that , he was remarkably ( and wisely ) polite about it .

… er, “pick somebody appropriate for that job.” It didn’t take Doug Collins long to shoot down a Donald Trump trial balloon that could have resolved an internecine fight over a Senate seat. Yesterday, Trump told reporters on Air Force One that he would make a decision soon on a permanent appointment for the director of national intelligence, and that Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) was a leading candidate:
During a flight on Air Force One late Thursday, Trump told reporters that he is considering the Republican congressman after it was revealed that his latest pick for acting director, Richard Grenell, would not fill the position permanently. Collins, the outgoing ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, was one of Trump’s closest allies in the House throughout the impeachment process. He will soon have to leave his leadership positions after announcing that he would be running for U.S. Senate in Georgia against the Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler.
“Congratulations to you,” Fox Business Network host Maria Bartiromo greeted Collins earlier this morning, “what an honor to have this distinction!” That turned into an awkward moment when Collins declined the honor:
Collins, in an interview on Fox Business Network, said he was humbled that Trump was considering him for the post of permanent director of national intelligence but that he was focused on his Senate campaign. “I know the problems of our intelligence community, but this is not a job that is of interest to me. At this time, it’s not one that I would accept,” the Georgia Republican said. “I’m sure the president will pick somebody appropriate for that job.”
Bartiromo seems to be pushing lightly for Collins to reconsider his position. She notes that Kelly Loeffler has the support of the governor (and maybe the president) for the Senate primary, and that the intelligence communities need a good housecleaning. Collins, however, refuses to budge on the issue, saying that he can do more from the Senate — and that Loeffler is too weak to guarantee the seat in November.
Is this spite, or is it a rational choice? Collins might not have been a slam dunk for the position, Politico notes:
The president’s proposal to install Collins as national intelligence director on a permanent basis was also likely to have elicited significant criticism — especially given that it is not the first time Trump has explored choosing a fierce congressional ally for the job. Trump previously nominated Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) to become national intelligence director in July, but Ratcliffe withdrew himself from consideration just five days later in the face of heavy scrutiny. Ratcliffe previously served as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Texas, but had minimal experience in the intelligence community beyond his six-month tenure on the House Intelligence Committee. Both Ratcliffe and Collins were vocal defenders of the president amid former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the House impeachment proceedings.
Whatever the motivation, Collins’ demurral leaves Trump and the GOP back at square one in both positions. Collins won’t take another job to avoid a head-on collision in the Republican primary with Loeffler, and Trump doesn’t have a leading candidate for the ODNI job now, either. The latter would likely be better coming out of current or former military command ranks anyway, where a lifetime of service would count for greater credibility even if the candidate is a reliable clean-house sort of appointee. In the Georgia primary, the situation is now all but unavoidable, and all the GOP and NRSC can do now is limit the fallout from it.
Update: Trump still sounds upbeat about his ODNI search:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230882784937267202
Looks like the White House was prepared for a rebuff.
Update: Or maybe not. Was Trump just riffing?
This may seem obvious now, but several people familiar tell me POTUS never discussed with Collins the potential of nominating him for DNI before telling reporters this on AF1 last night. Collins was just as surprised as everyone else https://t.co/Wi4xZMslUn — Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) February 21, 2020
If true, then Collins got sandbagged. Given that, he was remarkably (and wisely) polite about it.


hotair--2020-02-21--Politico: Dem donors retreating in the face of the fully operational Bernie death star, or something

Money talks ?
In this case , money walks .
Facing a socialist juggernaut in Bernie Sanders , traditional Democratic Party megadonors have begun to despair over what that portends for the November election .
That despair has turned into paralysis , Politico ’ s Maggie Severns reports , as the donors aren ’ t sure whether a concerted effort to stop Bernie might just make matters worse : Many think Sanders would make a poor general election candidate — but there is no big , burgeoning “ stop Sanders ” movement building in the wings , more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in interviews with POLITICO .
Most donors don ’ t want to risk damaging a candidate suddenly looking more and more likely to be the Democratic nominee against President Donald Trump .
What ’ s more , big Democratic donors realize that launching a well-funded super PAC attacking Sanders could just motivate his devoted base even further , boosting Sanders and alienating those voters from the rest of the Democratic Party .
It ’ s even possible that Sanders would raise more money off attacks against him than anti-Sanders donors were willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , big donors ’ money is suddenly no good here .
There ’ s a certain air of contradiction in these positions .
The megadonors don ’ t want to damage Sanders in case he ’ s their nominee , but … they ’ re also pretty sure he ’ s the wrong man to go up against Trump , too .
Does that make any sense ?
Severns does seem to capture that thought process accurately , however : “ It just doesn ’ t seem realistic to have Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be dragged down so easily by Trump and all his followers , ” said Susie Tompkins Buell , a Bay Area megadonor .
But Tompkins Buell , who is currently helping Buttigieg in the 2020 race , quickly dismissed the notion of donating money to try to knock Sanders off his perch atop the Democratic primary polls .
“ That ’ s not something I would do , ” Tompkins Buell said .
The big-money donors are apparently so worried about this that they ’ ve reportedly instructed Joe Biden ’ s super-PAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or for that matter any other Democrat .
They only want attack ads on Trump .
That ’ s a rather large ask for a group supposedly founded to help Biden win a primary , isn ’ t it ?
The point of a super-PAC is to allow a no-fingerprints strategy of negative ( or at least “ comparative ” ) messaging against other primary contenders , and Sanders is not just the biggest one now but even by these donors standards the most dangerous .
And now they want the super-PAC to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one political faction delighted .
No , not the Bernie Bros , who will see wheels within wheels to find some victimization angle on this ( “ They don ’ t take us seriously !
” or something ) .
Also at Politico , Alex Isenstadt reports that Team Trump and the GOP are having a “ field day ” with Bernie ’ s rise , especially in their campaign to win back the suburbs from Democrats : Republicans up and down the ballot are already casting their Democratic rivals as socialist puppets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ collectivist vision .
The play is straightforward : President Donald Trump has repelled college-educated suburban voters since he took office ; Republicans want to win them back by arguing the alternative is worse .
Arizona Sen. Martha McSally launched a TV ad titled “ Bernie Bro ” likening her Democratic opponent , retired astronaut Mark Kelly , to the Vermont senator .
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis held a press conference last week linking his Democratic rivals to the Sanders-backed Green New Deal .
In Michigan , a conservative group has aired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Sen. Gary Peters by invoking Sanders and his support for Medicare for All .
And in the wake of Sanders ’ New Hampshire primary win , the Republican State Leadership Committee , which focuses on state legislative races , has been running digital ads asking whether down-ballot Democrats in more than a half-dozen states are “ feeling burned yet ” — a take on the Sanders mantra , “ Feel the Bern.
” The early activity bolsters claims by Sanders ’ Democratic rivals that he would be a nightmare for Democrats on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not just “ claims.
” Both Gallup and Marist ( with NPR ) have fresh polls on the popularity of socialism among US voters , and the results are not pretty .
Gallup ’ s poll provided mainly a topline look at how voters would react to a presidential candidate identified as a socialist , showing that 53 % wouldn ’ t consider casting a vote for one .
That number increases to 56 % among independents , and in both cases are the least-popular candidate characteristic .
The NPR/Marist poll this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geographical demos and the popularity of socialism .
As I noted before Wednesday ’ s debate , those numbers are disastrous for Democrats if they put Bernie at the top of the ticket : Most importantly , though , [ socialism ] ’ s box-office poison among the voters that drove Democrats to a House majority in the midterms .
Socialism gets rated 29/56 among small-city voters , 27/61 in the suburbs , 25/60 in small towns , and rural voters dislike it the most at 18/71 .
Combining small city and suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the men and 29/51 among women .
For that matter , it ’ s 25/66 among all men and 31/51 among all women .
That has the potential of not just erasing small city/suburban gains for Democrats up and down the ballot , but also potentially reducing or entirely negating their gender-gap advantage , too .
… The clear impression left by this is that Donald Trump should benefit greatly from a Bernie Sanders nomination .
The more he can cast the 2020 election as a fight for capitalism against socialism , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats having to defend the outspoken socialist at the top of the ticket risk losing their House seats in the areas where they finally made inroads 16 months ago in the midterms .
That ’ s especially true while Trump gets a 54/41 approval rating on the economy ( 56/38 among independents ) , and 66 % of Americans say the economy is working well for them personally .
Two-thirds of Americans are not going to vote to upend their personal economies to support a socialist that pledges radical change once elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Death Star implode in such a fashion ?
One has to wonder whether they think that a second Trump term isn ’ t too high a price to pay to discredit the Bernie Bros in a national election .
At this rate , though , they ’ re also throwing in the towel on the House , Senate , and likely a number of state legislative seats too .
If they think an intervention will create more damage than that to the Democratic Party , then the Bernie Bros must really have @ @ @ @

Money talks? In this case, money walks. Facing a socialist juggernaut in Bernie Sanders, traditional Democratic Party megadonors have begun to despair over what that portends for the November election. That despair has turned into paralysis, Politico’s Maggie Severns reports, as the donors aren’t sure whether a concerted effort to stop Bernie might just make matters worse:
Many think Sanders would make a poor general election candidate — but there is no big, burgeoning “stop Sanders” movement building in the wings, more than a dozen major Democratic donors and operatives said in interviews with POLITICO. Most donors don’t want to risk damaging a candidate suddenly looking more and more likely to be the Democratic nominee against President Donald Trump. What’s more, big Democratic donors realize that launching a well-funded super PAC attacking Sanders could just motivate his devoted base even further, boosting Sanders and alienating those voters from the rest of the Democratic Party. It’s even possible that Sanders would raise more money off attacks against him than anti-Sanders donors were willing to spend in the first place. In other words, big donors’ money is suddenly no good here.
There’s a certain air of contradiction in these positions. The megadonors don’t want to damage Sanders in case he’s their nominee, but … they’re also pretty sure he’s the wrong man to go up against Trump, too. Does that make any sense? Severns does seem to capture that thought process accurately, however:
“It just doesn’t seem realistic to have Sanders as our nominee. He can just be dragged down so easily by Trump and all his followers,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a Bay Area megadonor. But Tompkins Buell, who is currently helping Buttigieg in the 2020 race, quickly dismissed the notion of donating money to try to knock Sanders off his perch atop the Democratic primary polls. “That’s not something I would do,” Tompkins Buell said.
The big-money donors are apparently so worried about this that they’ve reportedly instructed Joe Biden’s super-PAC not to go negative on Bernie, or for that matter any other Democrat. They only want attack ads on Trump. That’s a rather large ask for a group supposedly founded to help Biden win a primary, isn’t it? The point of a super-PAC is to allow a no-fingerprints strategy of negative (or at least “comparative”) messaging against other primary contenders, and Sanders is not just the biggest one now but even by these donors standards the most dangerous. And now they want the super-PAC to unilaterally disarm against Bernie?
That has one political faction delighted. No, not the Bernie Bros, who will see wheels within wheels to find some victimization angle on this (“They don’t take us seriously!” or something). Also at Politico, Alex Isenstadt reports that Team Trump and the GOP are having a “field day” with Bernie’s rise, especially in their campaign to win back the suburbs from Democrats:
Republicans up and down the ballot are already casting their Democratic rivals as socialist puppets who would remake the economy in Sanders’ collectivist vision. The play is straightforward: President Donald Trump has repelled college-educated suburban voters since he took office; Republicans want to win them back by arguing the alternative is worse. Arizona Sen. Martha McSally launched a TV ad titled “Bernie Bro” likening her Democratic opponent, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, to the Vermont senator. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis held a press conference last week linking his Democratic rivals to the Sanders-backed Green New Deal. In Michigan, a conservative group has aired a series of commercials that go after Democratic Sen. Gary Peters by invoking Sanders and his support for Medicare for All. And in the wake of Sanders’ New Hampshire primary win, the Republican State Leadership Committee, which focuses on state legislative races, has been running digital ads asking whether down-ballot Democrats in more than a half-dozen states are “feeling burned yet” — a take on the Sanders mantra, “Feel the Bern.” The early activity bolsters claims by Sanders’ Democratic rivals that he would be a nightmare for Democrats on the ballot next year.
It’s not just “claims.” Both Gallup and Marist (with NPR) have fresh polls on the popularity of socialism among US voters, and the results are not pretty. Gallup’s poll provided mainly a topline look at how voters would react to a presidential candidate identified as a socialist, showing that 53% wouldn’t consider casting a vote for one. That number increases to 56% among independents, and in both cases are the least-popular candidate characteristic.
The NPR/Marist poll this week is much more on point regarding geographical demos and the popularity of socialism. As I noted before Wednesday’s debate, those numbers are disastrous for Democrats if they put Bernie at the top of the ticket:
Most importantly, though, [socialism]’s box-office poison among the voters that drove Democrats to a House majority in the midterms. Socialism gets rated 29/56 among small-city voters, 27/61 in the suburbs, 25/60 in small towns, and rural voters dislike it the most at 18/71. Combining small city and suburban voters, it’s 26/65 among the men and 29/51 among women. For that matter, it’s 25/66 among all men and 31/51 among all women. That has the potential of not just erasing small city/suburban gains for Democrats up and down the ballot, but also potentially reducing or entirely negating their gender-gap advantage, too. … The clear impression left by this is that Donald Trump should benefit greatly from a Bernie Sanders nomination. The more he can cast the 2020 election as a fight for capitalism against socialism, the better edge he gains from the start. Democrats having to defend the outspoken socialist at the top of the ticket risk losing their House seats in the areas where they finally made inroads 16 months ago in the midterms. That’s especially true while Trump gets a 54/41 approval rating on the economy (56/38 among independents), and 66% of Americans say the economy is working well for them personally. Two-thirds of Americans are not going to vote to upend their personal economies to support a socialist that pledges radical change once elected.
Do Democratic megadonors want to see their Death Star implode in such a fashion? One has to wonder whether they think that a second Trump term isn’t too high a price to pay to discredit the Bernie Bros in a national election. At this rate, though, they’re also throwing in the towel on the House, Senate, and likely a number of state legislative seats too. If they think an intervention will create more damage than that to the Democratic Party, then the Bernie Bros must really have them running scared.


hotair--2020-02-21--The clock starts in Afghanistan: "Reduction in violence" pact now in effect

Is the end nigh for the US war in Afghanistan ?
As planned , the Taliban and the US have entered into a “ reduction of violence ” agreement as a sign of good faith in advance of a more comprehensive cease-fire .
In seven days , assuming both sides agree to whatever terms the “ reduction ” demands , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will launch a formal peace and reconciliation process between the warring factions within Afghanistan .
NBC News reports that Afghans of all political and tribal stripes have grown “ sick of fighting.
” We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be : A seven-day partial truce between Afghan , Taliban and American forces will begin Friday in Afghanistan , a senior state department official confirmed .
If that agreement holds , it would lead to the signing of a long-awaited , broader U.S.-Taliban agreement that could see U.S. troops withdraw from the country after 18 years of conflict .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed in a statement that the U.S. was “ preparing for the signing to take place on February 29.
” The reduction in violence is seen as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to end the conflict in Afghanistan , which is America ’ s longest war .
If properly implemented , a Taliban representative and U.S. Special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad will sign the U.S.-Taliban agreement in Doha later this month , a senior state department official said .
The “ reduction in violence ” might be the easy part .
That got a little more definition in the Washington Post today than had been reported earlier .
As assumed , it requires all sides to “ largely cease ” offensive operations against each other .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against other networks such as ISIS and al-Qaeda .
The Taliban won ’ t mind operations against ISIS at least , which is setting up as a competing faction , and they can ’ t really afford to protest against operations targeting AQ with a US exit so close at hand .
The next step would require the Taliban to negotiate with a government it refuses to recognize as a legitimate authority .
The best they ’ re willing to concede at the moment is to talk to them as “ ordinary Afghans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s still not clear who will represent Kabul at the negotiation table for the intra-Afghan talks , considered a key pillar in finding a lasting peace in the war-torn country .
The Afghan election commission earlier this week declared President Ashraf Ghani the winner of the presidential elections held in September but his rivals quickly denounced his win .
The Taliban have refused to talk to Ghani ’ s government and also denounced the election results , saying they will talk to government representatives but only as ordinary Afghans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who would participate in the intra-Afghan negotiations from Kabul , saying only that “ ’ intra-Afghan negotiations will start soon ” after the signing in Doha “ and will build on this fundamental step to deliver a comprehensive and permanent cease-fire and the future political road map for Afghanistan.
” With Donald Trump clearly wanting an exit ramp for US involvement in Afghanistan , this will likely be a secondary concern for the White House at best .
The Afghans will have to eventually figure out who runs their country , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get decided at the point of a gun .
No one can seriously believe that the Pashtuns and their radical-Islam Taliban leadership have turned into small-D democrats in the past few months of negotiations .
When the US ( and NATO ) clear out for good , the Pashtuns will again try to take power by force , and everyone knows it .
That ’ s one reason why it doesn ’ t make much difference who sits on the other side of the table — only that they have the weapons to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carefully .
The US only has two strategic considerations left in Afghanistan .
The first is to leave in a period of peace in order to maintain credibility elsewhere , and the second is to make sure that terror networks don ’ t use Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks against the US .
The Taliban apparently want to make sure the US has both , at least rhetorically , as an incentive to get us out of the country : “ Both parties will now create a suitable security situation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invitations to senior representatives of numerous countries and organizations to participate in the signing ceremony , make arrangements for the release of prisoners , structure a path for intra-Afghan negotiations with various political parties of the country and finally lay the groundwork for peace across the country with the withdrawal of all foreign forces , ” the Taliban said in a statement Friday .
The Taliban added that they will not allow “ the land of Afghanistan to be used against security of others so that our people can live a peaceful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Islamic system.
” Yes , we all recall the heady days of peace and prosperity under the previous Taliban regime , don ’ t we ?
If the Taliban takes that pledge seriously against allowing outside terror groups to base themselves in the country , then the US has its key strategic victory .
But even if they are serious about that pledge , it seems very difficult to see how the Taliban or even the broader Afghan government can deliver on it .
Even in a full and enduring cease-fire , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan will mean large security gaps in a country that barely qualifies as such , let alone a coherent nation .
And if those turf conflicts go back into a civil war , the Taliban will undoubtedly and cheerfully accept the assistance of outside radical Islamist terror networks to win it .
Perhaps the lessons from 19 years of occupation might have them think twice .
It didn ’ t after the Soviets pulled out , however , and they were a lot closer and logistically capable of punishment than the US will @ @

Is the end nigh for the US war in Afghanistan? As planned, the Taliban and the US have entered into a “reduction of violence” agreement as a sign of good faith in advance of a more comprehensive cease-fire. In seven days, assuming both sides agree to whatever terms the “reduction” demands, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will launch a formal peace and reconciliation process between the warring factions within Afghanistan.
NBC News reports that Afghans of all political and tribal stripes have grown “sick of fighting.” We’ll soon see just how true that might be:
A seven-day partial truce between Afghan, Taliban and American forces will begin Friday in Afghanistan, a senior state department official confirmed. If that agreement holds, it would lead to the signing of a long-awaited, broader U.S.-Taliban agreement that could see U.S. troops withdraw from the country after 18 years of conflict. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed in a statement that the U.S. was “preparing for the signing to take place on February 29.” The reduction in violence is seen as a test of the Taliban’s resolve to end the conflict in Afghanistan, which is America’s longest war. If properly implemented, a Taliban representative and U.S. Special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad will sign the U.S.-Taliban agreement in Doha later this month, a senior state department official said.
The “reduction in violence” might be the easy part. That got a little more definition in the Washington Post today than had been reported earlier. As assumed, it requires all sides to “largely cease” offensive operations against each other. The US can still conduct counterterrorism operations against other networks such as ISIS and al-Qaeda. The Taliban won’t mind operations against ISIS at least, which is setting up as a competing faction, and they can’t really afford to protest against operations targeting AQ with a US exit so close at hand.
The next step would require the Taliban to negotiate with a government it refuses to recognize as a legitimate authority. The best they’re willing to concede at the moment is to talk to them as “ordinary Afghans,” according to the Associated Press:
It’s still not clear who will represent Kabul at the negotiation table for the intra-Afghan talks, considered a key pillar in finding a lasting peace in the war-torn country. The Afghan election commission earlier this week declared President Ashraf Ghani the winner of the presidential elections held in September but his rivals quickly denounced his win. The Taliban have refused to talk to Ghani’s government and also denounced the election results, saying they will talk to government representatives but only as ordinary Afghans. Pompeo’s statement did not say who would participate in the intra-Afghan negotiations from Kabul, saying only that “’intra-Afghan negotiations will start soon” after the signing in Doha “and will build on this fundamental step to deliver a comprehensive and permanent cease-fire and the future political road map for Afghanistan.”
With Donald Trump clearly wanting an exit ramp for US involvement in Afghanistan, this will likely be a secondary concern for the White House at best. The Afghans will have to eventually figure out who runs their country, and as is their history, it will likely get decided at the point of a gun. No one can seriously believe that the Pashtuns and their radical-Islam Taliban leadership have turned into small-D democrats in the past few months of negotiations. When the US (and NATO) clear out for good, the Pashtuns will again try to take power by force, and everyone knows it. That’s one reason why it doesn’t make much difference who sits on the other side of the table — only that they have the weapons to make the Taliban consider their next moves carefully.
The US only has two strategic considerations left in Afghanistan. The first is to leave in a period of peace in order to maintain credibility elsewhere, and the second is to make sure that terror networks don’t use Afghanistan as a launching pad for attacks against the US. The Taliban apparently want to make sure the US has both, at least rhetorically, as an incentive to get us out of the country:
“Both parties will now create a suitable security situation in advance of agreement signing date, extend invitations to senior representatives of numerous countries and organizations to participate in the signing ceremony, make arrangements for the release of prisoners, structure a path for intra-Afghan negotiations with various political parties of the country and finally lay the groundwork for peace across the country with the withdrawal of all foreign forces,” the Taliban said in a statement Friday. The Taliban added that they will not allow “the land of Afghanistan to be used against security of others so that our people can live a peaceful and prosperous life under the shade of an Islamic system.”
Yes, we all recall the heady days of peace and prosperity under the previous Taliban regime, don’t we?
If the Taliban takes that pledge seriously against allowing outside terror groups to base themselves in the country, then the US has its key strategic victory. But even if they are serious about that pledge, it seems very difficult to see how the Taliban or even the broader Afghan government can deliver on it. Even in a full and enduring cease-fire, the turf conflicts that will arise in tribal Afghanistan will mean large security gaps in a country that barely qualifies as such, let alone a coherent nation. And if those turf conflicts go back into a civil war, the Taliban will undoubtedly and cheerfully accept the assistance of outside radical Islamist terror networks to win it.
Perhaps the lessons from 19 years of occupation might have them think twice. It didn’t after the Soviets pulled out, however, and they were a lot closer and logistically capable of punishment than the US will be.


hotair--2020-02-21--Baltimore Democrats don't want Larry Hogan to rein in gun violence

It ’ s no secret that the city of Baltimore , Maryland is in the middle of a violent crime crisis and has been for several years now .
2019 saw a new record in the per capita murder rate and 2020 isn ’ t starting off any better , with the city averaging more than one murder per day .
Governor Larry Hogan has promised to do something about it and this month he unveiled a new crime bill that would finally toughen up penalties for gun crimes and close the revolving door of gang members parading in and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats in the legislature done about it ?
They ’ re preparing to shoot it down , of course .
And the interim mayor of Charm City is backing them up .
( CBS Baltimore ) Citing their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences , Democrats in the Maryland General Assembly say they are unlikely to pass Gov .
Larry Hogan ’ s top priority this session ― the Violent Firearms Offender Act ― infuriating the governor who alleges lawmakers aren ’ t taking shootings in Baltimore seriously .
In an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that lawmakers who don ’ t support his legislation are out of touch with the views of most Marylanders and should step down from their leadership posts .
On a table in his office at the State House , he spread out his internal polling results that show residents overwhelmingly want “ tougher sentences for violent offenders who commit crimes with guns.
” Democrats in the Assembly are saying that bill won ’ t even make it out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee , so there won ’ t be a chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their objections are based on the removal of judicial discretion for a number of gun crimes in favor of mandatory minimum sentences .
But judicial discretion is a large part of the reason the city is dealing with a murder rate that ’ s worse than you would find in some war zones .
The Democrats are also arguing that the city of Baltimore already passed tougher gun laws two years ago , but they ’ ve done nothing to stem the violence .
That ’ s a disingenuous argument , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in certain parts of the city and provided only one year in jail for illegal possession of a firearm .
That was an improvement over the previous average of six months ( ! )
but it ’ s still a laughably short stretch for most of the hardened gang members .
The same Democrats are arguing that what Baltimore really needs is better enforcement of existing laws .
They note that police only made 20,000 arrests in 2019 compared to an annual average of 100,000 when Martin O ’ Malley was the mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has fallen to just 32 % .
But why not do both ?
The Baltimore PD released data showing that the average homicide suspect arrested in Baltimore has eight previous arrests .
They don ’ t have the resources to closely monitor all of the violent criminals who are out on parole , so the same shooters wind up being arrested over and over again .
They believe that fewer than 100 gang members are responsible for the lion ’ s share of the murders in the city , but they can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recent poll commissioned by the Governor ’ s office showed that 85 % of residents were in favor of tougher sentencing guidelines for gun crimes .
But somehow the Democrats they keep electing to the state legislature aren ’ t listening to them .
If you can ’ t hold your elected officials to account , they ’ re not going to take violent criminals to task .
So why do you keep sending these people back to office year after year ?
The Governor ’ s crime bill won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it would certainly get some of the worst offenders off the streets and keep them there for longer .
It would be a solid start if nothing else .
The fact that the Democrats are willing to flush the effort without even having a full debate is a disgrace .

It’s no secret that the city of Baltimore, Maryland is in the middle of a violent crime crisis and has been for several years now. 2019 saw a new record in the per capita murder rate and 2020 isn’t starting off any better, with the city averaging more than one murder per day. Governor Larry Hogan has promised to do something about it and this month he unveiled a new crime bill that would finally toughen up penalties for gun crimes and close the revolving door of gang members parading in and out of jail.
So what have the Democrats in the legislature done about it? They’re preparing to shoot it down, of course. And the interim mayor of Charm City is backing them up. (CBS Baltimore)
Citing their opposition to mandatory minimum sentences, Democrats in the Maryland General Assembly say they are unlikely to pass Gov. Larry Hogan’s top priority this session ― the Violent Firearms Offender Act ― infuriating the governor who alleges lawmakers aren’t taking shootings in Baltimore seriously. In an interview with The Baltimore Sun on Wednesday, Hogan argued that lawmakers who don’t support his legislation are out of touch with the views of most Marylanders and should step down from their leadership posts. On a table in his office at the State House, he spread out his internal polling results that show residents overwhelmingly want “tougher sentences for violent offenders who commit crimes with guns.”
Democrats in the Assembly are saying that bill won’t even make it out of the Judicial Proceedings Committee, so there won’t be a chance of a full floor vote or debate. Their objections are based on the removal of judicial discretion for a number of gun crimes in favor of mandatory minimum sentences. But judicial discretion is a large part of the reason the city is dealing with a murder rate that’s worse than you would find in some war zones.
The Democrats are also arguing that the city of Baltimore already passed tougher gun laws two years ago, but they’ve done nothing to stem the violence. That’s a disingenuous argument, however, because the new law only applied in certain parts of the city and provided only one year in jail for illegal possession of a firearm. That was an improvement over the previous average of six months (!) but it’s still a laughably short stretch for most of the hardened gang members.
The same Democrats are arguing that what Baltimore really needs is better enforcement of existing laws. They note that police only made 20,000 arrests in 2019 compared to an annual average of 100,000 when Martin O’Malley was the mayor. Also, the homicide clearance rate has fallen to just 32%. But why not do both?
The Baltimore PD released data showing that the average homicide suspect arrested in Baltimore has eight previous arrests. They don’t have the resources to closely monitor all of the violent criminals who are out on parole, so the same shooters wind up being arrested over and over again. They believe that fewer than 100 gang members are responsible for the lion’s share of the murders in the city, but they can’t keep them off the streets.
A recent poll commissioned by the Governor’s office showed that 85% of residents were in favor of tougher sentencing guidelines for gun crimes. But somehow the Democrats they keep electing to the state legislature aren’t listening to them. If you can’t hold your elected officials to account, they’re not going to take violent criminals to task. So why do you keep sending these people back to office year after year?
The Governor’s crime bill won’t end gang violence in Charm City entirely, but it would certainly get some of the worst offenders off the streets and keep them there for longer. It would be a solid start if nothing else. The fact that the Democrats are willing to flush the effort without even having a full debate is a disgrace.


hotair--2020-02-21--Bay Area balks: No to working with elite Border Patrol and ICE raids

Last week , the Trump administration announced that 100 agents from Border Patrol ’ s highly trained BORTAC teams will embed with ICE agents across the country targeting sanctuary cities .
The tactical agents will assist ICE with routine operations and help alleviate resource shortages where needed .
As first reported in the New York Times , this is an effort being pursued by the Trump administration to battle cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE .
BORTAC is essentially the SWAT team of the Border Patrol agents , currently serving on the southern border .
Lawrence Payne , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that the agency was deploying 100 officers to work with ICE , which conducts arrests in the interior of the country , “ in order to enhance the integrity of the immigration system , protect public safety , and strengthen our national security.
” The deployment of the teams will run from February through May , according to an email sent to C.B.P .
personnel , which was read to The New York Times by one official familiar with the planning .
Among the agents being deployed to sanctuary cities are members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BORTAC , which acts essentially as the SWAT team of the Border Patrol .
With additional gear such as stun grenades and enhanced Special Forces-type training , including sniper certification , the officers typically conduct high-risk operations targeting individuals who are known to be violent , many of them with extensive criminal records .
Some cities are quietly acting as sanctuary cities while others are loud and proud about being sanctuary cities and refusing to work with ICE .
Local sheriffs and law enforcement just refuse to cooperate when arrests are made of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local authorities refusing to cooperate is Paul Miyamoto , California ’ s first Asian American sheriff .
He ’ s new on the job ( since Jan. 8 ) and wants to get on the record as being opposed to the Trump administration ’ s operation .
He said his officers won ’ t help deport illegal aliens .
“ Our department is not involved in immigration enforcement , ” he told KTVU2 .
“ We feel that it is a federal matter , and our realm of interest is public safety , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safe community if the community members are afraid to come to us to report crimes.
” He added that he ’ s not aware of the city ever turning someone in custody over to federal authorities and that he ’ s not starting now .
Mayor London Breed is in agreement , citing security concerns .
That ’ s ironic given that ICE is working to remove those here illegally who commit crimes , thus security concerns for others living in these cities .
San Francisco has won three lawsuits against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary laws .
Local activists conflate a desire for the rule of law to be carried out and protecting Californians with racism and white nationalism .
Because of course , they do .
A former police commissioner delivers that nugget of nonsense .
On Friday , Acting ICE Director Matt Albence was interviewed on Fox and Friends and addressed this defiance .
He used Orange County as an example .
“ All we ’ re asking them for is information .
Share that information so that we can go out and enforce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uphold , ” Albence said on “ Fox & Friends.
” Albence said that in Orange County , the recidivism rate is more than 20 % for the criminal illegal immigrants that he ’ s had to release as a result of California ’ s S.B .
54 , also known as the “ California Value ’ s Act.
” “ It ’ s a clear public safety threat to turn people out back to the street to re-offend and most of the time , they go back to these very same communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Frankly , this is ICE ’ s job .
The agency is charged with immigration and customs enforcement under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security .
It ’ s a no-brainer to remove illegal aliens who pose a danger to communities before they hurt someone else .
The open-borders crowd , however , continues to fight logical thought on this issue .
There is no right to live in the United States if a person is not a citizen , it is a privilege and those here illegally take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We need to look no further than Democrats running for president to see those calling for the abolition of ICE and deporting criminal illegal aliens .
The need for additional resources to enforce the law within sanctuary cities is real .
ICE has 5,300 enforcement officers nationwide .
The number of immigrants with “ non-detained ” cases living in the United States has surpassed 3.2 million .
The elite force has the resources to get the job done .
We ’ ll see how effective this operation is as it is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Houston , one of the cities being targeted , the mayor claims that the city isn ’ t a sanctuary city .
That is malarky and an immigration attorney admits as much as she is quoted in a local interview .
Just as the officials in San Francisco , she says the issue is security and the states should overrule federal law .
Ral Obioha , an immigration lawyer in Houston said the move is nothing more than a fear tactic .
She said , “ Houston per say is not a sanctuary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community police and law enforcement does not cooperate with federal agencies such as ICE and as such that ’ s why Houston has been targeted at this point.
” In addition , Obioha said it encroaches on state rights .
“ While immigration law is federal law , security is state , within the power of the state .
If this is allowed it ’ s going to set precedent for more and more invasive procedures and physically forceful apprehensions that basically violate state law , ” Obioha said .
Houston ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their opinions of Trump ’ s initiatives at the border and on working with ICE .
Let ’ s just say they aren ’ t supportive .

Last week, the Trump administration announced that 100 agents from Border Patrol’s highly trained BORTAC teams will embed with ICE agents across the country targeting sanctuary cities. The tactical agents will assist ICE with routine operations and help alleviate resource shortages where needed.
As first reported in the New York Times, this is an effort being pursued by the Trump administration to battle cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE. BORTAC is essentially the SWAT team of the Border Patrol agents, currently serving on the southern border.
Lawrence Payne, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, confirmed that the agency was deploying 100 officers to work with ICE, which conducts arrests in the interior of the country, “in order to enhance the integrity of the immigration system, protect public safety, and strengthen our national security.” The deployment of the teams will run from February through May, according to an email sent to C.B.P. personnel, which was read to The New York Times by one official familiar with the planning. Among the agents being deployed to sanctuary cities are members of the elite tactical unit known as BORTAC, which acts essentially as the SWAT team of the Border Patrol. With additional gear such as stun grenades and enhanced Special Forces-type training, including sniper certification, the officers typically conduct high-risk operations targeting individuals who are known to be violent, many of them with extensive criminal records.
Some cities are quietly acting as sanctuary cities while others are loud and proud about being sanctuary cities and refusing to work with ICE. Local sheriffs and law enforcement just refuse to cooperate when arrests are made of illegal aliens. The latest example of local authorities refusing to cooperate is Paul Miyamoto, California’s first Asian American sheriff. He’s new on the job (since Jan. 8) and wants to get on the record as being opposed to the Trump administration’s operation. He said his officers won’t help deport illegal aliens.
“Our department is not involved in immigration enforcement,” he told KTVU2. “We feel that it is a federal matter, and our realm of interest is public safety, and you can’t really have a safe community if the community members are afraid to come to us to report crimes.” He added that he’s not aware of the city ever turning someone in custody over to federal authorities and that he’s not starting now.
Mayor London Breed is in agreement, citing security concerns. That’s ironic given that ICE is working to remove those here illegally who commit crimes, thus security concerns for others living in these cities.
The city’s elected leaders will “continue to support our immigrant community and stand up for our city and we’re putting resources toward accomplishing that goal,” Breed said. “We’re being targeted on so many levels,” she added. “But, the fact is, we’re a strong city, we’re a resilient city and we will fight against those attacks and we will protect the people of this city.”
San Francisco has won three lawsuits against the government between 2017 and 2019, protecting sanctuary laws. Local activists conflate a desire for the rule of law to be carried out and protecting Californians with racism and white nationalism. Because of course, they do. A former police commissioner delivers that nugget of nonsense.
“The Board of Supervisors, and even to some extent the Mayor’s Office, has been more unified in defending sanctuary because there’s this clear outside threat that is absolutely racist, anti-immigrant and engaging in white nationalism,” said Angela Chan, a former police commissioner and a criminal justice attorney at Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
On Friday, Acting ICE Director Matt Albence was interviewed on Fox and Friends and addressed this defiance. He used Orange County as an example.
“All we’re asking them for is information. Share that information so that we can go out and enforce the federal laws that we are sworn to uphold,” Albence said on “Fox & Friends.” Albence said that in Orange County, the recidivism rate is more than 20% for the criminal illegal immigrants that he’s had to release as a result of California’s S.B. 54, also known as the “California Value’s Act.” “It’s a clear public safety threat to turn people out back to the street to re-offend and most of the time, they go back to these very same communities and commit these crimes,” Albence said.
Frankly, this is ICE’s job. The agency is charged with immigration and customs enforcement under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. It’s a no-brainer to remove illegal aliens who pose a danger to communities before they hurt someone else. The open-borders crowd, however, continues to fight logical thought on this issue. There is no right to live in the United States if a person is not a citizen, it is a privilege and those here illegally take advantage of our country’s generosity. We need to look no further than Democrats running for president to see those calling for the abolition of ICE and deporting criminal illegal aliens.
The need for additional resources to enforce the law within sanctuary cities is real. ICE has 5,300 enforcement officers nationwide. The number of immigrants with “non-detained” cases living in the United States has surpassed 3.2 million. The elite force has the resources to get the job done. We’ll see how effective this operation is as it is only supposed to run through May.
In Houston, one of the cities being targeted, the mayor claims that the city isn’t a sanctuary city. That is malarky and an immigration attorney admits as much as she is quoted in a local interview. Just as the officials in San Francisco, she says the issue is security and the states should overrule federal law.
Ral Obioha, an immigration lawyer in Houston said the move is nothing more than a fear tactic. She said, “Houston per say is not a sanctuary city however I know that the Houston community police and law enforcement does not cooperate with federal agencies such as ICE and as such that’s why Houston has been targeted at this point.” In addition, Obioha said it encroaches on state rights. “While immigration law is federal law, security is state, within the power of the state. If this is allowed it’s going to set precedent for more and more invasive procedures and physically forceful apprehensions that basically violate state law,” Obioha said.
Houston’s mayor and sheriff have been quite local in their opinions of Trump’s initiatives at the border and on working with ICE. Let’s just say they aren’t supportive.
In response to reports that the White House has deployed special forces into “sanctuary cities.” Mayor @SylvesterTurner 👇🏾 https://t.co/Un5KbRXqCW — Mary Benton (@IAmMaryBenton) February 20, 2020
Wink, wink. Nod, nod.


hotair--2020-02-22--Biden scores endorsement of a House impeachment manager

Rep. Sylvia Garcia , a 69-year-old freshman congresswoman from Houston , has cemented her place on Team Biden .
She endorsed the former vice-president Wednesday .
Up until the circus came to town by way of the Senate impeachment trial , Garcia was just another freshman back-bencher .
She was plucked from obscurity by Speaker Pelosi when she was named a House impeachment manager .
At the time Garcia seemed an odd choice but then Pelosi ’ s thinking became clear – Garcia and another freshman , Rep. Jason Crow , were chosen because Pelosi ’ s top priority was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both geographic and in demographics .
The Democrats really want to flip Texas in 2020 and they need to secure Colorado , Crow ’ s state , as a blue state .
Here ’ s a little background on her – Sylvia Garcia is one of the first two Latina congresswomen from Texas .
She has a resume that qualified her to be an impeachment manager but not the years of experience as some of the others in the House .
She ’ s an attorney and former state senator , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former Houston Mayor Kathryn Whitmire appointed Garcia as presiding judge of the Houston Municipal System .
She served for an unprecedented five terms under two mayors .
Garcia was elected to Harris County Commissioner ’ s Court in 2002 , the first woman and first Latina elected to that post .
So , she had plenty of local and state experience in Texas .
She currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee .
Identity politics trumps all else in today ’ s Democrat Party .
Garcia had a reputation as a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various positions in Houston and then when she served in the Texas Senate .
Her election in her Congressional district on the east side of Houston wasn ’ t a surprise .
It has been a bit of a surprise , though , for many of us observing her transition from the state government to the Washington swamp .
She ’ s acclimated rather effortlessly it seems .
I ’ ve had several conversations with Houstonians about Garcia ’ s willingness to be under the thumb of Speaker Pelosi .
Whether it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the State of the Union addresses or to stand behind Pelosi and nod in approval at the appropriate times , Garcia is a willing participant .
The Texas primary is coming up soon – Super Tuesday is March 3 and that is when Texas votes .
Garcia announced her endorsement of Biden on Wednesday , the day of the Las Vegas debate .
Clearly she wanted to get her endorsement on the record as a way to garner attention and show her support at the same time .
The endorsement , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t tout her role in Trump ’ s impeachment .
Why ?
Because Texas Independent voters didn ’ t support the impeachment .
Democrats can ’ t turn Texas into a blue state without Independent voters and some disenfranchised Republicans , too .
She is an important endorsement for the Hispanic vote in Texas .
The Biden campaign did acknowledge her membership in the Hispanic Caucus .
The Castro twins support Elizabeth Warren .
Another Hispanic public official , Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo , endorsed Warren this week .
The battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas .
Team Biden must be panicked that Bernie Sanders leads the Real Clear Politics average in Texas by 2.5 points .
Biden , who once had a solid lead in Texas , is now in second place with Elizabeth Warren in third place .
Garcia comes from humble beginnings .
She ’ s the eighth of 10 children in a Mexican-American family .
She played to the Lunch Bucket Joe crowd when she announced her support .
“ As the eighth of 10 children who grew up poor in rural South Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to pick cotton under the hot Texas sun .
I know what it ’ s like to eat commodity cheese and peanut butter because my family couldn ’ t afford anything else .
And I know what it ’ s like to wait in line for hours at a welfare health clinic to get a shot because my family didn ’ t have health insurance , ” Garcia said in a statement announcing her support for Biden .
“ My parents always taught me that with hard work , a good education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could accomplish anything .
I wish it were still that way today .
“ Our current President has made so many promises to hard working Americans that he has failed to deliver on .
The American dream is slipping further and further away for many families and leaving behind many children .
Vice President Biden has never forgotten his roots and has worked to deliver on the issues that hard working families care about from his time on City Council , all the way to the Senate and the White House .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to affordable health care , and economic opportunities are essential in creating a pathway to the middle-class .
I know as president he will ensure that no one is left behind — and that ’ s why I ’ m proud to endorse him for President.
” Garcia sounds like Speaker Pelosi in her statement , doesn ’ t she ?
She says President Trump “ has failed to deliver on ” campaign promises made to the middle class yet all economic indicators prove her wrong .
Employment is at record levels across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , minorities , women , and young people .
There are endless feel-good stories from middle-class families about the benefits they ’ ve seen from Trump ’ s tax cuts .
Joe Biden wants to go back to the bad old days of the status quo of higher taxes and fewer opportunities for those looking for work .
Pelosi made an appearance with Garcia Friday in Houston .
Garcia led a roundtable discussion with local officials and industry leaders at the Port of Houston Authority .
It was the first time in ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Houston .
The infrastructure plan she touts isn ’ t in the form of a bill yet , though , and Pelosi gave no indication when the House would present it for consideration .
In other words , it was a nice photo-op for Democrats to look as though they are working to support the largest port on the Gulf Coast with ideas about infrastructure .
Flashbacks to shovel-ready jobs promise from Biden and Obama , anyone ?

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, a 69-year-old freshman congresswoman from Houston, has cemented her place on Team Biden. She endorsed the former vice-president Wednesday.
Up until the circus came to town by way of the Senate impeachment trial, Garcia was just another freshman back-bencher. She was plucked from obscurity by Speaker Pelosi when she was named a House impeachment manager. At the time Garcia seemed an odd choice but then Pelosi’s thinking became clear – Garcia and another freshman, Rep. Jason Crow, were chosen because Pelosi’s top priority was to choose a team that spotlighted diversity, both geographic and in demographics. The Democrats really want to flip Texas in 2020 and they need to secure Colorado, Crow’s state, as a blue state.
Here’s a little background on her – Sylvia Garcia is one of the first two Latina congresswomen from Texas. She has a resume that qualified her to be an impeachment manager but not the years of experience as some of the others in the House. She’s an attorney and former state senator, as well as a former Houston city controller. Former Houston Mayor Kathryn Whitmire appointed Garcia as presiding judge of the Houston Municipal System. She served for an unprecedented five terms under two mayors. Garcia was elected to Harris County Commissioner’s Court in 2002, the first woman and first Latina elected to that post. So, she had plenty of local and state experience in Texas. She currently serves on the House Judiciary Committee.
Identity politics trumps all else in today’s Democrat Party. Garcia had a reputation as a more moderate Democrat when she served in the various positions in Houston and then when she served in the Texas Senate. Her election in her Congressional district on the east side of Houston wasn’t a surprise. It has been a bit of a surprise, though, for many of us observing her transition from the state government to the Washington swamp. She’s acclimated rather effortlessly it seems. I’ve had several conversations with Houstonians about Garcia’s willingness to be under the thumb of Speaker Pelosi. Whether it is obeying the order to wear white clothing to the State of the Union addresses or to stand behind Pelosi and nod in approval at the appropriate times, Garcia is a willing participant.
The Texas primary is coming up soon – Super Tuesday is March 3 and that is when Texas votes. Garcia announced her endorsement of Biden on Wednesday, the day of the Las Vegas debate. Clearly she wanted to get her endorsement on the record as a way to garner attention and show her support at the same time. The endorsement, when acknowledged by the Biden campaign, didn’t tout her role in Trump’s impeachment. Why? Because Texas Independent voters didn’t support the impeachment. Democrats can’t turn Texas into a blue state without Independent voters and some disenfranchised Republicans, too. She is an important endorsement for the Hispanic vote in Texas. The Biden campaign did acknowledge her membership in the Hispanic Caucus.
That makes six Texas Democrats in Congress who support Biden for president, out of 13. The list includes two other Hispanic caucus members, South Texan Reps. Filemon Vela and Vicente Gonzalez, and three members of the Congressional Black Caucus whose districts include Dallas and Fort Worth: Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Colin Allred and Marc Veasey. Biden also touts backing from Texas’ Tejano Democrats and Hispanic state lawmakers such as Dallas’ Rafael Anchia, chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus.
The Castro twins support Elizabeth Warren. Another Hispanic public official, Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, endorsed Warren this week. The battle is on for the Hispanic vote in Texas. Team Biden must be panicked that Bernie Sanders leads the Real Clear Politics average in Texas by 2.5 points. Biden, who once had a solid lead in Texas, is now in second place with Elizabeth Warren in third place.
Garcia comes from humble beginnings. She’s the eighth of 10 children in a Mexican-American family. She played to the Lunch Bucket Joe crowd when she announced her support.
“As the eighth of 10 children who grew up poor in rural South Texas, I know what it’s like to pick cotton under the hot Texas sun. I know what it’s like to eat commodity cheese and peanut butter because my family couldn’t afford anything else. And I know what it’s like to wait in line for hours at a welfare health clinic to get a shot because my family didn’t have health insurance,” Garcia said in a statement announcing her support for Biden. “My parents always taught me that with hard work, a good education, and faith in God, I could accomplish anything. I wish it were still that way today. “Our current President has made so many promises to hard working Americans that he has failed to deliver on. The American dream is slipping further and further away for many families and leaving behind many children. Vice President Biden has never forgotten his roots and has worked to deliver on the issues that hard working families care about from his time on City Council, all the way to the Senate and the White House. He understands that a quality education, access to affordable health care, and economic opportunities are essential in creating a pathway to the middle-class. I know as president he will ensure that no one is left behind — and that’s why I’m proud to endorse him for President.”
Garcia sounds like Speaker Pelosi in her statement, doesn’t she? She says President Trump “has failed to deliver on” campaign promises made to the middle class yet all economic indicators prove her wrong. Employment is at record levels across the board – for the middle-class worker, minorities, women, and young people. There are endless feel-good stories from middle-class families about the benefits they’ve seen from Trump’s tax cuts. Joe Biden wants to go back to the bad old days of the status quo of higher taxes and fewer opportunities for those looking for work.
Pelosi made an appearance with Garcia Friday in Houston. Garcia led a roundtable discussion with local officials and industry leaders at the Port of Houston Authority. It was the first time in ten years that Pelosi has visited that area of Houston. The infrastructure plan she touts isn’t in the form of a bill yet, though, and Pelosi gave no indication when the House would present it for consideration. In other words, it was a nice photo-op for Democrats to look as though they are working to support the largest port on the Gulf Coast with ideas about infrastructure.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday said she sees potential for Republican support on parts of Congressional Democrats’ $760 billion infrastructure package related to flood control and speeding up Army Corps of Engineers projects. “Historically, infrastructure has been a bipartisan issue. Really, the communities come together,” Pelosi told reporters after a roundtable with local officials and industry leaders at the Port of Houston Authority. “That gives us a real opportunity to move forward because, just to use an expression, when we decide on a project that’s going to get resources, we want dirt to fly. We want it to happen.”
Port Houston Commission, leadership and staff welcome U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi with U.S. House Reps Sylvia Garcia and Sheila Jackson Lee for #infrastructure roundtable. #Houston #PortHOU pic.twitter.com/GTAYD7IGlY — Port Houston (@Port_Houston) February 21, 2020
Flashbacks to shovel-ready jobs promise from Biden and Obama, anyone?
The @Port_Houston is important to our regional economy. Proud that @SpeakerPelosi joined us to learn more about the role the Port of Houston Authority plays in trade and how the #MovingForward Infrastructure bill will help it remain a leader in trade for the next century. pic.twitter.com/9zHg2FTOJr — Rep. Sylvia Garcia (@RepSylviaGarcia) February 21, 2020


hotair--2020-02-22--Joe Biden somehow under the impression that he was once arrested in South Africa while trying to mee

Joe Biden somehow under the impression that he was once arrested in South Africa while trying to meet Mandela

With any other politician I ’ d assume this was a deliberate lie , concocted in bad faith to ingratiate him to black voters in South Carolina .
But with Joe sinking further into senescence by the day , it may be that he really has convinced himself that he was once hauled in by Soweto police .
A third , non-negligible possibility : He ’ s right and somehow the NYT missed the archival records of his arrest .
That ’ s unlikely , but the “ Corn Pop ” story being true was also unlikely .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 11 , the same day of the New Hampshire primary .
You ’ ll recall that he ditched NH that afternoon before the votes were counted , knowing how badly he was destined to do , and flew down south in order to remind the media that his “ firewall ” state was still ahead on the calendar .
Watch 45 seconds or so from where the clip below picks up : Quite a story .
Not only did Biden and the U.S. ambassador to the UN ( ? )
get arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nelson Mandela in prison , Mandela himself knew enough about the attempt to mention it to Biden when they finally met years later in Washington .
“ I said , ‘ What are you thanking me for , Mr. President ?
’ He said , ‘ You tried to see me .
You got arrested trying to see me , ' ” per Biden ’ s latest retelling of the story a few days ago in Vegas , as quoted by the Times .
Just one problem : No one remembers hearing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own arrest twice more in the next seven days , including at a campaign stop here on Tuesday where he spoke of getting arrested in South Africa between efforts to coax his wife to marry him .
That proposal occurred in 1977 , both Bidens have said… Andrew Young , a former congressman and mayor of Atlanta who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 1977 to 1979 , said that he had traveled with Mr. Biden over the years , including to South Africa .
But Mr. Young said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Africa and expressed skepticism that members of Congress would have faced arrest there .
“ No , I was never arrested and I don ’ t think he was , either , ” Mr. Young , now 87 , said in a telephone interview .
Mr. Young added : “ Now , people were being arrested in Washington .
I don ’ t think there was ever a situation where congressmen were arrested in South Africa.
” The Times looked through news archives trying to find records of the arrest and came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s memoir and found no details about an arrest either .
In it , he mentions visiting South Africa but only in the context of the timing of his marriage proposal to his wife ; somehow a about getting arrested while defying apartheid and trying to visit the future president of the country in prison wasn ’ t notable enough to include in the book ’ s final draft .
He also spoke publicly about visiting South Africa after Mandela died in 2013 .
Via HuffPost : The Times claims it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than five times , wanting to give him every opportunity to set the record straight in case it had the facts wrong .
No reply .
Yeah , pull up a map and you ’ ll find Robben Island off the coast of Cape Town in southwest South Africa .
Soweto is outside Pretoria in the country ’ s northeast .
Did Joe get arrested trying to board a flight , maybe ?
Or is Biden now in the “ false memory ” stage of decline ?
Maybe there ’ s a middle-ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last summer of Biden talking about how he once pinned a medal on a soldier in Afghanistan who tried to decline it because the wounded comrade he had valorously attempted to save ended up dying .
WaPo investigated and found that Biden had blended details from two different incidents that did indeed happen into a story about a third incident that did not .
Whether he did that intentionally or because he had mistakenly jumbled up the two in his mind remains unclear , although in hindsight it seems like an early warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be at the top of his game .
But if you think he just got confused in that case , it ’ s possible that he got confused about this too .
Maybe something really did happen to him in South Africa and he ’ s either shaky on the specifics so many years later or speaking carelessly about what happened .
Instead of being “ arrested ” in Soweto , is it possible that he was briefly detained and then released because he was a foreign dignitary ?
That was Bob Kerrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And/or is it possible that he was with the U.S. ambassador to South Africa , not the ambassador to the UN , as he claimed in the clip ?
In that case , Andrew Young would have good reason not to remember Biden being arrested .
And/or is it possible that this happened in Cape Town , not Soweto ?
It would make perfect sense geographically that someone attempting to visit Mandela would be in the former city .
Maybe Biden was there with the U.S. ambassador , tried to book a flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was stopped by the authorities for fear of a diplomatic incident , and decided to drop it .
Somehow , in 2020 , when he needs juice for his campaign , that ’ s become “ getting arrested in Soweto with the UN ambassador.
” Or maybe he ’ s out to lunch .
Doesn ’ t really matter .
He ’ s very likely in the final 10 days of his political career .
We ’ ll forget all about this after Super Tuesday .

With any other politician I’d assume this was a deliberate lie, concocted in bad faith to ingratiate him to black voters in South Carolina.
But with Joe sinking further into senescence by the day, it may be that he really has convinced himself that he was once hauled in by Soweto police.
A third, non-negligible possibility: He’s right and somehow the NYT missed the archival records of his arrest. That’s unlikely, but the “Corn Pop” story being true was also unlikely. And yet.
Here he is in SC on February 11, the same day of the New Hampshire primary. You’ll recall that he ditched NH that afternoon before the votes were counted, knowing how badly he was destined to do, and flew down south in order to remind the media that his “firewall” state was still ahead on the calendar. Watch 45 seconds or so from where the clip below picks up:
Quite a story. Not only did Biden and the U.S. ambassador to the UN(?) get arrested in South Africa while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in prison, Mandela himself knew enough about the attempt to mention it to Biden when they finally met years later in Washington. “I said, ‘What are you thanking me for, Mr. President?’ He said, ‘You tried to see me. You got arrested trying to see me,'” per Biden’s latest retelling of the story a few days ago in Vegas, as quoted by the Times.
Just one problem: No one remembers hearing this story before.
Mr. Biden referred to his own arrest twice more in the next seven days, including at a campaign stop here on Tuesday where he spoke of getting arrested in South Africa between efforts to coax his wife to marry him. That proposal occurred in 1977, both Bidens have said… Andrew Young, a former congressman and mayor of Atlanta who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 1977 to 1979, said that he had traveled with Mr. Biden over the years, including to South Africa. But Mr. Young said that he had never been arrested in South Africa and expressed skepticism that members of Congress would have faced arrest there. “No, I was never arrested and I don’t think he was, either,” Mr. Young, now 87, said in a telephone interview. Mr. Young added: “Now, people were being arrested in Washington. I don’t think there was ever a situation where congressmen were arrested in South Africa.”
The Times looked through news archives trying to find records of the arrest and came up with nothing. They flipped through Biden’s memoir and found no details about an arrest either. In it, he mentions visiting South Africa but only in the context of the timing of his marriage proposal to his wife; somehow a about getting arrested while defying apartheid and trying to visit the future president of the country in prison wasn’t notable enough to include in the book’s final draft.
He also spoke publicly about visiting South Africa after Mandela died in 2013. Via HuffPost:
In a 2013 visit to the South African Embassy in Washington after Mandela’s death, Biden talked about a 1977 visit to the country. He reportedly said he had met with anti-apartheid leaders there but did not get to speak with Mandela, who was serving what would ultimately be 27 years in prison. Biden did not appear to have mentioned being arrested.
The Times claims it contacted his campaign for comment no less than five times, wanting to give him every opportunity to set the record straight in case it had the facts wrong. No reply.
Even weirder:
Adding to @katieglueck's story is Biden's quote doesn't make geographical sense. "I had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see him on Robbens Island." Soweto is almost 900 miles away from Robben Island https://t.co/WtlZMdkexq — Alex Daugherty (@alextdaugherty) February 21, 2020
Yeah, pull up a map and you’ll find Robben Island off the coast of Cape Town in southwest South Africa. Soweto is outside Pretoria in the country’s northeast. Did Joe get arrested trying to board a flight, maybe?
Or is Biden now in the “false memory” stage of decline?
Maybe there’s a middle-ground explanation. Think back to that story last summer of Biden talking about how he once pinned a medal on a soldier in Afghanistan who tried to decline it because the wounded comrade he had valorously attempted to save ended up dying. WaPo investigated and found that Biden had blended details from two different incidents that did indeed happen into a story about a third incident that did not. Whether he did that intentionally or because he had mistakenly jumbled up the two in his mind remains unclear, although in hindsight it seems like an early warning that the 77-year-old Biden might no longer be at the top of his game. But if you think he just got confused in that case, it’s possible that he got confused about this too. Maybe something really did happen to him in South Africa and he’s either shaky on the specifics so many years later or speaking carelessly about what happened.
Instead of being “arrested” in Soweto, is it possible that he was briefly detained and then released because he was a foreign dignitary? That was Bob Kerrey’s theory to the Times. And/or is it possible that he was with the U.S. ambassador to South Africa, not the ambassador to the UN, as he claimed in the clip? In that case, Andrew Young would have good reason not to remember Biden being arrested. And/or is it possible that this happened in Cape Town, not Soweto? It would make perfect sense geographically that someone attempting to visit Mandela would be in the former city. Maybe Biden was there with the U.S. ambassador, tried to book a flight or take a ferry to the island, was stopped by the authorities for fear of a diplomatic incident, and decided to drop it. Somehow, in 2020, when he needs juice for his campaign, that’s become “getting arrested in Soweto with the UN ambassador.”
Or maybe he’s out to lunch. Doesn’t really matter. He’s very likely in the final 10 days of his political career. We’ll forget all about this after Super Tuesday.


hotair--2020-02-22--Nevada caucus open thread. UPDATE: It's all Bernie all the time

The next step on the long , bloody trail toward the Democratic National Convention is upon us , this time in Nevada .
We ’ ve been promised by the organizers of these caucuses that the debacle in Iowa will not be repeated .
One of their precinct captains was on CNN this morning saying that everyone involved had been “ trained , retrained and probably overtrained.
” And they ’ re not going to use the craptastic phone app that blew up in Iowa .
So it should be smooth sailing from here , right ?
At some point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how accurate the polling was during this cycle .
( I know… I ’ m such an optimist . )
The problem is that there was so little polling done in Iowa during the final stretch that it could be rather hit or miss .
The RCP average is really only pulling from two polls taken this month , and one of them looked a bit suspicious .
For whatever it ’ s worth , they have Bernie holding a solid and substantial lead with an average of 32.5 .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing as recently as mid-January when he was registering in the mid-teens .
Biden and Buttigieg are tied at 16 % for second place and Elizabeth Warren is within the margins for fourth at 14 % .
That ’ s a big jump for Mayor Pete from where he was a few months ago and a large drop for both Uncle Joe and Warren .
The problem is that Buttigieg ’ s climb , while rapid , seemed to stall out entirely after Iowa and New Hampshire , and in fact , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unless these polls are all massively wrong , Bernie Sanders has conquered Nevada and should leave town with another nice chunk of delegates .
So is that it ?
If Bernie scores a big win then it ’ s all over ?
Not hardly .
As we ’ ve discussed here previously , Super Tuesday is where the first major cascade of delegates will be handed out and a lot of those races are looking very close at the moment .
Nobody should be counting their chickens at this point and I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a brokered convention .
With all of that said , here are the widgets that will track the results as they become available .
Please note that the first alignment reporting may not be updating enough to be useful , but the final alignment and delegate allocation results should work just fine since I ’ m sure that Nevada Democrats would never do anything to cause us to experience any “ irregularities.
” We ’ ll probably add in some updates later on the off chance that they actually manage to count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an orderly fashion .
UPDATE : ( Jazz ) The media is calling it early .
Bernie is rolling on .
Sen. Bernie Sanders will win the Nevada caucuses , Fox News can project , furthering the democratic socialist ’ s lead over his Democratic rivals and raising the question as to whether he can be stopped on his path to the Democratic nomination .
With four percent of delegates in , Sanders has 56 percent .
According to the early returns , former Vice President Joe Biden is in second place with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9.3 percent , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, has eight percent , and former South Bend , Ind .
Mayor Pete Buttigieg has 5.8 percent .
Ultimately 36 delegates are at stake .

The next step on the long, bloody trail toward the Democratic National Convention is upon us, this time in Nevada. We’ve been promised by the organizers of these caucuses that the debacle in Iowa will not be repeated. One of their precinct captains was on CNN this morning saying that everyone involved had been “trained, retrained and probably overtrained.” And they’re not going to use the craptastic phone app that blew up in Iowa. So it should be smooth sailing from here, right?
At some point later today or this evening we should know how accurate the polling was during this cycle. (I know… I’m such an optimist.) The problem is that there was so little polling done in Iowa during the final stretch that it could be rather hit or miss. The RCP average is really only pulling from two polls taken this month, and one of them looked a bit suspicious. For whatever it’s worth, they have Bernie holding a solid and substantial lead with an average of 32.5. That’s up massively from how he was doing as recently as mid-January when he was registering in the mid-teens.
Biden and Buttigieg are tied at 16% for second place and Elizabeth Warren is within the margins for fourth at 14%. That’s a big jump for Mayor Pete from where he was a few months ago and a large drop for both Uncle Joe and Warren. The problem is that Buttigieg’s climb, while rapid, seemed to stall out entirely after Iowa and New Hampshire, and in fact, he’s lost a few points. Unless these polls are all massively wrong, Bernie Sanders has conquered Nevada and should leave town with another nice chunk of delegates.
So is that it? If Bernie scores a big win then it’s all over? Not hardly. As we’ve discussed here previously, Super Tuesday is where the first major cascade of delegates will be handed out and a lot of those races are looking very close at the moment. Nobody should be counting their chickens at this point and I’m still not entirely eliminating the possibility of a brokered convention.
With all of that said, here are the widgets that will track the results as they become available. Please note that the first alignment reporting may not be updating enough to be useful, but the final alignment and delegate allocation results should work just fine since I’m sure that Nevada Democrats would never do anything to cause us to experience any “irregularities.” We’ll probably add in some updates later on the off chance that they actually manage to count a reasonable percentage of the votes in an orderly fashion.
UPDATE: (Jazz) The media is calling it early. Bernie is rolling on.
Sen. Bernie Sanders will win the Nevada caucuses, Fox News can project, furthering the democratic socialist’s lead over his Democratic rivals and raising the question as to whether he can be stopped on his path to the Democratic nomination. With four percent of delegates in, Sanders has 56 percent. According to the early returns, former Vice President Joe Biden is in second place with 19.9 percent, billionaire Tom Steyer has 9.3 percent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has eight percent, and former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg has 5.8 percent. Ultimately 36 delegates are at stake.
First alignment:
Final alignment:
Delegate totals: