hotair--2020-01-13--Dem strategist: Actually, calling new witnesses at Trump's trial would be bad for us on balance

Got ta say , I ’ m inclined to agree — with the caveat that Democrats *pretending* that they want new witnesses to be called is obviously the right move politically .
The optimal outcome for them is to make a stink about how the secret evidence that will prove Trump ’ s guilt is supposedly just one or two subpoenas away , and then to complain that the trial is a sham and a cover-up when those witnesses end up not being called .
Because acquittal in this case is assured , all Democratic efforts should logically be aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent it .
Their best hope for that is the GOP rushing through the trial without calling anyone , convincing voters that they didn ’ t want to hear from people like John Bolton because they ’ re afraid the president really did commit high crimes and Bolton has the goods to show it .
There ’ s a counterargument , of course .
Even though acquittal is assured , it ’ s possible that Bolton ’ s testimony would be so damaging to Trump that he ’ d do more to delegitimize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a rushed trial with no witnesses would .
How you feel about that is a matter of instinct .
It seems likely that Bolton would have some unflattering things to say about POTUS and/or his inner circle ; remember , he ’ s the guy who allegedly described Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney as working on a “ drug deal ” with Ukraine .
But the question isn ’ t whether Bolton would have anything unflattering to say .
The question is whether the substance of his testimony would hurt Trump and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his testimony would help them .
Afterward Susan Collins and Cory Gardner would point to their willingness to call Bolton to the stand as the ultimate proof that the trial was fair and the verdict just .
“ See , it wasn ’ t a sham !
We called the guy whom Democrats must wanted to hear from.
” Arguably that would do more to assure voters that Trump behaved legally , if not quite appropriately , with Ukraine than the substance of what Bolton had to say would persuade them that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where things stand right now , there ’ s only one smart solution : Get out of this as quickly as possible , ” said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis , former chief of staff for Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia… [ T ] he perils [ of calling witnesses ] include testimony adverse to Democrats ’ case , losing the opportunity to cast Senate Republicans in tough re-election campaigns as a cover-up squad for the president , and giving Trump a bigger platform to continue the guilt-by-aspersion campaign against former Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
Even if Trump advisers testify and Biden doesn ’ t , a fight would give Trump a measure of what he wants — more attention on Biden and his son , Hunter Biden — and it ’ s possible that witnesses called by Democrats would find ways , among them asserting executive privilege , to ensure that any testimony helps rather than harms the president .
“ Anyone who thinks Bolton ’ s going to turn on Trump is on drugs , ” Kofinis said .
Half the equation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will meaningfully change public opinion about Trump ’ s guilt .
Considering that nothing seems to meaningfully change public opinion about Trump in any context , it ’ s a longshot .
The other half of the equation is whether opening the door for Bolton will force the Senate to also open the door to testimony from Hunter Biden .
Jim Manley , who was Harry Reid ’ s right-hand man in the Senate , thinks that ’ s much ado about nothing , telling NBC that “ There ’ s not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there will be the votes necessary to call Hunter Biden , Joe Biden or anyone else , for that matter , who is not connected to Trump ’ s abuse of power.
” I don ’ t know why he thinks that .
No doubt Collins and Gardner and Mitch McConnell don ’ t *want* to call Hunter Biden , knowing how unpredictable his testimony might be and how his testimony will prolong the trial .
But Collins and Gardner are walking a line between appeasing left-leaning swing voters who want to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who want to see Trump given an opportunity to own the libs via his own witnesses .
If they agree to call Bolton , Trump will howl that it ’ s unfair unless he gets to call Biden too .
MAGA Nation will back him up .
How do Collins and Gardner say no , knowing how they need righty turnout next fall ?
Even if Biden has nothing incriminating to say about his own actions in Ukraine or his father ’ s effort as VP to get Ukraine to replace its chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on the stand will convince plenty of Americans that there ’ s corruption afoot here with the two of them .
Where there ’ s smoke , there ’ s fire , people will reason .
Surely the Senate wouldn ’ t have subjected Biden ’ s son to cross-examination by Trump ’ s lawyers unless it smelled smoke .
All of which is another reason why Democrats might be better off without witnesses .
If Hunter Biden ’ s testimony is the price of Bolton ’ s testimony , and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Joe Biden ’ s ethics irrespective of what Hunter actually has to say , then Dems might be sabotaging their presidential frontrunner by insisting on witnesses .
Imagine going nuclear with impeachment on the theory that it ’ ll wound Trump on Election Day even though he ’ s destined to be acquitted — and then it ’ s your own nominee who ends up damaged by the process .
Can ’ t wait to see what Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s respective favorable ratings look like before and after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Hunter Biden called to the stand .
I ’ ll leave you with this new data from Quinnipiac to chew on .
The public wants to hear from Bolton .
If Republicans end up not calling him , the “ cover up ” talking point is very easy for Democrats .

Gotta say, I’m inclined to agree — with the caveat that Democrats *pretending* that they want new witnesses to be called is obviously the right move politically. The optimal outcome for them is to make a stink about how the secret evidence that will prove Trump’s guilt is supposedly just one or two subpoenas away, and then to complain that the trial is a sham and a cover-up when those witnesses end up not being called.
Because acquittal in this case is assured, all Democratic efforts should logically be aimed at delegitimizing it rather than trying to prevent it. Their best hope for that is the GOP rushing through the trial without calling anyone, convincing voters that they didn’t want to hear from people like John Bolton because they’re afraid the president really did commit high crimes and Bolton has the goods to show it.
There’s a counterargument, of course. Even though acquittal is assured, it’s possible that Bolton’s testimony would be so damaging to Trump that he’d do more to delegitimize the eventual “not guilty” verdict than a rushed trial with no witnesses would. How you feel about that is a matter of instinct. It seems likely that Bolton would have some unflattering things to say about POTUS and/or his inner circle; remember, he’s the guy who allegedly described Giuliani and Mick Mulvaney as working on a “drug deal” with Ukraine. But the question isn’t whether Bolton would have anything unflattering to say. The question is whether the substance of his testimony would hurt Trump and the GOP more than the mere fact of his testimony would help them. Afterward Susan Collins and Cory Gardner would point to their willingness to call Bolton to the stand as the ultimate proof that the trial was fair and the verdict just. “See, it wasn’t a sham! We called the guy whom Democrats must wanted to hear from.” Arguably that would do more to assure voters that Trump behaved legally, if not quite appropriately, with Ukraine than the substance of what Bolton had to say would persuade them that the president should be removed.
“Given where things stand right now, there’s only one smart solution: Get out of this as quickly as possible,” said Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis, former chief of staff for Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia… [T]he perils [of calling witnesses] include testimony adverse to Democrats’ case, losing the opportunity to cast Senate Republicans in tough re-election campaigns as a cover-up squad for the president, and giving Trump a bigger platform to continue the guilt-by-aspersion campaign against former Vice President Joe Biden that triggered his impeachment in the first place. Even if Trump advisers testify and Biden doesn’t, a fight would give Trump a measure of what he wants — more attention on Biden and his son, Hunter Biden — and it’s possible that witnesses called by Democrats would find ways, among them asserting executive privilege, to ensure that any testimony helps rather than harms the president. “Anyone who thinks Bolton’s going to turn on Trump is on drugs,” Kofinis said.
Half the equation here is whether Bolton’s testimony will meaningfully change public opinion about Trump’s guilt. Considering that nothing seems to meaningfully change public opinion about Trump in any context, it’s a longshot. The other half of the equation is whether opening the door for Bolton will force the Senate to also open the door to testimony from Hunter Biden. Jim Manley, who was Harry Reid’s right-hand man in the Senate, thinks that’s much ado about nothing, telling NBC that “There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that there will be the votes necessary to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden or anyone else, for that matter, who is not connected to Trump’s abuse of power.” I don’t know why he thinks that. No doubt Collins and Gardner and Mitch McConnell don’t *want* to call Hunter Biden, knowing how unpredictable his testimony might be and how his testimony will prolong the trial. But Collins and Gardner are walking a line between appeasing left-leaning swing voters who want to see a serious trial and right-leaning swing voters who want to see Trump given an opportunity to own the libs via his own witnesses. If they agree to call Bolton, Trump will howl that it’s unfair unless he gets to call Biden too. MAGA Nation will back him up. How do Collins and Gardner say no, knowing how they need righty turnout next fall?
Even if Biden has nothing incriminating to say about his own actions in Ukraine or his father’s effort as VP to get Ukraine to replace its chief prosecutor, the mere fact of putting him on the stand will convince plenty of Americans that there’s corruption afoot here with the two of them. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, people will reason. Surely the Senate wouldn’t have subjected Biden’s son to cross-examination by Trump’s lawyers unless it smelled smoke.
All of which is another reason why Democrats might be better off without witnesses. If Hunter Biden’s testimony is the price of Bolton’s testimony, and if Biden’s appearance will encourage suspicion of Joe Biden’s ethics irrespective of what Hunter actually has to say, then Dems might be sabotaging their presidential frontrunner by insisting on witnesses. Imagine going nuclear with impeachment on the theory that it’ll wound Trump on Election Day even though he’s destined to be acquitted — and then it’s your own nominee who ends up damaged by the process. Can’t wait to see what Trump’s and Biden’s respective favorable ratings look like before and after the trial if this ends up somehow with Hunter Biden called to the stand.
I’ll leave you with this new data from Quinnipiac to chew on. The public wants to hear from Bolton. If Republicans end up not calling him, the “cover up” talking point is very easy for Democrats.


hotair--2020-01-13--AG Barr: Navy base shooting was terrorism and we need Apple's help to unlock the shooter's phones

It became pretty clear last month that this is where the investigation was heading , now it has been confirmed .
In a press conference today , Attorney General Barr stated , “ This was an act of terrorism.
” Barr added , “ The evidence shows that the shooter was motivated by jihadist ideology .
During the course of the investigation , we learned that the shooter posted a message on Sep. 11th of this year stating ‘ The countdown has begun . '
” Barr went on to say that the shooter had posted anti-American and anti-Israeli messages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack .
One of the things that was of great concern initially was the possibility that other Saudi flight students might have known about the attack in advance .
Specifically , there were reports that another pilot was filming the attack from a nearby car .
Today , AG Barr said those reports turned out to be false .
There were some Saudi ’ s who took video as the commotion outside the building began but they did not know what was happening at the time .
However , that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigating the attack , the US found 21 individuals had expressed anti-American sentiments on social media and 15 of the pilots “ had some kind of contact with child pornography.
” In most cases that seems to mean they received or viewed images posted online by others .
The US decided none of the incidents were grounds for prosecution but the Saudis decided to dis-enroll all of the students involved .
Near the end of his statement , AG Barr raised an issue involving access to the shooter ’ s phones .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooter took time to put a bullet through one of his two iPhones .
His second phone was also damaged .
The FBI was able to repair both phones and has a court order to search the phone but it hasn ’ t been able to access them because the FBI doesn ’ t have the passwords .
Given that the shooter was killed during the attack , there is no way to retrieve those passwords .
“ It is very important for us to know with whom and about what the shooter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter ’ s phones .
So far Apple has not given any substantive assistance , ” Barr said .
He called on Apple to assist the FBI in keeping with the court order .
This is not the first time that Apple has refused to unlock a terrorist ’ s phone after his death .
The FBI asked Apple for help unlocking the phone of Syed Rizwan Farook , the terrorist who killed 14 people in San Bernardino , CA in 2015 .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phone , the company refused .
Apple claimed its decision was not because it didn ’ t want to help but because it had no back door into its own phones .
But experts said at the time that Apple could crack its own phones if it wanted to do so .
A few weeks later the FBI announced that an outside company had unlocked the phone for the FBI .
It sounds as if the FBI may need to go back to the outside experts once again .

It became pretty clear last month that this is where the investigation was heading, now it has been confirmed. In a press conference today, Attorney General Barr stated, “This was an act of terrorism.” Barr added, “The evidence shows that the shooter was motivated by jihadist ideology. During the course of the investigation, we learned that the shooter posted a message on Sep. 11th of this year stating ‘The countdown has begun.'” Barr went on to say that the shooter had posted anti-American and anti-Israeli messages online including just two hours before the attack.
One of the things that was of great concern initially was the possibility that other Saudi flight students might have known about the attack in advance. Specifically, there were reports that another pilot was filming the attack from a nearby car. Today, AG Barr said those reports turned out to be false. There were some Saudi’s who took video as the commotion outside the building began but they did not know what was happening at the time.
However, that’s not the end of the story. While investigating the attack, the US found 21 individuals had expressed anti-American sentiments on social media and 15 of the pilots “had some kind of contact with child pornography.” In most cases that seems to mean they received or viewed images posted online by others. The US decided none of the incidents were grounds for prosecution but the Saudis decided to dis-enroll all of the students involved.
Near the end of his statement, AG Barr raised an issue involving access to the shooter’s phones. During the standoff with first responders, the shooter took time to put a bullet through one of his two iPhones. His second phone was also damaged. The FBI was able to repair both phones and has a court order to search the phone but it hasn’t been able to access them because the FBI doesn’t have the passwords. Given that the shooter was killed during the attack, there is no way to retrieve those passwords.
“It is very important for us to know with whom and about what the shooter was communicating before he died. We have asked Apple for their help in unlocking the shooter’s phones. So far Apple has not given any substantive assistance,” Barr said. He called on Apple to assist the FBI in keeping with the court order.
This is not the first time that Apple has refused to unlock a terrorist’s phone after his death. The FBI asked Apple for help unlocking the phone of Syed Rizwan Farook, the terrorist who killed 14 people in San Bernardino, CA in 2015. Even after receiving a court order to unlock the phone, the company refused. Apple claimed its decision was not because it didn’t want to help but because it had no back door into its own phones. But experts said at the time that Apple could crack its own phones if it wanted to do so. A few weeks later the FBI announced that an outside company had unlocked the phone for the FBI. It sounds as if the FBI may need to go back to the outside experts once again.
Here’s the full press conference with AG Barr:


hotair--2020-01-13--Luis Elizondo opens up on why the Pentagon keeps changing their story on AATIP and UFOs

One of the repeating themes we ’ ve run across in our coverage of the ongoing story of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program ( AATIP ) and the search for information about UFOs/UAP is the disconnect between what the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences ( TTSA ) has said about Luis Elizondo and what the Pentagon has had to say about him .
If you ask TTSA , Harry Reid ( who requested the program initially ) or Elizondo himself , he ran the program .
If you run the question by the Pentagon , specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no assigned duties ” in the Defense Intelligence Agency and was not involved with AATIP .
So what ’ s with that disconnect ?
It ’ s a question I asked early on when researching this subject and never found a convincing answer .
And the fact that Elizondo himself never seemed to come forward to defend his statements made it seem all the more strange .
But now he ’ s broken his silence .
In an interview with John Greenewald at The Black Vault , Elizond tackles that question and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documentation coming out of this interview ( at least not yet ) but at least we get to hear his side of the story .
I ’ m going to include a couple of the more interesting snippets from the interview here , but if you have any interest in the subject I would suggest you click through and read the entire thing for yourself .
First of all , what does Elizondo say his role in AATIP was ?
“ As the senior ranking person in the AATIP program , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effective operations of the overall effort .
However , in fairness , the lion ’ s work was performed by the outstanding men and women we had working in the program .
My job was primarily to fend off the distractions so the rest of the team could do their job .
In essence , my job was to catch the proverbial bullets so our folks could do their job without distraction .
Not an unusual role for the senior person in any program to assume .
This includes fighting for resources , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s the case , how does the Pentagon get the story so wrong ?
Why would Susan Gough keep insisting he wasn ’ t involved ?
Elizondo mentions that he ’ s kept quiet about this in the past primarily because he was threatened with having his security clearance taken away when he first came out with TTSA and he doesn ’ t want to lose it .
But now he feels he needs to set the record straight .
“ Emotionally it was very disappointing , but not surprising .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seriously upset with me for me ‘ breaking rank ’ in their eyes .
However , efforts are underway to isolate and expose these individuals and hold them accountable .
I am very optimistic that 2020 this will be resolved .
I can ’ t go into great detail on our strategy only because it has not been finalized yet .
I think it ’ s a vendetta by a few in the Pentagon , but I think we will all know the real reason this year.
” So this could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing information , as Gough suggested in her recent “ clarification.
” Or it could be that the Pentagon was deliberately and knowingly lying about Elizondo .
He ’ s going with the latter explanation , going so far as to describe these contradictory statements as potentially being “ a deliberate attempt to confuse , hide , and conceal the truth.
” And given the Pentagon ’ s rather casual relationship with the truth on this subject , as we ’ ve discussed here frequently , that ’ s not so tough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview , Elizondo drops one fascinating hint for us regarding how much additional evidence the government has and if we ’ re ever going to see it .
He refers to the recent admission from the Navy that there is at least one more , longer video of the tic-tac encounter ( something the Pentagon has repeatedly denied ) and mentions the following .
Pay particular attention to the emphasized section .
“ I am happy with the fact that recently some Navy former senior officials have come out and admitted there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am not allowed to elaborate but the fact that the Government finally acknowledged it makes me feel a little vindicated .
Also , the Navy ’ s admission about the reality of UAPs ( albeit could be Russian or adversarial ) and the fact they are creating new policies so our brave male and female pilots can report these incidents is definitely a step in the right direction .
I am not sure I can take credit for it but I like to think I played a small part in it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and doesn ’ t want to lose his clearance , so he can ’ t say more .
But perhaps he ’ s let something important slip here , even if inadvertently .
Earlier in the interview , he makes reference to “ thousands of documents ” related to the program that haven ’ t been cleared for release yet .
And now , rather than talking about one more video , he says “ videos ” … plural .
When I wrote about the revelation of the existence of that longer video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading to that information was very narrowly tailored to any evidence from a specific place ( the Nimitz battle group training area ) over a specific period of six days .
As I said then , the military never gives you more than you specifically asked for when answering an FOIA request .
So there probably are huge numbers of videos in their possession that they ’ re trying desperately to keep under wraps .
If Elizondo is who he says he is ( and Harry Reid and many others back him up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a position to know .
And if he ’ s confident that the dam will break this year and more will be coming out , this could be the first semi-official indication that actual “ big D ” Disclosure is on the way .
Cross your fingers , because I know a lot of us would seriously like some answers and some truth out of the Pentagon .

One of the repeating themes we’ve run across in our coverage of the ongoing story of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and the search for information about UFOs/UAP is the disconnect between what the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences (TTSA) has said about Luis Elizondo and what the Pentagon has had to say about him. If you ask TTSA, Harry Reid (who requested the program initially) or Elizondo himself, he ran the program. If you run the question by the Pentagon, specifically spokesperson Susan Gough, Elizondo had “no assigned duties” in the Defense Intelligence Agency and was not involved with AATIP.
So what’s with that disconnect? It’s a question I asked early on when researching this subject and never found a convincing answer. And the fact that Elizondo himself never seemed to come forward to defend his statements made it seem all the more strange. But now he’s broken his silence. In an interview with John Greenewald at The Black Vault, Elizond tackles that question and many others. There’s no new documentation coming out of this interview (at least not yet) but at least we get to hear his side of the story. I’m going to include a couple of the more interesting snippets from the interview here, but if you have any interest in the subject I would suggest you click through and read the entire thing for yourself.
First of all, what does Elizondo say his role in AATIP was?
“As the senior ranking person in the AATIP program, I was ultimately responsible for ensuring the efficient and effective operations of the overall effort. However, in fairness, the lion’s work was performed by the outstanding men and women we had working in the program. My job was primarily to fend off the distractions so the rest of the team could do their job. In essence, my job was to catch the proverbial bullets so our folks could do their job without distraction. Not an unusual role for the senior person in any program to assume. This includes fighting for resources, support, and personnel.”
So if that’s the case, how does the Pentagon get the story so wrong? Why would Susan Gough keep insisting he wasn’t involved? Elizondo mentions that he’s kept quiet about this in the past primarily because he was threatened with having his security clearance taken away when he first came out with TTSA and he doesn’t want to lose it. But now he feels he needs to set the record straight.
“Emotionally it was very disappointing, but not surprising. There are elements in the Pentagon that are seriously upset with me for me ‘breaking rank’ in their eyes. However, efforts are underway to isolate and expose these individuals and hold them accountable. I am very optimistic that 2020 this will be resolved. I can’t go into great detail on our strategy only because it has not been finalized yet. I think it’s a vendetta by a few in the Pentagon, but I think we will all know the real reason this year.”
So this could have been a case of lost records and missing information, as Gough suggested in her recent “clarification.” Or it could be that the Pentagon was deliberately and knowingly lying about Elizondo. He’s going with the latter explanation, going so far as to describe these contradictory statements as potentially being “a deliberate attempt to confuse, hide, and conceal the truth.” And given the Pentagon’s rather casual relationship with the truth on this subject, as we’ve discussed here frequently, that’s not so tough to believe.
Near the end of the interview, Elizondo drops one fascinating hint for us regarding how much additional evidence the government has and if we’re ever going to see it. He refers to the recent admission from the Navy that there is at least one more, longer video of the tic-tac encounter (something the Pentagon has repeatedly denied) and mentions the following. Pay particular attention to the emphasized section.
“I am happy with the fact that recently some Navy former senior officials have come out and admitted there were more videos and greater length. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to elaborate but the fact that the Government finally acknowledged it makes me feel a little vindicated. Also, the Navy’s admission about the reality of UAPs (albeit could be Russian or adversarial) and the fact they are creating new policies so our brave male and female pilots can report these incidents is definitely a step in the right direction. I am not sure I can take credit for it but I like to think I played a small part in it.”
Elizondo is still under an NDA and doesn’t want to lose his clearance, so he can’t say more. But perhaps he’s let something important slip here, even if inadvertently. Earlier in the interview, he makes reference to “thousands of documents” related to the program that haven’t been cleared for release yet. And now, rather than talking about one more video, he says “videos”… plural.
When I wrote about the revelation of the existence of that longer video, I noted that the FOIA request leading to that information was very narrowly tailored to any evidence from a specific place (the Nimitz battle group training area) over a specific period of six days. As I said then, the military never gives you more than you specifically asked for when answering an FOIA request. So there probably are huge numbers of videos in their possession that they’re trying desperately to keep under wraps.
If Elizondo is who he says he is (and Harry Reid and many others back him up on this) then he would be in a position to know. And if he’s confident that the dam will break this year and more will be coming out, this could be the first semi-official indication that actual “big D” Disclosure is on the way. Cross your fingers, because I know a lot of us would seriously like some answers and some truth out of the Pentagon.


hotair--2020-01-13--Did Warren plant the sexism attack on Bernie because she's planning to use it at tomorrow night's de

Did Warren plant the sexism attack on Bernie because she's planning to use it at tomorrow night's debate?

Ten minutes before I read this post : “ Nothing could make me watch the debate tomorrow night.
” Ten minutes later : “ I should knock off work early tomorrow to make sure I can watch the debate.
” It is … convenient that a news story that ’ s potentially helpful to Elizabeth Warren in drawing progressive voters away from Bernie Sanders should happen to appear on the eve of a debate , guaranteeing that the moderators will have to raise the subject rather than Warren herself having to raise it out of the blue .
And as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is … interesting that Bernie ’ s very dear friend Elizabeth would politely decline comment today when asked if the story is true instead of saying , “ Of course not , it ’ s preposterous.
” One of Hillary ’ s former press guys has a theory .
Is that what ’ s going on here ?
Did Warren feed the story to CNN because she planned all along to go nuclear attack on Bernie over sexism at the debate and needed a pretext for it ?
She ’ s the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ ll be one of only two women onstage tomorrow night at an event that ’ ll consist exclusively of white candidates .
Democrats are especially sensitive at the moment to the criticism that they seem headed towards nominating a white guy yet again .
And now , very conveniently , Warren ’ s all teed up for a big moment on identity politics .
Hmmmm .
But there ’ s a problem : I think this line of attack against Bernie does her more harm than good .
For one thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said what he ’ s accused of saying .
As Sanders himself reminded everyone today , Hillary won millions more votes nationally than Trump did in 2016 and probably would have squeaked through in the swing states if not for her phenomenal unpopularity .
It ’ d be ludicrous in context to insist that a woman can ’ t win and Bernie would know it .
It may be that he told Warren it would be harder for a female nominee to win than for a male , but that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained why succinctly : Remember when Michael Avenatti ( remember Michael Avenatti , period ? )
told Time magazine in October 2018 that the Democratic nominee had “ better be a white male ” because , although it ’ s unfair , “ when you have a white male making the arguments , they carry more weight ” ?
He took heat for that but plenty of rank-and-file Democrats share the same suspicion .
CNN did a segment last spring on why three white men were leading the Democratic field at the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary voters had confessed to her that they thought only a white guy could compete with Trump for the working-class white voters who tipped the election to him in 2016 .
WaPo columnist Jonathan Capehart wrote last summer about visiting with his African-American family in North Carolina and finding solid support for Biden .
When he asked why , this was one of the reasons he got : One aunt said something my mother said to me nearly a year ago .
That it ’ s going to take a white man to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
“ The way the system is set up now , there is so much racism that it ’ s going to have to be an old white person to go after an old white person , ” my aunt told me .
“ Old-school against old-school.
” She talked further about what this meant for younger candidates such as Buttigieg .
“ The whole world is in a crazy state , and somebody ’ s got ta put it back in order .
And I think a lot of the young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order , want to change it completely , ” she continued .
“ But first , you ’ ve got to put it back in order before you can start changing it.
” It ’ s anathema for progressives to suggest that the party should be strategic in who it nominates based on sex or race but the average voter is thinking about it and has been from the beginning .
It may be no coincidence that the last big debate before Iowa will include no minority candidates .
How many average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Warren and Sanders and think , “ Even if Bernie did say that , it ’ s not crazy ” ?
More than anything , though , it ’ s hard to believe Warren teed up this attack for the simple reason that it ’ ll likely cost her more votes than it ’ ll gain her .
I wrote in this morning ’ s post that one thing she needs to worry about if she ’ s the nominee is convincing Berniebros that she ’ s worth turning out for next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ ll have vanquished their hero .
With Bernie out on the trail encouraging them to put hard feelings aside , I thought , she can convince them .
But now , suddenly , the race has turned ugly ; Sanders ’ s character , not to mention his commitment to feminism , has been challenged .
And Warren is suddenly in a position on the eve of a debate in which she ’ ll be forced to take a stand on that subject in front of millions of viewers .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s apt to piss off Bernie fans .
If she confirms the story , obviously it ’ s war .
If she refuses to comment on grounds that it was a “ private conversation ” or whatever , she ’ ll get shredded for trying to have it both ways , letting her staff impugn Sanders while cowardly refusing to set the record straight .
And if she defends Bernie and denies that he said any such thing , her campaign looks sleazy and she looks sleazy by association .
Plenty of Berniebros @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her of having smeared their guy by planting the story only to play the part of the “ good friend ” while people are watching to keep her fingerprints off of it .
No matter how you slice it , the Sanders contingent comes away embittered at her .
How many Bernie voters will be so troubled by the story , and so convinced that it ’ s true , that they ’ ll defect from his camp to hers now ?
And meanwhile , how many Bernie voters who choose to stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll never vote for Warren after such a cheap shot so late in the pre-primary stage of the race , no matter how much he stumps for her next year ?
Really hard to see how Warren benefits from it .
But it ’ s also hard to believe that her staff would leak it without her approval , knowing what an awkward position it places her in .
It feels to me like a reprisal for the news over the weekend that Bernie ’ s volunteers have been questioning her electability while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Warren ’ s attempt at deterring further negativity , showing him that they ’ re willing to hit hard if he cheats on their nonaggression pact .
But the timing is strange .
Why didn ’ t they wait to leak it until after the debate , so there ’ d be no chance to put her on the spot about it on national TV ?

Ten minutes before I read this post: “Nothing could make me watch the debate tomorrow night.”
Ten minutes later: “I should knock off work early tomorrow to make sure I can watch the debate.”
It is … convenient that a news story that’s potentially helpful to Elizabeth Warren in drawing progressive voters away from Bernie Sanders should happen to appear on the eve of a debate, guaranteeing that the moderators will have to raise the subject rather than Warren herself having to raise it out of the blue. And as Ed noted in his post, it is … interesting that Bernie’s very dear friend Elizabeth would politely decline comment today when asked if the story is true instead of saying, “Of course not, it’s preposterous.”
One of Hillary’s former press guys has a theory.
given that the story was placed by the Warren camp – with CNN, on the eve of a CNN debate – & her team declined to comment… have to assume Warren is teeing it up to make this assertion herself on the debate stage, which would be fascinating. would Bernie just call her a liar? https://t.co/yjRPvPPOfv — Jesse Lehrich (@JesseLehrich) January 13, 2020
Is that what’s going on here? Did Warren feed the story to CNN because she planned all along to go nuclear attack on Bernie over sexism at the debate and needed a pretext for it? She’s the only woman in the top tier, and she’ll be one of only two women onstage tomorrow night at an event that’ll consist exclusively of white candidates. Democrats are especially sensitive at the moment to the criticism that they seem headed towards nominating a white guy yet again.
And now, very conveniently, Warren’s all teed up for a big moment on identity politics. Hmmmm.
But there’s a problem: I think this line of attack against Bernie does her more harm than good. For one thing, it’s hard to believe he said what he’s accused of saying. As Sanders himself reminded everyone today, Hillary won millions more votes nationally than Trump did in 2016 and probably would have squeaked through in the swing states if not for her phenomenal unpopularity. It’d be ludicrous in context to insist that a woman can’t win and Bernie would know it. It may be that he told Warren it would be harder for a female nominee to win than for a male, but that’s not an outlandish claim. Ramesh Ponnuru explained why succinctly:
It is odd that it's acceptable to invoke sexism as an explanation for a loss but not to draw straightforward strategic conclusions from it. https://t.co/sU0zRZN9EN — Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) January 13, 2020
Remember when Michael Avenatti (remember Michael Avenatti, period?) told Time magazine in October 2018 that the Democratic nominee had “better be a white male” because, although it’s unfair, “when you have a white male making the arguments, they carry more weight”? He took heat for that but plenty of rank-and-file Democrats share the same suspicion. CNN did a segment last spring on why three white men were leading the Democratic field at the time and reporter Nia-Malika Henderson shared that various primary voters had confessed to her that they thought only a white guy could compete with Trump for the working-class white voters who tipped the election to him in 2016. WaPo columnist Jonathan Capehart wrote last summer about visiting with his African-American family in North Carolina and finding solid support for Biden. When he asked why, this was one of the reasons he got:
One aunt said something my mother said to me nearly a year ago. That it’s going to take a white man to straighten out the mess we’re in. “The way the system is set up now, there is so much racism that it’s going to have to be an old white person to go after an old white person,” my aunt told me. “Old-school against old-school.” She talked further about what this meant for younger candidates such as Buttigieg. “The whole world is in a crazy state, and somebody’s gotta put it back in order. And I think a lot of the young people who want to put it back in order, want to change it completely,” she continued. “But first, you’ve got to put it back in order before you can start changing it.”
It’s anathema for progressives to suggest that the party should be strategic in who it nominates based on sex or race but the average voter is thinking about it and has been from the beginning. It may be no coincidence that the last big debate before Iowa will include no minority candidates. How many average Democrats will read today’s story about Warren and Sanders and think, “Even if Bernie did say that, it’s not crazy”?
More than anything, though, it’s hard to believe Warren teed up this attack for the simple reason that it’ll likely cost her more votes than it’ll gain her. I wrote in this morning’s post that one thing she needs to worry about if she’s the nominee is convincing Berniebros that she’s worth turning out for next fall even though it’ll mean she’ll have vanquished their hero. With Bernie out on the trail encouraging them to put hard feelings aside, I thought, she can convince them. But now, suddenly, the race has turned ugly; Sanders’s character, not to mention his commitment to feminism, has been challenged. And Warren is suddenly in a position on the eve of a debate in which she’ll be forced to take a stand on that subject in front of millions of viewers. No matter how she answers, it’s apt to piss off Bernie fans. If she confirms the story, obviously it’s war. If she refuses to comment on grounds that it was a “private conversation” or whatever, she’ll get shredded for trying to have it both ways, letting her staff impugn Sanders while cowardly refusing to set the record straight.
And if she defends Bernie and denies that he said any such thing, her campaign looks sleazy and she looks sleazy by association. Plenty of Berniebros will scoff at her denial, accusing her of having smeared their guy by planting the story only to play the part of the “good friend” while people are watching to keep her fingerprints off of it. No matter how you slice it, the Sanders contingent comes away embittered at her. How many Bernie voters will be so troubled by the story, and so convinced that it’s true, that they’ll defect from his camp to hers now? And meanwhile, how many Bernie voters who choose to stick with him will resolve that they’ll never vote for Warren after such a cheap shot so late in the pre-primary stage of the race, no matter how much he stumps for her next year?
Really hard to see how Warren benefits from it. But it’s also hard to believe that her staff would leak it without her approval, knowing what an awkward position it places her in. It feels to me like a reprisal for the news over the weekend that Bernie’s volunteers have been questioning her electability while canvassing for him. This may be Team Warren’s attempt at deterring further negativity, showing him that they’re willing to hit hard if he cheats on their nonaggression pact. But the timing is strange. Why didn’t they wait to leak it until after the debate, so there’d be no chance to put her on the spot about it on national TV?
Update: Heatin’ up.


hotair--2020-01-13--Atlantic: Twitter is a progressive bubble

Author Helen Lewis has a piece in the Atlantic today which serves as a reminder that Twitter is not the real world .
In fact , because the site ’ s users skew younger and farther to the left than most voters , it ’ s actually a progressive bubble .
Lewis , who writes from London is focused on the debates between Labour and the Tories , but what she sees happening in the UK is happening in the US as well : This phenomenon has been more thoroughly studied in the U.S. , where The New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those of the wider Democratic electorate.
” Active political tweeters in America were whiter , more left wing , more likely to be college educated , and less likely to say that “ political correctness was a problem ” than primary voters as a whole… The genuine fury from the left at people three inches closer to the political center reflects a turbocharged tribalism .
Freud called this “ the narcissism of small differences ” ; the legal scholar Cass Sunstein calls it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tends to move groups , and the individuals who compose them , toward a more extreme point.
” In his 2019 book Conformity , Sunstein noted that “ confident people are both more influential … and more prone to polarization.
” One consequence of group polarization , he found , was that those who held a minority position , or had useful information that ran counter to the prevailing trend , stayed silent or were ignored .
Their groups therefore made worse decisions .
The Twitter Primary drives its members to extremes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An excess of certainty leads activists to bad decisions and misapprehensions .
Spend enough time on Twitter and you could believe that Corbyn “ won the argument ” in December , despite losing the general election .
The postmortem on Labour ’ s defeat risks being hampered by a pervasive sense on social media that the party didn ’ t really lose , not really : Well , everyone I know voted for Corbyn .
Activists may intellectually concede the reality of the Conservatives ’ 80-seat majority , but it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that means there is less reason for them to support a change in tactics .
I wonder if we ’ ll see the same dynamic with Bernie Sanders .
He ’ s immensely popular online and has a real chance to win the Democratic nomination but will he have a real shot in the general election ?
I think this may be another case where the Twitter bubble isn ’ t showing us a representative sample of American voters or what they think of Democratic Socialism .
So who are the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
In an earlier Atlantic piece on political correctness , Yascha Mounk pointed out that progressive activists tend to be rich , educated , and white : Among devoted conservatives , 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem .
Among traditional liberals , 61 percent do .
Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness : Only 30 percent see it as a problem .
So what does this group look like ?
Compared with the rest of the ( nationally representative ) polling sample , progressive activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , highly educated—and white .
They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $ 100,000 a year .
They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree .
And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American , only 3 percent of progressive activists are .
With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives , progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country .
And because the users of Twitter tend to be younger , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impression you get online is that these folks are the norm or at least represent a controlling interest in the Democratic Party .
But it ’ s not true .
Social Justice Warriors have a loud voice on social media but represent a small fraction of the country .
What the SJWs do have going for them is a lot of influence with journalists who hold broadly similar views .
As Lewis puts it , “ Ultra-liberal attitudes to race and gender are indeed not held by the masses , including racial minorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held by the peers of the journalists writing those pieces , with whom these journalists hang out on Twitter.
” And that ’ s how you wind up with half a dozen stories attacking the latest Dave Chappelle comedy special for his criticisms of cancel culture while the overwhelming majority of viewers just think he ’ s hilarious .
It ’ s how you get glowing reviews for Lady Ghostbusters while most viewers think it ’ s just a bad movie .
That kind of disproportionate influence on the media may seem like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be a curse if they wind up selecting a far left candidate who isn ’ t acceptable to the bulk of the population .
That ’ s what happened to Jeremy Corbyn and it could happen to Bernie Sanders too .

Author Helen Lewis has a piece in the Atlantic today which serves as a reminder that Twitter is not the real world. In fact, because the site’s users skew younger and farther to the left than most voters, it’s actually a progressive bubble. Lewis, who writes from London is focused on the debates between Labour and the Tories, but what she sees happening in the UK is happening in the US as well:
This phenomenon has been more thoroughly studied in the U.S., where The New York Times has reported that “the views of Democrats on social media often bear little resemblance to those of the wider Democratic electorate.” Active political tweeters in America were whiter, more left wing, more likely to be college educated, and less likely to say that “political correctness was a problem” than primary voters as a whole… The genuine fury from the left at people three inches closer to the political center reflects a turbocharged tribalism. Freud called this “the narcissism of small differences”; the legal scholar Cass Sunstein calls it “group polarization,” where “deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point.” In his 2019 book Conformity, Sunstein noted that “confident people are both more influential … and more prone to polarization.” One consequence of group polarization, he found, was that those who held a minority position, or had useful information that ran counter to the prevailing trend, stayed silent or were ignored. Their groups therefore made worse decisions. The Twitter Primary drives its members to extremes, while chilling the speech of outsiders. An excess of certainty leads activists to bad decisions and misapprehensions. Spend enough time on Twitter and you could believe that Corbyn “won the argument” in December, despite losing the general election. The postmortem on Labour’s defeat risks being hampered by a pervasive sense on social media that the party didn’t really lose, not really: Well, everyone I know voted for Corbyn. Activists may intellectually concede the reality of the Conservatives’ 80-seat majority, but it doesn’t feel like the Tories won. And that means there is less reason for them to support a change in tactics.
I wonder if we’ll see the same dynamic with Bernie Sanders. He’s immensely popular online and has a real chance to win the Democratic nomination but will he have a real shot in the general election? I think this may be another case where the Twitter bubble isn’t showing us a representative sample of American voters or what they think of Democratic Socialism.
So who are the people who make up the progressive bubble on Twitter? In an earlier Atlantic piece on political correctness, Yascha Mounk pointed out that progressive activists tend to be rich, educated, and white:
Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem. So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
And because the users of Twitter tend to be younger, better educated, and wealthier, the impression you get online is that these folks are the norm or at least represent a controlling interest in the Democratic Party. But it’s not true. Social Justice Warriors have a loud voice on social media but represent a small fraction of the country.
What the SJWs do have going for them is a lot of influence with journalists who hold broadly similar views. As Lewis puts it, “Ultra-liberal attitudes to race and gender are indeed not held by the masses, including racial minorities. But, crucially, they are held by the peers of the journalists writing those pieces, with whom these journalists hang out on Twitter.”
And that’s how you wind up with half a dozen stories attacking the latest Dave Chappelle comedy special for his criticisms of cancel culture while the overwhelming majority of viewers just think he’s hilarious. It’s how you get glowing reviews for Lady Ghostbusters while most viewers think it’s just a bad movie. That kind of disproportionate influence on the media may seem like a blessing for the left but it could be a curse if they wind up selecting a far left candidate who isn’t acceptable to the bulk of the population. That’s what happened to Jeremy Corbyn and it could happen to Bernie Sanders too.


hotair--2020-01-13--SCOTUS rejects appeal of "worst girlfriend ever"

We ’ ve been following the case of Michelle Carter quite closely ever since the “ worst girlfriend ever ” cropped up in the news , particularly because of the implications it will have for free speech going forward .
As you may recall , Carter was the young woman who goaded her “ boyfriend ” ( or possibly just friend ) , Conrad Roy , into taking his own life via a series of text messages and phone calls encouraging him to “ just do it.
” Roy wound up asphyxiating himself inside of his running pickup truck .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that she was located more than fifty miles away when Roy died .
Her attorneys appealed the case , losing that effort at the state level and finally taking their case to the Supreme Court .
Today the Supremes put the matter to an end by refusing to hear the appeal .
( NBC News ) The Supreme Court said Monday it would not take up an appeal brought by Michelle Carter , the young woman who encouraged her boyfriend , through texts and phone calls , to kill himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case leaves her conviction intact… The court declined to decide whether her involuntary manslaughter conviction violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because it was based solely on words that she texted or spoke .
She was sentenced to 15 months in jail .
I ’ m not even going to pretend to understand what the justices were thinking when they refused to even hear this case .
If there was ever a situation affecting free speech that cried out for a full and fair hearing at the highest level it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wrote at the conclusion of her first trial , this still appears to be a total miscarriage of justice Though I ’ ve pointed this out before , it bears repeating .
I do not make this argument out of some belief that Michelle Carter is somehow completely innocent or deserving of sympathy .
She ’ s obviously a horrible human being and not someone any sane person should want to be around .
The things she said in those text messages paint the picture of a sociopathic monster without a drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her .
But there are ( sadly ) lots of terrible people in this world and the fact remains that Michelle Carter was sent to prison for fifteen months for saying things .
She did not kill Conrad Roy herself nor did she even physically assist him in his suicide .
Roy made that choice himself , even getting out of the truck at one point when he clearly was having second thoughts before Carter convinced him to get back in .
If there were some special laws about emotional abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to be ) then perhaps we could understand a conviction for something like that .
But even that would be rather dodgy .
And Carter was sent up for manslaughter .
If she can be sent to prison for saying things , what other things might you or anyone else say that could land you behind bars ?
Carter is due to be released from prison next month , but that ’ s not the end of this story .
We learned more recently of a second contender for the title of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a South Korean college student in Boston , convinced her boyfriend Alexander Urtula to jump to his death from the top of a parking garage .
You can bet that You ’ s attorneys were watching the Carter case closely .
She pleaded not guilty in November , but with Carter ’ s case in the books as precedent , they may want to consider taking a deal if one is on the table .

We’ve been following the case of Michelle Carter quite closely ever since the “worst girlfriend ever” cropped up in the news, particularly because of the implications it will have for free speech going forward. As you may recall, Carter was the young woman who goaded her “boyfriend” (or possibly just friend), Conrad Roy, into taking his own life via a series of text messages and phone calls encouraging him to “just do it.” Roy wound up asphyxiating himself inside of his running pickup truck.
Carter was later convicted of manslaughter despite the fact that she was located more than fifty miles away when Roy died. Her attorneys appealed the case, losing that effort at the state level and finally taking their case to the Supreme Court. Today the Supremes put the matter to an end by refusing to hear the appeal. (NBC News)
The Supreme Court said Monday it would not take up an appeal brought by Michelle Carter, the young woman who encouraged her boyfriend, through texts and phone calls, to kill himself. The court’s refusal to take the case leaves her conviction intact… The court declined to decide whether her involuntary manslaughter conviction violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech because it was based solely on words that she texted or spoke. She was sentenced to 15 months in jail.
I’m not even going to pretend to understand what the justices were thinking when they refused to even hear this case. If there was ever a situation affecting free speech that cried out for a full and fair hearing at the highest level it should have been this one. As I wrote at the conclusion of her first trial, this still appears to be a total miscarriage of justice
Though I’ve pointed this out before, it bears repeating. I do not make this argument out of some belief that Michelle Carter is somehow completely innocent or deserving of sympathy. She’s obviously a horrible human being and not someone any sane person should want to be around. The things she said in those text messages paint the picture of a sociopathic monster without a drop of the milk of human kindness inside of her.
But there are (sadly) lots of terrible people in this world and the fact remains that Michelle Carter was sent to prison for fifteen months for saying things. She did not kill Conrad Roy herself nor did she even physically assist him in his suicide. Roy made that choice himself, even getting out of the truck at one point when he clearly was having second thoughts before Carter convinced him to get back in.
If there were some special laws about emotional abuse of the mentally ill (which Roy clearly seemed to be) then perhaps we could understand a conviction for something like that. But even that would be rather dodgy. And Carter was sent up for manslaughter. If she can be sent to prison for saying things, what other things might you or anyone else say that could land you behind bars?
Carter is due to be released from prison next month, but that’s not the end of this story. We learned more recently of a second contender for the title of Worst Girlfriend Ever. Inyoung You, a South Korean college student in Boston, convinced her boyfriend Alexander Urtula to jump to his death from the top of a parking garage. You can bet that You’s attorneys were watching the Carter case closely. She pleaded not guilty in November, but with Carter’s case in the books as precedent, they may want to consider taking a deal if one is on the table.


hotair--2020-01-13--CNN: Team Warren claims Sanders said a woman couldn't win against Trump; <span class=red>Progressive

CNN: Team Warren claims Sanders said a woman couldn't win against Trump; Progressive org: Both of you knock it off

Man , when the gloves come off , they really come off .
Bernie Sanders may have started jabbing earlier , as Allahpundit wrote , by suggesting sotto voce that Elizabeth Warren doesn ’ t bring any new voters to the Democratic ranks .
Team Warren responded with a haymaker by painting Sanders as an unrecalcitrant sexist .
Four sources , two of whom took part in the December 2018 meeting between the two progressive contenders , allege that Sanders told Warren that a woman couldn ’ t win an election in 2020 : The two agreed that if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another , so as not to hurt the progressive movement .
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump , and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate : She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters .
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win .
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people : two people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encounter , and two people familiar with the meeting .
That evening , Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics , according to one of the people familiar with the conversation .
Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win , three of the four sources said .
Hoo boy .
Readers with long memories might remember that Hillary Clinton and her supporters accused Sanders of being sexist too , even earlier in that primary process than we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was that Sanders shouted in a debate , perhaps before everyone realized that Sanders is always shouting .
( There ’ s a reason why Larry David has a recurring SNL gig playing Sanders . )
Even at that time , though , most people considered it a throat-clearing exercise for Clinton ’ s general-election strategy , which she deployed but which also failed to connect with voters .
If Sanders told Warren a woman couldn ’ t win , though , that ’ s a different kettle of fish .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misogynistic .
But did he really say that ?
Sanders hotly disputed the allegation , and referenced Clinton in his response : “ It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president , I would tell her that a woman couldn ’ t win , ” Sanders said .
“ It ’ s sad that , three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation , staff who weren ’ t in the room are lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could .
Do I believe a woman can win in 2020 ?
Of course !
After all , Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.
” It does seem like a strange claim to make in December 2018 , at a time when # MeToo was ascending in public consciousness .
It doesn ’ t help that Warren has made a habit of inventing sexism-victimization stories to advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit like that very impulse , especially with Warren ’ s decline in polling over the last three months .
She needs to find a way to distinguish herself from Sanders , who ’ s benefited to some degree to her decline .
On the other hand , Sanders credited Warren ’ s initial rise in polling to ” a certain number of people who would like to see a woman elected , ” in an interview with Chris Cuomo .
Sanders went out of his way to praise Warren as a friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t doing much to hide his frustration with identity politics eclipsing policy and credibility : However , nothing in this suggests that Sanders thinks a woman can ’ t win an election against Trump .
He ’ s arguing , really more covertly than overtly , that gender is irrelevant to the nomination , and that Democrats should be more focused on policy .
So we ’ ve heard from Sanders on this claim .
What about Elizabeth Warren herself ?
The CNN story doesn ’ t name her as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one way or the other .
That ’ s just as good as driving the bus over her buddy Bernie , says Axios ’ Jonathan Swan : It ’ s a strange no-comment , to be sure .
If it ’ s false , why wouldn ’ t Warren kill the story before it went public ?
And if that ’ s really what Sanders told Warren , why wouldn ’ t she confirm the story ?
This looks suspiciously like eating one ’ s cake while having it too , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gamesmanship from someone who ’ s getting desperate to reclaim her position in the primary fight .
One wonders whether this is too cute by half among the voters for whom Warren ’ s competing with Sanders .
This sets up tomorrow night ’ s debate with even more drama .
Will the moderators press Warren to confirm or deny the story ?
And if they don ’ t , will Sanders bring it up himself ?
Stock up on your popcorn now … Update : Remember Democracy for America , the PAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re not too yeeeaaaargh about this feud breaking into the open : Nice try , but this isn ’ t the doing of “ the corporate wing ” or Donald Trump .
It ’ s just two progressives going to war all on their own .

Man, when the gloves come off, they really come off. Bernie Sanders may have started jabbing earlier, as Allahpundit wrote, by suggesting sotto voce that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t bring any new voters to the Democratic ranks. Team Warren responded with a haymaker by painting Sanders as an unrecalcitrant sexist. Four sources, two of whom took part in the December 2018 meeting between the two progressive contenders, allege that Sanders told Warren that a woman couldn’t win an election in 2020:
The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement. They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win. The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting. That evening, Sanders expressed frustration at what he saw as a growing focus among Democrats on identity politics, according to one of the people familiar with the conversation. Warren told Sanders she disagreed with his assessment that a woman could not win, three of the four sources said.
Hoo boy. Readers with long memories might remember that Hillary Clinton and her supporters accused Sanders of being sexist too, even earlier in that primary process than we are now. Supposedly the basis for that was that Sanders shouted in a debate, perhaps before everyone realized that Sanders is always shouting. (There’s a reason why Larry David has a recurring SNL gig playing Sanders.) Even at that time, though, most people considered it a throat-clearing exercise for Clinton’s general-election strategy, which she deployed but which also failed to connect with voters.
If Sanders told Warren a woman couldn’t win, though, that’s a different kettle of fish. That sounds pretty chauvinistic, if not downright misogynistic. But did he really say that? Sanders hotly disputed the allegation, and referenced Clinton in his response:
“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win,” Sanders said. “It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened. What I did say that night was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could. Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 3 million votes in 2016.”
It does seem like a strange claim to make in December 2018, at a time when #MeToo was ascending in public consciousness. It doesn’t help that Warren has made a habit of inventing sexism-victimization stories to advance her campaign narrative. This sounds a bit like that very impulse, especially with Warren’s decline in polling over the last three months. She needs to find a way to distinguish herself from Sanders, who’s benefited to some degree to her decline.
On the other hand, Sanders credited Warren’s initial rise in polling to ” a certain number of people who would like to see a woman elected,” in an interview with Chris Cuomo. Sanders went out of his way to praise Warren as a friend and a good campaigner, but he wasn’t doing much to hide his frustration with identity politics eclipsing policy and credibility:
However, nothing in this suggests that Sanders thinks a woman can’t win an election against Trump. He’s arguing, really more covertly than overtly, that gender is irrelevant to the nomination, and that Democrats should be more focused on policy.
So we’ve heard from Sanders on this claim. What about Elizabeth Warren herself? The CNN story doesn’t name her as a source, but she declined to comment one way or the other. That’s just as good as driving the bus over her buddy Bernie, says Axios’ Jonathan Swan:
The most important line in this story is that Elizabeth Warren’s campaign declined to comment. She was in the room for the alleged Bernie Sanders comment and by not commenting she allows the story to run. https://t.co/uP8sqBaJmC — Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) January 13, 2020
It’s a strange no-comment, to be sure. If it’s false, why wouldn’t Warren kill the story before it went public? And if that’s really what Sanders told Warren, why wouldn’t she confirm the story? This looks suspiciously like eating one’s cake while having it too, but it’s got a strong whiff of gamesmanship from someone who’s getting desperate to reclaim her position in the primary fight. One wonders whether this is too cute by half among the voters for whom Warren’s competing with Sanders.
This sets up tomorrow night’s debate with even more drama. Will the moderators press Warren to confirm or deny the story? And if they don’t, will Sanders bring it up himself? Stock up on your popcorn now …
Update: Remember Democracy for America, the PAC founded by Howard Dean? They’re not too yeeeaaaargh about this feud breaking into the open:
.@BernieSanders and @ewarren, you both are progressive champs & our movement needs to see you working together to defeat your corporate Dem opponents — not attack each other. Progressives will win in 2020, but only if we don't let the corporate wing or Trump divide us. 🤝 — Democracy for America (@DFAaction) January 13, 2020
Nice try, but this isn’t the doing of “the corporate wing” or Donald Trump. It’s just two progressives going to war all on their own.


hotair--2020-01-13--Ex-DOJ official picked to review changes to FISA Court process was a critic of the Nunes memo

Back in February of 2018 when the Nunes memo was released , the left was quick to pronounce it “ a joke and a sham.
” But roughly two years later , Inspector General Horowitz confirmed the major points of the Nunes memo .
More broadly , the IG report concluded the FBI had failed to do its job in the Carter Page warrant application , finding 17 errors , some of which were clearly intentional attempts to deceive the court .
The situation was serious enough that the court itself wrote a letter rebuking the FBI and demanding it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent a repeat of the multiple failures described in the IG report .
Now the court has selected a person who will review those proposed changes .
From the Daily Caller : Judge James E. Boasberg , who presides over the FISC , tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI ’ s handling of the Page surveillance warrants .
In that role , Kris will “ assist ” the FISC in assessing the FBI ’ s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight individuals designated by FISC as eligible to serve as an amicus curiae , which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process .
Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris .
None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe .
David Kris is a very odd choice because he was one of the voices shouting down the Nunes memo after it was released .
This is from a piece he wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes , we now know , is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court .
The key question going forward is whether the memo ’ s authors and sponsors will face any consequences for their dishonesty .
If not , we can expect to see more of the same , with potentially dire results .
By now , several days after release of the minority response memo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , many people may have thrown up their hands and moved on to other topics .
For that reason , I have kept this post short and focused on essentials .
It ’ s important , in the era of President Trump , to afford hard issues the same , thoughtful , nuanced treatment that we would expect under different circumstances .
But it ’ s also important , when the situation warrants it , to call a spade a shovel .
Kris was firmly convinced that the Schiff memo had proved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but intentionally misleading .
He even suggested Nunes could be prosecuted over it .
But again , that ’ s the opposite of what IG Horowitz concluded .
Even the Washington Post agreed that Horowitz had confirmed the outlines of the Nunes memo .
All of this raises an obvious question : Why would the FISA Court select someone who was both outspoken and wrong about the very abuse it is trying to correct as the person to oversee changes in the process ?
That ’ s a question quite a few people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has chosen someone who was a defender of the court ( though he has recently admitted the IG report shows there were serious errors ) .
Why not choose someone who was a bit more skeptical all along as a reviewer of the changes to the process ?
Here ’ s Nunes suggesting that maybe the FISA Court is telling Congress it needs to be abolished :

Back in February of 2018 when the Nunes memo was released, the left was quick to pronounce it “a joke and a sham.” But roughly two years later, Inspector General Horowitz confirmed the major points of the Nunes memo. More broadly, the IG report concluded the FBI had failed to do its job in the Carter Page warrant application, finding 17 errors, some of which were clearly intentional attempts to deceive the court.
The situation was serious enough that the court itself wrote a letter rebuking the FBI and demanding it propose changes to the process that would prevent a repeat of the multiple failures described in the IG report. Now the court has selected a person who will review those proposed changes. From the Daily Caller:
Judge James E. Boasberg, who presides over the FISC, tapped Kris serve as amicus curiae for a review of the FBI’s handling of the Page surveillance warrants. In that role, Kris will “assist” the FISC in assessing the FBI’s implementation of a series of reforms to address the problems uncovered in the IG report… Kris is one of eight individuals designated by FISC as eligible to serve as an amicus curiae, which are designed to act as neutral arbitrators in issues involving the FISA process. Boasberg did not provide a rationale for choosing Kris. None of the other seven potential amici curiae have spoken out publicly about the Page FISA issue or the Trump-Russia probe.
David Kris is a very odd choice because he was one of the voices shouting down the Nunes memo after it was released. This is from a piece he wrote in March 2018:
The central irony of the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, we now know, is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. The key question going forward is whether the memo’s authors and sponsors will face any consequences for their dishonesty. If not, we can expect to see more of the same, with potentially dire results. By now, several days after release of the minority response memo and with so much conflicting noise in the system, many people may have thrown up their hands and moved on to other topics. For that reason, I have kept this post short and focused on essentials. It’s important, in the era of President Trump, to afford hard issues the same, thoughtful, nuanced treatment that we would expect under different circumstances. But it’s also important, when the situation warrants it, to call a spade a shovel.
Kris was firmly convinced that the Schiff memo had proved the Nunes memo was not only wrong but intentionally misleading. He even suggested Nunes could be prosecuted over it. But again, that’s the opposite of what IG Horowitz concluded. Even the Washington Post agreed that Horowitz had confirmed the outlines of the Nunes memo.
All of this raises an obvious question: Why would the FISA Court select someone who was both outspoken and wrong about the very abuse it is trying to correct as the person to oversee changes in the process? That’s a question quite a few people in Washington are asking:
https://twitter.com/carterwpage/status/1215814128914141184
You can’t make this up… FISA Court must be trying to abolish itself… | @ChuckRossDC https://t.co/QZn3o9j0Qc — Devin Nunes (@DevinNunes) January 12, 2020
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216429943925723139
The court has chosen someone who was a defender of the court (though he has recently admitted the IG report shows there were serious errors). Why not choose someone who was a bit more skeptical all along as a reviewer of the changes to the process? Here’s Nunes suggesting that maybe the FISA Court is telling Congress it needs to be abolished:


hotair--2020-01-13--Here we go: Bernie and Warren starting to jab each other as Iowa approaches

Can ’ t believe I ’ m going to have to watch tomorrow night ’ s debate because there ’ s a decent chance two old reds are going to start brawling onstage .
But you know the first rule of American politics in 2019 : Drama is everything .
In fairness to Bernie , this is the mildest conceivable criticism he ( via his volunteers ) could have thrown at Warren : The script instructs Sanders volunteers to tell voters leaning toward the Massachusetts senator that the “ people who support her are highly-educated , more affluent people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic no matter what ” and that “ she ’ s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.
” “ I like Elizabeth Warren .
[ optional ] ” the script begins .
“ In fact , she ’ s my second choice .
But here ’ s my concern about her.
” It then pivots to the criticisms of Warren… “ We were told never to go negative or contrast with other candidates , ” a person close to Sanders ’ campaign told POLITICO .
“ Bernie would let us know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s happening , he ’ s aware.
” Rarely does a bruising attack on a fellow candidate come with the caveat “ in fact , she ’ s my second choice.
” If you want to knife Warren you don ’ t hit her on alleged electability grounds , as Bernie has enough problems of his own on that point that he shouldn ’ t want Iowans thinking hard about it .
You knife her by highlighting her history as a corporate lawyer , a phony class warrior who ’ s happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wine cave ” fundraisers despite having held a few of those herself in the past .
Maybe you also knife her by highlighting her failure of nerve on Medicare for All , first fudging the numbers on how she ’ d allegedly pay for it without new taxes on the middle class and then backburnering the topic on the trail as her polls began to fade .
Is that someone whom Democrats can count on as president to fight tirelessly for bold change ?
“ She won ’ t turn out new voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standards , especially given how hot the race is in Iowa at the moment .
It ’ s true that Warren ’ s numbers have crumbled nationally since her high point in October and it ’ s also true that Bernie ’ s numbers have risen since Thanksgiving , encouraging progressives to rally behind him .
But the race between them is closer than it appears in the states that count .
The Des Moines Register poll published on Friday night had Sanders leading the field at 20 percent with Warren a scant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa Dems say they ’ re undecided .
The most recent poll of New Hampshire , meanwhile , had Buttigieg at 20 percent with Bernie and Warren bunched up behind him at 18 and 15 percent , respectively .
By no means has Sanders gained a decisive edge .
If Team Bernie is playing to win , it ’ s now or never in going negative to push Warren aside among progressive voters .
And although the electability argument against her is weak , I think it makes sense in context .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dems there go out on caucus night and decide that they want someone who ’ ll be more aggressive than Biden and Buttigieg in fighting for lefty priorities but not so aggressive that they ’ re going to hang the “ socialist ” label on the party in the general election .
Warren may be a goldilocks compromise to some , the “ electable ” left-winger .
Sanders sees the possibility and is doing what he can — delicately — to counter it .
He played dumb this weekend when asked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare question-and-answer session with reporters after his final event of a weekend Iowa swing , Mr. Sanders — in response to a question on whether he approved of his campaign ’ s criticism of Ms. Warren — denied responsibility for the script , saying he himself had never attacked Ms. Warren .
And he blamed the news media for overstating the tension between the two campaigns .
“ I got to tell you , I think this is a little bit of a media blowup , that kind of wants conflict , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very good friend of mine , ” Mr. Sanders , of Vermont , said .
“ We have worked together in the Senate for years .
Elizabeth Warren and I will continue to work together , we will debate the issues.
” Was that enough de-escalation for Warren to overlook the reports that Team Sanders was coming after her ?
It was not : Note the point about factionalism .
She knows that for some lefties this election is “ Bernie or bust.
” If she beats him and they stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at another 2016 nightmare .
But I think that fear is overblown : Sanders was a reluctant supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 but he ’ d be less reluctant to stump for his friend Elizabeth and coax the contingent of butthurt progressives in his base into showing up for her .
Between that and the urgency leftists feel to oust Trump , she ’ ll do fine as nominee in turning out the party ’ s left wing .
I leave you with a question I asked last week : Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to stop Bernie if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire — and if so , behind which alternative would they mobilize ?
We all assume it ’ d be Biden , but that depends in part on how badly Grandpa Joe does in those two states .
Imagine that Warren finishes second in both while Biden finishes a disappointing fourth .
At that point Team Obama could go all-in on Joe , knowing that he ’ s likely to win South Carolina and maaaaaybe build off that to rebound on Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard and conclude that Biden ’ s too weak to stop Sanders given his showing in the early states , even with SC in his pocket .
Maybe they ’ re better off lining up behind Warren , hoping that that nudge puts her over the top in Nevada , and then she springboards off of that to finish a strong second in South Carolina .
“ If I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field , I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this weekend , reflecting what appears to be the O-World view that it ’ s more important for Bernie not to be nominated than for Grandpa Joe to be nominated .
If that ’ s their position then Warren should be in play for them , pending the results from IA and NH .

Can’t believe I’m going to have to watch tomorrow night’s debate because there’s a decent chance two old reds are going to start brawling onstage.
But you know the first rule of American politics in 2019: Drama is everything.
In fairness to Bernie, this is the mildest conceivable criticism he (via his volunteers) could have thrown at Warren:
The script instructs Sanders volunteers to tell voters leaning toward the Massachusetts senator that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.” “I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]” the script begins. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” It then pivots to the criticisms of Warren… “We were told never to go negative or contrast with other candidates,” a person close to Sanders’ campaign told POLITICO. “Bernie would let us know when it was O.K.. So if that’s happening, he’s aware.”
Rarely does a bruising attack on a fellow candidate come with the caveat “in fact, she’s my second choice.” If you want to knife Warren you don’t hit her on alleged electability grounds, as Bernie has enough problems of his own on that point that he shouldn’t want Iowans thinking hard about it. You knife her by highlighting her history as a corporate lawyer, a phony class warrior who’s happy to scoff at Buttigieg’s “wine cave” fundraisers despite having held a few of those herself in the past. Maybe you also knife her by highlighting her failure of nerve on Medicare for All, first fudging the numbers on how she’d allegedly pay for it without new taxes on the middle class and then backburnering the topic on the trail as her polls began to fade. Is that someone whom Democrats can count on as president to fight tirelessly for bold change?
“She won’t turn out new voters” is a love tap by campaign standards, especially given how hot the race is in Iowa at the moment. It’s true that Warren’s numbers have crumbled nationally since her high point in October and it’s also true that Bernie’s numbers have risen since Thanksgiving, encouraging progressives to rally behind him. But the race between them is closer than it appears in the states that count. The Des Moines Register poll published on Friday night had Sanders leading the field at 20 percent with Warren a scant three points behind. Fully 45 percent of Iowa Dems say they’re undecided. The most recent poll of New Hampshire, meanwhile, had Buttigieg at 20 percent with Bernie and Warren bunched up behind him at 18 and 15 percent, respectively. By no means has Sanders gained a decisive edge.
If Team Bernie is playing to win, it’s now or never in going negative to push Warren aside among progressive voters. And although the electability argument against her is weak, I think it makes sense in context. The way Warren wins Iowa is if Dems there go out on caucus night and decide that they want someone who’ll be more aggressive than Biden and Buttigieg in fighting for lefty priorities but not so aggressive that they’re going to hang the “socialist” label on the party in the general election. Warren may be a goldilocks compromise to some, the “electable” left-winger. Sanders sees the possibility and is doing what he can — delicately — to counter it.
He played dumb this weekend when asked about the script his volunteers are following:
In a rare question-and-answer session with reporters after his final event of a weekend Iowa swing, Mr. Sanders — in response to a question on whether he approved of his campaign’s criticism of Ms. Warren — denied responsibility for the script, saying he himself had never attacked Ms. Warren. And he blamed the news media for overstating the tension between the two campaigns. “I got to tell you, I think this is a little bit of a media blowup, that kind of wants conflict,” he said. “Elizabeth Warren is a very good friend of mine,” Mr. Sanders, of Vermont, said. “We have worked together in the Senate for years. Elizabeth Warren and I will continue to work together, we will debate the issues.”
Was that enough de-escalation for Warren to overlook the reports that Team Sanders was coming after her? It was not:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren: "I was disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me." https://t.co/b5osEGoVco pic.twitter.com/37OilRRfFF — The Hill (@thehill) January 13, 2020
Note the point about factionalism. She knows that for some lefties this election is “Bernie or bust.” If she beats him and they stay home in November protest, Dems are looking at another 2016 nightmare. But I think that fear is overblown: Sanders was a reluctant supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 but he’d be less reluctant to stump for his friend Elizabeth and coax the contingent of butthurt progressives in his base into showing up for her. Between that and the urgency leftists feel to oust Trump, she’ll do fine as nominee in turning out the party’s left wing.
I leave you with a question I asked last week: Is there a scenario in which ObamaWorld mobilizes to try to stop Bernie if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire — and if so, behind which alternative would they mobilize? We all assume it’d be Biden, but that depends in part on how badly Grandpa Joe does in those two states. Imagine that Warren finishes second in both while Biden finishes a disappointing fourth. At that point Team Obama could go all-in on Joe, knowing that he’s likely to win South Carolina and maaaaaybe build off that to rebound on Super Tuesday. But they might also swallow hard and conclude that Biden’s too weak to stop Sanders given his showing in the early states, even with SC in his pocket. Maybe they’re better off lining up behind Warren, hoping that that nudge puts her over the top in Nevada, and then she springboards off of that to finish a strong second in South Carolina. “If I were a campaign manager for Donald Trump and I look at the field, I would very much want to run against Bernie Sanders,” said Obama crony Jim Messina this weekend, reflecting what appears to be the O-World view that it’s more important for Bernie not to be nominated than for Grandpa Joe to be nominated. If that’s their position then Warren should be in play for them, pending the results from IA and NH.


hotair--2020-01-14--Liberals angry that NYPD is installing cameras to stop antisemitic attacks in NYC

Following the spate of antisemitic attacks in New York City , both the Mayor and the Governor pledged to take swift action to do something about it .
In a pleasant surprise , as compared to how business is normally done in New York , they moved quickly and actually came up with something that might be helpful while not breaking the bank .
The police have begun the process of installing new security cameras around Brooklyn , focusing on the traditionally Jewish neighborhoods where most of the violence has taken place .
( CBS New York ) The city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras in Brooklyn in response to the recent anti-Semitic hate crimes .
Mayor Bill de Blasio says the NYPD will install 100 new cameras in Williamsburg , Crown Heights and Borough Park .
The first 30 cameras will be up and working by March .
This seems like a solid plan that ’ s not going to cost the taxpayers a ton of cash .
And it ’ s something that ’ s already known to deliver proven results .
You ’ ll remember that a couple of the antisemitic attacks last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only way they eventually managed to identify the assailant .
( For some reason , many of the residents don ’ t care to talk to or cooperate with the police . )
There are quite a few privately owned cameras mounted outside of businesses and residences in New York City , but they obviously don ’ t provide full coverage .
Also , making use of the footage they record relies on either the cooperative nature of the owners or obtaining a warrant in a timely fashion .
With the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , swifter action should be possible .
Of course , not everyone is happy about this news .
( We ’ re talking about New York City , after all . )
There are already reports of people calling in to local radio shows or showing up at demonstrations saying that cameras like these are turning our society into a “ police state ” or something .
Others have long been pushing back against the use of facial recognition software by law enforcement , asserting that it unjustly targets minorities .
And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ F*** the Police ” marches that take place in Brooklyn on a regular basis .
Gee… it ’ s almost as if some of these people don ’ t want the police to catch the people who are attacking the Jews .
Perish the thought .
It ’ s a rare day when I get the chance to offer props to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio , but this is one of those infrequent occasions where I ’ m glad to do so .
This plan was drawn up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if knowing they are under constant surveillance makes some of these antisemitic attackers think twice before committing their crimes , it will definitely be worth it .
Failing that , if the cameras help get the perpetrators off the streets and into a jail cell quickly , that ’ s still a major improvement ( assuming they aren ’ t immediately released on bail thanks to the state ’ s new “ bail reform ” law ) .
Let ’ s just hope that Hizzoner doesn ’ t listen to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knees on this project .

Following the spate of antisemitic attacks in New York City, both the Mayor and the Governor pledged to take swift action to do something about it. In a pleasant surprise, as compared to how business is normally done in New York, they moved quickly and actually came up with something that might be helpful while not breaking the bank. The police have begun the process of installing new security cameras around Brooklyn, focusing on the traditionally Jewish neighborhoods where most of the violence has taken place. (CBS New York)
The city is planning to add dozens of security cameras in Brooklyn in response to the recent anti-Semitic hate crimes. Mayor Bill de Blasio says the NYPD will install 100 new cameras in Williamsburg, Crown Heights and Borough Park. The first 30 cameras will be up and working by March.
This seems like a solid plan that’s not going to cost the taxpayers a ton of cash. And it’s something that’s already known to deliver proven results. You’ll remember that a couple of the antisemitic attacks last year were captured on camera and that was the only way they eventually managed to identify the assailant. (For some reason, many of the residents don’t care to talk to or cooperate with the police.)
There are quite a few privately owned cameras mounted outside of businesses and residences in New York City, but they obviously don’t provide full coverage. Also, making use of the footage they record relies on either the cooperative nature of the owners or obtaining a warrant in a timely fashion. With the police having their own video at key locations, swifter action should be possible.
Of course, not everyone is happy about this news. (We’re talking about New York City, after all.) There are already reports of people calling in to local radio shows or showing up at demonstrations saying that cameras like these are turning our society into a “police state” or something. Others have long been pushing back against the use of facial recognition software by law enforcement, asserting that it unjustly targets minorities. And then, of course, there are the “F*** the Police” marches that take place in Brooklyn on a regular basis.
Gee… it’s almost as if some of these people don’t want the police to catch the people who are attacking the Jews. Perish the thought.
It’s a rare day when I get the chance to offer props to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, but this is one of those infrequent occasions where I’m glad to do so. This plan was drawn up and enacted quickly and in an efficient manner. And if knowing they are under constant surveillance makes some of these antisemitic attackers think twice before committing their crimes, it will definitely be worth it. Failing that, if the cameras help get the perpetrators off the streets and into a jail cell quickly, that’s still a major improvement (assuming they aren’t immediately released on bail thanks to the state’s new “bail reform” law). Let’s just hope that Hizzoner doesn’t listen to the critics and begin to go weak in the knees on this project.