hotair--2020-02-18--Five GOP reps from Illinois: We're disappointed in Trump for commuting Blagojevich's sentence

Such is the stench from Trump granting clemency to his corrupt former “ Apprentice ” crony that even GOPers from deep-red jurisdiction are scrambling to run away from it today .
Darin LaHood represents an R+15 district while John Shimkus hails from one that ’ s R+21 , the sort of numbers that normally deter a Republican from criticizing the president .
Not this time .
They ’ ll risk a few nasty Trump tweets in the interest of making sure voters back home don ’ t detect their fingerprints on this turd of a commutation .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Disloyal Republicans from Illinois thought my move on Blagojevich sucked !
” would be a nice message for these guys coming from Trump given that like 70-80 percent of the public is destined to conclude that it sucked as well .
Imagine the statements they ’ ll issue after the Roger Stone pardon , which should be along any day now .
Ben Shapiro made me laugh with this : Blagojevich , a Democrat , was impeached 114-1 by the House and removed as governor 59-0 by the Senate in the deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own party didn ’ t want his stink on them .
Trump ’ s happy to bathe in it .
He ’ s spoken before about potentially commuting Blago ’ s prison sentence , tweeting about its alleged unjustness long before he was involved in politics , but not until today did he finally make his move .
How come ?
It could be that Blago was fresh in his mind after having recently kissed his ass , publishing an op-ed in Newsmax on New Year ’ s Day entitled “ House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified him in the piece , tersely , as “ the 40th governor of Illinois , 2003-09.
” ) He wouldn ’ t be the first beneficiary of clemency in the Trump era to have written his way into the president ’ s good graces : Conrad Black has championed Trump with a Hannity-esque fervor in op-eds over the past few years and was rewarded last May with a pardon for the charges of obstruction of justice and fraud of which he was convicted in 2007 .
Stone ’ s probably already drafted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s future depends on a Trump victory this fall that he plans to give to Breitbart or American Greatness , just in case the president drags his feet on that pardon .
I also think Trump went on a clemency spree partly as a post-impeachment victory present to himself and partly out of frustration that his boy Bill Barr isn ’ t delivering the sort of revenge for him that he was hired to deliver .
BuzzFeed noted in its story today about the Blago pardon this old Trump quote from August : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call , which he shouldn ’ t have said what he said , but it was braggadocio , you would say , ” Trump said .
“ I would think that there have been many politicians — I ’ m not one of them , by the way — that have said a lot worse over the telephone.
” ( Blagojevich was , in fact , convicted on the basis of multiple pieces of evidence , not a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done with his own political ordeal stemming from a supposedly “ perfect phone call.
” Maybe he wanted to make a point about not overreacting to what politicians say on the phone by springing a guy from prison who , uh , used it to try to sell a Senate appointment .
Trump also complained today about that the conviction of Blagojevich was “ a prosecution by the same people , Comey , Fitzpatrick — the same group ” that came after him for Russiagate .
There were reports circulating last week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump was angry that his enemies , most notably James Comey , had yet to face any charges for their conduct during the Russia probe while his friends , like Stone and Mike Flynn , were being sent to prison .
That anger got worse after the DOJ ’ s surprising decision not to charge Andrew McCabe .
Today ’ s Blago clemency might have been Trump ’ s way of “ balancing the scales ” by undoing some of the DOJ ’ s previous success against other Trump allies .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone matter was that he was trying to make amends to Trump for not having convicted any of his antagonists ; Barr can ’ t manufacture evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt out of thin air but he can certainly encourage leniency for Trump ’ s cronies .
The Blago/Milken/Kerik stuff is Trump ’ s twist on that .
As president , he doesn ’ t need to ask for leniency .
He can order it .
Stone will be next .

Such is the stench from Trump granting clemency to his corrupt former “Apprentice” crony that even GOPers from deep-red jurisdiction are scrambling to run away from it today. Darin LaHood represents an R+15 district while John Shimkus hails from one that’s R+21, the sort of numbers that normally deter a Republican from criticizing the president. Not this time. They’ll risk a few nasty Trump tweets in the interest of making sure voters back home don’t detect their fingerprints on this turd of a commutation.
In fact, they might even welcome those tweets. “Disloyal Republicans from Illinois thought my move on Blagojevich sucked!” would be a nice message for these guys coming from Trump given that like 70-80 percent of the public is destined to conclude that it sucked as well.
Imagine the statements they’ll issue after the Roger Stone pardon, which should be along any day now.
NEW: Joint statement from Illinois GOP Reps. Davis, LaHood, Bost, Kinzinger & Shimkus, who say they are “disappointed” by Trump commuting Blago’s sentence pic.twitter.com/gNlKKOO4RS — Melanie Zanona (@MZanona) February 18, 2020
Ben Shapiro made me laugh with this:
Everyone: Only Trump can beat Trump
Trump: https://t.co/7m4GiukCPd — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 18, 2020
Blagojevich, a Democrat, was impeached 114-1 by the House and removed as governor 59-0 by the Senate in the deeply Democratic state of Illinois. Even his own party didn’t want his stink on them. Trump’s happy to bathe in it.
He’s spoken before about potentially commuting Blago’s prison sentence, tweeting about its alleged unjustness long before he was involved in politics, but not until today did he finally make his move. How come? It could be that Blago was fresh in his mind after having recently kissed his ass, publishing an op-ed in Newsmax on New Year’s Day entitled “House Democrats Would Have Impeached Lincoln.” (Newsmax identified him in the piece, tersely, as “the 40th governor of Illinois, 2003-09.”) He wouldn’t be the first beneficiary of clemency in the Trump era to have written his way into the president’s good graces: Conrad Black has championed Trump with a Hannity-esque fervor in op-eds over the past few years and was rewarded last May with a pardon for the charges of obstruction of justice and fraud of which he was convicted in 2007.
Stone’s probably already drafted a few columns about how America’s future depends on a Trump victory this fall that he plans to give to Breitbart or American Greatness, just in case the president drags his feet on that pardon.
I also think Trump went on a clemency spree partly as a post-impeachment victory present to himself and partly out of frustration that his boy Bill Barr isn’t delivering the sort of revenge for him that he was hired to deliver. BuzzFeed noted in its story today about the Blago pardon this old Trump quote from August:
“He’s been in jail for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call, which he shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio, you would say,” Trump said. “I would think that there have been many politicians — I’m not one of them, by the way — that have said a lot worse over the telephone.” (Blagojevich was, in fact, convicted on the basis of multiple pieces of evidence, not a single phone call.)
He just got done with his own political ordeal stemming from a supposedly “perfect phone call.” Maybe he wanted to make a point about not overreacting to what politicians say on the phone by springing a guy from prison who, uh, used it to try to sell a Senate appointment. Trump also complained today about that the conviction of Blagojevich was “a prosecution by the same people, Comey, Fitzpatrick — the same group” that came after him for Russiagate. There were reports circulating last week after Barr waded into the Stone sentencing fiasco that Trump was angry that his enemies, most notably James Comey, had yet to face any charges for their conduct during the Russia probe while his friends, like Stone and Mike Flynn, were being sent to prison. That anger got worse after the DOJ’s surprising decision not to charge Andrew McCabe. Today’s Blago clemency might have been Trump’s way of “balancing the scales” by undoing some of the DOJ’s previous success against other Trump allies. My theory on why Barr barged into the Stone matter was that he was trying to make amends to Trump for not having convicted any of his antagonists; Barr can’t manufacture evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt out of thin air but he can certainly encourage leniency for Trump’s cronies. The Blago/Milken/Kerik stuff is Trump’s twist on that. As president, he doesn’t need to ask for leniency. He can order it. Stone will be next.


hotair--2020-02-18--Trump: It sounds to me like Sen. Murphy violated the Logan Act

Earlier , Ed wrote about Sen. Chris Murphy ’ s meeting with Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Javad Zarif and the response from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who made clear the meeting was not approved .
Today , President Trump raised the issue with a group of reporters , saying it sounded to him like a violation of the Logan Act : Having Trump raise this is probably the only way it will get any media attention .
Quite simply , no one takes the Logan Act seriously unless the person being accused is Michael Flynn .
Then a violation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cause for an FBI investigation .
But when a Democrat sits down secretly with a representative of the world ’ s leading sponsor of terror , that gets a shrug .
The Federalist noted earlier today that Sen. Murphy initially refused to comment on his meeting with Zarif but today he published a description of his visit to Munich on Medium .
Here ’ s a bit of it [ emphasis added ] : My second objective is to make some waves within the large Middle East delegation that is in Munich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been an unmitigated disaster .
Everywhere you look in the region , he has helped make things worse .
Our troops are at risk of being kicked out of Iraq .
Iran is restarting elements of their nuclear program .
Syria is more dangerous than ever .
Lebanon has fallen into the hands of Hezbollah .
I have been invited to sit on a panel of Middle East Foreign Ministers .
I am the sole U.S. figure on the panel , and I use the spotlight to make the case that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be trying to help Saudi Arabia gain preeminence over Iran , as is the policy priority under Trump .
Our goal instead should be reducing , not ramping up , tensions between these two regional powers , not on trying to make sure one side eventually prevails .
No doubt Saudi Arabia is an ally , but they are a deeply imperfect ally , and we should be more conscious about when our interests align with their interests .
My comments are provocative , but they are designed to be .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats have a different view of the Middle East than Trump — this will be welcome news to some at the conference… As the sun sets in Munich , I have one more mission .
For years , I have met on occasion with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , during both the Obama and Trump Administrations .
I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary , responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not talk to your enemies .
Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis .
But Trump , of course , has no such interests .
For the last three years , there has been no diplomatic channel between America and Iran , and not coincidentally , tensions have escalated , most recently resulting in over 100 American soldiers being injured in an Iranian rocket attack on a U.S. base in Iraq .
I guess that ’ s an admission that Sen. Murphy has previously met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How many of these meetings has he held ?
Finally , after describing the meeting with Zarif in Munich , Sen. Murphy offers this paragraph of caveats : I don ’ t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference .
I ’ m not the President or the Secretary of State — I ’ m just a rank and file U.S .
Senator .
I can not conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government , and I don ’ t pretend to be in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t going to talk to Iran , then someone should .
And Congress is a co-equal branch of government , responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy .
A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy ’ s intentions , and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes .
Notice his use of the word “ whole ” in that sentence above .
It really does sound as if Murphy is saying he can conduct foreign policy on behalf of part of the U.S. government , i.e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bolstered by the fact that earlier he wrote he was eager to let foreign leaders know “ that Democrats have a different view of the Middle East than Trump.
” That sounds a lot like someone trying to undermine rather than reinforce U.S. foreign policy .
So what happened to all the progressive Logan Act scholars who were upset over Gen. Flynn ’ s call with Sergey Kislyak during the transition ?
Here ’ s how the Washington Post reported on the Logan Act back in 2017 : The nature of Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments , according to officials familiar with that debate .
Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election .
U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting .
The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy , known as the Logan Act , stems from a 1799 statute that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction .
As I ’ ve said before , the Logan Act is nonsense .
Still , it ’ s interesting that the mainstream media doesn ’ t seem terribly interested in whether or not Murphy crossed a line with his multiple meetings with the Foreign Minister of an enemy country to convey an alternate view of foreign policy .
All of the Logan Act scholars seem to have vanished into thin air .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ two completely different sets of rules in play .

Earlier, Ed wrote about Sen. Chris Murphy’s meeting with Iranian Foreign Affairs Minister Javad Zarif and the response from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who made clear the meeting was not approved. Today, President Trump raised the issue with a group of reporters, saying it sounded to him like a violation of the Logan Act:
President Trump: "I saw that…Senator Murphy met with the Iranians; is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like to me a violation of the Logan Act." pic.twitter.com/qOEwDaRptR — CSPAN (@cspan) February 18, 2020
Having Trump raise this is probably the only way it will get any media attention. Quite simply, no one takes the Logan Act seriously unless the person being accused is Michael Flynn. Then a violation of the Logan Act is terribly serious and cause for an FBI investigation. But when a Democrat sits down secretly with a representative of the world’s leading sponsor of terror, that gets a shrug.
The Federalist noted earlier today that Sen. Murphy initially refused to comment on his meeting with Zarif but today he published a description of his visit to Munich on Medium. Here’s a bit of it [emphasis added]:
My second objective is to make some waves within the large Middle East delegation that is in Munich. Trump’s Middle East policy has been an unmitigated disaster. Everywhere you look in the region, he has helped make things worse. Our troops are at risk of being kicked out of Iraq. Iran is restarting elements of their nuclear program. Syria is more dangerous than ever. Lebanon has fallen into the hands of Hezbollah. I have been invited to sit on a panel of Middle East Foreign Ministers. I am the sole U.S. figure on the panel, and I use the spotlight to make the case that the overriding U.S. interest in the region should not be trying to help Saudi Arabia gain preeminence over Iran, as is the policy priority under Trump. Our goal instead should be reducing, not ramping up, tensions between these two regional powers, not on trying to make sure one side eventually prevails. No doubt Saudi Arabia is an ally, but they are a deeply imperfect ally, and we should be more conscious about when our interests align with their interests. My comments are provocative, but they are designed to be. I want the leaders in Munich to understand that Democrats have a different view of the Middle East than Trump — this will be welcome news to some at the conference… As the sun sets in Munich, I have one more mission. For years, I have met on occasion with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, during both the Obama and Trump Administrations. I have no delusions about Iran — they are our adversary, responsible for the killing of thousands of Americans and unacceptable levels of support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. But I think it’s dangerous to not talk to your enemies. Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis. But Trump, of course, has no such interests. For the last three years, there has been no diplomatic channel between America and Iran, and not coincidentally, tensions have escalated, most recently resulting in over 100 American soldiers being injured in an Iranian rocket attack on a U.S. base in Iraq.
I guess that’s an admission that Sen. Murphy has previously met with Zarif during the Trump administration. How many of these meetings has he held? Finally, after describing the meeting with Zarif in Munich, Sen. Murphy offers this paragraph of caveats:
I don’t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference. I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should. And Congress is a co-equal branch of government, responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy. A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy’s intentions, and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes.
Notice his use of the word “whole” in that sentence above. It really does sound as if Murphy is saying he can conduct foreign policy on behalf of part of the U.S. government, i.e. progressives in Congress. That’s bolstered by the fact that earlier he wrote he was eager to let foreign leaders know “that Democrats have a different view of the Middle East than Trump.” That sounds a lot like someone trying to undermine rather than reinforce U.S. foreign policy.
So what happened to all the progressive Logan Act scholars who were upset over Gen. Flynn’s call with Sergey Kislyak during the transition? Here’s how the Washington Post reported on the Logan Act back in 2017:
The nature of Flynn’s pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election. U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.
As I’ve said before, the Logan Act is nonsense. Still, it’s interesting that the mainstream media doesn’t seem terribly interested in whether or not Murphy crossed a line with his multiple meetings with the Foreign Minister of an enemy country to convey an alternate view of foreign policy. All of the Logan Act scholars seem to have vanished into thin air. It’s almost like there are two completely different sets of rules in play.


hotair--2020-02-18--The plague of "squeegee kids" is spreading

Normally , when we find ourselves talking about the panhandling hoodlums referred to as squeegee kids , the stories are coming out of Baltimore , Maryland .
But as the New York Post reported this week , this phenomenon has cropped back up in the Big Apple .
There was a rash of such activity a couple of decades ago , but the police eventually discouraged the practice to the point where it was rarely if ever seen .
But now , in a more permissive era under Mayor Bill de Blasio , the squeegee men are back out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services ” on motorists and threatening drivers who don ’ t agree to fork over any money .
Just when you thought they were washed up , the notorious squeegee men are streaking back to Big Apple streets .
The panhandling window-washers , who became the face of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani ’ s quality-of-life crackdown in the 1990s , were back peddling their spotty services in Manhattan over the weekend .
A trio of the in-your-face glass swabbers were spotted plying their trade on 40th Street and Ninth Avenue on Sunday — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City history that some folks weren ’ t in the mood for .
Thus far things haven ’ t gotten as far out of hand as in Baltimore , but it ’ s probably just a matter of time .
The language of these extortionists is pretty much the same no matter where you go .
One of them spoke to the Post , saying “ The mayor don ’ t want to f**k with us .
This is nothing .
Washing windows , asking for an honest buck .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you much of what you need to know .
First of all , they ’ re aware that the current mayor isn ’ t going to crack down on them , so they have no fear of the police .
And , of course , they ’ ll always tell you that it ’ s an honest way to make a living .
Except it ’ s not .
It ’ s not honest at all .
A “ job ” is when someone asks or requires you to do something and compensates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving up to a busy intersection and hoping someone comes by to hold them up in traffic with an unwanted cleaning service and a threatening demand for money in return .
That is , at a minimum , panhandling .
If the situation escalates any further , it ’ s extortion .
Of course , motorists probably shouldn ’ t expect relief any time soon .
Under the city and state ’ s new “ criminal justice reform ” laws we can ’ t even keep bank robbers and drug dealers off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Do you really think they ’ re going to do anything about this situation ?
Under the leadership ( to use the word very generously ) of Bill de Blasio , New York City is gradually sliding back to the way things were in the 80s and early 90s until Giuliani and Bloomberg came into town and started cracking some heads .
If you want to see what New Yorkers have in store for them when this plague finishes ramping up to the way things are in Baltimore , check out this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught a “ squeegee kid ” on camera when a motorist refused to give them any money .
The beating that ensued was horrifying .
And the perpetrators are almost never caught .

Normally, when we find ourselves talking about the panhandling hoodlums referred to as squeegee kids, the stories are coming out of Baltimore, Maryland. But as the New York Post reported this week, this phenomenon has cropped back up in the Big Apple. There was a rash of such activity a couple of decades ago, but the police eventually discouraged the practice to the point where it was rarely if ever seen. But now, in a more permissive era under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the squeegee men are back out on the corners, pushing their unsolicited “services” on motorists and threatening drivers who don’t agree to fork over any money.
Just when you thought they were washed up, the notorious squeegee men are streaking back to Big Apple streets. The panhandling window-washers, who became the face of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s quality-of-life crackdown in the 1990s, were back peddling their spotty services in Manhattan over the weekend. A trio of the in-your-face glass swabbers were spotted plying their trade on 40th Street and Ninth Avenue on Sunday — figures from the annals of New York City history that some folks weren’t in the mood for.
Thus far things haven’t gotten as far out of hand as in Baltimore, but it’s probably just a matter of time. The language of these extortionists is pretty much the same no matter where you go. One of them spoke to the Post, saying “The mayor don’t want to f**k with us. This is nothing. Washing windows, asking for an honest buck. It’s nothing.”
That brief quote probably tells you much of what you need to know. First of all, they’re aware that the current mayor isn’t going to crack down on them, so they have no fear of the police. And, of course, they’ll always tell you that it’s an honest way to make a living.
Except it’s not. It’s not honest at all. A “job” is when someone asks or requires you to do something and compensates you in return. But nobody is driving up to a busy intersection and hoping someone comes by to hold them up in traffic with an unwanted cleaning service and a threatening demand for money in return. That is, at a minimum, panhandling. If the situation escalates any further, it’s extortion.
Of course, motorists probably shouldn’t expect relief any time soon. Under the city and state’s new “criminal justice reform” laws we can’t even keep bank robbers and drug dealers off the streets for longer than a few hours. Do you really think they’re going to do anything about this situation? Under the leadership (to use the word very generously) of Bill de Blasio, New York City is gradually sliding back to the way things were in the 80s and early 90s until Giuliani and Bloomberg came into town and started cracking some heads.
If you want to see what New Yorkers have in store for them when this plague finishes ramping up to the way things are in Baltimore, check out this brief video report from CBS. Someone caught a “squeegee kid” on camera when a motorist refused to give them any money. The beating that ensued was horrifying. And the perpetrators are almost never caught.


hotair--2020-02-18--Landslide? New poll of Nevada suggests Bernie is pulling away

“ Landslide ” is a relative term , of course .
Bernie ’ s not going to get so much as 50 percent of the vote in Nevada .
But given the photo finish in Iowa and the surprisingly tight margin in New Hampshire , a comfortable win would be impressive and potentially game-changing depending upon just how comfortable it is .
Nevada ’ s apt to be the last state that ’ s hotly contested by the big four that have dominated the top tier for the past year .
Warren will likely be done after the vote and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de facto also-ran status after their moment in the sun in New Hampshire .
By his own admission , Biden needs a second-place finish in Nevada in order to build momentum before must-win South Carolina .
Let ’ s say he gets that — but that he also finishes 20 points behind Sanders on caucus night , a very distant , dismal second .
“ BERNIE ’ S FOR REAL , ” the papers will scream the next day .
South Carolinians may began shifting towards him .
In one fell swoop , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been marginalized : Warren gone , Pete and Amy dismissed as pretenders , Biden denied the good buzz he was counting on .
Even Bloomberg , for all his resources , would begin to look small in the face of “ Sanders might be unstoppable ” narrative .
Everyone ’ s preparing for Bernie to win Nevada , even rival campaigns , but I don ’ t know that anyone ’ s prepared for him to win Nevada going away .
Start preparing .
New from the left-wing outfit Data for Progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has Bernie out to a big lead and the left ’ s second choice , Elizabeth Warren , conveniently in second place despite performing terribly in New Hampshire ?
Hmmmm .
Data for Progress also finds Sanders taking 66 percent ( ! )
of the Latino vote , which seems unlikely .
This new Univision poll of Latino Democrats in Nevada finds his advantage among that group more modest — but still notable : The last credible poll of Nevada , taken last week , had Sanders leading Biden 25/18 , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if her support starts breaking down before Saturday and the lion ’ s share begins migrating towards Bernie ?
If you believe the lefty poll above , there ’ s more than enough of a Warren constituency to pad Sanders ’ s numbers impressively if they broke ranks .
If Bernie wins this race with , say , 40 percent of the vote instead of 25 and ends up 20 points ahead of the second-place finisher , the “ Berniemania !
” storyline will dominate all the way up to South Carolina .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , up to Super Tuesday .
Nate Silver ’ s model of Nevada gives Sanders a 68 percent chance of winning the caucus , with Biden next at just 17 percent .
Almost as notable as his lead in recent polling is the fact that most other candidates are either right around the 15 percent threshold for viability or below it .
Nevada isn ’ t a delegate-rich state but a resounding Sanders win could further feed the “ Berniemania ” narrative by letting the media focus on just how few delegates went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ ll be difficult to catch after Super Tuesday .
Silver , in fact , is already gaming out different scenarios for after Super Tuesday that show just how many ways a high-floor-possibly-low-ceiling candidate like Bernie could win the nomination .
This one sounds familiar : Even if the moderate lane consolidated to just one or two alternatives later on in the race — say , at some point in March or April — Sanders would still be in a pretty decent position .
He would probably have a head start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of delegates on Super Tuesday and in the first four states while the rest of the field sorted itself out .
Contests up to and including Super Tuesday account for 38 percent of all pledged delegates , so this matters a lot… Making slow-but-steady polling gains was roughly the path that Trump followed in 2016 to win the Republcian nomination , too .
True , Trump had one major advantage that Sanders didn ’ t : the presence of winner-take-all states , especially later on in the race .
( All Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 percent threshold . )
Still , Trump gained ground later in the race once Republican voters realized that they faced a choice between Trump and a contested convention ( which might nonetheless have resulted in his nomination ) .
Democratic voters might act similarly .
Maybe a voter would prefer Buttigieg to Sanders in the abstract , but if a Buttigieg win would require a contested convention , while a Sanders win would not , she might feel differently .
There might be a runaway Bernie nomination or there might be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a contested-convention Bernie nomination .
But most roads lead to a Bernie nomination .
Which path is chosen may be a pure matter of how much money Mike Bloomberg wants to spend .
Here ’ s Pelosi preaching unity in service to defeating Trump .
We ’ ll see about that .

“Landslide” is a relative term, of course. Bernie’s not going to get so much as 50 percent of the vote in Nevada.
But given the photo finish in Iowa and the surprisingly tight margin in New Hampshire, a comfortable win would be impressive and potentially game-changing depending upon just how comfortable it is. Nevada’s apt to be the last state that’s hotly contested by the big four that have dominated the top tier for the past year. Warren will likely be done after the vote and Buttigieg and Klobuchar may be relegated to de facto also-ran status after their moment in the sun in New Hampshire. By his own admission, Biden needs a second-place finish in Nevada in order to build momentum before must-win South Carolina.
Let’s say he gets that — but that he also finishes 20 points behind Sanders on caucus night, a very distant, dismal second. “BERNIE’S FOR REAL,” the papers will scream the next day. South Carolinians may began shifting towards him. In one fell swoop, all of the competition except Bloomberg will have been marginalized: Warren gone, Pete and Amy dismissed as pretenders, Biden denied the good buzz he was counting on. Even Bloomberg, for all his resources, would begin to look small in the face of “Sanders might be unstoppable” narrative. Everyone’s preparing for Bernie to win Nevada, even rival campaigns, but I don’t know that anyone’s prepared for him to win Nevada going away.
Start preparing. New from the left-wing outfit Data for Progress:
Do we trust a progressive poll that has Bernie out to a big lead and the left’s second choice, Elizabeth Warren, conveniently in second place despite performing terribly in New Hampshire? Hmmmm. Data for Progress also finds Sanders taking 66 percent(!) of the Latino vote, which seems unlikely. This new Univision poll of Latino Democrats in Nevada finds his advantage among that group more modest — but still notable:
The last credible poll of Nevada, taken last week, had Sanders leading Biden 25/18, with Warren third at 13 percent. What if her support starts breaking down before Saturday and the lion’s share begins migrating towards Bernie? If you believe the lefty poll above, there’s more than enough of a Warren constituency to pad Sanders’s numbers impressively if they broke ranks. If Bernie wins this race with, say, 40 percent of the vote instead of 25 and ends up 20 points ahead of the second-place finisher, the “Berniemania!” storyline will dominate all the way up to South Carolina.
And then, if he wins there, up to Super Tuesday.
Nate Silver’s model of Nevada gives Sanders a 68 percent chance of winning the caucus, with Biden next at just 17 percent. Almost as notable as his lead in recent polling is the fact that most other candidates are either right around the 15 percent threshold for viability or below it. Nevada isn’t a delegate-rich state but a resounding Sanders win could further feed the “Berniemania” narrative by letting the media focus on just how few delegates went to his rivals, encouraging the perception that he’ll be difficult to catch after Super Tuesday. Silver, in fact, is already gaming out different scenarios for after Super Tuesday that show just how many ways a high-floor-possibly-low-ceiling candidate like Bernie could win the nomination. This one sounds familiar:
Even if the moderate lane consolidated to just one or two alternatives later on in the race — say, at some point in March or April — Sanders would still be in a pretty decent position. He would probably have a head start on the competition by having won a lot of delegates on Super Tuesday and in the first four states while the rest of the field sorted itself out. Contests up to and including Super Tuesday account for 38 percent of all pledged delegates, so this matters a lot… Making slow-but-steady polling gains was roughly the path that Trump followed in 2016 to win the Republcian nomination, too. True, Trump had one major advantage that Sanders didn’t: the presence of winner-take-all states, especially later on in the race. (All Democratic states use proportional delegate allocation above the 15 percent threshold.) Still, Trump gained ground later in the race once Republican voters realized that they faced a choice between Trump and a contested convention (which might nonetheless have resulted in his nomination). Democratic voters might act similarly. Maybe a voter would prefer Buttigieg to Sanders in the abstract, but if a Buttigieg win would require a contested convention, while a Sanders win would not, she might feel differently.
There might be a runaway Bernie nomination or there might be a slow-and-steady Bernie nomination. There might even be a contested-convention Bernie nomination. But most roads lead to a Bernie nomination. Which path is chosen may be a pure matter of how much money Mike Bloomberg wants to spend.
Here’s Pelosi preaching unity in service to defeating Trump. We’ll see about that.


hotair--2020-02-18--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Pardon spree, Bloomy busy, Bernie disses MSNBC, debate eve, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
What are we to make of Donald Trump ’ s pardon spree ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s debate tomorrow and its caucuses on Saturday ?
• Plus , we ’ ll have time today for the Lightning Round , where Andrew and I take questions from the comments and chat room and deliver pithy responses !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. What are we to make of Donald Trump’s pardon spree? And what exactly can we expect from Nevada’s debate tomorrow and its caucuses on Saturday?
Plus, we’ll have time today for the Lightning Round, where Andrew and I take questions from the comments and chat room and deliver pithy responses!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-02-18--Fox News: Bloomberg said in 2011 that black and Latino males "don't know how to behave in the workpl

Fox News: Bloomberg said in 2011 that black and Latino males "don't know how to behave in the workplace"

Did Michael Bloomberg really say this ?
The answer is — yes , but .
I ’ m no fan of the Mayor of Nannyville and the general of all gun-grabbers , but this demonstrates why sound-bite culture bites .
That quote gets taken grossly out of context to push a headline that is at best unreflective of Bloomberg ’ s actual point , nor of his actions in regard to the issue .
At worst , it ’ s a reprehensible smear leveraging a political-correctness approach that conservatives profess to loathe .
And for good reason .
In 2011 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Initiative , a program designed to deal with disparities of opportunity for young minority males in New York City .
Bloomberg put $ 30 million of his own cash into it , George Soros put another $ 30 million , and the city added $ 67 million of its own .
As PBS ’ Jeffrey Brown puts its , Bloomberg launched it with a speech that argued “ blacks and Latinos are not fully sharing in the promise of American freedom.
” Unfortunately , Bloomberg ’ s description of the issue wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national campaign .
Via Mary Chastain at Legal Insurrection : “ Well , for a long time , people have said there ’ s nothing you can do about it , but blacks and Latinos score terribly in school testing compared to whites and Asians .
If you look at our jails , it ’ s predominantly minorities , ” Bloomberg said in the interview .
He added : “ If you look at where crime takes place , it ’ s in minority neighborhoods .
If you look at who the victims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s virtually all minorities .
This is something that has gone on for a long time .
I assume it ’ s prevalent elsewhere but it ’ s certainly true in New York City .
And for many , many years , people said there ’ s just nothing you can do about it.
” “ Nevertheless , there ’ s this enormous cohort of black and Latino males , age , let ’ s say , 16 to 25 , ” Bloomberg said , “ that don ’ t have jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know how to find jobs , don ’ t know what their skill sets are , don ’ t know how to behave in the workplace where they have to work collaboratively and collectively.
” “ There will be jobs , if we can get these kids – uh , get their families together , even if their fathers don ’ t live with their mothers , or have never been married , or even they ’ re in jail , get the fathers engaged , ” Bloomberg added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the father is engaged , it gives the kid some understanding that he ’ s heading down the wrong path – and assign mentors to them.
” He went on : “ A lot of these kids – it isn ’ t that they ’ re bad kids – it ’ s that once they ’ ve made a mistake , it ’ s very difficult to recover from that .
But we have an obligation to them – if not for compassionate reasons , just for selfish reasons .
Three-quarters of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jail serve a period and come out , go right back to jail .
Three-quarters of them .
… We ’ ve just got to break that cycle.
” Emphasis mine .
Bloomberg clearly wasn ’ t arguing that black and Latino males were inherently incapable of behaving in the workplace .
He was arguing that they had not been properly prepared to do so , either through a lack of education , broken families , poverty , street crime , or a combination thereof .
The whole point of his Young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that training to those who lack those skills and make them competitive in the labor market .
If anything , this was Bloomberg ’ s critique about urban decay and NYC itself , one with which many conservatives would probably agree .
Whether one agrees with programs of this type , or whether this particular program succeeded , is irrelevant .
If we can ’ t discuss public policy without slicing words out of context to paint people as racists , then we can ’ t govern ourselves or debate weightier issues than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a long history of getting victimized by this intellectually dishonest sophistry , including a few people who appear on Fox News .
We should oppose it even when the victims are our political opponents , too .
Otherwise , it ’ s just another area in which brute-force majoritarianism wins — and we ’ re already on an uneven playing field when it comes to national media .
Besides , Bloomberg provides us with plenty of legitimate points for criticism .
Let ’ s not dissipate our credibility on fake news like @ @

Did Michael Bloomberg really say this? The answer is — yes, but. I’m no fan of the Mayor of Nannyville and the general of all gun-grabbers, but this demonstrates why sound-bite culture bites. That quote gets taken grossly out of context to push a headline that is at best unreflective of Bloomberg’s actual point, nor of his actions in regard to the issue. At worst, it’s a reprehensible smear leveraging a political-correctness approach that conservatives profess to loathe. And for good reason.
In 2011, Bloomberg launched his Young Men’s Initiative, a program designed to deal with disparities of opportunity for young minority males in New York City. Bloomberg put $30 million of his own cash into it, George Soros put another $30 million, and the city added $67 million of its own. As PBS’ Jeffrey Brown puts its, Bloomberg launched it with a speech that argued “blacks and Latinos are not fully sharing in the promise of American freedom.”
Unfortunately, Bloomberg’s description of the issue wasn’t exactly made for a sound-bite-driven national campaign. Via Mary Chastain at Legal Insurrection:
“Well, for a long time, people have said there’s nothing you can do about it, but blacks and Latinos score terribly in school testing compared to whites and Asians. If you look at our jails, it’s predominantly minorities,” Bloomberg said in the interview. He added: “If you look at where crime takes place, it’s in minority neighborhoods. If you look at who the victims and the perpetrators are, it’s virtually all minorities. This is something that has gone on for a long time. I assume it’s prevalent elsewhere but it’s certainly true in New York City. And for many, many years, people said there’s just nothing you can do about it.” “Nevertheless, there’s this enormous cohort of black and Latino males, age, let’s say, 16 to 25,” Bloomberg said, “that don’t have jobs, don’t have any prospects, don’t know how to find jobs, don’t know what their skill sets are, don’t know how to behave in the workplace where they have to work collaboratively and collectively.” “There will be jobs, if we can get these kids – uh, get their families together, even if their fathers don’t live with their mothers, or have never been married, or even they’re in jail, get the fathers engaged,” Bloomberg added. “Lot of statistics show that if the father is engaged, it gives the kid some understanding that he’s heading down the wrong path – and assign mentors to them.” He went on: “A lot of these kids – it isn’t that they’re bad kids – it’s that once they’ve made a mistake, it’s very difficult to recover from that. But we have an obligation to them – if not for compassionate reasons, just for selfish reasons. Three-quarters of all kids in New York City that go to jail serve a period and come out, go right back to jail. Three-quarters of them. … We’ve just got to break that cycle.”
Emphasis mine. Bloomberg clearly wasn’t arguing that black and Latino males were inherently incapable of behaving in the workplace. He was arguing that they had not been properly prepared to do so, either through a lack of education, broken families, poverty, street crime, or a combination thereof. The whole point of his Young Men’s Initiative was to provide that training to those who lack those skills and make them competitive in the labor market. If anything, this was Bloomberg’s critique about urban decay and NYC itself, one with which many conservatives would probably agree.
Whether one agrees with programs of this type, or whether this particular program succeeded, is irrelevant. If we can’t discuss public policy without slicing words out of context to paint people as racists, then we can’t govern ourselves or debate weightier issues than the existence of Santa Claus. Conservatives have a long history of getting victimized by this intellectually dishonest sophistry, including a few people who appear on Fox News. We should oppose it even when the victims are our political opponents, too. Otherwise, it’s just another area in which brute-force majoritarianism wins — and we’re already on an uneven playing field when it comes to national media.
Besides, Bloomberg provides us with plenty of legitimate points for criticism. Let’s not dissipate our credibility on fake news like this.


hotair--2020-02-18--Trudeau calls for patience as Canadian railways have been shut down for 12 days by protesters

Last week I wrote about protests which shut down Canadian railways for both passengers and freight , creating travel problems for tens of thousands of people .
A week later , the situation still hasn ’ t been resolved and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is now asking for Canadians to be patient as he tries to negotiate an end to the disruption : The blockade has been in place for 12 days and CN has been forced to shutter its network east of Toronto since Friday — a devastating development for businesspeople , commuters and farmers who rely on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory say they are acting in solidarity with some of the Wet ’ suwet ’ en hereditary chiefs in B.C .
who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project running through their traditional territory .
“ On all sides , people are upset and frustrated .
I get it , ” Trudeau said .
“ It ’ s understandable because this is about things that matter — rights and livelihoods , the rule of law and our democracy.
” While the prime minister did not lay out a clear path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be ruling out police intervention at this point in favour of more conversations with the protesters .
He said the suggestion from the Conservative Opposition that Ottawa forcibly remove the protesters from camps along the CN tracks in Belleville , Ont .
is “ not helpful.
” The protesters had a meeting with Canada ’ s Indigenous Services Minister over the weekend but nothing changed .
It ’ s important to point out that this is a potentially serious situation for the entire country .
The Financial Post reported last week that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ catastrophe ” for the economy : “ Rail is the backbone of infrastructure in this country , critical for industry but also for inter-city movement of goods , ” said Brian Kingston , vice president of policy , international and fiscal Issues at the business council of Canada .
“ This is not the kind of thing you can take a wait and see approach on for too long because this is potentially a catastrophe for the Canadian economy.
” Part of the disruption would also include sparse products on store shelves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an extended strike could lead to shortages of groceries and household products on shelves , and the “ spoilage of fresh foods.
” While urban centres would not escape the impact , smaller communities would be particularly affected .
“ This is not solely a food supply issue , ” the Retail Council of Canada and Food and Consumer Products Canada said in a joint statement .
“ Among the type of goods impacted are items like personal hygiene products , infant formula , fire alarms and the type of cleaning and sanitary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of influenza and other infectious diseases.
” So the consequences are potentially quite serious and yet , after 12 days of this , Trudeau ’ s response is to be patient until he can convince the handful of protesters to leave on their own terms .
Meanwhile , Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer has been hammering Trudeau ’ s weak response to the crisis : Here ’ s Scheer last week comparing this situation to a hostage crisis and pointing out the obvious , i.e .
freedom of speech and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interfering with entire industries that millions of people depend on .
Finally , here ’ s Trudeau ’ s speech from earlier today .
This comes right at the beginning of the clip and goes on for about nine or ten minutes .
Watch as much of it as you can bear and then skip ahead to 11:45 and watch Scheer ’ s blistering response .
It worries me to think that this is where the U.S. is headed if we aren ’ t careful .
It ’ s not hard to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left president ) negotiating with Antifa and Extinction Rebellion as they shut down major infrastructure .
Consider what is happening in Canada now a warning .

Last week I wrote about protests which shut down Canadian railways for both passengers and freight, creating travel problems for tens of thousands of people. A week later, the situation still hasn’t been resolved and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is now asking for Canadians to be patient as he tries to negotiate an end to the disruption:
The blockade has been in place for 12 days and CN has been forced to shutter its network east of Toronto since Friday — a devastating development for businesspeople, commuters and farmers who rely on the railway for their livelihoods. The protesters from the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory say they are acting in solidarity with some of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in B.C. who oppose the Coastal GasLink pipeline project running through their traditional territory. “On all sides, people are upset and frustrated. I get it,” Trudeau said. “It’s understandable because this is about things that matter — rights and livelihoods, the rule of law and our democracy.” While the prime minister did not lay out a clear path forward in his speech, Trudeau seemed to be ruling out police intervention at this point in favour of more conversations with the protesters. He said the suggestion from the Conservative Opposition that Ottawa forcibly remove the protesters from camps along the CN tracks in Belleville, Ont. is “not helpful.”
The protesters had a meeting with Canada’s Indigenous Services Minister over the weekend but nothing changed. It’s important to point out that this is a potentially serious situation for the entire country. The Financial Post reported last week that if this continues it could be a “catastrophe” for the economy:
“Rail is the backbone of infrastructure in this country, critical for industry but also for inter-city movement of goods,” said Brian Kingston, vice president of policy, international and fiscal Issues at the business council of Canada. “This is not the kind of thing you can take a wait and see approach on for too long because this is potentially a catastrophe for the Canadian economy.”
Part of the disruption would also include sparse products on store shelves:
Retailers and food producers warned that an extended strike could lead to shortages of groceries and household products on shelves, and the “spoilage of fresh foods.” While urban centres would not escape the impact, smaller communities would be particularly affected. “This is not solely a food supply issue,” the Retail Council of Canada and Food and Consumer Products Canada said in a joint statement. “Among the type of goods impacted are items like personal hygiene products, infant formula, fire alarms and the type of cleaning and sanitary products that help deal with concerns about the spread of influenza and other infectious diseases.”
So the consequences are potentially quite serious and yet, after 12 days of this, Trudeau’s response is to be patient until he can convince the handful of protesters to leave on their own terms. Meanwhile, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer has been hammering Trudeau’s weak response to the crisis:
Scheer called Trudeau’s address “the weakest response to a national crisis in Canadian history.” He said Trudeau’s speech offered Canadians “a word salad” with no meaningful plan to restore rail service and end the illegal blockades that are hampering the country’s economy. “The prime minister’s statement was a complete abdication of responsibility and leadership,” Scheer said. “The prime minister has emboldened and encouraged this kind of behaviour.”
Here’s Scheer last week comparing this situation to a hostage crisis and pointing out the obvious, i.e. freedom of speech and the right to protest does not extend to interfering with entire industries that millions of people depend on.
Finally, here’s Trudeau’s speech from earlier today. This comes right at the beginning of the clip and goes on for about nine or ten minutes. Watch as much of it as you can bear and then skip ahead to 11:45 and watch Scheer’s blistering response. It worries me to think that this is where the U.S. is headed if we aren’t careful. It’s not hard to imagine President Sanders (or some future far left president) negotiating with Antifa and Extinction Rebellion as they shut down major infrastructure. Consider what is happening in Canada now a warning.


hotair--2020-02-18--Pennsylvania school calls the cops on Down syndrome kindergartener over finger gesture

This story dates back to last year but it only just made it over the transom and into my inbox this week .
It takes place in Tredyffrin Township in Pennsylvania , a short way from Philadelphia .
At the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District ’ s Valley Forge Elementary School , they ran into a “ problem ” with a six-year-old kindergarten student named Margot who suffers from Down syndrome .
In a moment of frustration , the child raised her hand and made a gesture with her thumb and index finger simulating a gun and pointed at one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you.
” And that ’ s when the wheels came off the story entirely .
This report comes to us from the NRA-ILA .
Last November , according to a local CBS news report , “ Margot became frustrated and made a gesture that sparked a disciplinary investigation.
” The girl ’ s mother acknowledged that Margot pointed her finger at a teacher and said , “ I shoot you.
” While that ’ s certainly inappropriate behavior , it ’ s also hardly beyond the pale of a young child who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notwithstanding Margot ’ s young age , developmental challenges , and obvious inability to discharge an actual projectile from her bare finger , school officials convened a “ threat assessment.
” Yes , once the “ dangerous situation ” was brought under control , the school convened a threat assessment meeting .
And following standard school policy , the police were called to come to the school and evaluate the situation .
While the police refused to comment on the case to reporters , Margot ’ s mother is now dealing with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record on file at the police department as having threatened a teacher .
Considering all of the school shootings that have been in the news , it ’ s completely logical for schools to have policies in place to deal with any threats or potentially dangerous situations .
But at some point , we have to be able to distinguish between actual threats , no matter how innocuous they might seem , and the antics of a child in kindergarten .
A child with Down syndrome in kindergarten no less .
Margot ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered inappropriate and her parents are hopefully working with her to the best of her ability to learn not to do that again in the future .
But the threat assessment panel and the police visit likely traumatized her far more than any sort of lecture would .
Shouldn ’ t a “ threat assessment ” require the presence of , oh… I don ’ t know .
An actual threat ?
A kindergartner ’ s bare finger is incapable of doing much more than possibly giving someone a poke in the eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bend down for her to even have a chance at that .
It seems like there ’ s a lot of this going around lately .
Out in Kansas last year , a 13-year-old girl also reportedly pointed a “ finger gun ” at several students .
But in that case , after the police were called , she was put in handcuffs , arrested and charged with a felony .
That story is a bit more complicated as other students were apparently frightened by her and she ’ d had issues before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation of her home to see if she had access to any firearms or other weapons would have preceded an arrest and a charge .
Some of these situations could likely be cleared up with a modicum of common sense .
Sadly , we ’ re quickly regulating common sense out of our system in the current era .

This story dates back to last year but it only just made it over the transom and into my inbox this week. It takes place in Tredyffrin Township in Pennsylvania, a short way from Philadelphia. At the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District’s Valley Forge Elementary School, they ran into a “problem” with a six-year-old kindergarten student named Margot who suffers from Down syndrome. In a moment of frustration, the child raised her hand and made a gesture with her thumb and index finger simulating a gun and pointed at one of the teachers and saying, “I shoot you.” And that’s when the wheels came off the story entirely. This report comes to us from the NRA-ILA.
Last November, according to a local CBS news report, “Margot became frustrated and made a gesture that sparked a disciplinary investigation.” The girl’s mother acknowledged that Margot pointed her finger at a teacher and said, “I shoot you.” While that’s certainly inappropriate behavior, it’s also hardly beyond the pale of a young child who’s experiencing a moment of aggravation. Notwithstanding Margot’s young age, developmental challenges, and obvious inability to discharge an actual projectile from her bare finger, school officials convened a “threat assessment.”
Yes, once the “dangerous situation” was brought under control, the school convened a threat assessment meeting. And following standard school policy, the police were called to come to the school and evaluate the situation. While the police refused to comment on the case to reporters, Margot’s mother is now dealing with the reality that her six-year-old daughter has a record on file at the police department as having threatened a teacher.
Considering all of the school shootings that have been in the news, it’s completely logical for schools to have policies in place to deal with any threats or potentially dangerous situations. But at some point, we have to be able to distinguish between actual threats, no matter how innocuous they might seem, and the antics of a child in kindergarten. A child with Down syndrome in kindergarten no less.
Margot’s behavior that day could certainly be considered inappropriate and her parents are hopefully working with her to the best of her ability to learn not to do that again in the future. But the threat assessment panel and the police visit likely traumatized her far more than any sort of lecture would. Shouldn’t a “threat assessment” require the presence of, oh… I don’t know. An actual threat? A kindergartner’s bare finger is incapable of doing much more than possibly giving someone a poke in the eye. And you’d have to bend down for her to even have a chance at that.
It seems like there’s a lot of this going around lately. Out in Kansas last year, a 13-year-old girl also reportedly pointed a “finger gun” at several students. But in that case, after the police were called, she was put in handcuffs, arrested and charged with a felony. That story is a bit more complicated as other students were apparently frightened by her and she’d had issues before. But it still seems as if an investigation of her home to see if she had access to any firearms or other weapons would have preceded an arrest and a charge.
Some of these situations could likely be cleared up with a modicum of common sense. Sadly, we’re quickly regulating common sense out of our system in the current era.


hotair--2020-02-18--On eve of key Stone trial decision, Trump issues clemency for ... Blago? Up

On eve of key Stone trial decision, Trump issues clemency for ... Blago? Update: Milken too

Old and busted : Draining the swamp .
New hotness : Refilling it .
ABC News reported this afternoon that Donald Trump will commute the sentence of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to time served , freeing him from prison after seven years .
A few minutes ago , Trump confirmed it in a tarmac interview : Scuttlebutt over a potential Blago clemency action began last year , and was amplified by Trump himself .
“ I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly , ” Trump told reporters last August .
“ He was given close to 18 years in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought it was unfair , like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang , the Comey gang and all these sleaze bags that did it.
” Of course , Blagojevich was among those who could be counted as sleazebags for attempting to extort the appointment to the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama ’ s win .
The case was brought by the Obama-era Department of Justice , too , a demonstration of action against partisan interests .
Only after Illinois Republicans spoke out against a clemency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not permanently , apparently .
Supposedly Trump claimed at that time that he ’ d had a change of heart about Blagojevich after hearing more about his Chicago Machine corruption , but Blago was also at least a colleague of Trump ’ s if not a friend .
During his prosecution , Blago made ends meet by appearing on Trump ’ s Celebrity Apprentice show , on which Trump “ fired ” him at one point .
And today , Trump ’ s using the exact same case he floated last August .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however .
Pardoning Blago sets the table for further pardons or sentence commutations of figures closer to him , such as Paul Manafort , Roger Stone , Michael Flynn , and perhaps others caught up in the Robert Mueller special-counsel probe .
He can argue now that he issues clemency actions on a bipartisan basis .
Perhaps Trump will be smart enough to hold off on those clemency actions until after the election , but … I wouldn ’ t bet on that .
Speaking of the swamp , Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernard Kerik , according to NBC : The third surprise recipient today also took part in official corruption , but more as an extortion target than a prime mover .
The White House earlier announced a pardon for former NFL owner Eddie DeBartolo , and staged quite a media avail for it as well .
Make San Francisco Great Again !
The former 49ers owner pled guilty 22 years ago of failing to report a bribe demand by former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards for a riverboat gambling license .
DeBartolo paid off Edwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended up ensnared in a federal corruption probe that forced DeBartolo to relinquish control of his NFL franchise after his conviction .
In terms of injustices requiring presidential pardons , this one ranks rather low .
In terms of PR , however , it ’ s about as good as it gets .
Former NFL greats Jim Brown , Ronnie Lott , Jerry Rice , and Charles Haley announced the pardon in a White House presser this morning : For the record , this pardon keeps Trump at roughly the same first-term pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clemency actions .
Thanks to the political damage of Bill Clinton ’ s Marc Rich pardon and the obvious political risk of pardoning people who might re-offend , discretion is the better part of pre-reelection clemency valor : Trump ’ s pardons have tended to be more splashy than either Obama ’ s or Bush ’ s , and arguably a bit more self-serving too .
To be fair , though , DeBartolo did get punished for his part in the corruption , and has apparently rehabilitated himself ever since .
It might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of injustice requiring executive clemency , but it ’ s a defensible action nonetheless .
It ’ s not a Marc Rich-fugitive situation by any stretch of the imagination .
In fact , it ’ s not a Marc Rich case in any sense .
DeBartolo hasn ’ t done a lot of political sponsorship over the years , and he ’ s managed to spread the wealth around a bit , too .
Anyway , be sure to watch the video to at least the point where a reporter asks Jerry Rice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their opinion of Trump .
Rice still remains elusive after all these years .
“ Well , it ’ s really just about Eddie DeBartolo , ” Rice says , “ that ’ s it .
… I take my hat off to Donald Trump for what he did.
” Update : The Bernie Madoff pardon will be spectacular .

Old and busted: Draining the swamp. New hotness: Refilling it. ABC News reported this afternoon that Donald Trump will commute the sentence of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to time served, freeing him from prison after seven years. A few minutes ago, Trump confirmed it in a tarmac interview:
JUST IN: Pres. Trump says he has commuted former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's sentence, calling it a "tremendously powerful, ridiculous sentence," and claiming "it was a prosecution by the same people, Comey, Fitzpatrick, the same group." https://t.co/9oQG09bxZA pic.twitter.com/KnBmMrJsEl — ABC News (@ABC) February 18, 2020
Scuttlebutt over a potential Blago clemency action began last year, and was amplified by Trump himself. “I thought he was treated unbelievably unfairly,” Trump told reporters last August. “He was given close to 18 years in prison, and a lot of people thought it was unfair, like a lot of other things — and it was the same gang, the Comey gang and all these sleaze bags that did it.” Of course, Blagojevich was among those who could be counted as sleazebags for attempting to extort the appointment to the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama’s win. The case was brought by the Obama-era Department of Justice, too, a demonstration of action against partisan interests.
Only after Illinois Republicans spoke out against a clemency action did Trump back down, but not permanently, apparently. Supposedly Trump claimed at that time that he’d had a change of heart about Blagojevich after hearing more about his Chicago Machine corruption, but Blago was also at least a colleague of Trump’s if not a friend. During his prosecution, Blago made ends meet by appearing on Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice show, on which Trump “fired” him at one point. And today, Trump’s using the exact same case he floated last August.
This seems more about Trump than Blagojevich, however. Pardoning Blago sets the table for further pardons or sentence commutations of figures closer to him, such as Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and perhaps others caught up in the Robert Mueller special-counsel probe. He can argue now that he issues clemency actions on a bipartisan basis. Perhaps Trump will be smart enough to hold off on those clemency actions until after the election, but … I wouldn’t bet on that.
Speaking of the swamp, Trump’s also going to pardon former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik, according to NBC:
President Donald Trump is expected to grant clemency to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and removed from office in 2009 on corruption charges, and to former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik, two people familiar with the president’s plans said Tuesday. … Kerik was sentenced in 2010 to four years in prison after pleading guilty to eight felony charges, including tax fraud.
Jake Tapper offers a brief reminder about Kerik:
Kerik as NY Police Commissioner hid more than a quarter million dollars in renovations to an NYC apartment — given to him from a company seeking to do business with the city.https://t.co/QVNqB6Tv49 — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 18, 2020
The third surprise recipient today also took part in official corruption, but more as an extortion target than a prime mover. The White House earlier announced a pardon for former NFL owner Eddie DeBartolo, and staged quite a media avail for it as well. Make San Francisco Great Again!
The former 49ers owner pled guilty 22 years ago of failing to report a bribe demand by former Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards for a riverboat gambling license. DeBartolo paid off Edwards to the tune of $400,000 and ended up ensnared in a federal corruption probe that forced DeBartolo to relinquish control of his NFL franchise after his conviction.
In terms of injustices requiring presidential pardons, this one ranks rather low. In terms of PR, however, it’s about as good as it gets. Former NFL greats Jim Brown, Ronnie Lott, Jerry Rice, and Charles Haley announced the pardon in a White House presser this morning:
For the record, this pardon keeps Trump at roughly the same first-term pace as his two most recent predecessors for clemency actions. Thanks to the political damage of Bill Clinton’s Marc Rich pardon and the obvious political risk of pardoning people who might re-offend, discretion is the better part of pre-reelection clemency valor:
By my count, today’s action brings Pres Trump’s clemency count to 19 pardons and 4 commutations. Compares at same point in presidency to:
OBAMA: 22 pardons, 1 commuttions
GW BUSH: 12 pardons, 0 commutations — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) February 18, 2020
Trump’s pardons have tended to be more splashy than either Obama’s or Bush’s, and arguably a bit more self-serving too. To be fair, though, DeBartolo did get punished for his part in the corruption, and has apparently rehabilitated himself ever since. It might not have been the most pressing case of injustice requiring executive clemency, but it’s a defensible action nonetheless. It’s not a Marc Rich-fugitive situation by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it’s not a Marc Rich case in any sense. DeBartolo hasn’t done a lot of political sponsorship over the years, and he’s managed to spread the wealth around a bit, too.
Anyway, be sure to watch the video to at least the point where a reporter asks Jerry Rice whether this action and their participation mean about their opinion of Trump. Rice still remains elusive after all these years. “Well, it’s really just about Eddie DeBartolo,” Rice says, “that’s it. … I take my hat off to Donald Trump for what he did.”
Update: The Bernie Madoff pardon will be spectacular.


hotair--2020-02-18--Question for Steve Schmidt: If ousting Trump is such an "emergency," why wouldn't you vote for Berni

Question for Steve Schmidt: If ousting Trump is such an "emergency," why wouldn't you vote for Bernie Sanders?

Via Newsbusters , a fun gotcha by Princeton prof Eddie Glaude at the expense of one of the right ’ s least favorite ex-Republicans .
It ’ s a progressive repurposing of one of Trump fans ’ favorite arguments to skeptics in 2016 : This is a “ Flight 93 ” election , one in which we ’ re called to choose the lesser of two evils because the greater of the two is truly evil and capable of setting America on a leftward course from which the country will never recover .
Righties will continue to recycle that argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of time but here ’ s Glaude turning it around on Never Trumpers on Bernie ’ s behalf .
If you regard Trump as the greater of two evils , how do you justify withholding your vote from Sanders ?
It ’ s a Flight 93 election !
The answer , of course , is that even many Never Trumpers aren ’ t sure who the greater evil would be in an election that risks sweeping Sanders and democratic socialism to power , albeit likely with a Republican majority in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficiently ardent in his dislike for the president that he went and founded an entire publication for anti-Trump conservative commentary but even he ’ s rubbing his temples lately at the thought of having to choose between Trump and Bernie .
Our last , best hope is for this cup to pass from us because , let ’ s be honest , Bernie/Trump is a nightmare scenario for centrists , conservatives , and any contingent of voters who yearn for a non-crazy presidency .
And besides : Neither Bernie nor his bots wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
So this would seem to be a good time to make it perfectly clear that there are going to be voters who won ’ t give the Democrats a blank check this year .
Their insanity does not confer upon us the obligation to also lose our minds .
Maybe I ’ m just speaking for myself here , but I ’ m not interested in exchanging one toxic tribe for another .
I know , I know .
# NeverBernie and # NeverTrump is going to be a lonely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all sides .
We would be Pariahs Squared .
But I suspect that it will feel familiar : The “ strange new respect ” was always temporary .
Bernie is a complete nonstarter for me too , but not for all Trump critics .
Tom Nichols has an op-ed out today savaging Sanders for his 80s-era useful idiocy towards the Soviet Union … while noting in passing that of course he ’ d vote for Bernie this fall anyway if it comes to that .
To be clear , I am not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking with his Soviet hosts .
I ’ ve been there and done that .
I ’ ve killed multiple bottles of vodka with ordinary Soviet citizens and more than a few with people from Soviet officialdom , including arm-in-arm bouts of singing and talking into the wee hours .
Sanders is right : They are a warm and ebullient people , and I don ’ t blame him one bit for enjoying himself in their company .
That is a different matter , however , than seeing the Soviet Union through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats force me into this corner , I will cast my vote for Sanders , because I will take a fool and his dreamy notions about the Soviet Union over Donald Trump and the mafia state he and people like Attorney General William Barr are busy creating in America .
If by some miracle Sanders wins , he will be an ineffective and embarrassing president , but if that ’ s what it takes to rid us of the caudillo in the White House , so be it .
Ben Shapiro , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frames the calculus this way : I think Schmidt would agree with the second half of that but as you ’ ll see in the clip below he ’ s quite bullish on a Bloomberg presidency , to the point where I was left wondering if he had advised the campaign at some point .
( I was thinking of Howard Schultz ’ s abortive effort at the presidency last year . )
The cynic in me wonders if maybe he ’ s trying out for a job here — there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Mike for more advisors — but no , I think this is just who Schmidt is politically , at least in 2020 .
He ’ s a make-the-trains-run-on-time centrist who retains a healthy vestigial right-wing skepticism of socialism and its feasibility .
I ’ m guessing he speaks for a lot of suburbanites who hate Trump enough to have voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms but not quite so much that they ’ re going to gamble the entirety of American health care on the DSA ’ s keen administrative know-how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clip and watch to the end for the good bits , and I do mean all the way to the end .
Otherwise you ’ ll miss Stephanie Ruhle getting mad at Schmidt for daring to suggest that Bernie ’ s running a “ free stuff for everyone ” campaign .
She ’ s going to hear that message eight million times between this spring and fall if Sanders is the nominee .
She ’ d better grow a thicker skin about it .

Via Newsbusters, a fun gotcha by Princeton prof Eddie Glaude at the expense of one of the right’s least favorite ex-Republicans. It’s a progressive repurposing of one of Trump fans’ favorite arguments to skeptics in 2016: This is a “Flight 93” election, one in which we’re called to choose the lesser of two evils because the greater of the two is truly evil and capable of setting America on a leftward course from which the country will never recover. Righties will continue to recycle that argument in every election from now until the end of time but here’s Glaude turning it around on Never Trumpers on Bernie’s behalf. If you regard Trump as the greater of two evils, how do you justify withholding your vote from Sanders? It’s a Flight 93 election!
The answer, of course, is that even many Never Trumpers aren’t sure who the greater evil would be in an election that risks sweeping Sanders and democratic socialism to power, albeit likely with a Republican majority in the Senate to check him. Charlie Sykes is sufficiently ardent in his dislike for the president that he went and founded an entire publication for anti-Trump conservative commentary but even he’s rubbing his temples lately at the thought of having to choose between Trump and Bernie.
Our last, best hope is for this cup to pass from us because, let’s be honest, Bernie/Trump is a nightmare scenario for centrists, conservatives, and any contingent of voters who yearn for a non-crazy presidency. And besides: Neither Bernie nor his bots wants us—as they tell us with numbing regularity on Twitter. So this would seem to be a good time to make it perfectly clear that there are going to be voters who won’t give the Democrats a blank check this year. Their insanity does not confer upon us the obligation to also lose our minds. Maybe I’m just speaking for myself here, but I’m not interested in exchanging one toxic tribe for another. I know, I know. #NeverBernie and #NeverTrump is going to be a lonely place. The merde will rain down from all sides. We would be Pariahs Squared. But I suspect that it will feel familiar: The “strange new respect” was always temporary.
Bernie is a complete nonstarter for me too, but not for all Trump critics. Tom Nichols has an op-ed out today savaging Sanders for his 80s-era useful idiocy towards the Soviet Union … while noting in passing that of course he’d vote for Bernie this fall anyway if it comes to that.
To be clear, I am not criticizing Sanders for whooping it up and drinking with his Soviet hosts. I’ve been there and done that. I’ve killed multiple bottles of vodka with ordinary Soviet citizens and more than a few with people from Soviet officialdom, including arm-in-arm bouts of singing and talking into the wee hours. Sanders is right: They are a warm and ebullient people, and I don’t blame him one bit for enjoying himself in their company. That is a different matter, however, than seeing the Soviet Union through the eyes of a fool. If the Democrats force me into this corner, I will cast my vote for Sanders, because I will take a fool and his dreamy notions about the Soviet Union over Donald Trump and the mafia state he and people like Attorney General William Barr are busy creating in America. If by some miracle Sanders wins, he will be an ineffective and embarrassing president, but if that’s what it takes to rid us of the caudillo in the White House, so be it.
Ben Shapiro, who’s not a Never Trumper, frames the calculus this way:
So here's my calculus: a Bloomberg/Biden candidacy means a 45% chance of Democratic victory, and a downside risk, on a scale of 0 to 100, of 70. A Bernie candidacy means a 40% chance of Democratic victory, and a downside risk of 100. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 18, 2020
I think Schmidt would agree with the second half of that but as you’ll see in the clip below he’s quite bullish on a Bloomberg presidency, to the point where I was left wondering if he had advised the campaign at some point. (I was thinking of Howard Schultz’s abortive effort at the presidency last year.) The cynic in me wonders if maybe he’s trying out for a job here — there’s more than enough money and room on Team Mike for more advisors — but no, I think this is just who Schmidt is politically, at least in 2020. He’s a make-the-trains-run-on-time centrist who retains a healthy vestigial right-wing skepticism of socialism and its feasibility. I’m guessing he speaks for a lot of suburbanites who hate Trump enough to have voted Democratic in the 2018 midterms but not quite so much that they’re going to gamble the entirety of American health care on the DSA’s keen administrative know-how this fall.
Skip to 4:40 of the clip and watch to the end for the good bits, and I do mean all the way to the end. Otherwise you’ll miss Stephanie Ruhle getting mad at Schmidt for daring to suggest that Bernie’s running a “free stuff for everyone” campaign. She’s going to hear that message eight million times between this spring and fall if Sanders is the nominee. She’d better grow a thicker skin about it.


hotair--2020-02-18--Elizabeth Warren on the Bernie Bros: 'We do not build on a foundation of hate'

Earlier today Ed wrote about a minor brawl that broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally after a white Sanders supporter told a black Sanders supporter his t-shirt was racist .
It ’ s just the latest sign that Bernie Bros are a special breed of dumb but it ’ s not the only one we ’ ve seen recently .
Last week I wrote about the Bernie Bros reaction to a critical statement by Nevada ’ s powerful culinary union .
The union isn ’ t endorsing anyone in the primary but it put out a flyer which noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan would eliminate the health insurance plans the union has negotiated for itself over many years .
That brief , factual statement enraged some of Sanders ’ fans and resulted in what the union described as viscous threats against female union leaders .
Elizabeth Warren was asked about that situation yesterday and took the opportunity to say Sanders needed to answer for the behavior of his supporters : “ I ’ ve said before that we are all responsible for what our supporters do , and I think Bernie has a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Democratic senator from Massachusetts , said in an interview in which she offered rare criticism of her fellow progressive Sanders , an independent senator from Vermont .
“ I am particularly worried about what happened in the attacks on members of the culinary union , particularly on the women in leadership , ” Warren said .
Warren went on to say , “ The whole notion of publishing their personal addresses , their phone numbers , and then making very aggressive threats against their own safety and the safety of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build an inclusive Democratic Party…We do not build on a foundation of hate.
” “ Foundation of hate ” is pretty strong language .
But this is more than just a few bad apples .
The behavior of Bernie Bros has been a noteworthy element of Sanders ’ campaign since 2016 .
Sanders has denounced the behavior several times , including last week when he said , “ Anybody making personal attacks against anybody else in my name is not part of my movement.
” But no matter how many times he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to change anything .
Warren wasn ’ t the only one to notice the attacks on the culinary union .
Joe Biden said Sanders may “ not be responsible ” but suggested he hasn ’ t done enough to get control of his more excitable fans .
He added that Sanders should investigate and fire anyone who turns out to be a staffer : “ You know me well enough to know if any of my supporters did that , I ’ d disown them .
Flat disown them , ” Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said online .
The way they threatened these two women who are leaders in that Culinary union .
It is outrageous .
Just — just go online.
” … Calling attacks “ vicious , malicious , misogynistic , ” Biden said it wasn ’ t enough for Sanders to simply disassociate himself from those making them .
He needs to “ find out who the hell they are , if any of them work for [ him ] .
Fire them.
” “ I ’ m hoping he ’ s looking .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think it ’ s sufficient just to say , ‘ I disassociate myself , ’ ” he added .
In my view , the real problem is that Sanders is running on a platform of “ political revolution ” and unabashed socialism backed by a long history of fondness for various real revolutionaries ( in Cuba , Nicaragua , etc. )
.
He is playing in the far left ’ s sandbox and for a portion of those people the revolutionary ideal means winning by any means necessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s language , real revolutionaries are just fine with a foundation of hate so long as it ’ s hate for the right things .
So it ’ s no surprise so many of Sander ’ s die hard fans see extreme behavior in defense of his campaign as a feature not a bug .

Earlier today Ed wrote about a minor brawl that broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally after a white Sanders supporter told a black Sanders supporter his t-shirt was racist. It’s just the latest sign that Bernie Bros are a special breed of dumb but it’s not the only one we’ve seen recently.
Last week I wrote about the Bernie Bros reaction to a critical statement by Nevada’s powerful culinary union. The union isn’t endorsing anyone in the primary but it put out a flyer which noted that Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All plan would eliminate the health insurance plans the union has negotiated for itself over many years. That brief, factual statement enraged some of Sanders’ fans and resulted in what the union described as viscous threats against female union leaders.
Elizabeth Warren was asked about that situation yesterday and took the opportunity to say Sanders needed to answer for the behavior of his supporters:
“I’ve said before that we are all responsible for what our supporters do, and I think Bernie has a lot of questions to answer here,” Warren, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, said in an interview in which she offered rare criticism of her fellow progressive Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont. “I am particularly worried about what happened in the attacks on members of the culinary union, particularly on the women in leadership,” Warren said.
Warren went on to say, “The whole notion of publishing their personal addresses, their phone numbers, and then making very aggressive threats against their own safety and the safety of their families. That is not how we build an inclusive Democratic Party…We do not build on a foundation of hate.”
“Foundation of hate” is pretty strong language. But this is more than just a few bad apples. The behavior of Bernie Bros has been a noteworthy element of Sanders’ campaign since 2016. Sanders has denounced the behavior several times, including last week when he said, “Anybody making personal attacks against anybody else in my name is not part of my movement.” But no matter how many times he says it, it doesn’t really seem to change anything.
Warren wasn’t the only one to notice the attacks on the culinary union. Joe Biden said Sanders may “not be responsible” but suggested he hasn’t done enough to get control of his more excitable fans. He added that Sanders should investigate and fire anyone who turns out to be a staffer:
“You know me well enough to know if any of my supporters did that, I’d disown them. Flat disown them,” Biden said. “The stuff that was said online. The way they threatened these two women who are leaders in that Culinary union. It is outrageous. Just — just go online.”… Calling attacks “vicious, malicious, misogynistic,” Biden said it wasn’t enough for Sanders to simply disassociate himself from those making them. He needs to “find out who the hell they are, if any of them work for [him]. Fire them.” “I’m hoping he’s looking. But I tell you what: so far I don’t think it’s sufficient just to say, ‘I disassociate myself,’” he added.
In my view, the real problem is that Sanders is running on a platform of “political revolution” and unabashed socialism backed by a long history of fondness for various real revolutionaries (in Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.). He is playing in the far left’s sandbox and for a portion of those people the revolutionary ideal means winning by any means necessary, even violence. To adopt Warren’s language, real revolutionaries are just fine with a foundation of hate so long as it’s hate for the right things. So it’s no surprise so many of Sander’s die hard fans see extreme behavior in defense of his campaign as a feature not a bug.