hotair--2020-02-19--Study: Most journalists are to the left of Bernie Sanders (but don't worry they're totally fair)

An academic study by a trio of professors claims to have proven there is no such thing as media bias despite the fact that the same study found most journalists are much father left than the average Twitter user .
In fact , a majority of journalists , based on their Twitter interactions , are somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders .
Here ’ s the graph showing the results : Figure 2 shows the distribution of ideological positions of journalists based on their Twitter interactions .
As can be seen , journalists are dominantly liberal and often fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A full 78.1 % of journalists are more liberal than the average Twitter user .
Moreover , 66 % are even more liberal than former President Obama , 62.3 % are to the left of the median Senate Democrat ( in the 114th Congress ) , and a full 14.5 % are more liberal than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( one of the most liberal members of the House ) .
In short , journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/Democrats and many journalists appear to be far to the left of the average American .
Those findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people on Twitter , a place where support for Sanders often seems overwhelming .
But the study goes on to argue that despite this overwhelming personal bias , reporters don ’ t show any evidence of bias in their work .
How did they determine this ?
Well , that was a separate part of the study which directed emails at hundreds of journalists offering to let them sit down with a new candidate for office ( one who didn ’ t exist but the journalists didn ’ t know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was identical except that in some cases the candidate was described as left-wing and in others as right wing .
Having sent out the emails the authors then waited to see who would respond and whether those responses would favor one side of the aisle over the other .
What they found was no statistical difference : As can be seen , there is no statistical or substantive difference in the probability of a journalist responding to the email based solely on the treatment conditions .
Comparing the two poles , strong conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mere 0.4 percentage points less likely to get a response than strong progressive candidates… In short , despite being dominantly liberals/Democrats , journalists do not seem to be exhibiting liberal media bias ( or conservative media bias ) in what they choose to cover .
This null is vitally important—showing that overall , journalists do not display political gatekeeping bias in the stories they choose to cover .
I think the authors are asking the right questions but the email responses don ’ t seem conclusive to me .
They assume that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates on the left and right demonstrate a lack of bias but less than a quarter of journalists responded .
Maybe we ’ re just seeing a self-selected fraction of journalists who take a neutral approach to news gathering .
They aren ’ t necessarily representative of the whole group .
The other thing I ’ m curious about is whether this got a relatively blase neutral response because the potential story here is relatively blase , i.e .
Person X Announces Candidacy for Office .
I wonder what would happen if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of illegal behavior about a ) President Trump or b ) Bernie Sanders .
Would journalists be equally interested ?
Maybe but I suspect as the stakes grow higher you might see more tendency for bias to creep in .
Salon spoke to the authors of the study and they were concerned about doing anything ethically dubious : “ I think absolutely there should be other ways to do this , ” Hassell said .
Then he described some of the difficulties in doing so , starting with ethics .
You don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reputation with a false story lead , and you don ’ t want to waste his or her time and resources “ following up a story that really doesn ’ t exist.
” One idea Hassell suggested might work was to pose as a researcher announcing a new study , varying the topic .
“ Some topics are more conservative or more preferential to liberals , ” he said .
“ That way you ’ re not forcing the journalist to go out and do any research on it .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with offering false information to real journalists who do this for a living .
But it ’ s really difficult to believe that the overwhelming ideological bias the researchers found never results in any bias in their work .
I think conservatives can point to fresh evidence on an almost daily basis that that ’ s not the case .

An academic study by a trio of professors claims to have proven there is no such thing as media bias despite the fact that the same study found most journalists are much father left than the average Twitter user. In fact, a majority of journalists, based on their Twitter interactions, are somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. Here’s the graph showing the results:
From the study:
Figure 2 shows the distribution of ideological positions of journalists based on their Twitter interactions. As can be seen, journalists are dominantly liberal and often fall far to the left of Americans. A full 78.1% of journalists are more liberal than the average Twitter user. Moreover, 66% are even more liberal than former President Obama, 62.3% are to the left of the median Senate Democrat (in the 114th Congress), and a full 14.5% are more liberal than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (one of the most liberal members of the House). In short, journalists are overwhelmingly liberal/Democrats and many journalists appear to be far to the left of the average American.
Those findings certainly comport with the experience of a lot of people on Twitter, a place where support for Sanders often seems overwhelming. But the study goes on to argue that despite this overwhelming personal bias, reporters don’t show any evidence of bias in their work.
How did they determine this? Well, that was a separate part of the study which directed emails at hundreds of journalists offering to let them sit down with a new candidate for office (one who didn’t exist but the journalists didn’t know that). In both cases the letter was identical except that in some cases the candidate was described as left-wing and in others as right wing.
Having sent out the emails the authors then waited to see who would respond and whether those responses would favor one side of the aisle over the other. What they found was no statistical difference:
As can be seen, there is no statistical or substantive difference in the probability of a journalist responding to the email based solely on the treatment conditions. Comparing the two poles, strong conservative candidates are, on average, a mere 0.4 percentage points less likely to get a response than strong progressive candidates… In short, despite being dominantly liberals/Democrats , journalists do not seem to be exhibiting liberal media bias (or conservative media bias) in what they choose to cover. This null is vitally important—showing that overall, journalists do not display political gatekeeping bias in the stories they choose to cover.
I think the authors are asking the right questions but the email responses don’t seem conclusive to me. They assume that the an even number of responses to interview candidates on the left and right demonstrate a lack of bias but less than a quarter of journalists responded. Maybe we’re just seeing a self-selected fraction of journalists who take a neutral approach to news gathering. They aren’t necessarily representative of the whole group.
The other thing I’m curious about is whether this got a relatively blase neutral response because the potential story here is relatively blase, i.e. Person X Announces Candidacy for Office. I wonder what would happen if the email had offered to provide specific proof of illegal behavior about a) President Trump or b) Bernie Sanders. Would journalists be equally interested? Maybe but I suspect as the stakes grow higher you might see more tendency for bias to creep in.
Salon spoke to the authors of the study and they were concerned about doing anything ethically dubious:
“I think absolutely there should be other ways to do this,” Hassell said. Then he described some of the difficulties in doing so, starting with ethics. You don’t want to damage a journalist’s reputation with a false story lead, and you don’t want to waste his or her time and resources “following up a story that really doesn’t exist.” One idea Hassell suggested might work was to pose as a researcher announcing a new study, varying the topic. “Some topics are more conservative or more preferential to liberals,” he said. “That way you’re not forcing the journalist to go out and do any research on it. You can be the researcher.”
Obviously there are problems with offering false information to real journalists who do this for a living. But it’s really difficult to believe that the overwhelming ideological bias the researchers found never results in any bias in their work. I think conservatives can point to fresh evidence on an almost daily basis that that’s not the case.


hotair--2020-02-19--Have doorbell cameras turned us into "a nation of voyeurs?"

Do you have one of those home doorbell camera security systems installed at your place ?
I ’ m very much into the idea and have been threatening to get one for a while now .
( Unsure about how much of a hassle the installation would be . )
They ’ ve been massively growing in popularity and a number of my neighbors have them already .
But is there a downside to that sort of home surveillance ability ?
That ’ s the question being asked by Drew Harwell at the Washington Post this week .
The premise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to monitoring everything that goes on , turning us into “ a nation of voyeurs.
” But the allure of monitoring people silently from afar has also proved more tempting than many expected .
Customers who bought the cameras in hopes of not becoming victims joke that instead they ’ ve become voyeurs .
The Washington Post surveyed more than 50 owners of in-home and outdoor camera systems across the United States about how the recording devices had reshaped their daily lives .
Most of those who responded to online solicitations about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras to check on package deliveries and their pets , and many talked glowingly about what they got in return : security , entertainment , peace of mind .
Some said they worried about hackers , snoops or spies .
But in the unscientific survey , most people also replied that they were fine with intimate new levels of surveillance — as long as they were the ones who got to watch .
While I won ’ t immediately poo-poo this theory , there ’ s a lot in that article that appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described .
To start with , while the vast majority of Ring and Nest cameras are installed at people ’ s front doors looking outward , there are some people quoted in this investigation who put them inside their homes to act as baby monitors or security systems to catch the image of possible intruders .
And some of those folks confess to using them to keep an eye on the babysitter , the maid or even their own children without their knowing they are being recorded .
I suppose that might qualify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
But if you ’ re spending your time engaging in “ voyeurism ” by watching out from your front door , that ’ s also just known as “ watching people walk by your house.
” Nobody out in the public square has any expectation of privacy and that doesn ’ t change because it ’ s a camera looking at you instead of a pair of human eyes .
Other people the WaPo spoke to expressed concerns that Ring and Nest owners were sharing videos with the police .
Hello @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police are looking for videos from your location at a particular time or date , it ’ s because a crime took place near your home .
You bet I will be signing up and volunteering to share video with the cops .
Hell , if I see something sufficiently suspicious like porch pirates or any other common crimes , I ’ ll be sending the video to the cops before they even ask .
The other legitimate concern raised in the article is that of hackers breaking into your system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help with that .
And besides , the majority of people who have a system like this hacked either didn ’ t bother setting a password or left it as the default password it came with .
We have to be willing to put in at least a smidgen of effort to help protect our own systems , folks .
By the time I finished talking to a few people who have these while preparing this article , I ’ d pretty much already made up my mind .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get a Ring system and install it by this weekend .
If I suddenly find myself turning into a voyeur by the end of the month , I ’ ll post an update .

Do you have one of those home doorbell camera security systems installed at your place? I’m very much into the idea and have been threatening to get one for a while now. (Unsure about how much of a hassle the installation would be.) They’ve been massively growing in popularity and a number of my neighbors have them already. But is there a downside to that sort of home surveillance ability? That’s the question being asked by Drew Harwell at the Washington Post this week. The premise is that people can develop an addiction to monitoring everything that goes on, turning us into “a nation of voyeurs.”
But the allure of monitoring people silently from afar has also proved more tempting than many expected. Customers who bought the cameras in hopes of not becoming victims joke that instead they’ve become voyeurs. The Washington Post surveyed more than 50 owners of in-home and outdoor camera systems across the United States about how the recording devices had reshaped their daily lives. Most of those who responded to online solicitations about their camera use said they had bought the cameras to check on package deliveries and their pets, and many talked glowingly about what they got in return: security, entertainment, peace of mind. Some said they worried about hackers, snoops or spies. But in the unscientific survey, most people also replied that they were fine with intimate new levels of surveillance — as long as they were the ones who got to watch.
While I won’t immediately poo-poo this theory, there’s a lot in that article that appears to be overblown or at least incorrectly described. To start with, while the vast majority of Ring and Nest cameras are installed at people’s front doors looking outward, there are some people quoted in this investigation who put them inside their homes to act as baby monitors or security systems to catch the image of possible intruders. And some of those folks confess to using them to keep an eye on the babysitter, the maid or even their own children without their knowing they are being recorded.
I suppose that might qualify as voyeurism in a general sort of way. But if you’re spending your time engaging in “voyeurism” by watching out from your front door, that’s also just known as “watching people walk by your house.” Nobody out in the public square has any expectation of privacy and that doesn’t change because it’s a camera looking at you instead of a pair of human eyes.
Other people the WaPo spoke to expressed concerns that Ring and Nest owners were sharing videos with the police. Hello? Are you kidding me? If the police are looking for videos from your location at a particular time or date, it’s because a crime took place near your home. You bet I will be signing up and volunteering to share video with the cops. Hell, if I see something sufficiently suspicious like porch pirates or any other common crimes, I’ll be sending the video to the cops before they even ask.
The other legitimate concern raised in the article is that of hackers breaking into your system. But both companies have recently developed upgrades to help with that. And besides, the majority of people who have a system like this hacked either didn’t bother setting a password or left it as the default password it came with. We have to be willing to put in at least a smidgen of effort to help protect our own systems, folks.
By the time I finished talking to a few people who have these while preparing this article, I’d pretty much already made up my mind. I’m pretty sure I’m going to get a Ring system and install it by this weekend. If I suddenly find myself turning into a voyeur by the end of the month, I’ll post an update.


hotair--2020-02-19--Reuters: "Blue wave" of urban voting enthusiasm rising for 2020?

Color me skeptical , but let ’ s first take a look at Reuters ’ case .
In their meta-analysis of their own polling series over the past four years , a “ blue wave ” of voter enthusiasm in urban areas is rising as the election draws closer , one that will outpace a redder rise in enthusiasm in suburbs and rural areas .
That will reverse the dynamic of 2016 and likely make Donald Trump a one-and-done president : In large urban areas of the upper Midwest , a region that includes swing states Michigan and Wisconsin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said they were “ certain ” to vote in the upcoming presidential election rose by 10 percentage points to 67 % compared with survey responses from 2015 .
In smaller upper Midwest communities , the number of people similarly dedicated to voting rose by only about 1 point to 60 % in that same four-year period .
Overall , the number of “ certain ” voters rose by 7 percentage points nationally from 2015 to 2019 .
It increased by more than that in the largest metropolitan areas , rising by 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 5 million people and 8 points in metros with at least 5 million people .
Smaller and rural communities lagged behind .
The number of “ certain ” voters rose by 5 points in sparsely populated , Republican-dominated “ non-metro ” areas .
First point of skepticism : This is all built only on one polling set , Reuters ’ own .
For a broad conclusion about a “ blue wave , ” it would be evident in other polling .
It ’ s not that it isn ’ t possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and diverse evidence to completely buy into it .
Why ?
We already have evidence to the contrary — hard evidence about the status quo , not polling trends .
Let ’ s consider skepticism point two — turnout in the first two primaries .
If there really is a rising “ blue wave ” of enthusiasm , why didn ’ t it manifest itself in Iowa and New Hampshire , where Democratic primary turnout fell far short of expectations ?
Not only did the large and diverse field fail to set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states they barely got back to 2016 levels , when voter enthusiasm was at an ebb .
It ’ s true that neither state has a really large urban center , but by that definition neither does most of the Midwest either .
Skepticism point three : who did exhibit enthusiasm in those two states ?
It wasn ’ t Democrats , as Politico ’ s Alex Isenstadt noted on Sunday : The massive turnout is a reflection of organic enthusiasm among conservatives and a sophisticated effort by Trump ’ s campaign to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the general election .
Trump and Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of voting , and the campaign flooded the two states with high-profile surrogates and launched a Facebook advertising blitz reminding supporters to cast ballots .
The efforts are paying off , with Republicans turning out in historic numbers .
Trump received more than 31,000 votes in the Iowa caucus , surpassing the 25,000 Democrats who turned out during Barack Obama ’ s successful 2012 reelection bid .
Trump ’ s share was more than four times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush ’ s 2004 reelection campaign .
The vote totals in New Hampshire were even starker .
The president received 129,696 votes , more than doubling Obama and Bush ’ s totals .
It ’ s still early , but the disparity is tough to ignore , especially while claiming an enthusiasm gap favoring Democrats .
Trump might not be the most personally popular president ever , but he has voters champing at the bit to turn out even when it doesn ’ t matter at all .
That brings us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was Trump ’ s weakness in 2016 , but these early primary results suggest that Team Trump and the RNC have actually delivered on promises to build a powerful GOTV machine ahead of the 2020 general election , as I write in my column for The Week : It ’ s still early in the process , and both Iowa and New Hampshire are relatively small states that stand alone in the primaries .
Trump counterprogrammed against Democrats in both states with splashy rallies to energize his base on the eve of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those numbers higher .
He will likely do the same in Nevada and South Carolina to compete with Democratic messaging and leverage the media focus on those states into enthusiasm and turnout .
That makes Super Tuesday on March 3rd a potentially good test of the Trump turnout machine and whether these are rally effects or a significant measure of Trump/RNC organization .
Fifteen states will hold their presidential-preference contests on March 3rd , all primaries rather than caucuses , and Trump can ’ t be in 15 places at once in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If he ’ s still getting record turnout of Republican primary voters in those states , then Democrats had better be very , very worried , perhaps on the cusp of a full-blown panic .
Trump ’ s biggest problem in 2016 was organization .
He only adopted a traditional get-out-the-vote model late with the RNC , which had built its Republican Leadership Initiative ( RLI ) to operate independently of the nominee , a project on which I reported at length in my book Going Red .
Democrats still have yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton failed to turn out Obama ’ s bonus voters in the blue-wall states , which was the main reason why Trump won the election .
The RLI has been rechristened the Trump Victory Leadership Initiative , but the question remains as to whether Trump has truly adopted its bottom-up granular approach to electioneering .
These primary turnout numbers might be the first evidence of its success in two states that the RLI specifically targeted .
Watch for Super Tuesday results from Colorado , Minnesota , North Carolina , and Virginia especially to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high .
If so , then Democrats might need to hit the panic button — especially if their own turnout numbers remain pedestrian .
This might be the sleeper trend of the season thus far .
I suspect that the TVLI has become more of a factor than people might have imagined — and that it ’ s going to matter far more than urban-centered enthusiasm in states Trump would likely lose anyway .
That “ wave ” might end up looking more like a wipeout .

Color me skeptical, but let’s first take a look at Reuters’ case. In their meta-analysis of their own polling series over the past four years, a “blue wave” of voter enthusiasm in urban areas is rising as the election draws closer, one that will outpace a redder rise in enthusiasm in suburbs and rural areas. That will reverse the dynamic of 2016 and likely make Donald Trump a one-and-done president:
In large urban areas of the upper Midwest, a region that includes swing states Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, the number of people who said they were “certain” to vote in the upcoming presidential election rose by 10 percentage points to 67% compared with survey responses from 2015. In smaller upper Midwest communities, the number of people similarly dedicated to voting rose by only about 1 point to 60% in that same four-year period. Overall, the number of “certain” voters rose by 7 percentage points nationally from 2015 to 2019. It increased by more than that in the largest metropolitan areas, rising by 9 points in communities with between 1 million and 5 million people and 8 points in metros with at least 5 million people. Smaller and rural communities lagged behind. The number of “certain” voters rose by 5 points in sparsely populated, Republican-dominated “non-metro” areas.
First point of skepticism: This is all built only on one polling set, Reuters’ own. For a broad conclusion about a “blue wave,” it would be evident in other polling. It’s not that it isn’t possible, but it’s that one needs more and diverse evidence to completely buy into it.
Why? We already have evidence to the contrary — hard evidence about the status quo, not polling trends. Let’s consider skepticism point two — turnout in the first two primaries. If there really is a rising “blue wave” of enthusiasm, why didn’t it manifest itself in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Democratic primary turnout fell far short of expectations? Not only did the large and diverse field fail to set turnout records as predicted, in both states they barely got back to 2016 levels, when voter enthusiasm was at an ebb. It’s true that neither state has a really large urban center, but by that definition neither does most of the Midwest either.
Skepticism point three: who did exhibit enthusiasm in those two states? It wasn’t Democrats, as Politico’s Alex Isenstadt noted on Sunday:
The massive turnout is a reflection of organic enthusiasm among conservatives and a sophisticated effort by Trump’s campaign to rev up its get-out-the-vote machine ahead of the general election. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire ahead of voting, and the campaign flooded the two states with high-profile surrogates and launched a Facebook advertising blitz reminding supporters to cast ballots. The efforts are paying off, with Republicans turning out in historic numbers. Trump received more than 31,000 votes in the Iowa caucus, surpassing the 25,000 Democrats who turned out during Barack Obama’s successful 2012 reelection bid. Trump’s share was more than four times the number of Republicans who caucused during George W. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign. The vote totals in New Hampshire were even starker. The president received 129,696 votes, more than doubling Obama and Bush’s totals.
It’s still early, but the disparity is tough to ignore, especially while claiming an enthusiasm gap favoring Democrats. Trump might not be the most personally popular president ever, but he has voters champing at the bit to turn out even when it doesn’t matter at all.
That brings us to skepticism point four: organization. That was Trump’s weakness in 2016, but these early primary results suggest that Team Trump and the RNC have actually delivered on promises to build a powerful GOTV machine ahead of the 2020 general election, as I write in my column for The Week:
It’s still early in the process, and both Iowa and New Hampshire are relatively small states that stand alone in the primaries. Trump counterprogrammed against Democrats in both states with splashy rallies to energize his base on the eve of the contests, which might have driven those numbers higher. He will likely do the same in Nevada and South Carolina to compete with Democratic messaging and leverage the media focus on those states into enthusiasm and turnout. That makes Super Tuesday on March 3rd a potentially good test of the Trump turnout machine and whether these are rally effects or a significant measure of Trump/RNC organization. Fifteen states will hold their presidential-preference contests on March 3rd, all primaries rather than caucuses, and Trump can’t be in 15 places at once in the day or two before these contest. If he’s still getting record turnout of Republican primary voters in those states, then Democrats had better be very, very worried, perhaps on the cusp of a full-blown panic. Trump’s biggest problem in 2016 was organization. He only adopted a traditional get-out-the-vote model late with the RNC, which had built its Republican Leadership Initiative (RLI) to operate independently of the nominee, a project on which I reported at length in my book Going Red. Democrats still have yet to adopt a similar approach, even after Clinton failed to turn out Obama’s bonus voters in the blue-wall states, which was the main reason why Trump won the election. The RLI has been rechristened the Trump Victory Leadership Initiative, but the question remains as to whether Trump has truly adopted its bottom-up granular approach to electioneering. These primary turnout numbers might be the first evidence of its success in two states that the RLI specifically targeted. Watch for Super Tuesday results from Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia especially to check whether those GOP turnout numbers remain high. If so, then Democrats might need to hit the panic button — especially if their own turnout numbers remain pedestrian.
This might be the sleeper trend of the season thus far. I suspect that the TVLI has become more of a factor than people might have imagined — and that it’s going to matter far more than urban-centered enthusiasm in states Trump would likely lose anyway. That “wave” might end up looking more like a wipeout.


hotair--2020-02-19--Report: Trump offered Assange pardon if he would deny Russia hacked DNC emails <span class='red'>(Up

Report: Trump offered Assange pardon if he would deny Russia hacked DNC emails (Update: Rohrabacher 'at no time did I talk to President Trump')

The Guardian is reporting that lawyers for Julian Assange claim President Trump made an offer to pardon Julian Assange if he would agree to deny that Russia had hacked the DNC ’ s emails .
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange ’ s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US .
Assange ’ s barrister , Edward Fitzgerald QC , referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange , now 48 , while he was still in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A statement from Assange ’ s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “ Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying , on instructions from the president , he was offering a pardon or some other way out , if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks ” , Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court .
You won ’ t be shocked to learn that some voices on the left are very excited about this charge .
I think the appeal of this story for the left is obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s fair to say that Trump really has spent a lot of time downplaying the idea that Russia was behind the DNC hack so it ’ s at least somewhat believable that he would want Assange to back him up .
Also it dovetails with the impeachment charges brought against Trump and it ’ s timely after the pardons and commutations Trump issued yesterday .
Raw Story is already quoting some Twitter rando calling for a 2nd impeachment .
But I ’ d like to offer several reasons to take a deep breath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start with the fact that a very different version of this story has already been told back in 2017 .
Back then , Allahpundit wrote about a Wall Street Journal piece which claimed it was Dana Rohrabacher who had contacted the White House to propose a deal in which Assange would get some kind of pardon in exchange for proof that Russia was not behind the DNC hack : A U.S. congressman contacted the White House this week trying to broker a deal that would end WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange ’ s U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described as evidence that Russia wasn ’ t the source of hacked emails published by the antisecrecy website during the 2016 presidential campaign… The possible “ deal ” —a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “ something like that , ” Mr. Rohrabacher said .
In exchange , Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election .
“ He would get nothing , obviously , if what he gave us was not proof , ” Mr. Rohrabacher said… A Trump administration official confirmed Friday that Mr. Rohrabacher spoke to Mr. Kelly about the plan involving Mr. Assange .
Mr. Kelly told the congressman that the proposal “ was best directed to the intelligence community , ” the official said .
Mr. Kelly didn ’ t make the president aware of Mr. Rohrabacher ’ s message , and Mr. Trump doesn ’ t know the details of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obviously it ’ s a very different thing for Rohrabacher to come to the White House with a deal that never reached the president than for the president to make this offer to Assange through Rohrabacher .
Here ’ s a local news interview with Rohrabacher after his call to the White House .
Notice that he references the Wall Street Journal story I ’ ve excerpted above .
That story says Rohrabacher was making the offer to the White House and in this interview he doesn ’ t dispute that .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House not the other way around : And that brings me to reason number two why I ’ m skeptical of this new report : Julian Assange has long denied Russia was behind the hacked material that Wikileaks helped release .
Here ’ s Rohrabacher ’ s statement about his 2017 meeting with Assange .
According to Rohrabacher ’ s statement , Assange was already saying at the time of their meeting that Russia wasn ’ t behind the hack , but he ’ d been saying that long before then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why would Trump need to bribe Assange to say something Assange was already saying every time he was asked ?
And that brings me to reason three I have doubts about this story : Assange was so committed to his denial of Russia as the source of the DNC emails that he helped pump up the bogus Seth Rich conspiracy theory .
Assange did this after contacting two Russian fronts ( DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 ) to coordinate the release of information .
Despite this , Wikileaks offered a $ 20,000 reward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rich months later .
Assange famously went on television in August 2016 to stoke this conspiracy : Host : The stuff that you ’ re sitting on , is an October surprise in there ?
Julian Assange : WikiLeaks never sits on material .
Our whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks .
There ’ s a 27-year-old , uh , works for the DNC who was shot in the back , murdered , just a few weeks ago , for unknown reasons as he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Host : That was just a robbery I believe , wasn ’ t it ?
Host : What are you suggesting , what are you suggesting ?
Assange : I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they are…they become concerned to see things occurring like that .
Host : But was he one of your sources then ?
I mean… Assange : We don ’ t comment on who are sources are .
Host : But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are…our sources face serious risks , that ’ s why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity .
Host : But it ’ s quite something to suggest a murder , that ’ s basically what you ’ re doing .
Assange : Well , others have suggested that .
We are investigating to understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich .
I think it is , uh , a concerning situation .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We wouldn ’ t be willing to state a conclusion but we are concerned about it .
More importantly , a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens .
Who else was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory at the time ?
Russia , and for the same reason : The White House has already denied the claim made in the Guardian story : Julian Assange has an extradition hearing starting next Monday .
If he is extradited to America and convicted of espionage , he could wind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe he ’ d say just about anything to avoid that , in the same way he spent years in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden .
In short , he has all the motive in the world to lie , especially if that lie implicates the country seeking his extradition in shady dealings .
But when it comes to this particular topic , i.e .
who hacked the DNC ’ s emails , Assange has already lied extensively about that so his word shouldn ’ t be trusted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very different version of this story was published two years ago and this doesn ’ t seem terribly solid .
I suppose we ’ ll have to wait to hear what Rohrabacher has to say .
In any case , I ’ m sure we ’ ll spend several weeks discussing it because there ’ s an established market for a story like this whether or not the source is credible .
Update : So here ’ s Dana Rohrabacher ’ s statement on this and it matches with what I suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never spoke to Trump at all much less acted as Trump ’ s emissary .
There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter : At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange .
Likewise , I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange .
I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange .
At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all .
However , when speaking with Julian Assange , I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails , I would then call on President Trump to pardon him .
At no time did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President , nor did I say I was representing the President .
Upon my return , I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly .
I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon .
No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration .
Even though I wasn ’ t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true whistleblower of our time .
Finally , we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich .
The Seth Rich things is pretty pathetic at this point but the bulk of this seems like a solid denial of the main thrust of the Guardian story .
The fact that all of this was reported more than two years ago in the same way strongly suggests Julian Assange is lying…again .

The Guardian is reporting that lawyers for Julian Assange claim President Trump made an offer to pardon Julian Assange if he would agree to deny that Russia had hacked the DNC’s emails.
The extraordinary claim was made at Westminster magistrates court before the opening next week of Assange’s legal battle to block attempts to extradite him to the US. Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald QC, referred to evidence alleging that the former US Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher had been to see Assange, now 48, while he was still in the Ecuadorian embassy in August 2017. A statement from Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson shows “Mr Rohrabacher going to see Mr Assange and saying, on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks”, Fitzgerald told Westminster magistrates court.
You won’t be shocked to learn that some voices on the left are very excited about this charge.
BREAKING: "Trump offered to pardon Julian Assange if he agreed to cover up the involvement of Russia in hacking emails from the DNC, which were later published by WikiLeaks, a London court was told." via Daily Beast. Confirming what we already knew. Trump colluded with Russia. — Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 19, 2020
Today’s revelation of Trump’s bribe of Assange is further evidence of what we all know to be true: Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. He’s trying to do it again. That’s what Criminals do. — Rob Reiner (@robreiner) February 19, 2020
Trump Offered Assange Pardon if He Covered Up Russian Hack, Court Hears https://t.co/n3HReygSyO — Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) February 19, 2020
I think the appeal of this story for the left is obvious. First, I think it’s fair to say that Trump really has spent a lot of time downplaying the idea that Russia was behind the DNC hack so it’s at least somewhat believable that he would want Assange to back him up. Also it dovetails with the impeachment charges brought against Trump and it’s timely after the pardons and commutations Trump issued yesterday. Raw Story is already quoting some Twitter rando calling for a 2nd impeachment.
But I’d like to offer several reasons to take a deep breath on this claim. Let’s start with the fact that a very different version of this story has already been told back in 2017. Back then, Allahpundit wrote about a Wall Street Journal piece which claimed it was Dana Rohrabacher who had contacted the White House to propose a deal in which Assange would get some kind of pardon in exchange for proof that Russia was not behind the DNC hack:
A U.S. congressman contacted the White House this week trying to broker a deal that would end WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s U.S. legal troubles in exchange for what he described as evidence that Russia wasn’t the source of hacked emails published by the antisecrecy website during the 2016 presidential campaign… The possible “deal”—a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “something like that,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. In exchange, Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election. “He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof,” Mr. Rohrabacher said… A Trump administration official confirmed Friday that Mr. Rohrabacher spoke to Mr. Kelly about the plan involving Mr. Assange. Mr. Kelly told the congressman that the proposal “was best directed to the intelligence community,” the official said. Mr. Kelly didn’t make the president aware of Mr. Rohrabacher’s message, and Mr. Trump doesn’t know the details of the proposed deal, the official said.
Obviously it’s a very different thing for Rohrabacher to come to the White House with a deal that never reached the president than for the president to make this offer to Assange through Rohrabacher.
Here’s a local news interview with Rohrabacher after his call to the White House. Notice that he references the Wall Street Journal story I’ve excerpted above. That story says Rohrabacher was making the offer to the White House and in this interview he doesn’t dispute that. It’s clearly his offer to the White House not the other way around:
Rohrabacher confirms here he met with Assange Aug 2017 and was in touch with White House: "I've talked to senior people at the White House … I had extended conversation with the Chief of Staff Gen Kelly." Says deal with Assange between him and WH is confidential. What deal? pic.twitter.com/S05iCzAuSv — Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 19, 2020
And that brings me to reason number two why I’m skeptical of this new report: Julian Assange has long denied Russia was behind the hacked material that Wikileaks helped release. Here’s Rohrabacher’s statement about his 2017 meeting with Assange.
Dana Rohrabacher says he met with Assange for 3 hours and Assange assured him Russia didn’t play dirty pic.twitter.com/omfJJqmemk — Sam Stein (@samstein) August 17, 2017
According to Rohrabacher’s statement, Assange was already saying at the time of their meeting that Russia wasn’t behind the hack, but he’d been saying that long before then, including prior to the election. So why would Trump need to bribe Assange to say something Assange was already saying every time he was asked?
Huge if true, but interesting because it doesn't seem like Assange would need incentivizing to say this–he's long claimed (falsely, according to the US IC) that Russia was not WikiLeaks' source for the hacked documents. https://t.co/u2lx9sVLMn — Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) February 19, 2020
And that brings me to reason three I have doubts about this story: Assange was so committed to his denial of Russia as the source of the DNC emails that he helped pump up the bogus Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Assange did this after contacting two Russian fronts (DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0) to coordinate the release of information. Despite this, Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward in connection to the murder of Seth Rich months later.
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich. — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 9, 2016
Assange famously went on television in August 2016 to stoke this conspiracy:
Host: The stuff that you’re sitting on, is an October surprise in there? Julian Assange: WikiLeaks never sits on material. Our whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old, uh, works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington. Host: That was just a robbery I believe, wasn’t it? Assange: No. There’s no finding. Host: What are you suggesting, what are you suggesting? Assange: I am suggesting that our sources take risks and they are…they become concerned to see things occurring like that. Host: But was he one of your sources then? I mean… Assange: We don’t comment on who are sources are. Host: But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington? Assange: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States and that our sources are…our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect their anonymity. Host: But it’s quite something to suggest a murder, that’s basically what you’re doing. Assange: Well, others have suggested that. We are investigating to understand what happened in that situation with Seth Rich. I think it is, uh, a concerning situation. There’s not a conclusion yet. We wouldn’t be willing to state a conclusion but we are concerned about it. More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.
Who else was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy theory at the time? Russia, and for the same reason:
#WikiLeaks informer Seth Rich murdered in US but 🇬🇧 MSM was so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice. pic.twitter.com/0XVezTyfHM — Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) May 19, 2017
The White House has already denied the claim made in the Guardian story:
The president barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman. He’s never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, who is traveling with Mr Trump on a West Coast campaigning tour, said in an email. “It is a complete fabrication and a total lie,” she said of Mr Fitzgerald’s allegation. “This is probably another never ending hoax and total lie from the DNC.”
Julian Assange has an extradition hearing starting next Monday. If he is extradited to America and convicted of espionage, he could wind up spending decades in prison. I believe he’d say just about anything to avoid that, in the same way he spent years in the Ecuadorian Embassy to avoid facing rape charges in Sweden. In short, he has all the motive in the world to lie, especially if that lie implicates the country seeking his extradition in shady dealings.
But when it comes to this particular topic, i.e. who hacked the DNC’s emails, Assange has already lied extensively about that so his word shouldn’t be trusted. Add to that the fact that a very different version of this story was published two years ago and this doesn’t seem terribly solid. I suppose we’ll have to wait to hear what Rohrabacher has to say. In any case, I’m sure we’ll spend several weeks discussing it because there’s an established market for a story like this whether or not the source is credible.
Update: So here’s Dana Rohrabacher’s statement on this and it matches with what I suggested above, i.e. he says he never spoke to Trump at all much less acted as Trump’s emissary.
There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration. Even though I wasn’t successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.
The Seth Rich things is pretty pathetic at this point but the bulk of this seems like a solid denial of the main thrust of the Guardian story. The fact that all of this was reported more than two years ago in the same way strongly suggests Julian Assange is lying…again.


hotair--2020-02-19--NY Gov: ICE just wants to assault the undocumented

It looks as if there isn ’ t going to be any sort of Kumbaya moment coming between President Trump and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo , not that anyone was really expecting one .
As you may recall , DHS suspended the ability of New York State residents to apply for or renew membership in the various Trusted Traveler programs that allow vetted travelers to more quickly get through customs at airports and border crossings .
This was done because the state ’ s new “ green light ” laws forbid the sharing of driver registration and other data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that DHS can ’ t vet them properly to approve their applications .
Shortly after that , Cuomo requested a meeting with the President to see if they could work out a compromise .
It wasn ’ t much of a compromise at all in reality , but Trump agreed to the meeting .
Nothing came of it , of course , and the two went their separate ways .
You might think that a little civility could ensue sine the effort was at least made , but no .
Cuomo decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants an excuse to have ICE “ assault immigrants.
” ( Mental Recession ) Governor Andrew Cuomo , in an interview on Wednesday , has accused law enforcement at Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) of wanting to ‘ assault ’ illegal immigrants .
Cuomo ( D-NY ) made the comments prior to a meeting with President Trump concerning the Trusted Traveler Program… “ They want access to the undocumenteds so they can give it to ICE , ” the governor told WAMC , “ and ICE can have a feeding frenzy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly never going to end well , at least for Cuomo .
His “ compromise ” was an offer to “ consider ” providing information only about residents who actually apply for the Trusted Traveler programs , and even then only on a “ case by case basis.
” That ’ s obviously not going to satisfy DHS because they would have no assurance that they would receive all the required information from every applicant if Cuomo ’ s office is picking and choosing whose information will be provided and whose won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another layer to the already lengthy process of reviewing these applications leading to even longer delays .
But did things have to devolve to this level of incivility ?
Granted , President Trump set the bar pretty low before the meeting began , tweeting about the Governor ’ s request negatively and including another reference to Cuomo ’ s CNN host brother Chris as “ Fredo.
” But before you place all of the blame on Trump , take a look at this brief CBS report on a press conference that Cuomo held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting before he ever even got in the room with the President .
When a reporter asked him about his expectations , he said he really didn ’ t have any , but it was his job to “ fight ” for New Yorkers .
He heaped accusations about Trump ’ s supposed motives onto the fire and basically used it as an opportunity to get in some grandstanding .
For Andrew Cuomo , this was little more than a self-serving opportunity to grab some headlines and demonstrate how much he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t going to address the underlying problem , but he marched in with it anyway .
He also described the need to fix this situation as an “ urgent ” problem .
It ’ s actually not .
Nobody is losing the ability to travel by being excluded from the Trusted Traveler programs .
They ’ ll just have to wait in line at customs with the rest of us .
And if they want to know why , tell them to take it up with New York ’ s state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shield illegal aliens .

It looks as if there isn’t going to be any sort of Kumbaya moment coming between President Trump and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, not that anyone was really expecting one. As you may recall, DHS suspended the ability of New York State residents to apply for or renew membership in the various Trusted Traveler programs that allow vetted travelers to more quickly get through customs at airports and border crossings. This was done because the state’s new “green light” laws forbid the sharing of driver registration and other data with ICE and CBP. That means that DHS can’t vet them properly to approve their applications.
Shortly after that, Cuomo requested a meeting with the President to see if they could work out a compromise. It wasn’t much of a compromise at all in reality, but Trump agreed to the meeting. Nothing came of it, of course, and the two went their separate ways. You might think that a little civility could ensue sine the effort was at least made, but no. Cuomo decided to double down and declare that Trump just wants an excuse to have ICE “assault immigrants.” (Mental Recession)
Governor Andrew Cuomo, in an interview on Wednesday, has accused law enforcement at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of wanting to ‘assault’ illegal immigrants. Cuomo (D-NY) made the comments prior to a meeting with President Trump concerning the Trusted Traveler Program… “They want access to the undocumenteds so they can give it to ICE,” the governor told WAMC, “and ICE can have a feeding frenzy assaulting undocumented people.”
That meeting was clearly never going to end well, at least for Cuomo. His “compromise” was an offer to “consider” providing information only about residents who actually apply for the Trusted Traveler programs, and even then only on a “case by case basis.” That’s obviously not going to satisfy DHS because they would have no assurance that they would receive all the required information from every applicant if Cuomo’s office is picking and choosing whose information will be provided and whose won’t. It would have also added another layer to the already lengthy process of reviewing these applications leading to even longer delays.
But did things have to devolve to this level of incivility? Granted, President Trump set the bar pretty low before the meeting began, tweeting about the Governor’s request negatively and including another reference to Cuomo’s CNN host brother Chris as “Fredo.”
But before you place all of the blame on Trump, take a look at this brief CBS report on a press conference that Cuomo held.
Governor Cuomo was laughing off the meeting before he ever even got in the room with the President. When a reporter asked him about his expectations, he said he really didn’t have any, but it was his job to “fight” for New Yorkers. He heaped accusations about Trump’s supposed motives onto the fire and basically used it as an opportunity to get in some grandstanding.
For Andrew Cuomo, this was little more than a self-serving opportunity to grab some headlines and demonstrate how much he’s RESISTING Trump. He knew his offer wasn’t going to address the underlying problem, but he marched in with it anyway. He also described the need to fix this situation as an “urgent” problem. It’s actually not. Nobody is losing the ability to travel by being excluded from the Trusted Traveler programs. They’ll just have to wait in line at customs with the rest of us. And if they want to know why, tell them to take it up with New York’s state government and their new laws designed to shield illegal aliens.


hotair--2020-02-19--Bloomberg to other Not-Bernie contenders: Drop out now and endorse me or this party is toast

A bold claim from someone who hasn ’ t even yet been on a ballot .
The Michael Bloomberg campaign released a memo warning Democrats that the Not Bernie lane ’ s split threatens to leave the party with a socialist in control of a large plurality of delegates .
The only solution to this , Team Bloomy says , is to have everyone else withdraw and get behind the candidate with no delegates thus far at all — and hasn ’ t yet gotten one vote , for that matter .
Kevin Sheekey , Bloomberg ’ s top strategist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the state of this race remains status quo — with Biden , Pete and Amy in the race on Super Tuesday — Bernie is likely to open up a delegate lead that seems nearly impossible to overcome.
” “ I don ’ t think many people understand the dire circumstances here.
” … “ If Biden , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday ( and beyond ) , they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
” Votes ?
What votes ?
Bloomberg won ’ t even appear on a ballot at all until March 3rd , missing Saturday ’ s caucus in Nevada and next Tuesday ’ s primary in South Carolina .
What are the other candidates supposed to do for the next eleven days — knit Bloomberg for President beanies ?
Tell their organizations , “ Never mind ” ?
If Bloomberg was that concerned about unity and votes , why didn ’ t he get into the race early enough to compete in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super Tuesday ?
The sheer arrogance of this analysis astounds in another way as well .
Let ’ s not forget that Bloomberg ’ s the Johnny-come-lately to this party , and he came expressly to split the moderate vote .
At the time Bloomberg launched his campaign , the race was shaping up as a socialist love-fest jockeying to be the Not Biden , who had been in polling control of the race for months .
After Biden ’ s lackluster performance and several rhetorical stumbles , Bloomberg got into the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slot .
Unfortunately , the One True Socialist has emerged as the frontrunner and now everyone else is trying to paint themselves as a unity-minded moderate in response .
Plus , let ’ s also not forget that Bloomberg is almost as much of a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party as Sanders is .
If there ’ s party-saving to do from one socialist in Democrats ’ clothing , why would the other candidates throw their lot in with the Republican in Democrats ’ clothing ?
At least while he has yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
That ’ s not to discount everything in the analysis provided by Team Bloomberg in this memo .
It ’ s absurd to call “ MRB … the clear # 2 based on vote share ” when he has yet to get a single vote , and won ’ t until March 3rd .
They ’ re correct in predicting that Sanders will get a large plurality based on current projections : That ’ s true … as far as it goes .
The assumption in this memo is that one candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as long as that field narrows between now and March 2nd .
Even forgetting that the ballots for Super Tuesday are already set , that assumption is , er … somewhat suspect .
As Allahpundit wrote last night , the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that Sanders would beat Bloomberg by a whopping twenty points in a head-to-head match , 57/37 , probably in large part due to the distaste that even some of the moderate wing have for a multi-billionaire buying the nomination .
That entirely contradicts the thrust of the memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination to Sanders , then the best strategy isn ’ t to narrow the field but to keep it expanded .
The GOP uses a winner-take-all approach in most states to quickly whittle down their primary races , but Democrats allocate delegates proportionally above a threshold of viability ( usually 15 % ) .
The more candidates there are getting delegates , the less likely Sanders will get to a first-ballot majority .
That ’ s even more true as different candidates focus on friendly states — Biden in South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren in Massachusetts and California , and so on .
In a Bernie-Bloomy head-to-head with these polling numbers , Sanders would quickly race to an insurmountable majority of delegates .
In an expanded field where five or six candidates remain viable and collect delegates , the party still has options for a brokered convention .
While Sanders is projected to have a lead , the percentage of the rest of the delegates he needs to win will have gotten bigger .
Right now he needs to win 50.3 percent of the remaining delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected on Super Tuesday , he will have won only a bit over 40 percent of the delegates to that point , well off the 50-percent-plus pace .
After Super Tuesday , then , he will need to win more than 56 percent of the remaining delegates , in part because there are far fewer delegates remaining .
That ’ s harder than it sounds , since delegates are awarded proportionately .
Even if the field narrows to three candidates after Super Tuesday , those candidates will likely consolidate some support — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hit the 15 percent threshold to earn delegates .
If Sanders is at 55 percent in national polling after the field narrows and earns that percentage of delegates in each contest moving forward , he will not have enough delegates at the end of voting to clinch the nomination .
While Sanders ’ lead might be “ insurmountable ” at that point , it might also be irrelevant at the convention .
If everyone stays in and doesn ’ t release their delegates , the superdelegates then get added in on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t create a winner , then eventually all delegates get released — and the brokering begins .
That would allow the Democrats to keep Sanders off the ticket , if they so choose .
But narrowing the field to two now would all but hand the nomination to Sanders outright .
So much for Bloomberg ’ s self-serving political advice , and it seems strange that Democrats would entertain it at all .
This should make for a fun topic in tonight ’ s debate , eh ?
For another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about a potential 2012 Trump presidential run .
“ He doesn ’ t do everything he says , ” Bloomberg tells George Stephanpoulos , “ but he tries , and I ’ m a big fan of Donald Trump.
” Unity !

A bold claim from someone who hasn’t even yet been on a ballot. The Michael Bloomberg campaign released a memo warning Democrats that the Not Bernie lane’s split threatens to leave the party with a socialist in control of a large plurality of delegates. The only solution to this, Team Bloomy says, is to have everyone else withdraw and get behind the candidate with no delegates thus far at all — and hasn’t yet gotten one vote, for that matter.
Axios reported on the highlights:
Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s top strategist, said: “The fact is if the state of this race remains status quo — with Biden, Pete and Amy in the race on Super Tuesday — Bernie is likely to open up a delegate lead that seems nearly impossible to overcome.” “I don’t think many people understand the dire circumstances here.” … “If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from [Bloomberg].”
Votes? What votes? Bloomberg won’t even appear on a ballot at all until March 3rd, missing Saturday’s caucus in Nevada and next Tuesday’s primary in South Carolina. What are the other candidates supposed to do for the next eleven days — knit Bloomberg for President beanies? Tell their organizations, “Never mind”? If Bloomberg was that concerned about unity and votes, why didn’t he get into the race early enough to compete in the first four states, and not just Super Tuesday?
The sheer arrogance of this analysis astounds in another way as well. Let’s not forget that Bloomberg’s the Johnny-come-lately to this party, and he came expressly to split the moderate vote. At the time Bloomberg launched his campaign, the race was shaping up as a socialist love-fest jockeying to be the Not Biden, who had been in polling control of the race for months. After Biden’s lackluster performance and several rhetorical stumbles, Bloomberg got into the race to take over Biden’s moderate slot. Unfortunately, the One True Socialist has emerged as the frontrunner and now everyone else is trying to paint themselves as a unity-minded moderate in response.
Plus, let’s also not forget that Bloomberg is almost as much of a Johnny-come-lately to the Democratic Party as Sanders is. If there’s party-saving to do from one socialist in Democrats’ clothing, why would the other candidates throw their lot in with the Republican in Democrats’ clothing? At least while he has yet to run in a single primary or caucus?
That’s not to discount everything in the analysis provided by Team Bloomberg in this memo. It’s absurd to call “MRB … the clear #2 based on vote share” when he has yet to get a single vote, and won’t until March 3rd. They’re correct in predicting that Sanders will get a large plurality based on current projections:
David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, tweeted in response to Nate Silver’s delegate projections through Super Tuesday — which show Sanders with 41%, followed by Bloomberg and Joe Biden with 18% each. “If this happens, Sanders would have a pledged delegate lead he’ll never relinquish.”
That’s true … as far as it goes. The assumption in this memo is that one candidate in the moderate lane will defeat Sanders, as long as that field narrows between now and March 2nd. Even forgetting that the ballots for Super Tuesday are already set, that assumption is, er … somewhat suspect. As Allahpundit wrote last night, the latest NBC/WSJ poll shows that Sanders would beat Bloomberg by a whopping twenty points in a head-to-head match, 57/37, probably in large part due to the distaste that even some of the moderate wing have for a multi-billionaire buying the nomination.
That entirely contradicts the thrust of the memo. If Democrats really want to deny the nomination to Sanders, then the best strategy isn’t to narrow the field but to keep it expanded. The GOP uses a winner-take-all approach in most states to quickly whittle down their primary races, but Democrats allocate delegates proportionally above a threshold of viability (usually 15%). The more candidates there are getting delegates, the less likely Sanders will get to a first-ballot majority. That’s even more true as different candidates focus on friendly states — Biden in South Carolina, Buttigieg and Klobuchar in the Midwest, Warren in Massachusetts and California, and so on. In a Bernie-Bloomy head-to-head with these polling numbers, Sanders would quickly race to an insurmountable majority of delegates. In an expanded field where five or six candidates remain viable and collect delegates, the party still has options for a brokered convention.
Washington Post analyst Philip Bump sees the same issue:
While Sanders is projected to have a lead, the percentage of the rest of the delegates he needs to win will have gotten bigger. Right now he needs to win 50.3 percent of the remaining delegates. If he does as well as projected on Super Tuesday, he will have won only a bit over 40 percent of the delegates to that point, well off the 50-percent-plus pace. After Super Tuesday, then, he will need to win more than 56 percent of the remaining delegates, in part because there are far fewer delegates remaining. That’s harder than it sounds, since delegates are awarded proportionately. Even if the field narrows to three candidates after Super Tuesday, those candidates will likely consolidate some support — and, therefore, will be more likely to hit the 15 percent threshold to earn delegates. If Sanders is at 55 percent in national polling after the field narrows and earns that percentage of delegates in each contest moving forward, he will not have enough delegates at the end of voting to clinch the nomination.
While Sanders’ lead might be “insurmountable” at that point, it might also be irrelevant at the convention. If everyone stays in and doesn’t release their delegates, the superdelegates then get added in on the second or third ballot. If that doesn’t create a winner, then eventually all delegates get released — and the brokering begins. That would allow the Democrats to keep Sanders off the ticket, if they so choose. But narrowing the field to two now would all but hand the nomination to Sanders outright.
So much for Bloomberg’s self-serving political advice, and it seems strange that Democrats would entertain it at all. This should make for a fun topic in tonight’s debate, eh? For another, here’s Mayor Bloomberg in 2011 talking about a potential 2012 Trump presidential run. “He doesn’t do everything he says,” Bloomberg tells George Stephanpoulos, “but he tries, and I’m a big fan of Donald Trump.” Unity!


hotair--2020-02-19--Bernie now projected to have an all but insurmountable delegate lead after Super Tuesday

Another reminder that , although tonight ’ s debate sort of matters , it doesn ’ t really matter .
I suppose Bernie could say something out of the blue that would instantly ruin his chances , like “ Taxes are bad ” or “ Epstein really did kill himself.
” But barring that , there ’ s no reason to think any centrist candidate can reverse the trend in this race before it becomes irreversible .
It ’ s worth noting that Nate Silver ’ s model still has Sanders on pace to fall short of a majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention .
But ( a ) he ’ ll have a near-majority , far ahead of the second-place candidate , which will guarantee his nomination anyway , and ( b ) the model also assumes that both Mike Bloomberg and Joe Biden will continue to pile up delegates in primaries for months to come , which seems unlikely .
Bloomy has the dough to run all the way to the convention but Biden , barring a revival in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday , does not .
Which may be cause for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delegates projected to go to Biden in Silver ’ s model went to Bloomberg instead , Bloomy and Bernie would be practically tied by convention time .
It can ’ t be stressed enough : Because the Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally rather than via winner-take-all , it will be very hard for the second-place candidate to close a delegate gap like the one Silver ’ s envisioning after Super Tuesday .
The Not Bernie candidate would have to win consistently in state after state , chipping away at the lead over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some delegates even in defeat .
And he ’ d have to do that despite the fact that a strong Super Tuesday showing would obviously give Bernie even more momentum nationally .
You ’ ve seen what his win in New Hampshire and half-win in Iowa has done to his numbers in national polls over the last 24 hours .
Imagine what winning multiple states on March 3 will do .
Meanwhile , the muddle in the middle keeps helping him out .
We ’ ve already seen in new polls of Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Buttigieg are making victories by Sanders plausible simply by splintering the centrist vote between them .
The same thing is happening in California , the biggest delegate prize on Super Tuesday .
Survey USA has Bernie ahead there with 25 percent followed by the moderates carving up the rest of the electorate — Bloomberg at 21 , Biden at 15 , Buttigieg at 12 .
And since Californians are already voting early , many votes for Biden are already banked irrespective of whether he disappoints in South Carolina and ends up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day in Cali .
A second poll of California also has Sanders ahead but with a more formidable lead : Bernie 32 , Biden 14 , Warren 13 , Bloomberg 12 , Buttigieg 12 .
If that ’ s accurate then Sanders ’ s lead will only balloon by primary day , since Warren is likely to leave the race soon .
And the fact that the second-place candidate is stuck below the 15-percent threshold here raises the possibility that Bernie will earn an unexpected windfall of delegates after the votes are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the staggering irony in the race is that Bloomberg , more than any other candidate , is momentarily enabling a Sanders victory .
If Bloomy were at one percent in the polls , Biden or Buttigieg or both would be performing better and threatening Sanders .
If Bloomy were at 30 percent in the polls , it ’ d be a two-man race in which the centrist candidate enjoyed unlimited financial resources .
But with Bloomy at 15 percent or so , he ’ s taking enough of the vote to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do any damage to Bernie .
That needs to change immediately or the race will be effectively over .
The sheer size of California also points to a paradox : As much as Bloomberg is hurting the other moderates now , he ’ s also the only candidate at this point who seems capable of competing with Sanders .
Even if Biden were to win South Carolina , he doesn ’ t have the dough to advertise extensively in all of California ’ s many huge , expensive media markets .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only Mike does .
So what ’ s the play if you ’ re a centrist Democrat trying to choose ?
Maybe tonight ’ s debate will help clarify things , but I doubt it .
I keep thinking that the only encouraging thing about a Trump vs. Sanders election is that one side or the other will treat the outcome as a reason to rethink populism , but since we live in the worst timeline now , that ’ s probably not how it ’ ll shake out .
It ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both parties convinced that the only way to win in 2024 is to double down .

Another reminder that, although tonight’s debate sort of matters, it doesn’t really matter. I suppose Bernie could say something out of the blue that would instantly ruin his chances, like “Taxes are bad” or “Epstein really did kill himself.”
But barring that, there’s no reason to think any centrist candidate can reverse the trend in this race before it becomes irreversible.
It’s worth noting that Nate Silver’s model still has Sanders on pace to fall short of a majority of delegates, which would trigger a contested convention. But (a) he’ll have a near-majority, far ahead of the second-place candidate, which will guarantee his nomination anyway, and (b) the model also assumes that both Mike Bloomberg and Joe Biden will continue to pile up delegates in primaries for months to come, which seems unlikely. Bloomy has the dough to run all the way to the convention but Biden, barring a revival in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday, does not. Which may be cause for hope for centrists: If all of the delegates projected to go to Biden in Silver’s model went to Bloomberg instead, Bloomy and Bernie would be practically tied by convention time.
That’s far-fetched, though. Here’s the hard reality:
Average projected delegates through Super Tuesday: Sanders 608 (41% of delegates thru March 3)
Bloomberg 273 (18%)
Biden 270 (18%)
Buttigieg 157 (10%)
Warren 127 (8%)
Klobuchar 55 (4%)https://t.co/JDz2dZ8bqR — Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) February 18, 2020
It can’t be stressed enough: Because the Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally rather than via winner-take-all, it will be very hard for the second-place candidate to close a delegate gap like the one Silver’s envisioning after Super Tuesday. The Not Bernie candidate would have to win consistently in state after state, chipping away at the lead over many months as Sanders continues to take some delegates even in defeat. And he’d have to do that despite the fact that a strong Super Tuesday showing would obviously give Bernie even more momentum nationally. You’ve seen what his win in New Hampshire and half-win in Iowa has done to his numbers in national polls over the last 24 hours. Imagine what winning multiple states on March 3 will do.
Meanwhile, the muddle in the middle keeps helping him out. We’ve already seen in new polls of Virginia and North Carolina how Bloomberg, Biden, and Buttigieg are making victories by Sanders plausible simply by splintering the centrist vote between them. The same thing is happening in California, the biggest delegate prize on Super Tuesday. Survey USA has Bernie ahead there with 25 percent followed by the moderates carving up the rest of the electorate — Bloomberg at 21, Biden at 15, Buttigieg at 12. And since Californians are already voting early, many votes for Biden are already banked irrespective of whether he disappoints in South Carolina and ends up dropping out of the race before election day in Cali.
A second poll of California also has Sanders ahead but with a more formidable lead: Bernie 32, Biden 14, Warren 13, Bloomberg 12, Buttigieg 12. If that’s accurate then Sanders’s lead will only balloon by primary day, since Warren is likely to leave the race soon. And the fact that the second-place candidate is stuck below the 15-percent threshold here raises the possibility that Bernie will earn an unexpected windfall of delegates after the votes are in:
If only Bernie hits 15% he’ll net 144 delegates on the field. If a second candidate hits the board, his net advantage on that candidate in CA statewide at-large delegates shrinks to ≈50. 2 other and it shrinks to ≈30. It’s the biggest inflection point in the race. — Jonathan Chavez (@jschavez) February 19, 2020
For all the hype about Bloomentum, the staggering irony in the race is that Bloomberg, more than any other candidate, is momentarily enabling a Sanders victory. If Bloomy were at one percent in the polls, Biden or Buttigieg or both would be performing better and threatening Sanders. If Bloomy were at 30 percent in the polls, it’d be a two-man race in which the centrist candidate enjoyed unlimited financial resources. But with Bloomy at 15 percent or so, he’s taking enough of the vote to hold back Biden and Buttigieg but not enough to do any damage to Bernie. That needs to change immediately or the race will be effectively over.
The sheer size of California also points to a paradox: As much as Bloomberg is hurting the other moderates now, he’s also the only candidate at this point who seems capable of competing with Sanders. Even if Biden were to win South Carolina, he doesn’t have the dough to advertise extensively in all of California’s many huge, expensive media markets. Neither does Buttigieg or Klobuchar or Warren. Only Mike does. So what’s the play if you’re a centrist Democrat trying to choose?
Maybe tonight’s debate will help clarify things, but I doubt it. I keep thinking that the only encouraging thing about a Trump vs. Sanders election is that one side or the other will treat the outcome as a reason to rethink populism, but since we live in the worst timeline now, that’s probably not how it’ll shake out. It’ll probably end in a 269-269 tie with both parties convinced that the only way to win in 2024 is to double down.


hotair--2020-02-19--Politico: Trump's commutation of Blago's sentence isn't crazy

Yesterday , President Trump commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich saying a bit later in the day that Blago had been given a “ ridiculous sentence.
” Last night Politico published a piece by Natasha Korecki , a reporter who covered Blagojevich ’ s trial and 2011 sentencing .
Korecki ’ s headline claims that “ Trump ’ s Commutation Isn ’ t Crazy ” which is about as positive toward Trump as the media ever gets these days : U.S. District Judge James Zagel handed down a 14-year sentence to Blagojevich .
Prosecutors had calculated that under federal guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 30 years to life in prison , but they asked for 15 to 20 years .
Among Blagojevich ’ s crimes : lying to the FBI , trying to sell President Barack Obama ’ s old Senate seat and holding up money to a children ’ s hospital and a racetrack in exchange for campaign contributions .
Zagel , as it happens , was the same judge who in 2009 had sentenced mob informant Nick Calabrese to 12 years in prison .
Calabrese helped take down the Chicago mob .
He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written hundreds of stories , blog posts , magazine articles and , finally , a book on Blagojevich ’ s case .
There was one sentiment I heard over and over again , which went something like , “ I know Blagojevich was guilty as hell , but 14 years is insane.
” Korecki points out that the state ’ s previous governor , George Ryan , was convicted of corruption and given a 6 1/2 year sentence .
She writes that “ conventional wisdom ” at the time was that Blagojevich deserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have served eight years .
Guy Benson , whose opinion I respect , argued on Fox News that Blagojevich wasn ’ t deserving of the break he ’ d been given .
A whistleblower who was instrumental in Blagojevich ’ s conviction expressed her displeasure with the move , though she was relieved that Trump didn ’ t issue a pardon in Blago ’ s case .
So there are plenty of critics of this decision out there , but it seems noteworthy that there is some arguable justification for this commutation coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Blagojevich spoke to the media outside his home this morning .
He expressed his “ profound and everlasting gratitude ” to President Trump .
He added , “ He ’ s a Republican president and I was a Democratic governor and doing this does nothing to help his politics.
” Some are already wondering if this commutation isn ’ t Trump ’ s way of laying the groundwork for future pardons and commutations closer to home .
Asked yesterday if he ’ d thought about pardoning Roger Stone , Trump said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess we ’ ll have to wait and see .
Here ’ s Blago ’ s press conference :

Yesterday, President Trump commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich saying a bit later in the day that Blago had been given a “ridiculous sentence.” Last night Politico published a piece by Natasha Korecki, a reporter who covered Blagojevich’s trial and 2011 sentencing. Korecki’s headline claims that “Trump’s Commutation Isn’t Crazy” which is about as positive toward Trump as the media ever gets these days:
U.S. District Judge James Zagel handed down a 14-year sentence to Blagojevich. Prosecutors had calculated that under federal guidelines, Blagojevich’s crimes technically qualified for 30 years to life in prison, but they asked for 15 to 20 years. Among Blagojevich’s crimes: lying to the FBI, trying to sell President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat and holding up money to a children’s hospital and a racetrack in exchange for campaign contributions. Zagel, as it happens, was the same judge who in 2009 had sentenced mob informant Nick Calabrese to 12 years in prison. Calabrese helped take down the Chicago mob. He also killed 14 people. I’ve written hundreds of stories, blog posts, magazine articles and, finally, a book on Blagojevich’s case. There was one sentiment I heard over and over again, which went something like, “I know Blagojevich was guilty as hell, but 14 years is insane.”
Korecki points out that the state’s previous governor, George Ryan, was convicted of corruption and given a 6 1/2 year sentence. She writes that “conventional wisdom” at the time was that Blagojevich deserved more time. Now he’ll have served eight years.
Guy Benson, whose opinion I respect, argued on Fox News that Blagojevich wasn’t deserving of the break he’d been given. A whistleblower who was instrumental in Blagojevich’s conviction expressed her displeasure with the move, though she was relieved that Trump didn’t issue a pardon in Blago’s case. So there are plenty of critics of this decision out there, but it seems noteworthy that there is some arguable justification for this commutation coming from someone who knows the case intimately.
Blagojevich spoke to the media outside his home this morning. He expressed his “profound and everlasting gratitude” to President Trump. He added, “He’s a Republican president and I was a Democratic governor and doing this does nothing to help his politics.” Some are already wondering if this commutation isn’t Trump’s way of laying the groundwork for future pardons and commutations closer to home. Asked yesterday if he’d thought about pardoning Roger Stone, Trump said he hadn’t considered it. I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Here’s Blago’s press conference:


hotair--2020-02-19--The Bloomy-Bernie feud turns as serious as ... a heart attack?

Heart attack , heart attack , who ’ s had a heart attack ?
I suppose this argument was inevitable in a three way race between candidates whose combined age nearly equals the age of the United States , but it ’ s a bad look for Democrats .
It started off with another declaration from Bernie Sanders last night in a CNN town hall that he would not release any more of his own medical records , not even after having had a heart attack a few months ago : COOPER : In September , just last September , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical records by — before the primaries .
You haven ’ t done that .
You have released three letters from doctors , two of them cardiologists .
One is your — your physician .
Is releasing full medical records — is that no longer something… SANDERS : Now , we have released , I think , Anderson , quite as much as any other candidate has .
We received — released two , rather , detailed letters from cardiologists and we received — released a letter that came from the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physicians there .
So I think we have released a detailed report .
And I ’ m comfortable with what we have done .
And by the way , you think I ’ m not in good health , come on out with me on the campaign trail and I ’ ll let you introduce me to the three or four rallies a day that we do .
How ’ s that ?
COOPER : But just to be clear , you don ’ t plan to release any more records ?
SANDERS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think we will , no .
That ’ s quite a turnaround from Sanders ’ pre-heart attack declaration that voters deserve complete transparency on candidate health , and it has some suspicious over Sanders ’ motives .
This morning , CNN ’ s John Berman followed up with Team Bernie press secretary Briahna Joy Gray , who scolded John Berman over “ smear ” campaigns about Sanders ’ health .
To prove her point , Gray claimed that Michael Bloomberg had had heart attacks in his past as well : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the fall .
Do you think the American people deserve to know more about his health going forward ?
GRAY : I think the American people deserve to know exactly as much as every other candidate has released in this race — currently and historically .
And what you ’ re seeing right now is really reminiscent of some of the kind of smear , kind of skepticism campaigns that have been run against a lot of different candidates in the past , questioning where they ’ re from , aspects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it ’ s really telling , given that none of the same concern is being demonstrated for Michael Bloomberg , who ’ s the same age as Bernie Sanders [ and ] who has suffered heart attacks in the past .
That ’ s a great example of what Gray ’ s discussing — only not an example of a double standard , but of a campaign smear .
As it turns out , Bloomberg never had a heart attack , let alone “ attacks ” plural , although he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clear it : Bloomberg , who is also 78 , underwent a coronary stent placement in 2000 for a blocked artery , but that does not mean he had a heart attack .
Kevin Sheekey , Bloomberg ’ s campaign manager , said Gray ’ s reference to Bloomberg having suffered heart attacks is “ an absolute lie.
” Bloomberg ’ s campaign in December released a letter from the candidate ’ s doctor that said he is in “ outstanding health ” with no medical conditions that would prevent him from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual cardiac stress testing since the stent placement , and his 2019 test was “ normal and demonstrated excellent exercise tolerance , ” the letter said .
Bloomberg campaign adviser Tim O ’ Brien accused Team Bernie of sounding a lot like … Donald Trump : Now we know that Bloomberg ’ s okay , for a 77-year-old multibillionaire , anyway .
He has some issues with atrial fibrillation that ’ s being controlled with medication , but doctors attest that it ’ s well-controlled .
What about Sanders ?
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on transparency , but it doesn ’ t look good , as one Democratic strategist pointed out this morning : Exactly , which is why no one ’ s going to just “ trust Bernie ” on this issue .
As inevitable as this feud is , it ’ s only making matters worse .
Right now the top three national polling candidates approach 235 combined years of age , ranging from 77 to , er , 78 .
Donald Trump is no spring chicken either but he practically hums with vitality at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 74 in June ) .
The Democratic field looks like a Soviet politburo in terms of age , and maybe in terms of health too .
The longer they keep debating each others ’ heart attacks , the more voters will start figuring that another four years of Trump looks better and better .
Addendum : And of course , no apologies :

Heart attack, heart attack, who’s had a heart attack? I suppose this argument was inevitable in a three way race between candidates whose combined age nearly equals the age of the United States, but it’s a bad look for Democrats. It started off with another declaration from Bernie Sanders last night in a CNN town hall that he would not release any more of his own medical records, not even after having had a heart attack a few months ago:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who had a heart attack last year, tells @andersoncooper that he doesn’t think he will release any more medical records than he already has. #cnntownhall https://t.co/DcVxz2JQLM pic.twitter.com/mObVIbJHFO — Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) February 19, 2020
COOPER: In September, just last September, you said that you would release your medical records by — before the primaries. You haven’t done that. You have released three letters from doctors, two of them cardiologists. One is your — your physician. Is releasing full medical records — is that no longer something… SANDERS: Now, we have released, I think, Anderson, quite as much as any other candidate has. We received — released two, rather, detailed letters from cardiologists and we received — released a letter that came from the head of the U.S. Congress medical group, the physicians there. So I think we have released a detailed report. And I’m comfortable with what we have done. And by the way, you think I’m not in good health, come on out with me on the campaign trail and I’ll let you introduce me to the three or four rallies a day that we do. How’s that? COOPER: But just to be clear, you don’t plan to release any more records? SANDERS: I don’t. I don’t think we will, no.
That’s quite a turnaround from Sanders’ pre-heart attack declaration that voters deserve complete transparency on candidate health, and it has some suspicious over Sanders’ motives. This morning, CNN’s John Berman followed up with Team Bernie press secretary Briahna Joy Gray, who scolded John Berman over “smear”campaigns about Sanders’ health. To prove her point, Gray claimed that Michael Bloomberg had had heart attacks in his past as well:
JUST NOW: Press Sec for @BernieSanders equates questions on his medical records to "smear" campaign. & claims @MikeBloomberg has "suffered heart attacks." Bloomberg had an irregular heartbeat & stents. But I've seen no record of attack. Checking now.pic.twitter.com/iW5Ag2xbUt — John Berman (@JohnBerman) February 19, 2020
BERMAN: He had a heart attack in the fall. Do you think the American people deserve to know more about his health going forward? GRAY: I think the American people deserve to know exactly as much as every other candidate has released in this race — currently and historically. And what you’re seeing right now is really reminiscent of some of the kind of smear, kind of skepticism campaigns that have been run against a lot of different candidates in the past, questioning where they’re from, aspects of their lineage, et cetera et cetera. And it’s really telling, given that none of the same concern is being demonstrated for Michael Bloomberg, who’s the same age as Bernie Sanders [and] who has suffered heart attacks in the past.
That’s a great example of what Gray’s discussing — only not an example of a double standard, but of a campaign smear. As it turns out, Bloomberg never had a heart attack, let alone “attacks” plural, although he had a stent placed in one coronary artery to clear it:
Bloomberg, who is also 78, underwent a coronary stent placement in 2000 for a blocked artery, but that does not mean he had a heart attack. Kevin Sheekey, Bloomberg’s campaign manager, said Gray’s reference to Bloomberg having suffered heart attacks is “an absolute lie.” Bloomberg’s campaign in December released a letter from the candidate’s doctor that said he is in “outstanding health” with no medical conditions that would prevent him from serving as president. Bloomberg has had annual cardiac stress testing since the stent placement, and his 2019 test was “normal and demonstrated excellent exercise tolerance,” the letter said.
Bloomberg campaign adviser Tim O’Brien accused Team Bernie of sounding a lot like … Donald Trump:
This is such a Trumpy lie from the Sanders camp, which rolls like Trump in many ways. Mike Bloomberg has *never* had a heart attack. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has had a heart attack. Those are the facts. It’s a dangerous time when Sanders goes all in with Trumpism. https://t.co/Yk6RlI8WaN — Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) February 19, 2020
Ouch, baby. Very ouch.
Now we know that Bloomberg’s okay, for a 77-year-old multibillionaire, anyway. He has some issues with atrial fibrillation that’s being controlled with medication, but doctors attest that it’s well-controlled. What about Sanders? We don’t know, thanks to his flip-flop on transparency, but it doesn’t look good, as one Democratic strategist pointed out this morning:
https://twitter.com/gregpinelo/status/1230124997743710209
Exactly, which is why no one’s going to just “trust Bernie” on this issue.
As inevitable as this feud is, it’s only making matters worse. Right now the top three national polling candidates approach 235 combined years of age, ranging from 77 to, er, 78. Donald Trump is no spring chicken either but he practically hums with vitality at a relatively junior 73 years old (74 in June). The Democratic field looks like a Soviet politburo in terms of age, and maybe in terms of health too. The longer they keep debating each others’ heart attacks, the more voters will start figuring that another four years of Trump looks better and better.
Addendum: And of course, no apologies: