hotair--2020-02-20--Breaking: Stone gets 40-month prison sentence

It ’ s a long ways off from the original sentence recommendation by the Department of Justice , but it ’ s still a significant amount of time .
Judge Amy Berman Jackson leaned more toward the modified DoJ application in sentencing Roger Stone to 40 months in prison , at the end of a strange sentencing hearing that will raise all sorts of questions again about what happened between the two filings .
Stone will get a short reprieve while Berman Jackson considers his motion for a new trial : A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Roger Stone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress and witness-tampering—rejecting the original recommendation by prosecutors that infuriated President Trump .
“ The truth still exists .
The truth still matters , ” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said before handing down the sentence .
“ Roger Stone ’ s insistence that it doesn ’ t—his belligerence , his pride in his own lies—are a threat to our most fundamental institutions , to the very foundation of our democracy.
” Stone won ’ t immediately go to prison .
Jackson is weighing a motion from his lawyers for a retrial .
Stone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media posts from the jury forewoman mean his conviction is tainted by political bias .
President Donald Trump has tweeted the same sentiment .
Jackson denied that claim at the Thursday hearing , declaring that “ he was not prosecuted , as some have complained , for standing up for the president .
“ He was prosecuted for covering up for the president , ” she said .
Berman Jackson seemed somewhat mystified by the change in position by the DoJ after William Barr ’ s intervention last week .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the position had changed .
At times , according to multiple media outlets , prosecutor John Crabb appeared to be arguing in favor of both sentencing recommendations .
That led to an odd exchange near the end of the prosecution ’ s presentation : Hoo boy .
That sounds like a tacit admission of Crabb being forced to change the filing by his superiors , which will raise all sorts of eyebrows in Congress .
William Barr is already scheduled to testify at the House Judiciary Committee next month , and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerrold Nadler will call Crabb as well .
There isn ’ t anything illegal about an Attorney General directing prosecutors on a case , but given Donald Trump ’ s public complaints about it — right through this morning — it raises the question as to whether the intervention is politically motivated rather than in the interest of justice and fairness .
This is precisely why Barr told ABC News last week that Trump ’ s tweets make his job “ impossible.
” Having Crabb argue both recommendations in court today makes his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argues at the Washington Post , although perhaps less fraught now : Barr intervened last week to overrule career prosecutors ’ tough , seven-to-nine-year sentencing recommendation for Trump ally Roger Stone — shortly after Trump tweeted in opposition to the recommended sentence .
That prompted the four prosecutors on the case to withdraw .
Then came a more watered-down recommendation , which was signed by the prosecutor now leading the charge for the Justice Department , Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb .
But at Stone ’ s sentencing hearing on Thursday , Crabb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly appeared to push the recommendation in the direction of the initial prosecutors ’ harsher one , arguing for enhancements that the more recent memo suggested were unnecessary or unsubstantiated .
… The scenes will heighten suspicions about what ’ s happening behind the scenes in the Justice Department .
Some suggested Crabb was perhaps making a statement by reverting to the arguments in the first recommendation .
If that ’ s not the case , though , the fact that he did move in that direction suggests this whole drama was somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department was just going to argue the same points from the first recommendation , why overrule the sentencing recommendation and make it look like Trump was dictating how his Justice Department prosecuted his ally ?
One has to wonder whether Barr told Crabb to submit the second recommendation but feel free to argue the first just to rid himself of the suspicion .
If so , it probably won ’ t work .
Back to Stone ’ s status , whose reprieve might be longer than it now looks .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stephanopoulos , the question isn ’ t whether Trump pardons Stone , it ’ s when .
And some are suggesting that a pardon may come down within days , if not hours : To get a sense of where this is going , behold Trump ’ s pinned tweet as of this morning : A clemency action is all but certain ; the only questions , as Vega says , is what form and when .
Now that a sentence has been issued , it could be a commutation , but Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardon .
The only caveat might be whether Stone gets a new trial and prefers to try to clear his own name first .
If not , though , Trump can use his authority to cut through the red tape and end the prosecution directly .
In fact , he ’ s had that authority all along .
So why didn ’ t he do that , rather than make it look like he was interfering in the prosecution ?

It’s a long ways off from the original sentence recommendation by the Department of Justice, but it’s still a significant amount of time. Judge Amy Berman Jackson leaned more toward the modified DoJ application in sentencing Roger Stone to 40 months in prison, at the end of a strange sentencing hearing that will raise all sorts of questions again about what happened between the two filings.
Stone will get a short reprieve while Berman Jackson considers his motion for a new trial:
A federal judge on Thursday sentenced Roger Stone to 40 months in prison for lying to Congress and witness-tampering—rejecting the original recommendation by prosecutors that infuriated President Trump. “The truth still exists. The truth still matters,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said before handing down the sentence. “Roger Stone’s insistence that it doesn’t—his belligerence, his pride in his own lies—are a threat to our most fundamental institutions, to the very foundation of our democracy.” Stone won’t immediately go to prison. Jackson is weighing a motion from his lawyers for a retrial. Stone’s team argues that anti-Trump social media posts from the jury forewoman mean his conviction is tainted by political bias. President Donald Trump has tweeted the same sentiment. Jackson denied that claim at the Thursday hearing, declaring that “he was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” she said.
Berman Jackson seemed somewhat mystified by the change in position by the DoJ after William Barr’s intervention last week. In fact, it wasn’t at all clear that the position had changed. At times, according to multiple media outlets, prosecutor John Crabb appeared to be arguing in favor of both sentencing recommendations. That led to an odd exchange near the end of the prosecution’s presentation:
ABJ: With respect to the second filing — you signed it. Did you write it? Crabb: I’m not at liberty to discuss the internal deliberations in DOJ. ABJ: Were you directed to write it by someone else? Crabb: I can’t answer. — Andrew Prokop (@awprokop) February 20, 2020
Hoo boy. That sounds like a tacit admission of Crabb being forced to change the filing by his superiors, which will raise all sorts of eyebrows in Congress. William Barr is already scheduled to testify at the House Judiciary Committee next month, and it’s a safe bet committee chair Jerrold Nadler will call Crabb as well. There isn’t anything illegal about an Attorney General directing prosecutors on a case, but given Donald Trump’s public complaints about it — right through this morning — it raises the question as to whether the intervention is politically motivated rather than in the interest of justice and fairness.
This is precisely why Barr told ABC News last week that Trump’s tweets make his job “impossible.” Having Crabb argue both recommendations in court today makes his position even more curious, Aaron Blake argues at the Washington Post, although perhaps less fraught now:
Barr intervened last week to overrule career prosecutors’ tough, seven-to-nine-year sentencing recommendation for Trump ally Roger Stone — shortly after Trump tweeted in opposition to the recommended sentence. That prompted the four prosecutors on the case to withdraw. Then came a more watered-down recommendation, which was signed by the prosecutor now leading the charge for the Justice Department, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Crabb. But at Stone’s sentencing hearing on Thursday, Crabb sounded a very different tone. He repeatedly appeared to push the recommendation in the direction of the initial prosecutors’ harsher one, arguing for enhancements that the more recent memo suggested were unnecessary or unsubstantiated. … The scenes will heighten suspicions about what’s happening behind the scenes in the Justice Department. Some suggested Crabb was perhaps making a statement by reverting to the arguments in the first recommendation. If that’s not the case, though, the fact that he did move in that direction suggests this whole drama was somewhat pointless in the first place. If the Justice Department was just going to argue the same points from the first recommendation, why overrule the sentencing recommendation and make it look like Trump was dictating how his Justice Department prosecuted his ally?
One has to wonder whether Barr told Crabb to submit the second recommendation but feel free to argue the first just to rid himself of the suspicion. If so, it probably won’t work.
Back to Stone’s status, whose reprieve might be longer than it now looks. As ABC’s Cecelia Vega tells George Stephanopoulos, the question isn’t whether Trump pardons Stone, it’s when. And some are suggesting that a pardon may come down within days, if not hours:
.@CeciliaVega on pardon speculation for Roger Stone: "It could be hours, it could be days…but I don't think this is going to be a big surprise to anyone when, in fact, if Donald Trump pardons Roger Stone." https://t.co/2PtRAp8Hr1 pic.twitter.com/wPTfFOzaLa — ABC News (@ABC) February 20, 2020
To get a sense of where this is going, behold Trump’s pinned tweet as of this morning:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1230384588553211907
A clemency action is all but certain; the only questions, as Vega says, is what form and when. Now that a sentence has been issued, it could be a commutation, but Trump seems more inclined to issue a full pardon. The only caveat might be whether Stone gets a new trial and prefers to try to clear his own name first. If not, though, Trump can use his authority to cut through the red tape and end the prosecution directly.
In fact, he’s had that authority all along. So why didn’t he do that, rather than make it look like he was interfering in the prosecution?


hotair--2020-02-20--Survey of UK art world finds 'a quagmire of wokeness' rife with 'coercion, bullying, intimidation an

Survey of UK art world finds 'a quagmire of wokeness' rife with 'coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance'

A UK magazine called ArtsProfessional has published the results of a “ Freedom of Expression survey ” and the results are not good .
The survey found that in the professional art world in the UK , self-censorship is the norm and pressure to stay silent on controversial issues is felt by most .
A culture of self-censorship and fear of backlash from funders , colleagues and the public is convincing arts and cultural workers to stay silent on important issues , according to new research from ArtsProfessional… While about 90 % of respondents agreed that “ the arts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its unique talents to speak out about things that matter , regardless of the potential consequences ” , more than 80 % thought that “ workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised ” … “ Our survey shines a damning light on the coercion , bullying , intimidation and intolerance that is active among a community that thinks of itself as liberal , open minded and equitable .
As you would expect , the pressure is especially strong on anyone who holds a right-of-center opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The research indicates the arts and cultural sector is intolerant of viewpoints outside of the dominant norms .
Anything that might be considered “ politically incorrect ” to the liberal-leaning sector – including expressing support or sympathy for Brexit , the Conservatives or other right-wing political parties – was felt to be risky territory .
Religion , gender and sexuality were also considered a “ minefield ” and no-go areas for many : “ Anything to do with gender issues , especially trans issues , will get a lot of flak for either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being off message , or too on message , ” one person said .
More than three-quarters of respondents said workers who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised .
One person commented that people working in the sector are “ nowhere near as open as they pretend to be , there is a lot of hiding and backstabbing ” .
Writing at the Times of London , Richard Morrison offers some more excerpts from the report : Take Brexit .
I knew that most arts people were fervently against it , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure was put on pro-Brexiteers working in the arts to , basically , shut up .
One participant claimed that “ in our organisation those who voted to leave the EU have been ostracised ” .
Another noted that “ 17.4 million voted for Brexit ” , but that “ most of the opinions of these people , on many subjects , would lose them employment in the publicly funded arts sector ” .
The Brexit issue , however , is just the tip of the iceberg .
The report suggests that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence if you don ’ t support left-of-centre political parties .
The arts , one participant asserted , “ are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class [ mostly of privileged white middle-class people ] who impose their intolerant views across the sector ” .
Arts workers , another commented , are “ unable to challenge anything that ’ s extremely left wing or politically correct for fear of being called racist , xenophobic , bigoted etc ” .
The arts sector , someone else declared , is “ a quagmire of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also no-go areas .
“ Artists , particularly women artists , are afraid to contest trans rights activists ’ positions , ” one participant claims , “ for fear of vitriolic verbal and sometimes physical violence against them.
” I wonder how different , if at all , this is from the reality in Hollywood .
It sounds like the same group of woke progressives who simultaneously pat themselves on the back for their openness while eagerly ostracizing anyone who dares to offer an opinion not approved by the collective .
And it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it be much different among the faculty at most US colleges ?
I can tell you from experience that the world of journalists is full of the same clique of woke progressives who dominate the industry and shun those with differing views .
I really do believe this is the future progressives want for everyone : A place just like the UK art world where progressives dominate every discussion because anyone who disagrees has learned to stay silent out of fear of being punished either personally or professionally .
Finally , here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the photo above : “ A woman looks towards part of an artwork called ‘ Lichen !
Libido !
( London ! )
Chastity !
’ by Anthea Hamilton , one of the four artists shortlisted for the Turner Prize 2016 , as it is displayed at the Tate Britain gallery in London , Monday , Sept. 26 , 2016 .
The Turner Prize aims to promote public debate around new developments in contemporary British art .
”

A UK magazine called ArtsProfessional has published the results of a “Freedom of Expression survey” and the results are not good. The survey found that in the professional art world in the UK , self-censorship is the norm and pressure to stay silent on controversial issues is felt by most.
A culture of self-censorship and fear of backlash from funders, colleagues and the public is convincing arts and cultural workers to stay silent on important issues, according to new research from ArtsProfessional… While about 90% of respondents agreed that “the arts and cultural sector has a responsibility to use its unique talents to speak out about things that matter, regardless of the potential consequences”, more than 80% thought that “workers in the arts and cultural sector who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised”… “Our survey shines a damning light on the coercion, bullying, intimidation and intolerance that is active among a community that thinks of itself as liberal, open minded and equitable.
As you would expect, the pressure is especially strong on anyone who holds a right-of-center opinion or even an insufficiently woke opinion:
The research indicates the arts and cultural sector is intolerant of viewpoints outside of the dominant norms. Anything that might be considered “politically incorrect” to the liberal-leaning sector – including expressing support or sympathy for Brexit, the Conservatives or other right-wing political parties – was felt to be risky territory. Religion, gender and sexuality were also considered a “minefield” and no-go areas for many: “Anything to do with gender issues, especially trans issues, will get a lot of flak for either not being on message enough, or being off message, or too on message,” one person said. More than three-quarters of respondents said workers who share controversial opinions risk being professionally ostracised. One person commented that people working in the sector are “nowhere near as open as they pretend to be, there is a lot of hiding and backstabbing”.
Writing at the Times of London, Richard Morrison offers some more excerpts from the report:
Take Brexit. I knew that most arts people were fervently against it, but I didn’t realise how much pressure was put on pro-Brexiteers working in the arts to, basically, shut up. One participant claimed that “in our organisation those who voted to leave the EU have been ostracised”. Another noted that “17.4 million voted for Brexit”, but that “most of the opinions of these people, on many subjects, would lose them employment in the publicly funded arts sector”. The Brexit issue, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. The report suggests that you are as likely to be bullied into silence if you don’t support left-of-centre political parties. The arts, one participant asserted, “are now dominated by a monolithic politically correct class [mostly of privileged white middle-class people] who impose their intolerant views across the sector”. Arts workers, another commented, are “unable to challenge anything that’s extremely left wing or politically correct for fear of being called racist, xenophobic, bigoted etc”. The arts sector, someone else declared, is “a quagmire of wokeness”… Sexuality and gender are also no-go areas. “Artists, particularly women artists, are afraid to contest trans rights activists’ positions,” one participant claims, “for fear of vitriolic verbal and sometimes physical violence against them.”
I wonder how different, if at all, this is from the reality in Hollywood. It sounds like the same group of woke progressives who simultaneously pat themselves on the back for their openness while eagerly ostracizing anyone who dares to offer an opinion not approved by the collective.
And it’s not just Hollywood. Would it be much different among the faculty at most US colleges? I can tell you from experience that the world of journalists is full of the same clique of woke progressives who dominate the industry and shun those with differing views.
I really do believe this is the future progressives want for everyone: A place just like the UK art world where progressives dominate every discussion because anyone who disagrees has learned to stay silent out of fear of being punished either personally or professionally.
Finally, here’s the AP’s description of the photo above: “A woman looks towards part of an artwork called ‘Lichen! Libido! (London!) Chastity!’ by Anthea Hamilton, one of the four artists shortlisted for the Turner Prize 2016, as it is displayed at the Tate Britain gallery in London, Monday, Sept. 26, 2016. The Turner Prize aims to promote public debate around new developments in contemporary British art.”


hotair--2020-02-20--Bolton: You know, my testimony wouldn't have changed a damn thing

Cancel the Senate Republican Regret Tour ?
Not exactly .
Last night at Vanderbilt University , fellow former national security adviser Susan Rice scolded Bolton for keeping his mouth shut .
Bolton responded by arguing it would have made no difference at all : Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House ’ s impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ” grossly partisan ” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump ’ s acquittal in the Senate , as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book .
… “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said and what I should have done , ” Bolton said .
“ I would bet you a dollar right here and now , my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.
” That ’ s , er , not going to sell many books , unless Bolton means more that Senate Republicans wouldn ’ t have changed their votes no matter what Bolton would have said under oath .
That much is pretty obviously true , given the less-than-serious matter over which impeachment was being fought — a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway , and in the proper budget year .
The trial wouldn ’ t have gone any other way because of the highly partisan nature of the impeachment in the House , too , which Senate Republicans were loathe to endorse even tacitly .
As it turns out , Bolton doesn ’ t want to endorse it either .
In fact , he called out Democrats for committing “ impeachment malpractice ” : Bolton contended that the House “ committed impeachment malpractice , ” drawing some grumbling from the audience , saying “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.
” He also said he didn ’ t expect the Senate to vote against having him testify .
The big risk in voting down an attempt to subpoena John Bolton for the Senate impeachment trial was that his testimony would have changed the direction of impeachment .
Bolton ’ s sudden volunteering to appear certainly suggested that he had more to add about quid pro quos and aid to Ukraine , so much so that House Democrats demanded that he appear — and release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And it sounds here as though Bolton thinks his testimony should have changed the direction of the trial , which means it ’ s not a nothingburger .
At least Bolton sounds a little more sore at Democrats than Republicans over the futility , but that ’ s not going to matter once the book comes out .
The best thing that could happen now to Senate Republican incumbents is for the book to come out as soon as possible , so that the damage control can get started months ahead of @ @ @ @

Cancel the Senate Republican Regret Tour? Not exactly. Last night at Vanderbilt University, fellow former national security adviser Susan Rice scolded Bolton for keeping his mouth shut. Bolton responded by arguing it would have made no difference at all:
Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House’s impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book. … “People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done,” Bolton said. “I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome.”
That’s, er, not going to sell many books, unless Bolton means more that Senate Republicans wouldn’t have changed their votes no matter what Bolton would have said under oath. That much is pretty obviously true, given the less-than-serious matter over which impeachment was being fought — a lethal-aid package to Ukraine that got delivered anyway, and in the proper budget year. The trial wouldn’t have gone any other way because of the highly partisan nature of the impeachment in the House, too, which Senate Republicans were loathe to endorse even tacitly.
As it turns out, Bolton doesn’t want to endorse it either. In fact, he called out Democrats for committing “impeachment malpractice”:
Bolton contended that the House “committed impeachment malpractice,” drawing some grumbling from the audience, saying “the process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan.” He also said he didn’t expect the Senate to vote against having him testify.
The big risk in voting down an attempt to subpoena John Bolton for the Senate impeachment trial was that his testimony would have changed the direction of impeachment. Bolton’s sudden volunteering to appear certainly suggested that he had more to add about quid pro quos and aid to Ukraine, so much so that House Democrats demanded that he appear — and release Chapter 14 of his upcoming memoirs immediately. And it sounds here as though Bolton thinks his testimony should have changed the direction of the trial, which means it’s not a nothingburger.
At least Bolton sounds a little more sore at Democrats than Republicans over the futility, but that’s not going to matter once the book comes out. The best thing that could happen now to Senate Republican incumbents is for the book to come out as soon as possible, so that the damage control can get started months ahead of the general election.


hotair--2020-02-20--Warren, post-debate: If Bloomberg wants to help Democrats beat Trump, he should drop out

A fun rejoinder to yesterday ’ s arrogant ( but defensible ! )
memo from Team Bloomberg that he ’ s the only Democrat who can stop Bernie so it ’ s time for everyone else in the race to hit the bricks .
Watch , then read on .
She really doesn ’ t like Mike , huh ?
I knew she ’ d come after him but I didn ’ t expect her to still be giving him the Billy Batts treatment during the post-debate cooldown .
It paid off for her , though — literally .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising for the ~90 days in the fourth quarter last year was a shade over $ 21 million .
One week ago she was begging her supporters in a Facebook video to kick in to her campaign or else she couldn ’ t go much further .
Now , thrilled by watching her slaughter the evil plutocrat Bloomberg , they ’ re emptying their wallets .
Which makes me wonder if her evisceration of Bloomberg over his company ’ s NDAs with women might end up being the coup de grace that ensures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ed that Warren ’ s too late to revive her own chances ; remember that Nevada and many Super Tuesday states are already holding early voting , which means much of her share there will reflect her pre-debate standing in the race .
But by roundhousing Bloomy , she may have stalled his rise .
And by giving her fans a thrill , she may have given her own campaign just enough gas to keep going through Super Tuesday — which , I think , *helps* Bernie on balance more than hurts him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders , Warren seems to have wisely given up on winning over progressives , who aren ’ t about to ditch him when his campaign is peaking after having already abandoned her for him in October .
Her only chance left is to become the Not Bernie in the race , and since momentarily that niche belongs to Bloomberg ( especially with Biden ’ s lead in South Carolina tenuous ) , her strategy was to eviscerate him and try to claim the niche for herself .
Warren has spent the past 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sanders ’ s right that moderates will prefer her to him in a one-on-one race while remaining far enough left that progressives will consider her acceptable-ish as nominee if she prevails in that race .
Trying to knock out Bloomberg was her last shot to engineer that dynamic .
It almost certainly won ’ t work .
But there ’ s a consolation prize : Even as she fades and drops out over the next few weeks , she ’ s proved that she ’ s a capable and eager attack dog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more racial diversity in a running mate than a Sanders/Warren ticket will provide but after last night ’ s performance he ’ ll be sorely tempted to choose her as VP and turn her loose on Trump on the trail .
As for Bloomberg , I don ’ t think she knocked him out .
He was terrible , but unless Biden surprises everyone by coming on strong in Nevada and South Carolina , Bloomy will effectively be the only game in town for centrists on Super Tuesday .
He can always drown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 million worth of ads if need be .
And it ’ s unclear how much the NDA issue that Warren hammered him on will matter to rank-and-file Democrats , especially the older Biden-friendly demographic that Bloomberg ’ s aiming for .
Dominic Green wondered if non-woke Dems might even view his defiance on the issue favorably , as a signal that Bloomberg won ’ t genuflect to “ political correctness ” — or to any other unwelcome concern : Trump as president has not been immune to accepting “ bribes ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attest , but you take the point .
Conor Friedersdorf had a thought similar to Green ’ s : Maybe the sheer prevalence of “ callout culture ” on the left has desensitized some Democrats to the point where they can ’ t distinguish serious sins against progress , like the sort of workplace harassment Bloomberg ’ s accused of , from more venial ones like the outrage of the day on Twitter .
In fact , this tweet from an NYT reporter shortly after the debate caught my eye as anecdotal evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which might not have : Maybe the NDA exchange was a bigger deal to political junkies and the media chatterati than it was to the average viewer .
Wouldn ’ t be the first time , or the eight millionth time , that that happened with some supposedly “ significant ” electoral development .

A fun rejoinder to yesterday’s arrogant (but defensible!) memo from Team Bloomberg that he’s the only Democrat who can stop Bernie so it’s time for everyone else in the race to hit the bricks. Watch, then read on.
After the debate, Sen. @ewarren called on @MikeBloomberg to drop out of the race: "I hope that Bloomberg decides to live by what he says. He wants to see the Democrats beat Trump. That’s great. Drop out of the race. … Take your ego out of it." pic.twitter.com/4JCvruMSxx — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 20, 2020
She really doesn’t like Mike, huh? I knew she’d come after him but I didn’t expect her to still be giving him the Billy Batts treatment during the post-debate cooldown. It paid off for her, though — literally.
We just had our best debate day of the entire campaign, raising more than $2.8 million. 🔥 Will you chip in $2 right now to keep the momentum going? We can only do this together. https://t.co/uXvKIOKVrW — Warren Democrats (@TeamWarren) February 20, 2020
To put that in perspective, her total fundraising for the ~90 days in the fourth quarter last year was a shade over $21 million. One week ago she was begging her supporters in a Facebook video to kick in to her campaign or else she couldn’t go much further. Now, thrilled by watching her slaughter the evil plutocrat Bloomberg, they’re emptying their wallets.
Which makes me wonder if her evisceration of Bloomberg over his company’s NDAs with women might end up being the coup de grace that ensures a Bernie nomination. I agree with Ed that Warren’s too late to revive her own chances; remember that Nevada and many Super Tuesday states are already holding early voting, which means much of her share there will reflect her pre-debate standing in the race. But by roundhousing Bloomy, she may have stalled his rise.
Another person who told me just yesterday about the excitement for Bloomberg among longtime Democratic donors and supporters looking for an alternative to Biden just texted me: "Cannot read texts as I am packing to move to Canada" — Michelle Ye Hee Lee (@myhlee) February 20, 2020
And by giving her fans a thrill, she may have given her own campaign just enough gas to keep going through Super Tuesday — which, I think, *helps* Bernie on balance more than hurts him at this point. By laying off Sanders, Warren seems to have wisely given up on winning over progressives, who aren’t about to ditch him when his campaign is peaking after having already abandoned her for him in October. Her only chance left is to become the Not Bernie in the race, and since momentarily that niche belongs to Bloomberg (especially with Biden’s lead in South Carolina tenuous), her strategy was to eviscerate him and try to claim the niche for herself. Warren has spent the past 15 months trying to get just far enough to Sanders’s right that moderates will prefer her to him in a one-on-one race while remaining far enough left that progressives will consider her acceptable-ish as nominee if she prevails in that race. Trying to knock out Bloomberg was her last shot to engineer that dynamic. It almost certainly won’t work.
But there’s a consolation prize: Even as she fades and drops out over the next few weeks, she’s proved that she’s a capable and eager attack dog for the left. Bernie will want more racial diversity in a running mate than a Sanders/Warren ticket will provide but after last night’s performance he’ll be sorely tempted to choose her as VP and turn her loose on Trump on the trail.
As for Bloomberg, I don’t think she knocked him out. He was terrible, but unless Biden surprises everyone by coming on strong in Nevada and South Carolina, Bloomy will effectively be the only game in town for centrists on Super Tuesday. He can always drown his bad debate performance in another $100 million worth of ads if need be. And it’s unclear how much the NDA issue that Warren hammered him on will matter to rank-and-file Democrats, especially the older Biden-friendly demographic that Bloomberg’s aiming for. Dominic Green wondered if non-woke Dems might even view his defiance on the issue favorably, as a signal that Bloomberg won’t genuflect to “political correctness” — or to any other unwelcome concern:
Bloomberg also shares with Trump a businessman’s awareness of the price of morals and the cost of moralizing. Elizabeth Warren affected outrage about Bloomberg’s alleged jokes about ‘horse-faced lesbians’ and transvestites, but Trump has already proven that these attitudes, fatal though they may be in the politically correct kingdom of the campus, are an inverse form of recommendation: the kind of candidate who refuses to bow to the puritans might also be the kind of president who could refuse the bribes of the donors.
Trump as president has not been immune to accepting “bribes” from donors, as his fundraising haul will attest, but you take the point. Conor Friedersdorf had a thought similar to Green’s: Maybe the sheer prevalence of “callout culture” on the left has desensitized some Democrats to the point where they can’t distinguish serious sins against progress, like the sort of workplace harassment Bloomberg’s accused of, from more venial ones like the outrage of the day on Twitter. In fact, this tweet from an NYT reporter shortly after the debate caught my eye as anecdotal evidence of which shots landed last night and which might not have:
Top Twitter moments, according to Twitter: 1) Bloomberg on Sanders: "The best known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses…"
2) Warren defends Klobuchar for forgetting Mexican President’s name
3) Moderator: "Mayor Bloomberg, should you exist?" — Nick Corasaniti (@NYTnickc) February 20, 2020
Maybe the NDA exchange was a bigger deal to political junkies and the media chatterati than it was to the average viewer. Wouldn’t be the first time, or the eight millionth time, that that happened with some supposedly “significant” electoral development.
Here’s your exit quotation, Bloomberg’s roundhouse at Bernie.


hotair--2020-02-20--Bloomberg-backed gun group sets its sights on Texas primary

Everytown for Gun Safety , a Mike Bloomberg-backed gun-grabbing group , is going all-in in Texas in time for the upcoming Super Tuesday primary .
The group is modeling its efforts after the one they made in Virginia .
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America , an affiliate activist group , is joining in and calls Texas “ the big target ” .
Everytown for Gun Safety takes credit for helping flip the Virginia legislature into the hands of Democrats last year .
Hoping to make inroads in Texas , the group is pledging to spend three times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least $ 8 million .
How did that battle in Virginia work out ?
Gun sales increased and then the assault weapon ban vote failed .
There is no reason to think that gun-grabbers will be any more successful in Texas than they were in Virginia , though .
I ’ d bet on the effort failing more than in Virginia , as a matter of fact .
Because , c ’ mon , it ’ s Texas .
Everytown for Gun Safety , a Michael Bloomberg-backed group that pushes for expanded background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , is plotting what its political director calls an “ unprecedented financial and grassroots effort ” to flip the Texas House , defend vulnerable freshmen Democrats in Congress and help Democrats take congressional seats in the suburbs .
A memo detailing the plan , the group ’ s biggest state investment to date , was shared exclusively with Hearst Newspapers .
“ We believe that Texas , as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse , can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point , ” Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director wrote in the memo .
“ We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot , from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide.
” The organization is betting on the trend of a younger , more diverse voting population will help first with flipping seats “ from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress ” , relying heavily on suburban voters .
The broader national strategy is to spend twice what it spent in the 2018 elections , at least $ 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Second Amendment groups , like the NRA , to spend big bucks to influence voters but not wrong for anti-Second Amendment groups like Everytown ( Bloomberg ) to lobby for the reverse .
We see you , Everytown .
Moms Demand Action is providing an army of volunteers for the effort .
The groups point to polling that shows that 79 % of likely Texas voters are in support of background checks and 80 % are in favor of red flag laws , which matches up with a UT/Texas Tribune poll released this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks for all gun purchases .
Pro-Second Amendment supporters are mobilizing , too .
The Texas State Rifle Association sent an email to its members this month to warn of Everytown ’ s moves .
While Shannon Watts uses hyperbole in comparing Texas to Virginia , she should know that Texas is not like most other states .
There are plenty of Democrats in elected office who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are gun owners themselves .
This is not as partisan issue as it is in other states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own congresswoman – Rep. Lizzie Fletcher , who is vulnerable .
The district was a strongly red district – the reddest in Houston – and fell into Democrat hands for the first time in 2018 when she was elected .
She is facing a tough battle to retain her seat .
I ’ m counting on my district moving back into the red column in November .
As is said in Texas , come and take it .

Everytown for Gun Safety, a Mike Bloomberg-backed gun-grabbing group, is going all-in in Texas in time for the upcoming Super Tuesday primary. The group is modeling its efforts after the one they made in Virginia. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an affiliate activist group, is joining in and calls Texas “the big target”.
Everytown for Gun Safety takes credit for helping flip the Virginia legislature into the hands of Democrats last year. Hoping to make inroads in Texas, the group is pledging to spend three times what it did in Virginia – at least $8 million. How did that battle in Virginia work out? Gun sales increased and then the assault weapon ban vote failed.
There is no reason to think that gun-grabbers will be any more successful in Texas than they were in Virginia, though. I’d bet on the effort failing more than in Virginia, as a matter of fact. Because, c’mon, it’s Texas.
Everytown for Gun Safety, a Michael Bloomberg-backed group that pushes for expanded background checks, red flag laws and other measures, is plotting what its political director calls an “unprecedented financial and grassroots effort” to flip the Texas House, defend vulnerable freshmen Democrats in Congress and help Democrats take congressional seats in the suburbs. A memo detailing the plan, the group’s biggest state investment to date, was shared exclusively with Hearst Newspapers. “We believe that Texas, as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse, can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point,” Chris Carr, the group’s political director wrote in the memo. “We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide.”
The organization is betting on the trend of a younger, more diverse voting population will help first with flipping seats “from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress”, relying heavily on suburban voters. The broader national strategy is to spend twice what it spent in the 2018 elections, at least $60 million. Apparently it is wrong for pro-Second Amendment groups, like the NRA, to spend big bucks to influence voters but not wrong for anti-Second Amendment groups like Everytown (Bloomberg) to lobby for the reverse. We see you, Everytown. Moms Demand Action is providing an army of volunteers for the effort.
“Texas is definitely the big target,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a group of activists affiliated with Everytown. The group has 400,000 volunteers on the ground in Texas already, Watts said.
The groups point to polling that shows that 79% of likely Texas voters are in support of background checks and 80% are in favor of red flag laws, which matches up with a UT/Texas Tribune poll released this week that shows 79% support background checks for all gun purchases.
Pro-Second Amendment supporters are mobilizing, too. The Texas State Rifle Association sent an email to its members this month to warn of Everytown’s moves.
“Though gun control advocates and gun-grabbing politicians failed to lay down a marker in this particular contest, the amount of resources they invested in this race demonstrates their commitment to turn Texas ‘blue’ and make the Lone Star State their next target after Virginia for passing radical restrictions on our rights,” the email said.
While Shannon Watts uses hyperbole in comparing Texas to Virginia, she should know that Texas is not like most other states. There are plenty of Democrats in elected office who are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are gun owners themselves. This is not as partisan issue as it is in other states.
“I would say anyone running for office in Texas should look to Virginia,” Watts said. “Six months after a shooting in Virginia Beach, all of the elected officials who refused gun sense were voted out of office.”
Everytown is supporting freshmen Democrats like my own congresswoman – Rep. Lizzie Fletcher, who is vulnerable. The district was a strongly red district – the reddest in Houston – and fell into Democrat hands for the first time in 2018 when she was elected. She is facing a tough battle to retain her seat. I’m counting on my district moving back into the red column in November.
Everytown is also planning to go on the offensive against Republican U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Michael McCaul, Chip Roy and John Carter, and it’s planning to spend big in districts left open by retiring Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Will Hurd.
As is said in Texas, come and take it.


hotair--2020-02-20--Chris Mellon: Our government is "lethargic and risk averse" in assessing possible threat from UFOs

Chris Mellon was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations .
He ’ s also a policy advisor for To the Stars Academy .
The guy has been working on military intelligence and policy for a long time from both inside and outside of the halls of the federal government .
In other words , when it comes to the military , he knows a thing or two .
One thing that Mellon knows now is that he ’ s getting frustrated with the seeming lack of coherent response on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations of incredible craft that have been seen violating our military airspace , first revealed to the public in December of 2017 .
These UFOs ( and we should just be calling them that because that ’ s what they are ) are described in detail by Mellon in a new article he ’ s published at the website of the American Legion titled “ A threat unmet.
” But despite all of the available data and expert military witnesses , Mellon finds that almost everyone in the United States government and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blind eye to what he sees as a very real , potential threat to our national security .
The lack of action on the part of so many agencies that should be cooperating in the collection and analysis of data has led to a condition Mellon describes as “ paralysis.
” ( Emphasis added ) This paralysis is occurring at a time when the scientific community increasingly recognizes the possibility of humanity encountering probes from spacefaring civilizations .
In fact , last year the House Committee on Space , Science and Technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technosignatures , ” by which it means alien space probes .
This is happening because many exobiologists now recognize probes are more efficient and effective than radio waves for purposes of space exploration or contact .
As unlikely as it may seem , there is no denying the possibility that some UFO/UAPs encountered by our military are probes launched by distant civilizations .
While military personnel such as [ Cmdr .
David ] Fravor and Lt. Ryan Graves – an F-18 pilot who said UFOs followed his Navy strike group for months – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are undeterred , eager to give chase both literally and figuratively .
Reflecting on his encounter , Fravor told me , “ I want to fly that thing !
” He naturally expects his country to figure out where these things come from , why they are here and how they work .
Fravor and his colleagues at least still have the right stuff , even if the hierarchy above them is lethargic and risk-averse .
I wanted to highlight that portion of Mellon ’ s article in particular because you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming out and saying what so many people have been thinking since this story first began developing .
At least some of the UFO/UAPs our military has been running into may indeed be “ probes launched by a distant civilization.
” In other words… aliens .
There .
We said it .
This is something that a few of us were batting around on social media this week .
Virtually nobody with a deep background in either science or the military really thinks that those things were built by the Russians or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those countries had developed the technology to build aircraft that can defy gravity and fly at Mach 25 deep in the atmosphere without us catching up , they ’ d have attacked us by now .
Or at least shown off their cool new technology to impress everyone .
And the Navy and the Pentagon have already said they aren ’ t ours .
So if that ’ s not our hardware and it ’ s not Russia ’ s and it ’ s not China ’ s… then what ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say it ’ s aliens , time travelers from the future or humans from some parallel dimension .
As Mellon says when quoting Joseph Gradisher , spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations , “ whatever they are , they are real , they aren ’ t ours , and they continue to violate U.S. airspace with impunity.
” We have identified a technology gap between us and someone ( or something ) and our government has an obligation to try to close it .
For my part , I will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely convinced that the Pentagon is doing as little as Mellon says .
He ’ s been out of the loop there for a while and there could well be things going on that he ’ s simply not aware of .
Of course , that ’ s because they keep this huge veil of secrecy over everything and anything to do with the UFO topic , as we ’ ve discussed here repeatedly .
And even when they do tell us something , they frequently contradict themselves and obfuscate when they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does Mellon want to see happening ?
He would like to see a coordinated effort across multiple agencies including NASA , the National Reconnaissance Office , the FBI , the NSA , the CIA , the DIA , and DHS to develop a process for collecting and integrating pertinent information about UFO/UAPs .
We need to assess the level of the risk that ’ s presented .
( The pilots who went up against the tic-tac during the Nimitz encounter told Mellon “ We didn ’ t stand a chance against it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available data being coordinated , figure out a plan as to what we ’ re going to do about it .
If I can add one more item to Mellon ’ s wish list it would be to tell the government that the public has a right to know what ’ s going on and what they ’ re doing , particularly if they ’ re fairly sure it ’ s not the Russians or the Chinese .
They should come out and tell us everything they know short of exposing sources or @ @

Chris Mellon was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for intelligence in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He’s also a policy advisor for To the Stars Academy. The guy has been working on military intelligence and policy for a long time from both inside and outside of the halls of the federal government. In other words, when it comes to the military, he knows a thing or two.
One thing that Mellon knows now is that he’s getting frustrated with the seeming lack of coherent response on the part of the Pentagon to the revelations of incredible craft that have been seen violating our military airspace, first revealed to the public in December of 2017. These UFOs (and we should just be calling them that because that’s what they are) are described in detail by Mellon in a new article he’s published at the website of the American Legion titled “A threat unmet.” But despite all of the available data and expert military witnesses, Mellon finds that almost everyone in the United States government and the upper echelons of our military is turning a blind eye to what he sees as a very real, potential threat to our national security. The lack of action on the part of so many agencies that should be cooperating in the collection and analysis of data has led to a condition Mellon describes as “paralysis.” (Emphasis added)
This paralysis is occurring at a time when the scientific community increasingly recognizes the possibility of humanity encountering probes from spacefaring civilizations. In fact, last year the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology directed NASA to begin looking for “technosignatures,” by which it means alien space probes. This is happening because many exobiologists now recognize probes are more efficient and effective than radio waves for purposes of space exploration or contact. As unlikely as it may seem, there is no denying the possibility that some UFO/UAPs encountered by our military are probes launched by distant civilizations. While military personnel such as [Cmdr. David] Fravor and Lt. Ryan Graves – an F-18 pilot who said UFOs followed his Navy strike group for months – are awed by the technology they observed, they are undeterred, eager to give chase both literally and figuratively. Reflecting on his encounter, Fravor told me, “I want to fly that thing!” He naturally expects his country to figure out where these things come from, why they are here and how they work. Fravor and his colleagues at least still have the right stuff, even if the hierarchy above them is lethargic and risk-averse.
I wanted to highlight that portion of Mellon’s article in particular because you’ll notice that he’s coming out and saying what so many people have been thinking since this story first began developing. At least some of the UFO/UAPs our military has been running into may indeed be “probes launched by a distant civilization.” In other words… aliens. There. We said it.
This is something that a few of us were batting around on social media this week. Virtually nobody with a deep background in either science or the military really thinks that those things were built by the Russians or the Chinese at this point. If either of those countries had developed the technology to build aircraft that can defy gravity and fly at Mach 25 deep in the atmosphere without us catching up, they’d have attacked us by now. Or at least shown off their cool new technology to impress everyone. And the Navy and the Pentagon have already said they aren’t ours.
So if that’s not our hardware and it’s not Russia’s and it’s not China’s… then what? I don’t care if you want to say it’s aliens, time travelers from the future or humans from some parallel dimension. As Mellon says when quoting Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for the deputy chief of naval operations, “whatever they are, they are real, they aren’t ours, and they continue to violate U.S. airspace with impunity.” We have identified a technology gap between us and someone (or something) and our government has an obligation to try to close it.
For my part, I will just say that I’m not entirely convinced that the Pentagon is doing as little as Mellon says. He’s been out of the loop there for a while and there could well be things going on that he’s simply not aware of. Of course, that’s because they keep this huge veil of secrecy over everything and anything to do with the UFO topic, as we’ve discussed here repeatedly. And even when they do tell us something, they frequently contradict themselves and obfuscate when they’re not flat-out lying.
So what does Mellon want to see happening? He would like to see a coordinated effort across multiple agencies including NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the DIA, and DHS to develop a process for collecting and integrating pertinent information about UFO/UAPs. We need to assess the level of the risk that’s presented. (The pilots who went up against the tic-tac during the Nimitz encounter told Mellon “We didn’t stand a chance against it.”) And then, with all the available data being coordinated, figure out a plan as to what we’re going to do about it.
If I can add one more item to Mellon’s wish list it would be to tell the government that the public has a right to know what’s going on and what they’re doing, particularly if they’re fairly sure it’s not the Russians or the Chinese. They should come out and tell us everything they know short of exposing sources or methods.


hotair--2020-02-20--C'mon, are people really fact-checking this obviously jokey Bloomberg ad?

I ’ m reliably informed that they are by the Free Beacon , which has links plus a three-minute segment from CNN that was devoted to dissecting … this .
Watch , then read on .
In case you were misled , let me assure you that there wasn ’ t actually a 20-second stretch of awkward silence at last night ’ s debate during which five professional politicians made goofy faces while trying to come up with something to say in response to being asked if they ’ d ever started a business .
But then , you knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our media and the broader liberal commentariat online , you ’ re not a mentally defective three-year-old .
I don ’ t think any journalists really fear that people will be misled by it .
They ’ re scrutinizing the ad for the same reason they scrutinized that obviously jokey photoshop that Trump tweeted out months ago of him bestowing the Medal of Honor on the dog that took part in the al-Baghdadi raid .
It comes from a politician whom they dislike and whom the far-far-leftists they follow online *really* dislike , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about that politician .
There ’ s been lots of Democratic chatter lately about Bloomberg trying to mislead people into believing that Obama has endorsed him , and of course his attempt to buy the nomination is seen as cynical dirty pool by people across the political spectrum .
The rap on Bloomy is that he ’ s a cheater .
So when a reporter sees a clip like the one above and then watches progressives online whining about it , well , there ’ s a new data point .
Bloomy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employs lots of lavishly remunerated trolls to post silly lulz like this.
” He better crank out a lot more of them to try to distract from last night ’ s performance .
A lot , lot more .
No way to know how much of the blockbuster ratings were due to the Democratic race being at an inflection point after Iowa and New Hampshire and how much were due to Bloomberg ’ s entrance into the arena , but this was bad timing for him to wet the bed .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s prospects than to be bullish about them , says Nate Silver , starting with the fact that the projections in FiveThirtyEight ’ s model for delegate totals after Super Tuesday leave him in a deep hole relative to Sanders : Still , 38 percent of all pledged delegates will have been handed out after Super Tuesday , so having only about a fifth of the delegates awarded to that point would make it nearly impossible for Bloomberg to get a majority of delegates later on .
And it would be highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality with Sanders having about twice as many delegates as the former mayor .
His chances at that point would probably depend on a contested convention… [ A ] s the debate exposed , if Bloomberg has some unique strengths as a candidate — his money , a smart team behind him , and a slightly Trumpian ability to command media attention — he also has some unique weaknesses .
These include : his lack of polish as debater and public speaker , his past as a Republican , his status as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren , his lack of practice as a candidate because of his campaign ’ s late start , New York ’ s use of the stop-and-frisk policy during his time as mayor and his relationship to black voters , his age ( 78 ) , and the lewd comments he has allegedly made toward and about women .
On top of that , we don ’ t know anything yet about how Bloomberg ’ s support in polls will translate into actual votes ; as compared with most other Democrats , his voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t firmly committed to a candidate .
Rarely does a candidate have a debate so bad that his own team is forced to admit that it was bad rather than try to spin “ good moments ” from it or whatever .
That ’ s the great irony of people hyperventilating over his jokey ad — they ’ ve elevated one of the precious few kinda sorta effective exchanges he had into a viral clip .
Via the Free Beacon , here ’ s one Bloomy advisor admitting that he “ wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the field to try to knock him out last night even though literally everyone predicted a pile-on of Bloomberg going in .
His campaign manager told MSNBC this morning that “ Mike ’ s got ta get his legs under him , ” while adding , hopefully , “ This is a campaign that right now is just getting interesting.
” Dude , it ’ s 12 days to Super Tuesday .
You have about five minutes to derail the Bernie coronation .

I’m reliably informed that they are by the Free Beacon, which has links plus a three-minute segment from CNN that was devoted to dissecting … this. Watch, then read on.
In case you were misled, let me assure you that there wasn’t actually a 20-second stretch of awkward silence at last night’s debate during which five professional politicians made goofy faces while trying to come up with something to say in response to being asked if they’d ever started a business.
But then, you knew that. Because, unlike some in our media and the broader liberal commentariat online, you’re not a mentally defective three-year-old.
I don’t think any journalists really fear that people will be misled by it. They’re scrutinizing the ad for the same reason they scrutinized that obviously jokey photoshop that Trump tweeted out months ago of him bestowing the Medal of Honor on the dog that took part in the al-Baghdadi raid. It comes from a politician whom they dislike and whom the far-far-leftists they follow online *really* dislike, and it bolsters an already extant narrative about that politician. There’s been lots of Democratic chatter lately about Bloomberg trying to mislead people into believing that Obama has endorsed him, and of course his attempt to buy the nomination is seen as cynical dirty pool by people across the political spectrum. The rap on Bloomy is that he’s a cheater.
So when a reporter sees a clip like the one above and then watches progressives online whining about it, well, there’s a new data point. Bloomy’s a cheater. Not “Bloomy employs lots of lavishly remunerated trolls to post silly lulz like this.”
He better crank out a lot more of them to try to distract from last night’s performance. A lot, lot more.
Most-watched presidential primary debates of all-time — 1. First 2016 GOP Debate, FNC, 8/6/15 (Trump debut): 24.0M TV viewers 2. Second 2016 GOP Debate, CNN, 9/16/15: 23.06M 3. Ninth 2020 Democratic Debate, NBC and MSNBC, 2/19/20 (Bloomberg debut): 19.66M — Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) February 20, 2020
No way to know how much of the blockbuster ratings were due to the Democratic race being at an inflection point after Iowa and New Hampshire and how much were due to Bloomberg’s entrance into the arena, but this was bad timing for him to wet the bed. There are more reasons to be bearish about Bloomy’s prospects than to be bullish about them, says Nate Silver, starting with the fact that the projections in FiveThirtyEight’s model for delegate totals after Super Tuesday leave him in a deep hole relative to Sanders:
Still, 38 percent of all pledged delegates will have been handed out after Super Tuesday, so having only about a fifth of the delegates awarded to that point would make it nearly impossible for Bloomberg to get a majority of delegates later on. And it would be highly difficult for Bloomberg to even get a plurality with Sanders having about twice as many delegates as the former mayor. His chances at that point would probably depend on a contested convention… [A]s the debate exposed, if Bloomberg has some unique strengths as a candidate — his money, a smart team behind him, and a slightly Trumpian ability to command media attention — he also has some unique weaknesses. These include: his lack of polish as debater and public speaker, his past as a Republican, his status as a billionaire in the age of Sanders and Warren, his lack of practice as a candidate because of his campaign’s late start, New York’s use of the stop-and-frisk policy during his time as mayor and his relationship to black voters, his age (78), and the lewd comments he has allegedly made toward and about women. On top of that, we don’t know anything yet about how Bloomberg’s support in polls will translate into actual votes; as compared with most other Democrats, his voters are more likely to say they haven’t firmly committed to a candidate.
Rarely does a candidate have a debate so bad that his own team is forced to admit that it was bad rather than try to spin “good moments” from it or whatever. That’s the great irony of people hyperventilating over his jokey ad — they’ve elevated one of the precious few kinda sorta effective exchanges he had into a viral clip. Via the Free Beacon, here’s one Bloomy advisor admitting that he “wasn’t ready” for the rest of the field to try to knock him out last night even though literally everyone predicted a pile-on of Bloomberg going in. His campaign manager told MSNBC this morning that “Mike’s gotta get his legs under him,” while adding, hopefully, “This is a campaign that right now is just getting interesting.” Dude, it’s 12 days to Super Tuesday. You have about five minutes to derail the Bernie coronation.


hotair--2020-02-20--Grrrl power: New Super PAC forms to support Elizabeth Warren

Remember when Elizabeth Warren criticized other candidates for the use of political action committees ( PACs ) for fundraising ?
Well , that was then and this is now .
Her thoughts about using her own PAC apparently have evolved , to use progressive vernacular .
A new PAC has formed to help Warren out .
The PAC filed papers on Tuesday and the focus is on the Nevada primary this week .
Now that Warren ’ s candidacy is in real trouble , after a poor showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire , four women have formed Persist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven-figure ad buy in Nevada ahead of Saturday ’ s caucuses .
Warren is cagey about admitting to caving and using the help .
There is no candidate endorsement on the initial ad and her campaign insists she hasn ’ t changed her mind about the use of PACs but she doesn ’ t disavow Persist PAC , either .
She ’ s twisting herself into a pretzel on the topic .
When asked for comment , the Warren campaign disavowed PACs broadly but did not specifically mention Persist PAC .
“ Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changed , ” the campaign said .
“ Since day one of this campaign , she has made clear that she thinks all of the candidates should lock arms together and say we don ’ t want Super PACs and billionaires to be deciding our Democratic nominee.
” The PAC is using images of Barack Obama and Warren together and the message is clear – she fights , she persists .
Here ’ s the first 30 second ad : A “ source involved with Persist PAC ” claims an infusion of money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working for campaign finance reform , or something .
This isn ’ t a Super PAC organized for supporting liberal women candidates in general , like Emily ’ s List which supports pro-abortion women candidates , but a Super PAC formed specifically to keep Elizabeth Warren in the fight .
She has to know of their efforts and what they are doing for her .
Isn ’ t she being what Democrats accuse women supporters of President Trump of being – complicit ?
A source involved with Persist PAC told NBC News that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the best person to become president and that they need to help elect her in order to enact the campaign finance change she often talks about on the trail .
To do that , they said , requires informing voters and getting the word out about her , working within the rules as they are currently written .
Emily ’ s List has contributed to both Warren and Amy Klobuchar .
The organization doesn ’ t bother to try and pretend it is about campaign finance reform , though .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the bad Orange Man .
“ EMILY ’ s List was created to elect pro-choice Democratic women and we are proud of the campaigns both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are running , ” Reynolds told NBC News .
“ While we respect their views and agree on the need for campaign finance reform , we believe this election is too important and we want to do what we can within the bounds of existing law to support them .
We have made equal donations of $ 250,000 to each organization.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors , nor do other groups that have helped Warren .
Warren has been supported by other independent groups so far in the campaign , including the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , which is a PAC that operates within certain fundraising and spending restrictions and that has an affiliated nonprofit that can take unlimited amounts of money from donors not disclosed to the public .
In the fall , a nonprofit called Women.Vote ran an ad promoting Warren in Iowa .
That group does not disclose its donors either , but filings showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major Democratic donor , Karla Jurvetson .
Klobuchar , too , bad-mouths the use of PACs yet there is one who supports her .
She , too , isn ’ t budging on denying using PACs .
Warren has struggled to keep up with the top candidates in fundraising since Iowa and New Hampshire .
Her aggressive performance in Wednesday ’ s debate seems to have helped out on that front .
Her campaign says that $ 2.8 million was raised Wednesday .
That money is being put to use immediately .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adelson ’ s newspaper Thursday noting how much he would pay if her wealth tax was put into place : Ralston is Editor of The Nevada Independent and is an expert on Nevada politics .
I don ’ t call it chutzpah , though , from Warren .
She could have done the same using Michael Bloomberg and his Bloomberg News but she didn ’ t .
She attacked the Republican-voting , Trump-supporting Adelson instead of her opponent in the Democrat primary .
That makes her just another divisive Democrat candidate grasping at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( AP ) : Here ’ s Warren very much not denying that she ’ ll welcome help from the PAC .

Remember when Elizabeth Warren criticized other candidates for the use of political action committees (PACs) for fundraising? Well, that was then and this is now. Her thoughts about using her own PAC apparently have evolved, to use progressive vernacular. A new PAC has formed to help Warren out. The PAC filed papers on Tuesday and the focus is on the Nevada primary this week.
Now that Warren’s candidacy is in real trouble, after a poor showing in both Iowa and New Hampshire, four women have formed Persist PAC. The PAC has purchased a seven-figure ad buy in Nevada ahead of Saturday’s caucuses. Warren is cagey about admitting to caving and using the help. There is no candidate endorsement on the initial ad and her campaign insists she hasn’t changed her mind about the use of PACs but she doesn’t disavow Persist PAC, either. She’s twisting herself into a pretzel on the topic.
When asked for comment, the Warren campaign disavowed PACs broadly but did not specifically mention Persist PAC. “Senator Warren’s position hasn’t changed,” the campaign said. “Since day one of this campaign, she has made clear that she thinks all of the candidates should lock arms together and say we don’t want Super PACs and billionaires to be deciding our Democratic nominee.”
The PAC is using images of Barack Obama and Warren together and the message is clear – she fights, she persists. Here’s the first 30 second ad:
A “source involved with Persist PAC” claims an infusion of money into the Warren campaign is all about working for campaign finance reform, or something. This isn’t a Super PAC organized for supporting liberal women candidates in general, like Emily’s List which supports pro-abortion women candidates, but a Super PAC formed specifically to keep Elizabeth Warren in the fight. She has to know of their efforts and what they are doing for her. Isn’t she being what Democrats accuse women supporters of President Trump of being – complicit?
A source involved with Persist PAC told NBC News that the group’s founders believe Warren is the best person to become president and that they need to help elect her in order to enact the campaign finance change she often talks about on the trail. To do that, they said, requires informing voters and getting the word out about her, working within the rules as they are currently written.
Emily’s List has contributed to both Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The organization doesn’t bother to try and pretend it is about campaign finance reform, though. It’s all about putting a woman up against the bad Orange Man.
“EMILY’s List was created to elect pro-choice Democratic women and we are proud of the campaigns both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren are running,” Reynolds told NBC News. “While we respect their views and agree on the need for campaign finance reform, we believe this election is too important and we want to do what we can within the bounds of existing law to support them. We have made equal donations of $250,000 to each organization.”
Persist PAC doesn’t disclose its donors, nor do other groups that have helped Warren.
Warren has been supported by other independent groups so far in the campaign, including the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is a PAC that operates within certain fundraising and spending restrictions and that has an affiliated nonprofit that can take unlimited amounts of money from donors not disclosed to the public. In the fall, a nonprofit called Women.Vote ran an ad promoting Warren in Iowa. That group does not disclose its donors either, but filings showed ties to a longtime Warren ally and major Democratic donor, Karla Jurvetson.
Klobuchar, too, bad-mouths the use of PACs yet there is one who supports her. She, too, isn’t budging on denying using PACs.
Another super PAC has launched to help the candidacy of Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who has gained momentum in recent weeks. Kitchen Table Conversations PAC formed Friday and released its first ad focusing on Nevada, South Carolina and states holding primary contests on Super Tuesday, March 3.
Warren has struggled to keep up with the top candidates in fundraising since Iowa and New Hampshire. Her aggressive performance in Wednesday’s debate seems to have helped out on that front. Her campaign says that $2.8 million was raised Wednesday.
We just had our best debate day of the entire campaign, raising more than $2.8 million. 🔥 Will you chip in $2 right now to keep the momentum going? We can only do this together. https://t.co/uXvKIOKVrW — Warren Democrats (@TeamWarren) February 20, 2020
That money is being put to use immediately. Here’s a full-page ad in Sheldon Adelson’s newspaper Thursday noting how much he would pay if her wealth tax was put into place:
The day after the debate, Elizabeth Warren bought a full page ad in Sheldon Adelson’s newspaper saying Sheldon Adelson will pay $2.3 billion the first year of her wealth tax. I think that’s called chutzpah. pic.twitter.com/dV7O3G8MJu — Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) February 20, 2020
Ralston is Editor of The Nevada Independent and is an expert on Nevada politics. I don’t call it chutzpah, though, from Warren. She could have done the same using Michael Bloomberg and his Bloomberg News but she didn’t. She attacked the Republican-voting, Trump-supporting Adelson instead of her opponent in the Democrat primary. That makes her just another divisive Democrat candidate grasping at anything to generate a buzz.
Update (AP): Here’s Warren very much not denying that she’ll welcome help from the PAC.


hotair--2020-02-21--Weinstein jurors deadlocked on two counts of predatory sexual assault

The jury in the Harvey Weinstein trial has been deliberating since Tuesday .
Today they announced they were deadlocked on two counts of predatory sexual assault which are the most serious charges Weinstein is facing .
They have apparently reached an agreement on three other charges : In a note sent to the judge during their lunch break , jurors posed a question asking if it were permissible for them to be hung on two counts of predatory sexual assault while reaching a unanimous verdict on other three charges .
After consulting with prosecutors and Weinstein ’ s lawyers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven men and five women to keep working toward a unanimous verdict on all charges and sent them back to continue deliberating… The jury , in its fourth day of deliberations , has been particularly focused on the key aspect of two counts of predatory sexual assault : “ Sopranos ” actress Annabella Sciorra ’ s allegations that Weinstein raped and forcibly performed oral sex on her in the mid-1990s .
Those charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison .
The sexual assault charges carry a sentence of between 15 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges the jury has apparently reached agreement on carry sentences of 5-25 years .
So it would be a significant win for Weinstein if the jury can ’ t convict on those more serious charges .
Earlier this week , Jazz wrote about concerns that , despite the general consensus Weinstein is a pig and guilty as sin , there may not be enough physical evidence to convict him .
In fact , the NY Post piece Jazz was highlighting by Miranda Devine included this line : “ Prepare for an acquittal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , because anyone who has sat through the trial can see the prosecution has struggled to prove its case.
” We still don ’ t know where this will end up , but clearly Devine was on to something given the deadlock on the most serious counts .
But the fact is that a conviction on the other counts would still likely put him behind bars for several years .
He ’ s already 67 years old and he still faces separate charges in California .
It would be disappointing if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counts in this trial but it won ’ t take very much to amount to a life sentence in this case .

The jury in the Harvey Weinstein trial has been deliberating since Tuesday. Today they announced they were deadlocked on two counts of predatory sexual assault which are the most serious charges Weinstein is facing. They have apparently reached an agreement on three other charges:
In a note sent to the judge during their lunch break, jurors posed a question asking if it were permissible for them to be hung on two counts of predatory sexual assault while reaching a unanimous verdict on other three charges. After consulting with prosecutors and Weinstein’s lawyers, Judge James Burke told the jury of seven men and five women to keep working toward a unanimous verdict on all charges and sent them back to continue deliberating… The jury, in its fourth day of deliberations, has been particularly focused on the key aspect of two counts of predatory sexual assault: “Sopranos” actress Annabella Sciorra’s allegations that Weinstein raped and forcibly performed oral sex on her in the mid-1990s. Those charges carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.
The sexual assault charges carry a sentence of between 15 years and life. Two of the other charges the jury has apparently reached agreement on carry sentences of 5-25 years. So it would be a significant win for Weinstein if the jury can’t convict on those more serious charges.
Earlier this week, Jazz wrote about concerns that, despite the general consensus Weinstein is a pig and guilty as sin, there may not be enough physical evidence to convict him. In fact, the NY Post piece Jazz was highlighting by Miranda Devine included this line: “Prepare for an acquittal or a deadlock after the jury goes out Tuesday, because anyone who has sat through the trial can see the prosecution has struggled to prove its case.” We still don’t know where this will end up, but clearly Devine was on to something given the deadlock on the most serious counts.
But the fact is that a conviction on the other counts would still likely put him behind bars for several years. He’s already 67 years old and he still faces separate charges in California. It would be disappointing if he doesn’t get convicted on all counts in this trial but it won’t take very much to amount to a life sentence in this case.


hotair--2020-02-21--Doom? Bloomberg's favorability down sharply with various Democratic groups after disastrous debate

I was skeptical that the attacks did him much damage , especially Warren ’ s well-executed fusillade over his NDAs with women employees .
( I mean , look who we elected president . )
But maybe it wasn ’ t the attacks per se that wounded him as much as his own feebleness in fending them off .
The appeal of Bloomberg to undecided Dems is as The Trump-Slayer , the guy whom you may not like personally and certainly don ’ t like politically but who may be singularly capable by dint of wealth and managerial acumen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Bloomy had looked commanding onstage it may have bolstered those perceptions , making the debate a net gain for him despite all the punches that landed .
Instead it diminished him .
Instead of the Great and Powerful Oz that ’ s on TV everywhere , it was the little man behind the curtain .
Have we already seen Peak Bloomberg ?
Per Morning Consult , maybe : The bottom hasn ’ t fallen out , but look at those net numbers on the far right side .
In a two-man race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , maybe Bloomy could shake this off and trust that jitters about socialism would force wary undecideds to hold their noses and vote for him anyway .
In a six-man race , with a logjam in the center lane , this might be enough to keep Bloomberg bunched up with Biden and Buttigieg and maybe even Warren on Super Tuesday .
Which will all but ensure Bernie Sanders ’ s eventual nomination .
In fact , in MC ’ s national poll of the race today , Bloomberg ’ s the only candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant way after the debate .
He was in second place at 20 percent beforehand ; now he ’ s in third at 17 percent , with Warren having gained two points and creeping up behind him in fourth at 12 .
Bernie , the obvious winner given the competition ’ s reluctance to hit him , also rose two points to top the field at 30 percent .
Democrats have 11 days to derail the Sanders express .
Bloomberg ’ s debate debut may have been their last chance to shift momentum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that .
The former New York mayor ’ s generally panned performance delivered relief to Trump allies who had worried for weeks that Bloomberg ’ s unconventional approach to the Democratic primaries , combined with his seemingly infinite war chest , could pose a serious threat .
Instead , Bloomberg spent his first 2020 debate getting reamed by opponents making the case that the billionaire presidential candidate had no home inside the modern Democratic party .
Even beyond Bloomberg , Trump allies found themselves delighting in a circular firing squad across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Only Democrats could squander two hours of a national prime-time broadcast to drop opposition research on each other , ” said a person close to the campaign .
“ This whole cycle is turning out better than anyone could have imagined.
” I ’ ll say this much for Bloomberg : He ’ s the only candidate running who seems willing to swing hard at Bernie .
Up to and including blaming him and his fans for vandalizing Bloomberg campaign properties based on … no evidence at all .
What was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was “ echoed ” in this incident ?
If it was stuff objecting to a Wall Street plutocrat attempting to buy a political party ’ s presidential nomination , I have bad news , boys : The pool of suspects is , um , literally everyone .
Here ’ s Warren at a CNN town hall last night milking her big moment at the debate for everything it ’ s worth .
Interestingly , Bloomberg announced this afternoon that he ’ d release the three women who signed NDAs with his company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the past 30 years if they want to be released .
I ’ m thinking Warren might come back to this issue at the next debate anyway .
Exit question : Why did conservative Democrats ’ opinion of Bloomberg slightly improve in the data above while everyone else ’ s opinion of him fell ?
My guess is that they appreciated his zinger at Bernie about being a socialist who owns three homes and/or they viewed the dust-up over Bloomberg ’ s NDAs as a case of political correctness gone too far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told a few ribald “ jokes ” in the office .
What he ’ s accused of goes way beyond jokes , but that ’ s how he tried to spin it at the debate .

I was skeptical that the attacks did him much damage, especially Warren’s well-executed fusillade over his NDAs with women employees. (I mean, look who we elected president.) But maybe it wasn’t the attacks per se that wounded him as much as his own feebleness in fending them off. The appeal of Bloomberg to undecided Dems is as The Trump-Slayer, the guy whom you may not like personally and certainly don’t like politically but who may be singularly capable by dint of wealth and managerial acumen to blow up the Trump Death Star. If Bloomy had looked commanding onstage it may have bolstered those perceptions, making the debate a net gain for him despite all the punches that landed.
Instead it diminished him. Instead of the Great and Powerful Oz that’s on TV everywhere, it was the little man behind the curtain.
Have we already seen Peak Bloomberg? Per Morning Consult, maybe:
The bottom hasn’t fallen out, but look at those net numbers on the far right side. In a two-man race, with Bernie as the only alternative, maybe Bloomy could shake this off and trust that jitters about socialism would force wary undecideds to hold their noses and vote for him anyway. In a six-man race, with a logjam in the center lane, this might be enough to keep Bloomberg bunched up with Biden and Buttigieg and maybe even Warren on Super Tuesday. Which will all but ensure Bernie Sanders’s eventual nomination.
In fact, in MC’s national poll of the race today, Bloomberg’s the only candidate whose overall support changed in a statistically significant way after the debate. He was in second place at 20 percent beforehand; now he’s in third at 17 percent, with Warren having gained two points and creeping up behind him in fourth at 12. Bernie, the obvious winner given the competition’s reluctance to hit him, also rose two points to top the field at 30 percent.
Democrats have 11 days to derail the Sanders express. Bloomberg’s debate debut may have been their last chance to shift momentum to a candidate with the wherewithal to do that.
Team Trump is giddy at Bloomberg’s misfortune:
The former New York mayor’s generally panned performance delivered relief to Trump allies who had worried for weeks that Bloomberg’s unconventional approach to the Democratic primaries, combined with his seemingly infinite war chest, could pose a serious threat. Instead, Bloomberg spent his first 2020 debate getting reamed by opponents making the case that the billionaire presidential candidate had no home inside the modern Democratic party. Even beyond Bloomberg, Trump allies found themselves delighting in a circular firing squad across the field of Democratic candidates vying for attention. “Only Democrats could squander two hours of a national prime-time broadcast to drop opposition research on each other,” said a person close to the campaign. “This whole cycle is turning out better than anyone could have imagined.”
I’ll say this much for Bloomberg: He’s the only candidate running who seems willing to swing hard at Bernie. Up to and including blaming him and his fans for vandalizing Bloomberg campaign properties based on … no evidence at all.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1230920163643609088
What was the “language” used by Bernie that was “echoed” in this incident? If it was stuff objecting to a Wall Street plutocrat attempting to buy a political party’s presidential nomination, I have bad news, boys: The pool of suspects is, um, literally everyone.
Here’s Warren at a CNN town hall last night milking her big moment at the debate for everything it’s worth. Interestingly, Bloomberg announced this afternoon that he’d release the three women who signed NDAs with his company — his company, not him — over the past 30 years if they want to be released. I’m thinking Warren might come back to this issue at the next debate anyway. Exit question: Why did conservative Democrats’ opinion of Bloomberg slightly improve in the data above while everyone else’s opinion of him fell? My guess is that they appreciated his zinger at Bernie about being a socialist who owns three homes and/or they viewed the dust-up over Bloomberg’s NDAs as a case of political correctness gone too far, with Bloomy being punished for having told a few ribald “jokes” in the office. What he’s accused of goes way beyond jokes, but that’s how he tried to spin it at the debate.