20 thoughts on “News/Politics 2-26-20

  1. More bad news for Dems….


    “Study: Barring Unprecedented Youth Turnout, Bernie Is The Weakest Candidate Against Trump”

    “The perfect sequel to that NYT analysis that John wrote about earlier reminding the world that Berniemania has not, in fact, caused a massive surge of progressive young bros at the polls in the early states this year.

    Eyeball the head-to-head polling at RCP and you’ll find a curious quirk. Bernie Sanders, allegedly the least electable candidate against Trump, actually polls the best against him. I’ve referenced that data in several posts myself as evidence that the socialist won’t be as much of a pushover this fall as everyone thinks. Two political science profs dug deeper into Bernie’s surprisingly resilient polling, though, curious to see how he’s managing to hold his own against Trump among an array of demographic groups given the conventional wisdom that his radicalism will alienate swing voters.

    Their verdict: He’s not holding his own. Sanders really is weaker than a typical moderate Democratic nominee among all three partisan groups, as well as the older working-class whites who are supposed to be Bernie-curious due to his populism. It turns out his numbers against Trump are a bit better than every other candidate’s only because one very specific group is much more likely to *say* it’ll turn out for the Democrats in a Trump/Bernie election but won’t turn out if it’s Trump vs. anyone else. That group? Young leftists, of course. Bernie’s bread and butter.

    The same group that hasn’t been blowing the roof off in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, notwithstanding Sanders’s victories there.

    The two profs tried calculating how much higher youth turnout would need to be this year for Bernie to offset the votes he’d lose to Trump among other groups that are put off by him. A lot higher, it turns out. Unrealistically higher.”


  2. Well if the last 3 and half years are any indication, then of course they will. At every opportunity.


    “Recently, the intelligence community made clear it will be a player in the 2020 presidential election. No one should be surprised.

    On Feb. 13, the House Intelligence Committee held a meeting at which intelligence officials briefed lawmakers on foreign efforts to influence U.S. elections. By several accounts, the officials told the committee that Russia is working to reelect President Trump.

    A number of Republican committee members were deeply skeptical. What the officials said was classified, so they cannot discuss it publicly, but, in conversations later, GOP lawmakers made it clear that the intelligence officials did not have the evidence to support the assertion.

    “How should reporting take place?” one member said later. “You would say, ‘We believe X is true based on A, B, C, and D.’ When that doesn’t happen, it’s very suspect.”

    “If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you darn well better be ready to answer questions and have evidence to support it,” said another member. When pressed, the member added that officials gave “very vague and unsatisfying answers.”

    The Republicans’ objection was not to the idea that Russia is trying to interfere in a U.S. election. That is an accepted fact. The problem was the assessment that Russia is specifically trying to help reelect Trump. That claim, so incendiary in the 2016 election, was unsupported by the evidence, they said.

    As they left the meeting, Republicans agreed that the news would leak soon. It almost seemed to be why Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the committee chairman and impeachment leader, called the meeting in the first place.

    No one was surprised when, a week later, the New York Times published a story, “Lawmakers Are Warned That Russia Is Meddling to Re-elect Trump.” The news quickly became another one of those bombshell reports that consume hours of talk on cable TV.

    Democrats, who were also barred by law from revealing classified information, were nevertheless happy to play along. For example, not long after the story broke, Democratic Rep. Jim Himes, an intelligence committee member, appeared on CNN.

    “I can’t talk about what happened in a classified setting,” Himes said. “But … you don’t need an intelligence briefing to think about what Vladimir Putin might want. Would he want a return to sort of conventional, much more confrontational policy with respect to Russia? Or might he want a president who will criticize everybody on the planet except Vladimir Putin?”

    Himes’s point was clear: I can’t talk about it, but of course Putin is working to reelect Trump.

    The problem was, intelligence officials did not have the evidence to make that assertion, and, almost as soon as the story broke, officials with knowledge of the meeting suggested that the headlines were wrong. On Sunday, CNN reported the officials had apparently “overstated” the Putin-wants-Trump story.

    And then there were the circumstances of the briefing. The intelligence community works for the president. Yet, officials chose to brief Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee on this extraordinarily consequential finding before telling the president.

    Whatever the motive, spilling the beans in a room with dozens of people present — intelligence officials brought a lot of staff with them — increased the chances of precisely the type of leak that occurred.”


    Because that’s how they planned it…..


  3. Which is why Gowdy is right again….

    Stop giving the leakers like Schiff info.


    “Trey Gowdy: Stop Giving Classified Briefings To Any ‘Epidemic Leaker’”

    “Former Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Monday that any “epidemic leaker” should be denied classified intelligence briefings.

    “What the Intelligence Committee needs to give some thought to is to stop briefing someone who has a history and is an epidemic leaker. Quit briefing him,” Gowdy told Fox News’ “Hannity.”

    The Fox News contributor was prompted to make the comment during a discussion on recent allegations that Russia is actively working to secure President Donald Trump’s reelection Gowdy says at least this latest Russia collusion hoax has been nipped in the bud before it took on a life of its own.

    “Yeah, Sean, we spent … at least two years for [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller to tell us there was no evidence of collusion. It took two minutes this time to for us to find out there was no evidence. As soon as a Republican asked the briefer in a classified intel briefing ‘what evidence do you have to support that assessment?’ The answer was none.”

    While grateful that this latest story was addressed quickly, Gowdy wondered why classified information continues to be leaked. “We were lectured by the D.C. media and the Democrats that ‘No one is above the law.’ Remember that, Sean? How many times have we heard ‘no one is above the law?’ Apparently except whoever leaked classified information from [Democratic California Rep.] Adam Schiff’s [intelligence] committee.”

    When asked why there have been no legal repercussions for Schiff after claiming he had evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia, Gowdy replied that Schiff was largely talking to the media.

    “Unfortunately, Sean, it is not against the law to lie to the American people. There should be a consequence and I hope people in the People’s Republic of California will remember it come November,” he said.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Oh look….. another toxic Bernie Bro is outed.



  5. Trump’s new ad will feature this, I’m sure. 🙂


    And this….

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Yet another reason it will be overturned on appeal.


    And many more here on this Tweet thread…..


    Liked by 1 person

  7. More from the nut here…..


    “As winter turns to spring, and as spring turns to summer, prominent Democrats and left-leaning public voices will try to gaslight you. Some of the Democrats who are most worried about nominating Bernie Sanders right now will bury their doubts and objections down deep and insist that anyone who isn’t on board is some sort of unthinking lunatic, or that not being a Sanders supporter must reflect a complete endorsement of everything Donald Trump has done as president.

    One of the arguments you are certain to hear in defense of Sanders, when others criticize his past stances and statements, is a variation of: “Why are you bringing up all this ancient history?”

    The correct answer is: “Because you guys nominated an ancient candidate. You notice nobody’s talking about what Pete Buttigieg did in the 1980s.”

    Bernie Sanders was born three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    This means Sanders was 28 years old when he wrote: “The manner in which you bring up your daughter with regard to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will develop breast cancer.”

    Sanders was 30 years old when he wrote his infamous op-ed about women’s rape fantasies.

    He was 31 years old when he decided that George McGovern was too centrist for him.

    He was 32 years old when he discussed eating placentas with a new mother on a Vermont commune. “How long after the birth were you eating the afterbirth? Don’t all mammals eat the afterbirth?”

    He was 33 years old when he ran for a U.S. Senate seat while collecting unemployment benefits.

    Sanders was 38 when he joined the Socialist Workers Party and became its presidential elector in Vermont for the 1980 election. The Socialist Workers Party’s candidate declared of the American hostages in Iran, “we can be sure that many of them are simply spies . . . or people assigned to protect the spies.”

    He was 39 years old when he was elected mayor and received “his first steady paycheck.” (Think about how many steady paychecks you had collected by age 39, or how many you will collect if you’re younger than 39.)

    He was a 40-year-old mayor when he declared at a United Way fundraiser, “I don’t believe in charities.””


    The hits just keep comin’….. 🙂


  8. The mask slips.

    She finally admits the pro-abortion crowd are a religious cult of death.



  9. Of course they did.


    “Did Obama’s DOJ Leak Michael Flynn’s Russia Phone Call To Set Him Up?

    Did the Department of Justice leak or arrange the leak of Michael Flynn’s call with Sergey Kislyak to get around the FBI’s efforts to keep secret the investigation of Flynn?”

    “One of the great mysteries of the Trump-Russia saga that remains unsolved three years later, or at least uncharged, is who leaked Gen. Michael Flynn’s calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    As incoming national security advisor, Flynn spoke with numerous foreign officials in the lead-up to inauguration. This included a conversation with Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016 in which they discussed, among other things, measures taken by the Obama administration (also on Dec. 29) to expel Russian agents and levy financial penalties in response to Russia’s “malicious cyber-enabled activities” relating to the 2016 election.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly responded to these sanctions the next day. He declined to escalate the situation, promised there would be no retaliatory expulsions, and said he would “take further steps towards restoring Russia-U.S. relations.” According to the Statement of Offense filed in Flynn’s criminal case, on Dec. 31, Kislyak “called Flynn and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to Flynn’s request.”

    Meanwhile, President Obama’s Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) staff wondered why Putin didn’t retaliate. Andrew McCabe, who was serving as the FBI’s deputy director at the time, maintains that the PDB staff requested information on Putin’s response. The intelligence community answered. It turns out they had information on Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.

    McCabe wrote that he shared this information with FBI Director James Comey, who passed it on to director of national intelligence James Clapper. It was Clapper who informed President Obama. The Department of Justice had this information as well. In his book, “The Threat,” McCabe noted that “at Justice, one question arose: Was this a violation of the Logan Act?”

    By then, the counterintelligence investigation of Flynn—which started months before the election—was well underway. And it looks like deputy attorney general Sally Yates was on the case. According to Byron York, Yates “told Congress that the Logan Act was the first reason she intervened in the Flynn case.” While the Logan Act may have been the reason she intervened, it appears she and other Department of Justice officials had been briefed “on the entire span of the FBI’s Russian election interference collusion investigations.”

    While Yates was allegedly concerned about the “national security risks” from Flynn’s call and his “underlying conduct,” the FBI wanted to keep their investigation of Flynn secret. McCabe wrote: “We felt we needed time to do more work to understand the context of what had been found – we don’t just run out and charge someone based on a single piece of intelligence. We use intelligence as the basis for investigation.”

    Yates and the DOJ disagreed. Likely concerned about having an ongoing counterintelligence investigation on the incoming national security advisor, Yates wanted to do something about Flynn as soon as possible. McCabe continued: “Justice was more concerned about doing something immediately. The department began pressing us to brief the president-elect’s team about Flynn. We were concerned that this might make it back to Flynn and destroy our ability to continue vetting the information quietly.”

    The DOJ got their chance to push the FBI for action against Flynn when his call with Kislyak was leaked to Washington Post reporter David Ignatius.”


  10. The farce that was the Mueller Report is still collapsing…..

    And someone may finally pay for it too.


    “Nunes: House Republicans Are Mulling Criminal Referrals Against Mueller Prosecutors”

    “House Republicans are prepared to send criminal referrals to the Justice Department alleging that some of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors purposefully misled the courts and Congress.

    Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told investigative journalist John Solomon that his team found glaring evidence of deception while scouring documents recently released by the FBI, including witness reports known as 302s.

    “We’re now going through these 302s, and we’re going to be making criminal referrals on the Mueller dossier team, the people that put this Mueller report together,” Nunes said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast.

    In one instance, Mueller’s deputies seem to have distorted FBI interview memos of key figure George Papadopoulos, concluding wrongly that he was trying to thwart or frustrate the investigation’s efforts to question Mifsud, when the 302 show that he was actually trying to be helpful.”

    “According to the sentencing memo signed by [Aaron] Zelinsky and fellow Mueller prosecutors Jeannie Rhee and Andrew Goldstein: Papadopoulos’ “lies undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States. The government understands that the Professor left the United States on February 11, 2017 and he has not returned to the United States since then.”

    But FBI 302 reports detailing agents’ interviews with Papadopoulos show that he had in fact supplied information that would have enabled investigators to challenge or potentially detain or arrest Mifsud while he was in the United States.

    Mueller’s Special Counsel team—as President Trump often complained—was packed with partisan Democrats, including Zelinsky, Rhee, and Goldstein.

    Zelinsky previously worked in former president Obama’s Department of Justice as assistant US attorney in Maryland. He also blogs for the left-wing website Huffpo in his spare time.

    Goldstein worked in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York under ousted U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, a frequent critic of President Trump.

    Rhee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Obama Administration under Attorney General Eric Holder.

    She represented Hillary Clinton in a 2015 lawsuit that sought access to her private emails, and represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit. Rhee also represented ex-Obama National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes in same lawsuit.

    Rhee donated to Obama in 2008 and 2012 and maxed out her donations in both 2015 and 2016 to Clinton’s presidential campaign, giving a total of $5,400.

    Conservatives suspected all along that given the partisan make-up of Mueller’s team, they would employ sketchy tactics to take down the president.

    Nunes told Solomon that the new FBI memos provide “our first evidence of the Mueller team lying to the court. It’s a lie. It’s a total lie.””


  11. CBS’s debate is being called an epic failure…..



  12. Ruh-roh Raggy…….



  13. Well that didn’t take long….. 🙂


    “Suspended ABC Reporter Will ‘No Longer’ Cover Politics After Admitting ‘Bosses See No Upside’ In Reporting Fairly”

    “ABC News will not allow its currently suspended correspondent David Wright to report on politics again after he was recorded in a Project Veritas video accusing executives of being biased in the network’s reporting and talking about his dislike of President Donald Trump.

    Wright is seen in the video lamenting how he feels ABC News covers Trump. The video was released Wednesday morning. The veteran correspondent “will be reassigned away from political coverage when he returns,” an ABC News spokesman said in a statement to the Daily Caller.

    “Any action that damages our reputation for fairness and impartiality or gives the appearance of compromising it harms ABC News and the individuals involved,” the statement reads. “David Wright has been suspended, and to avoid any possible appearance of bias, he will be reassigned away from political coverage when he returns.””


    Right, because it was him exposing your biased reporting that damages your reputation, not the actual biased reporting itself?

    Alrighty then……

    Careful that spinning doesn’t make you dizzy. 🙄


  14. Bang. Nailed it.

    “Wright said in the undercover video that “voters are poorly informed” in part because of the network’s purported refusal to cover Trump appropriately. He alleges that the network carefully crafts its reporting to fit a certain narrative, particularly around Trump.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.