FEBRUARY 28, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

CNN DID A BAD, BAD THING, AND WHY? BUT IS THIS TRUE, OR JUST ANOTHER FAUX NEWS FICTION? TYT BACKS IT UP, THOUGH, AND FOX GOT IT FROM PASTE MAGAZINE, KNOWN MORE FOR NEWS OF MUSIC AND THE ARTS. SOMEBODY WAS EITHER PRESENTED THAT STORY WHOLE OR TOOK HOURS TO DISSECT THE NAMES FROM A LIST OF ATTENDEES. THIS IS A DAMAGING WAY TO START A NEW MARRIAGE, DNC.

I FIRST SAW THIS STORY LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS TRYING TO GET TO BED, SO I DIDN’T INVESTIGATE IT THEN. CNN WAS ALWAYS TRUSTWORTHY, I THOUGHT, BUT THEY APPARENTLY WILL TAKE AN EXTRA BUCK ALSO. THE HERO, FOX NEWS, A TRUE “GOOD SAMARITAN,” COUNTERS CNN IN ECHOING THE PASTE MAGAZINE STORY. SHOULD WE HAVE THE FBI LOOK DEEPLY THIS AND SEE WHAT THEY FIND? HOW DID PASTE GET THIS?

I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A TRUE EXERCISE OF WHAT THE TERM “FREE PRESS” MEANS. THANK YOU, FOX, TYT AND PASTE MAGAZINE! CENTER FOLD DEMS, YOU AREN’T WINNING FRIENDS THIS WAY, AND I THINK YOU WILL BE NEEDING FRIENDS LATER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST DON’T LIKE THIS KIND OF THING, AND I FOR ONE, AM TIRED OF BEING HERDED AROUND LIKE A SHEEP. YOUR LESSON FOR THE DAY IS TO LISTEN WITH CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE GREAT ARETHA FRANKLIN’S SONG “R E S P E C T!” SEE ALSO THE PASTE MAGAZINE STORY AFTER THIS.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-accused-of-failing-to-disclose-that-bernie-sanders-town-hall-was-loaded-with-democratic-operatives
CNN accused of stacking audience vs. Bernie Sanders in town hall event
Brian Flood By Brian Flood, Joseph A. Wulfsohn | Fox News
MEDIA
FEBRUARY 27, 2019 Published 21 hours ago Last Update 19 hours ago

CNN admitted fault on Wednesday after being accused of failing to disclose Democratic Party ties of several attendees who were able to ask 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders questions during the network’s town hall on Monday.

“Though we said at the beginning of the Town Hall that the audience was made up of Democrats and Independents, we should have more fully identified any political affiliations,” a CNN spokesperson told Fox News.

A Message from troy.edu

The CNN event followed other recent town halls featuring Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn; and potential independent candidate, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. But unlike those town halls, many participants who posed policy questions to Sanders appear to have political ties, which was first reported by Paste Magazine.* see below -- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paste_(magazine)

FOX NEWS DOMINATES MSNBC, CNN ACROSS THE BOARD DURING FEBRUARY

Paste writer Jacob Weindling questioned whether CNN stacked the audience against the Democratic Socialist by not disclosing the background of some of the participants.

Paste Magazine pointed out that at least four attendees have deep roots in the Democratic Party and the D.C. lobby, and alleged the way CNN described the participants either downplayed their background or did not disclose such ties at all.

Tara Ebersole, who asked about Sanders’ plan for universal health care, was introduced by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer as a “former biology professor,” but her reported LinkedIn page claims her current job is chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party.

LEFTIES TURN ON ANTI-TRUMP CNN AFTER NETWORK HIRES EX-JEFF SESSIONS SPOKESWOMAN SARAH ISGUR

Yunjung Seo, who was described by CNN as a “George Washington student,” is currently an intern for the Democratic fundraising organization, the Katz Watson Group, and was previously a campaign fellow for Hillary Clinton for America according to her reported LinkedIn page. Her question was about how Sanders plans on alleviating student debt.

Embedded video

CNN
✔
@CNN
“It will not happen again.” Sen. Bernie Sanders addresses allegations of sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign and describes protocols he says his campaign has implemented. #SandersTownHall https://cnn.it/2ViRP2T

916
9:03 PM - Feb 25, 2019
493 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

However, the arguably toughest question of the night was asked by Shadi Nasab, who was referred to as an “American University student” but is also an intern for the left-wing group Public Policy, according to her reported LinkedIn page.

“As we saw in the 2018 midterms, the Democratic Party has become more female, more racially diverse, and younger in age. How can a voter like me feel confident in your ability to represent the party, especially given that your response to sexual harassment allegations during your campaign is that you were ‘a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case to be elected as president,’" Nasab asked.

Abena McAllister, who was described by Blitzer as “active in Maryland Democrat Party,” was listed by CNN’s chyron as a “mother of two.” However, she is apparently the chair of the Charles County Democratic Central Committee.


Paste Magazine’s Weindling thought the questions were “completely normal” until he did a little digging.

"You cannot help but wonder about the intent behind this, as well as CNN’s role in selecting this questioner while not disclosing her workplace."

— Paste Magazine's Jacob Weindling

“Now that it has been revealed that the question was asked by an intern at a major lobbying firm, you cannot help but wonder about the intent behind this, as well as CNN’s role in selecting this questioner while not disclosing her workplace,” Weindling wrote. “If it was just this one questioner, we could chalk it up to a mistake, or an acknowledgement that CNN reasonably didn't believe that an intern needed to disclose her workplace. But this wasn't just one questioner. There were a bunch of audience members who are far more active in politics than CNN disclosed.”

Mediaite’s Caleb Ecarma pointed out why some prominent Democrats might not want Sanders to come off as favorable during the CNN event.

“Sanders has been harshly criticized by leading Democrats for supposedly trying to spoil the party’s primary election, given his label as an independent and perception as an outsider,” Ecarma wrote.

The Young Turks – a progressive digital news organization – spent significant time breaking down the situation. Host Ana Kasparian said “it appears that CNN did not disclose the true identities of the individuals asking the questions,” calling the network’s behavior “unethical.”

“Viewers should know who these individuals are,” Kasparian said.

Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur admitted he didn’t know if the participants did not fully disclose their identity to CNN or if CNN purposely withheld information from viewers. But Uygur said there is an “unfortunate history” of CNN being unfair to “one particular candidate,” which he said is Sanders.

During the 2016 election, the network took a lot of heat after it was discovered that Donna Brazile, who was a commentator at the time, leaked questions from a town hall event with the Clinton campaign.

Brian Flood covers the media for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter at @briansflood.


THIS STORY IS SAD FOR ME, BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS LIKED THE CNN WAY OF FINDING A BALANCE BETWEEN LEFT AND RIGHT OPINIONS, AND IT IS USUALLY VERY INTERESTING TO ME. THIS ARTICLE AND THE ONE BELOW IT FROM PASTE AND GREAT, IN MY VIEW. CHECK THEM OUT.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/did-cnn-stack-the-audience-for-bernies-town-hall-l.html
Did CNN Stack the Audience Against Bernie Sanders at His Town Hall?
By Jacob Weindling | February 26, 2019 | 1:32pm
Photo via screenshot

Editors note: we reached out to CNN for a statement on this before publication, and a CNN spokesperson provided us with the following statement the next day:

Though we said at the beginning of the Town Hall that the audience was made up of Democrats and Independents, we should have more fully identified any political affiliations.
Monday night, Bernie Sanders did a town hall on CNN, and for the most part, he was asked substantive questions and answered in kind. One minor exception came in a question about the sexual harassment that took place in his 2016 campaign. His response to the initial reports was too dismissive, and last night he wasn’t able to fully articulate how he would stop it from happening again, other than saying that his campaign is committing lots of resources and he will have the “strongest protocols” and utilize an “independent commission” that people can bring their complaints to, without really elaborating on who or what that commission would do.

The bigger problem here is that we find ourselves in a confusing situation thanks to cable news not adhering to basic standards of journalism. (Unfortunately, that’s an evergreen sentence.) When I watched the town hall live last night, this question seemed completely normal and well within the bounds of what Bernie was brought there to talk about, but now that it has been revealed that the question was asked by an intern at a major lobbying firm, you cannot help but wonder about the intent behind this, as well as CNN’s role in selecting this questioner while not disclosing her workplace.
Embedded video

CNN
✔
@CNN
“It will not happen again.” Sen. Bernie Sanders addresses allegations of sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign and describes protocols he says his campaign has implemented. #SandersTownHall https://cnn.it/2ViRP2T

920
9:03 PM - Feb 25, 2019
497 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
This is a Public Policy Intern at one of the biggest lobbying firms in DC Cassidy and Associates. pic.twitter.com/qNszxq6Tne

— Mike Gapes Fan Account (@respecteconomy) February 26, 2019
Again, Bernie's campaign issues with sexual harassment are a major storyline going into 2020 and given that he still hasn't completely addressed it, he should be asked these questions. The problem is that when the question comes from an intern at a major DC lobbying shop—and that fact is not disclosed—you cannot help but wonder who really asked that question of Bernie. And a closer look at Cassidy & Associates' financial partners paints a picture of a group that really, really would not enjoy a Sanders presidency.

If it was just this one questioner, we could chalk it up to a mistake, or an acknowledgement that CNN reasonably didn't believe that an intern needed to disclose her workplace. But this wasn't just one questioner. There were a bunch of audience members who are far more active in politics than CNN disclosed. Watching the town hall live made it seem as if these were just folks from all walks of life, when in reality many of these supposedly innocuous questioners were political operatives in one way or another, as this thread revealed.

— CNN called Tara Ebersole a “former biology professor” when her LinkedIn page lists her current job description as “Chair, Baltimore County Democratic Party” since 2016. Further, her husband was part of Hillary Clinton's leadership council in Baltimore in 2016.

— Abena McAllister was labeled “an active Democrat,” which is far less descriptive than the Charles County Democratic Central Committee's description of her as their Chair.

— Yunjung Seo was simply called a “George Washington Student” by CNN, despite her LinkedIn page saying she also works for the Katz Watson Group, a fundraising and consulting outlet.

— Michelle Gregory was simply listed as a “Maryland voter” by CNN, but a cursory Google search reveals her to be much more active in politics than just voting.

Then there's this:
Similarly, The reparations question was offered by an Aspen Institue alum. She works for a non-profit who's board directors includes execs at Booz Allen Hamilton and the Carlyle Group https://t.co/phzN6uXnXr

— Mike Gapes Fan Account (@respecteconomy) February 26, 2019

I watched the entire town hall last night, and none of the questions asked by these people resonated as unfair to me. There were a couple asked by other people that were based on wrong assumptions (like the myth that Bernie’s only support comes from young white dudes), but it’s hard to blame individuals for coming to wrong conclusions like that when the Democratic Party’s infrastructure has invested so much time and energy gaslighting the public into thinking that way.
In fact, the worst question last night came from Wolf Blitzer, who went off of the New York Times’ initial reporting on Elizabeth Warren’s stance on reparations, when a clarification made by The Washington Post the next day walked back the far more certain NYT characterization of her position and certainly did not indicate that “she wants to support reparations” like Wolf asserted. One of Bernie’s better moments came when he challenged Wolf on the basis of his assumption while saying he agreed with Warren’s quote about reforming the system to distribute more funds to reach “distressed communities.” There’s a big difference between that and supporting a policy to financially compensate every living descendant of American slavery, and four days ago, WaPo reported that Warren, Julian Castro and Kamala Harris did not respond to questions about clarifying their stance around that reality of what the word “reparations” means.

But back to my main point: really the only problem in all this is that because CNN did not disclose many of these questioners’ ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why. The famed Bobby Knight quote of “stupid loses more games than smart wins” is Occam’s Razor here, as Wolf Blitzer isn’t exactly universally respected and we have documented CNN’s struggles with the truth before, but the nefarious angle is the elephant in that Washington D.C. room.

There is absolutely, positively no question that elite members of the Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as major media, despise Bernie Sanders because he openly advocates destroying the system they sit atop. When you bring a bunch of politically-involved people out and depict them as just regular “Maryland voters,” one cannot help but wonder about the motivations behind a decision to do less journalism than is required of the situation. CNN brought a de facto lobbyist on their air and didn’t disclose it. That’s bad.

Being politically-involved doesn’t disqualify these folks from asking questions, and it doesn’t automatically make their motivations disingenuous. These people are still people just like you and me. Had CNN been more accurate in describing the questioners, I wouldn’t be writing this column. The only reason we have to doubt their motivations is because CNN hid crucial context that is easily found in the public record, therefore we cannot help but wonder why CNN left out such vital information (I reached out to CNN and asked them to shed light on why they left out this vital info and will update the piece if I hear back).
Again, the questions themselves last night were almost entirely fine on the surface. Bernie should face tough questions like any other presidential candidate, but we should put all of our cards on the table when going through this stuff (which doubles as my central criticism of Bernie’s handling of the sexual harassment revelations). CNN bringing up these so-called “voters” to ask some of the most politically perilous questions for Bernie comes off as incredibly shady, and doubly so since they didn’t reveal their backgrounds. CNN was either pushing an agenda, or they failed at a very basic tenet of journalism. I don’t have enough information to come to a firm conclusion about CNN’s motivation, but if I assumed that these multiple oversights were intentional as part of a larger anti-Bernie agenda, there would be more journalistic rationale behind my assertion than CNN’s belief that they can get away with characterizing the current Chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party as simply a “former biology professor.”

Jacob Weindling is a staff writer for Paste politics. Follow him on Twitter at @Jakeweindling.


“You can't fly under the radar and win, and if any of this secondary crew last as long as Iowa, it will be an act of stubbornness and/or delusion. They're not threats.”

THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST ANALYSES OF HOW THE VOTING IS LIKELY TO GO THAT I’VE SEEN, AT LEAST WITHIN THIS YEAR OR SO, AND IT IS ALSO THE BEST STATEMENT OF WHY, FOR ME, BERNIE IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO. NEARLY ALL OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE NOT ORIGINALS AT ALL, AND THEY DON’T HAVE COMMITMENT. A STORY IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS BY A MAN WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH HIM FOR YEARS CHARACTERIZED HIM AS “AN AUTOMATON WINDUP.” HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT HE DOESN’T MEAN THAT BERNIE IS LIKE A CHILD’S TOY, “BECAUSE HE IS NOBODY’S TOY. HE’S A GROWLER. HE GOES FORWARD A LITTLE AND THEN GROWLS. HE GOES FORWARD AGAIN AND GROWLS.”

THIS IS WHAT I SEE IN BERNIE BESIDES THE GENUINELY KIND-HEARTED SOUL THAT INHABITS HIS BODY. DON’T LOOK AT HIM WHEN HE IS FROWNING AND THINK THAT’S ALL THERE IS. LOOK AT HIM IN THE VIDEO YOU’VE ALL SEEN WHEN THE LITTLE BROWN SPARROW LANDED ON HIS PODIUM AS HE WAS SPEAKING, AND EYED HIM CLOSELY FOR 30 TO 45 SECONDS, AND THEN FINALLY LIFTED OFF AND WENT BACK UP TO THE SKY. AS LONG AS THE BIRD WAS THERE, BERNIE WAS SILENT AND LOOKING AT IT AS IT TURNED ITS’ LITTLE HEAD AROUND CLOSELY EXAMINING HIM. WHEN THE BIRD HOPPED BACK UP INTO THE AIR, BERNIE CONTINUED SPEAKING. IF I WERE A RELIGIOUS PERSON, I COULD SEE THAT AS A CLEAR SIGN FROM GOD. AND AS FOR THE “GROWLING” PART OF HIS PERSONALITY, I SEE HIM AS A MAN ON THE LEFT WHO HAS THE PURE GUTS TO GO UP AGAINST DONALD TRUMP AND WIN. HE IS A MAN BORN IN NEW YORK CITY ON A LIMITED FAMILY INCOME, WHOSE MEMORIES WERE OF A FAMILY WHO WERE ALL OR NEARLY ALL KILLED IN EUROPE BY ADOLPH HITLER. MOST OF US WHO ARE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT PERIOD, ARE NOT “PASSIVE” ABOUT IT, AND I BELIEVE THAT BERNIE SEES A MAN IN OFFICE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO IS ALL TOO MUCH LIKE HITLER. HE HAS STATED SEVERAL TIMES RECENTLY THAT HIS GOAL IS TO GET DONALD TRUMP OUT OF THE PRESIDENCY. THAT’S THE KIND OF PERSON I WANT FOR PRESIDENT – ONE WHO HAS GENTLENESS IN HIM AND HOT PEPPER AS WELL.

THOSE ARE THE TWO REASONS THAT I WANT BERNIE AND NOBODY ELSE. NUMBER ONE, THOSE IDEAS OF HIS THAT THE CENTRISTS ARE TRYING SO HARD TO MASTER FOR THEMSELVES, THEY ARE NOT CENTRIST IDEAS, AND NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE EXCEPT OCASIO-CASTRO AND PERHAPS ELIZABETH WARREN VOICED THEM BEFORE 2018/19. SHE, UNFORTUNATELY, IS TOO YOUNG TO STAND FOR VICE PRESIDENT OR PRESIDENT. 2040 WILL BE HER YEAR, PERHAPS.

I ALSO BELIEVE IN THE PRINCIPLE OF GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE, AND I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO IS STRONGLY SAYING THAT BERNIE IS THE MAN. IF I WANTED A WOMAN, I WOULD WANT A SPICY ONE LIKE AOC, NOT AN ARROGANT ONE LIKE HILLARY CLINTON WHO WAS BLIND TO HER OWN WEAKNESSES, AND TO THE LACK OF SOCIAL FAIRNESS THAT SHE EMBODIES. WHILE IT’S TRUE THAT BILL CLINTON DID COME FROM MODESTLY PROSPEROUS PEOPLE, CLINTON CAME FROM A DECIDEDLY WELL-TO-DO FAMILY AND SHE SHOWED HER CLAY FEET WHEN SHE SAID A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION THAT TRUMP’S FOLLOWERS WERE “A BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.” THAT’S A VERY PRIVILEGED THING TO SAY, AND A BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL ERROR FOR SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO WIN THE ELECTION.

WHILE I, TOO, SAW THE “COMMONNESS” OF SO MANY OF TRUMP’S FOLLOWERS, AND I FEARED THEM, SHE MADE A TERRIBLE PSYCHOLOGICAL MISTAKE WHEN SHE SAID THAT. EVEN THE DEVIL FEELS HURT AND INSULTED BY THAT KIND OF PUT-DOWN. OF COURSE, I GET THAT OPINION FROM JOHN MILTON’S PARADISE LOST, NOT THE BIBLE. HILLARY CLINTON DOESN’T HAVE THE RIGHT SET OF IDEAS FOR ME, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME ESPECIALLY, I DO NOT WANT “AN INCREMENTALIST” AND I DON’T EVER WANT SOMEONE WHO SCORNS SUCH PEOPLE. I DO FEAR THEM, SO I BELIEVE THEY WILL HAVE TO BE FOUGHT, BUT I DO SEE THEM AS BEING CHILDREN OF GOD JUST AS MUCH AS I AM.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, I’M A STRONG BELIEVER IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE, AND WHEN I SEE BRUTAL HATRED LIKE THAT, I SEE IT AS BEING THE HURT AND INJURY THAT THEY BEAR, TURNED OUTWARD AS A WEAPON AGAINST THE WHOLE WORLD. I THINK THAT MOST CATHOLICS WOULD SEE IT IN THAT WAY, BUT I’M NOT SO SURE ABOUT PROTESTANTS. SCORN IS SIMPLY NOT HELPFUL IN ANY WAY. SOME SORT OF MANDATED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT WOULD BE USEFUL, I THINK, AND DEFINITELY FAIR. WHEN I SEE FOUR LINES OF YOUNG ANGRY-LOOKING YOUNG MEN, ALL CARRYING THE TORCHES OF THE WORLD WAR II SYMBOLIZING HATRED INTO A PUBLIC PARK AREA WHERE A CONFEDERATE STATUE STANDS, CHANTING “BLOOD AND SOIL,” I FEEL THAT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. THIS IS NOT A TIME FOR SOCIAL SNOBBERY. IT IS WITH PAIN THAT I SAY THAT IT SEEMS TO ME, NOW, THAT THE FREEDOM TO JOIN AN ACTIVE AND AGGRESSIVE HATE GROUP SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF OUR GUARANTEED RIGHTS. THAT ISN’T FREEDOM OF SPEECH, BUT VICIOUS HATRED AND ABUSIVENESS. VERY FEW OTHER COUNTRIES ALLOW THAT, AND THE HONEST PEOPLE HERE DON’T BELIEVE THAT WAY, EITHER.

THE PROBLEM THAT WE ON THE LIBERAL SIDE OF THINGS – THE DEMOCRATS OF ALL STAMPS -- HAVE IS THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE NEED I’M AFRAID, TO DIVIDE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON A PERMANENT BASIS, SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG INTO SOME SORT OF PROGRESS TOWARD JUSTICE AND DECENCY; BUT PERHAPS INTO THREE PARTS OF VARYING OPINION RANGES, AND REGULARLY GET TOGETHER TO MAKE GROUP DECISIONS AS NEW EVENTS OCCUR THAT CREATE A NEED TO RE-THINK AND MODIFY OUR GOALS AND METHODS; AND THOSE DECISIONS SHOULD NOT BE DONE IN SECRET. NO MORE OF THOSE “SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS” OF THE 1950S AND LATER. IF ANY OF YOU REMEMBER THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF 1968, YOU WILL SEE MY POINT. THAT’S THE ONE THAT TURNED INTO A “POLICE RIOT,” AS COPS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TRIED TO CONTAIN ANGRY STUDENTS WITHOUT PLAN OR SENSITIVITY. IT WAS A MINI-BLOOD BATH. I SAW IT ALL ON THE NEWS ON TV, AND IT WAS GENUINELY FRIGHTENING. I THINK THAT HAD TO DO WITH EUGENE MCCARTHY, THE INTELLIGENT AND BENIGN, BUT “RADICAL,” PEACE CANDIDATE. THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE VIETNAMESE WAR. LIKE BERNIE SANDERS, HE HAD A LARGE AND PASSIONATE STUDENT FOLLOWING.

WE NEED TO WORK ON OUR PARTY STRUCTURE AND BELIEFS ON A FREQUENT BASIS, NOT ONCE EVERY 50 YEARS. I BELIEVE THE REASON WE DEMOCRATS ARE AT ODDS RIGHT NOW TO THE DEGREE THAT WE ARE IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T DONE THAT. JESUS’ METAPHOR OF THE NEW WINE BEING PLACED IN OLD WINESKINS IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. BEING PASSIVE IS NOT THE ANSWER, BUT BEING REGULARLY AND FREQUENTLY IN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT GROUP ISSUES IS. ANY OF YOU WHO HAVE EVER SEEN “A QUAKER MEETING” IN OPERATION WILL KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IT’S MORE THAN A RELIGION. IT’S A DECISION AND GROUP-CONSCIENCE MEETING.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE JOKINGLY SAID OF UNITARIANS THAT EVERY TIME THEY HAVE A DISCUSSION, IT BECOMES A FIGHT, OR THAT LEADING UNITARIANS IS LIKE “HERDING CATS.” UNITARIANS ARE A GOOD DEAL LIKE QUAKERS – CARING, BUT INDEPENDENT. SOMEWHERE IN MY PHOTOS ON THE INTERNET IS A CHARMING AND HUMOROUS CARTOON OF SOME GOOFY-LOOKING MEN ON GANGLY AND WILD-LOOKING HORSES TRYING TO “HERD CATS.” SOME DOZEN OR MORE CATS ARE RUNNING IN EVERY IMAGINABLE DIRECTION WITH THEIR TAILS ALL PUFFED UP AND A PANICKED LOOK ON THEIR POOR FACES. I HAD HEARD THAT PHRASE BEFORE, BUT NEVER SEEN A PICTURE OF IT.

TO TRY TO PULL THIS TOGETHER INTO SOMETHING THAT WILL BE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE, I’M ENVISIONING SOMETHING MORE LIKE A PARTY-LEVEL CONGRESS OR SENATE, OR BETTER STILL, REGULARLY HELD TOWN MEETINGS SO THAT WE WON’T BE ONE CITIZEN FIGHTING AGAINST ANOTHER AT PARTY VOTING TIMES, OR A POWER GROUP AT THE TOP WRITING THE RULES AND THEN TRYING TO FORCE THEM DOWN EVERYBODY’S THROATS RATHER THAN ALLOWING IT TO PERCOLATE ITS’ WAY UP FROM THE BOTTOM. AND OUR ISSUES WILL BE UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD, TOO, IF WE DO THAT. THEN, BEFORE VOTING EVEN STARTS, THE PARTY SHOULD HOLD A PLANNING SESSION WHOSE TASK WOULD BE TO STUDY, THINK, TALK, AND THEN VOTE AMONG THEMSELVES ON THE PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED.

IF WE WOULD DO IT THAT WAY, THERE WOULD ALSO BE LESS MONEY-RELATED PUSHING AND SHOVING UNDER THE GUISE OF “INFORMING” OUR DECISIONS. I WOULD HAVE US DISALLOW THE PARTICIPATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND POWER CENTERS – THE BANKING OR OIL INDUSTRIES, FOR INSTANCE. IN A TIME LIKE THESE WHEN WE, THE LIBERAL-LEANING CITIZENS OR DEMOCRATS, SEE AND FEEL A STRONG NEED TO PUT UP A VIGOROUS OPPOSITION TO TRUMPIST OLIGARCHY OR SOME OTHER DISORDERLY OR UNFAIR ACTION; WE COULD CALL THOSE TALKING SESSIONS AN OPINION TAKING SESSION. WHEN THE IDEAS ARE FULLY FLESHED OUT AS I HAVE DONE WITH THIS SET OF IDEAS, SO THAT THE WHOLE PROPOSAL WILL BE CLEAR AND UNDERSTANDABLE, THEN WRITE UP A FORMAL LOCAL PROPOSAL OF THE NEW RULE, ACTION, OR LAW.

WE SHOULD NOT EVEN ALLOW TERMS LIKE RADICAL TO ENTER THE DISCUSSION UNTIL THE PROPOSAL IS DEVELOPED. ALL DISCUSSIONS SHOULD BE OPEN TO FRESH AIR AND LIGHT RATHER THAN BEING A FORCED DECISION. IN THAT GROUP, THE “LOCAL CITIZEN’S ASSEMBLY” PERHAPS, WE COULD RESEARCH AND DISCUSS, THEN CHOOSE CANDIDATES FOR THE 2020 ELECTION AFTER WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE CANDIDATES WITH THE LARGEST NUMBER OF POPULAR VOTES. I AM THINKING HERE OF MAKING BASIC CONCEPTS INTO A WRITTEN AND DEFENDABLE FORM FOR A MONTHLY MEETING. THIS WOULD THEN BE PLACED BEFORE A CITY COUNCIL FOR LEGALLY CORRECT LANGUAGE AND IDEA ORGANIZATION. A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT MIGHT BE BY HOLDING REGULAR POLLS ON SPECIFIC SUBJECTS. IN THE MODERN ERA OF COMPUTERS THAT COULD BE DONE EITHER ON PAPER THROUGH THE MAIL, ON THE INTERNET, OR OVER THE TELEPHONE AS LONG AS IT IS DONE BY AN ACCREDITED POLLING AGENCY SUCH AS QUINNIPIAC. THAT WOULD CREATE A GOOD DEAL OF LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND AN AWARENESS OF WHAT THE LOCAL ISSUES AND OPINIONS ARE.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/02/what-are-bernies-2020-chances-a-paste-politics-dis.html
Can Bernie Really Win Easily? A Paste Politics Discussion
By Jake Weindling & Shane Ryan | February 28, 2019 | 9:26am
Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty

Because we live in hell and in a country with a major media constantly looking to the next election, the 2020 election has officially begun in 2019’s nascent stages—which also means that it’s officially hot take season. Given that Paste politics is a leftist outlet and Bernie Sanders announced his presidential candidacy (while citing one of our Paste politics pieces in his announcement video — we see you Bernie), and Elizabeth Warren also jumped in recently, we feel something of an obligation to hash this topic out in public. Below you will read an e-mail exchange between me and my hot take compatriot, Paste politics editor Shane Ryan, who fired the first salvo in this war by writing on the day Bernie declared that “Bernie Sanders is going to win, and it’s going to be easy.” But is he right?

I’ll now change my pronouns from pointing towards you, dear reader, to Shane as we officially kick off the 2019 2020 Hot Take Wars.

Jacob Weindling: For me, the most convincing argument you made in your piece was about name recognition. We live in a country where congress has about a 20% approval rating and about a 95% reelection rate. The prevailing thought is “everyone sucks but my guy,” and that mindset is directly informed by having very little information about anyone other than who is currently in power. I place the vast majority of the blame for this depressing fact that we don’t teach civics in this country, as well as on major media misinforming the populace—as you can turn on any Sunday show or cable news panel and watch the same Very Serious “both-sides” deficit-scold arguments from the same set of elite media folks. Bernie had very little name recognition in 2016, and now only Joe Biden bests him. That’s a major, major asset.

For any readers still not convinced about the utmost importance of name recognition, I have two more pieces of evidence to submit to the court. One, Bernie is very popular on the left and his support has basically remained the same since people learned who he was.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Best Posts
@onlygoodposts1
https://news.gallup.com/poll/243539/americans-maintain-positive-view-bernie-sanders.aspx …

9
5:28 PM - Jan 28, 2019
See Best Posts's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy

And two, if you ask most people who their top two candidates are right now, they're overwhelmingly Bernie and Biden—which makes absolutely no ideological sense given that they are basically the left and right endpoints of the current ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party. As much as us policy-centric folks wish that we ran the world, we don't. Folks less plugged-in than those of us who spend our days wading through the political muck decide presidential elections, and name recognition is one of the biggest deciding factors in whether a candidate will win.

But that doesn't mean us policy-centric folks don't have some power over this election. The 2018 election and the elevation of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal to the center of the 2020 Democratic platform is proof that policy is ascendant on the left, and that most people generally want to do big things to fix our very big problems. The question is how should we go about doing it, and this is where capitalism comes in to the discussion.

I semi-critiqued Elizabeth Warren's generally awesome access to universal child care plan because “access” is code for “market-based solution.” To me, that's the central fault line on the left. If you want to work within the framework of the current capitalist and constitutional structure of the United States, you are a liberal, whereas if you want to generally destroy and then replace/amend the capitalist status quo with something tilted towards social democracy, you are a progressive (I prefer the term leftist, personally). I've publicly documented my move away from capitalism here at Paste, and I think that this Bernie-Warren dynamic is another litmus test for what constitutes leftist politics, because the central narrative out there so far does not do a good enough job explaining the irreconcilable fundamental ideological fault lines between pro-capitalism liberalism, social democracy and socialism—distinctions which will be a major factor in who wins in 2020 whether they are properly covered or not.

What do you think?

Shane Ryan: Jake, I agree with you, and would cite this piece by Zaid Jilani at Jacobin which outlines that very dichotomy, and is a good read if people want to go more in-depth:

The two senators also have distinct theories of change. Sanders has long believed in bottom-up, movement-based politics. Since his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he has tried to energize citizens to take part in government. He generally distrusts elites and decision-making that does not include the public. Warren, on the other hand, generally accepts political reality and works to push elite decision-makers towards her point of view.

As Jilani points out, this is not an across-the-board truth: Warren has endorsed Medicare-for-all (despite being opposed to it five years ago and rarely bringing it up even today), and Bernie has worked within the system for goals like pressuring Amazon to raise its minimum wage to $15. Those aren't the only two examples, but by and large the pattern of political thinking is pretty constant, and pretty different, between the two candidates.

Which brings us to what I think is the most important point: Bernie Sanders' paradigm requires a popular movement, and he has a popular movement. I don't mean to be reductive, but speaking from a realpolitik standpoint, that really might be all we need to know. He stepped up when nobody else had the gumption after the field cleared for Hillary Clinton in 2016, and it turned out that a lot of people were ready to hear a democratic-socialist, “taxes-are-actually-good” approach to governance. He didn't win, but the reward for his courage was becoming one of the most popular politicians in America and wielding an unbelievable amount of influence over the party.

Elizabeth Warren's approach requires popular support, but not a movement. It only requires winning elections and then commencing the work of reforming the system. Her problem—and to me, it's an insurmountable one—is that she's going against Bernie Sanders, and against him, you need a movement to win. But there's just no oxygen on that terrain, is there? Sanders raised more money in about three hours than anyone else raised in a full day after announcing their candidacies, and Warren's problem is that she's trying to occupy a similar leftist space. If the votes exist, for her, they exist among Sanders supporters, and the bleak reality is that as of last Tuesday morning, Sanders is already standing in her spot.

Here's where we get to the superficial part of politics, and talk about instincts and charisma and etc. Because look, if Warren was some kind of transformational political personality, I'd still give her a shot. She isn't—policy aside, I'm very bearish on her as a candidate. I thought her response to the Native American heritage was an unbelievable blunder, and her weird “I'm gonna get me a beer” video with her stiff husband was about as cringe-worthy as it gets, particularly in its obvious thirst to co-opt AOC's social media savvy. Like it or not, that kind of stuff informs perceptions of authenticity, and when you combine it with the fact that she's going to be preaching a less sweeping vision of progressivism than Sanders, I really do not see how she drums up the kind of critical support she needs. To be perfectly frank, it wouldn't shock me to see her drop out before Iowa.

In short, I'm with Amber A'Lee Frost, who wrote:

She's not charismatic and appears to have absolutely zero understanding of what voters want in a candidate, as indicated by her pre-campaign soft launch on a bit of specious family lore about Native American heritage. Literally, no one cares, and yet she keeps doubling down on it. She chokes, she flinches, she reacts every time Trump insults her, and thus the public is far more familiar with her defensive “Orange Man is Mean to Me” ethnic delusion than they are her “Accountable Capitalism Act”...

So, here's my perspective: I agree fully with your breakdown of what it means to be a progressive/leftist versus what it means to be a framework liberal. I identify with Sanders on that front, and I think it's a more exciting and appealing proposition for most voters. And while I like Warren's policies, and she's certainly my second choice, and she distinguishes herself from the rest of the pack, from a practical standpoint I don't think she has a prayer. And I have to say, based on her “work from within the system” mentality, it's not a shock to me to learn that she was a Republican as recently as 1996, supported charter schools, and etc. I trust her now, and I'm not snarking on her the way I will hopefully get to snark on Kamala “Seriously Progresssive Since 2017!” Harris, but I think it's a sign of the times that our second-most progressive candidate for president probably voted for Ronald Reagan.

Now, should we move to the other candidates who might have a shot at dethroning Bernie, or is there more to say about Warren?

Jake: I largely agree with your assessment of Warren, so I won't turn this into a game of “yes and,” but I do want to expand a little on my point about the vital importance of her platform to the debate of capitalism versus Democratic Socialism. As much as folks want to conflate hers and Bernie's platforms, they're not the same. They only feel the same because that's how far right the Democratic status quo has shifted since 1980. Bernie wants to blow up the system and enact an FDR New Deal-type market infrastructure while Warren simply wants to lay waste to the monopolies dominating the markets.

I was a capitalist and now I'm not, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in markets. Capitalism has brainwashed us into thinking that capitalism = markets, but markets have existed as long as humans have. They're a natural consequence of our respective talents, and they are extremely effective at producing a lot of money and resources. Capitalism says that markets should be dictated from the top-down in a private profit-based model, while Democratic Socialism wants the government to heavily regulate markets so the focus is on providing maximum value to the consumers of the market. Capitalism claims to achieve that end through profit-based competition, but, well…look around. Does it look like we have highly competitive industries dedicated to serving the interests of their consumers?

Warren is not trying to change that fundamental top-down capitalist paradigm—she's just trying to aggressively intervene in markets to free them up to work the way capitalists say they're supposed to work, as demonstrated by her fantastic idea to make workers represent 40% of boards—but 40% still means that workers have less power than capitalists who definitely haven't demonstrated any desire to repeal harmful regulations. Bernie is a New Deal Democrat who wants to fundamentally change major parts of the economy in the same style as America's longest serving congressman, the late great John Dingell — while Warren, like you said, probably voted for Reagan.

Who you support between the two says a lot about what you think about economics.

I became a Democratic Socialist because I realized that there were far too many markets I believed should not be driven by a profit motive to justifiably call myself anything but a Democratic Socialist. I still believe in market competition (but not in the existence of a “free” market), I just don't think that a lot of major industries like health care or energy should be private and profit-based, and this is going to be the crux of the 2020 debates: what markets should and should not be controlled by the government? Democratic voters are functionally unanimous on the topic of enacting socialized health care, even though many (definitely-not-insurance-company-backed) politicians like Amy Klobuchar are not. I don't think Bernie should have to worry about anyone who comes out against his Medicare for All plan because 85% of Democrats want it and health care was by far the number one issue in the 2018 midterms.

If I were sitting in the Bernie camp, I would consider Warren to be my most immediate threat, given that she's the only one who could plausibly steal votes from his ideological base (*raises hand*). But given her political missteps and her lukewarm MA numbers, her ceiling does seem very low. I think Warren's likeliest path to the nomination is co-opting Biden's supporters. Bernie's biggest threat, as always, is the Democratic establishment. They've created a rabid hurricane of disinformation around him, and many less plugged-in folks have internalized the incorrect assertion that he's too divisive to win. Given that you've planted the flag in the ground on Bernie's impending victory, which establishment-backed candidate(s) do you fear most?

Shane: My fears:

1. Joe Biden
2. Kamala Harris
3. Nobody else

There's a rabid base of Bernie-haters online who still carry the secret flag for Hillary Clinton and believe with all their hearts that Sanders cost her the election (despite mountains of evidence showing that Sanders loyalists voted for Clinton in the general at a far greater rates than her own supporters backed Obama in 2008), and that all his supporters are racist, sexist white men (despite mountains of evidence that he polls way better with women and minorities than he does with white men). To them, these are almost religious truths, and they spend their days alternating between delusional victimhood and outright attack. They really, really don't want Bernie to be president, and you hit on a good point—if they were smart, maybe they'd back Elizabeth Warren and try to usurp Bernie's support from the left.

Maybe they sense the same weakness in Warren that I do, though, or maybe they just hate even the hint of progressivism, because at the moment it appears that they've coalesced behind Kamala Harris. The fact that Warren can't even land this demographic only solidifies my belief that she's a dead candidate walking.
So, first, I fear Kamala. Unlike Warren, Kamala Harris projects strength, and she's charismatic, and I think she's going to do well in the spotlight and will hold her own in debates, where she'll probably be more nimble than Bernie, who basically sticks to his stump speech. She has a chance to score a big early primary victory in her home state of California and forge a lead early if she can survive the first four (the nullification of the early southern primaries that buried Sanders is a good thing for him, but also her). She's just progressive enough to pass muster on big issues like universal healthcare and free public education, and who knows, maybe she'll capture the black or female demographic in the way her supporters hope. I'm not exactly sure how, but she's already boxed out everyone else in her lane, especially Booker and Gillibrand, so she's certainly not a political incompetent. I don't think endorsements really matter that much (unless Obama picks a side), but the fact that she got Barbara Lee, who everyone had pegged as a Bernie surrogate, is at the very least a surprise.

I think her shady past as a prosecutor and AG is really going to hurt her with progressives, though (read here and here for the best background), and when you couple that with the fact that her leftist transformation is very recent, I don't think she's going to have much trust with the Bernie wing. Whether she can catch on with everyone else and present herself as the moderate choice who can beat Trump pretty much depends on Joe Biden. If he runs, she's toast.

In terms of the other candidates, nothing scares me. Along with suffering on the name recognition front, Gillibrand spent her formative days defending big tobacco executives, Booker is a known Big Pharma flack, Klobuchar is a psychopath who abuses her staff, Sherrod Brown doesn't even have the courage to endorse Medicare for All, and nobody else has the profile to even matter. The collective strategy here seems to be “play very safe,” except that only works when you have a lead. Playing safe from behind is a great way to remain anonymous. You can't fly under the radar and win, and if any of this secondary crew last as long as Iowa, it will be an act of stubbornness and/or delusion. They're not threats.

But Biden is my number one fear. He's popular, he's got name recognition, he might get Obama to endorse him, and even if he doesn't, he'll be seen as Obama's guy. He's the nostalgia candidate, and right now he's even polling better than Bernie. We've talked about why we think he's at his peak popularity right now, and I'll let you delve more into that.

Jake: Yeah I have a rule I'm calling the President Giuliani Rule for all early 2020 coverage, and that's to take all early polling as far more indicative of “I know this name” than “I want this person,” and I'm of the opinion that most of Biden's support right now is “oh yeah, the Obama guy!” As Senator Biden—who echoed proud segregationist Strom Thurmond's racist “forced busing” phrase in the 1970s to stymie the effort to integrate our schools (despite saying he was for it in theory)—becomes a more significant figure in the 2020 primary, Biden's popularity will wane as everyone runs to his left and he'll either have to defend his unpopular Senate record or repudiate it (although Amy Klobuchar's “you can't have anything” CNN town hall is making me rethink the “everyone” part of that conviction). I wrote up a piece about polling from New Hampshire revealing that of people who have currently declared a preference for a 2020 primary candidate, 82% are willing to change their minds by the time the primary rolls around in less than a year. If I'm Joe Biden, that's the kind of figure that keeps me up at night.

It's probably just because I've planted my flag on the “Biden won't win” hot take, but I see Harris as Bernie's biggest overall threat because I think she is the likeliest to receive the biggest chunk of people who agree with that 82% for all the reasons you laid out above. One of the biggest things people seem to want is something new, and Bernie doesn't have that advantage over most of the field now that he's a known commodity. That said, I think that's an advantage that almost goes away in the debates.

The new stuff that really matters are all the new policies on the Dem platform this time around, and once the debates start, people are going to start stumping for their big ideas. Here's my prediction for how they will go, given that per the candidates' declared positions to this point, everyone is basically just hacking off popular parts of Bernie's 2016 platform to center theirs around:

Gillibrand: “I have major policy A and it's great!”
Harris: “I have major policy B and it's also great!”
Booker: “Major policy C is super coolio yo!”
Bernie: “I agree, policies A, B and C are all great and that's why they're all on my platform.”

Policy wonkery won't be the main reason someone wins, but it's going to become harder and harder to paint Bernie as divisive and anathema to the Democratic Party when every Democratic candidate spends their time stumping for different parts of his platform, and he then spends his time pointing out how right they are to push for big ideas like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

I hate that my brain goes to this, but Mark Cuban likes to harp on Shark Tank about how dominating a small market can be a massive money-maker, and I think that can be said of gaining votes too. Bernie's central appeal is leftist policy, and of the people who prioritize very liberal policy above all else (as to how big this portion of the electorate is, hard to tell, but we can start at the 43% of Dems who voted for Bernie in 2016), he gets most of those votes. Biden and Harris are running on personality as much as they are policies (Harris still doesn't have a policy section up on her website as of this writing), and there are far more ways to split the votes of the kind of Democratic voter who prioritizes personality than to split the votes of those who prioritize policy. That built-in lead among a significant part of the Democratic electorate, plus the name recognition factor and the astounding amount of money he raised in the first 24 hours prove to me that on paper, Bernie Sanders is a major presidential contender and only Joe Biden can objectively be put above him as of right now. I mean, these fundraising figures for a Democratic Socialist in the United States of America are mind-blowing.


Shane Goldmacher
✔
@ShaneGoldmacher
· Feb 25, 2019
NEWS: Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million from his presidential campaign in less than a week

Two big stats:

— 359,914 total donors
— 38.76% of donations came from NEW email addresses that hadn't previously given to Sanders https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-10-million.html …

Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.
Bernie Sanders Raises $10 Million in Less Than a Week
Mr. Sanders started the race with the largest donor network in the 2020 field. That list has grown substantially since then, as more than a third of his donations came from new email addresses.

nytimes.com

Shane Goldmacher
✔
@ShaneGoldmacher
Of the 359,914 Bernie Sanders 2020 donors so far, only *20* have given him the legal maximum of $2,800. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-10-million.html …

841
6:50 PM - Feb 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.
Bernie Sanders Raises $10 Million in Less Than a Week
Mr. Sanders started the race with the largest donor network in the 2020 field. That list has grown substantially since then, as more than a third of his donations came from new email addresses.

nytimes.com
318 people are talking about this

Shane Goldmacher
✔
@ShaneGoldmacher
· Feb 25, 2019
Replying to @ShaneGoldmacher
The Bernie Sanders campaign has already signed up more than 48,000 donors on a recurring giving plan — worth a combined more than $1 million per month. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-10-million.html …

Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.
Bernie Sanders Raises $10 Million in Less Than a Week

Mr. Sanders started the race with the largest donor network in the 2020 field. That list has grown substantially since then, as more than a third of his donations came from new email addresses.

nytimes.com

Shane Goldmacher
✔
@ShaneGoldmacher
One cautionary note on all the new email addresses: Bernie's donors skew young, so plenty may have changed jobs, graduated from a .edu email etc.

Still: Nearly 39 percent of Sanders's week one donors came from emails that had never donated before. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-10-million.html …

302
7:03 PM - Feb 25, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.
Bernie Sanders Raises $10 Million in Less Than a Week

Mr. Sanders started the race with the largest donor network in the 2020 field. That list has grown substantially since then, as more than a third of his donations came from new email addresses.

nytimes.com
96 people are talking about this

Because I’m convinced that Biden is going to fall victim to father time and have his support scattered across the political chessboard, I can’t see anyone else other than Bernie as the Democratic frontrunner at this point. Given that Trump is the weakest incumbent in our lifetimes, it’s pretty likely that a Democratic Socialist is the current favorite to be our next president, and that’s pretty remarkable given where this country was just four years ago.

Shane: Jake, to close us out, I’ll just point out that since we started emailing back and forth, Bernie has registered one million volunteers and passed the $10 million mark in fundraising, and a new Morning Consult poll already has Sanders within two points of Biden. It’s worth remembering that in 2016, Sanders’ upward trajectory never stopped—he got closer and closer to Clinton, but he just started from too far behind to make up the gap. If you believe that some politicians just know what they’re doing, and if you believe he can withstand a year of establishment propaganda aimed at him, it’s hard not to see the early indicators as more evidence that he’s going to cruise to victory. In the meantime, all eyes are on Biden. Stay tuned!


https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2019-02-26/former-us-ag-whitaker-to-clarify-house-testimony-nadler
Former U.S. AG Whitaker to Clarify House Testimony: Nadler
Feb. 26, 2019, at 9:04 p.m.
BY DAVID MORGAN

PHOTOGRAPH -- FILE PHOTO: Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., February 8, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File PhotoREUTERS

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker agreed to meet with lawmakers to clarify his testimony, a congressional leader said on Tuesday, referring to an appearance where Whitaker was quizzed about whether President Donald Trump had sought to influence investigations.

"I want to thank Mr. Whitaker for volunteering to meet with us to clarify his @HouseJudiciary testimony," Representative Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, tweeted, saying he hoped to schedule Whitaker in the "coming days."

Lawmakers have not said what Whitaker will address from his Feb. 8 testimony, which Nadler previously said was "unsatisfactory, incomplete, or contradicted by other evidence."

But the most persistent questions then focused on whether Whitaker had contact with Trump about an investigation into hush-money payments to women during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney.

The Justice Department, which has already said Whitaker stands by his testimony, had no immediate comment.

The brief tenure of Whitaker as head of the Justice Department ended on Feb. 14 when the Senate confirmed Trump's choice of permanent Attorney General William Barr.

The Judiciary Committee has obtained possible evidence suggesting that Trump asked Whitaker about possibly changing the prosecutor in charge of the hush-money probe, said a person familiar with the matter.

A House Judiciary Committee spokesman and a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office declined to comment.

If true, such a request by Trump could bolster Democratic efforts to show that the president has sought to influence law enforcement investigations against him and his associates.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is said to be close to ending a 21-month investigation into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help Trump; whether Trump's campaign colluded with Moscow; and whether Trump has since obstructed justice.

Nadler's panel has information suggesting that Trump asked Whitaker if U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman could take control of an investigation of Cohen by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, said the source who asked not to be identified.

Berman is a former law partner of another Trump attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Trump dismissed as false a report in the New York Times last week about a similar request to Whitaker.

Congressional investigators now have information that such a request was made and that Whitaker provided misleading testimony to the panel while under oath during his contentious Feb. 8 hearing, the source said.

In that session, Whitaker testified he had not talked to Trump about the probe and had not interfered with it in any way.

He also denied media reports that claimed that Trump had lashed out at Whitaker after he learned Cohen was pleading guilty to lying to Congress about a proposed Trump Tower in Moscow.

Nadler said then that media reports contradicted Whitaker's testimony and that "several individuals" had direct knowledge of phone calls Whitaker denied receiving from the White House.

Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison after pleading guilty to campaign finance violations, including making payments to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Cohen said he made those payments at the direction of Trump.

Both women have claimed they had affairs with Trump. He has denied having sex with Daniels and denied McDougal's claim.

Cohen testified behind closed doors to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. He is expected to testify publicly on Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee.

(Additional reporting by Nathan Layne and Karen Freifeld; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Cynthia Osterman)

Copyright 2019 Thomson Reuters.

FEBRUARY 27, 2019

NEWS AND VIEWS

TO SOME OF US WHO GREW UP IN THE PRESENCE OF NATURE, THE COLOR GREEN AND AN ACCESS TO QUIETUDE, THIS ARTICLE DOESN’T COME AS A SURPRISE. THE OCEAN OR ANY OTHER FORM OF NATURAL WATER WORKS, AS WELL.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/25/697788559/greener-childhood-associated-with-happier-adulthood
YOUR HEALTH
Greener Childhood Associated With Happier Adulthood
February 25, 2019 3:12 PM ET
JONATHAN LAMBERT

PHOTOGRAPH -- A child takes in the sights under blooming Japanese cherry trees at the Bispebjerg Cemetery in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mads Claus Rasmussen/AFP/Getty Images

The experience of natural spaces, brimming with greenish light, the smells of soil and the quiet fluttering of leaves in the breeze can calm our frenetic modern lives. It's as though our very cells can exhale when surrounded by nature, relaxing our bodies and minds.

Some people seek to maximize the purported therapeutic effects of contact with the unbuilt environment by embarking on sessions of forest bathing, slowing down and becoming mindfully immersed in nature.

But in a rapidly urbanizing world, green spaces are shrinking as our cities grow out and up. Scientists are working to understand how green spaces, or lack of them, can affect our mental health.

A study published Monday in the journal PNAS details what the scientists say is the largest investigation of the association between green spaces and mental health.

Researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark found that growing up near vegetation is associated with an up to 55 percent lower risk of mental health disorders in adulthood. Kristine Engemann, the biologist who led the study, combined decades of satellite imagery with extensive health and demographic data of the Danish population to investigate the mental health effects of growing up near greenery.

Forest Bathing: A Retreat To Nature Can Boost Immunity And Mood
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS

"The scale of this study is quite something," says Kelly Lambert, a neuroscientist at the University of Richmond who studies the psychological effects of natural spaces. Smaller studies have hinted that lack of green space increases the risk of mood disorders and schizophrenia and can even affect cognitive development.

But more practical factors, like socioeconomic status, family history of mental illness, and urbanization can also have large effects on mental health. Wealthier families, for instance, might be able to afford to live in neighborhoods with more access to nature and also have access to other wealth-related resources that could enhance childhood development.

To isolate the effects of nature from so many potential confounding factors requires a large and rich data set. The Danish Civil Registration System is just that.

Created in 1968, the system assigns a personal identification number to every Danish citizen and records gender, place of birth and parents' PINs. A PIN links individuals across multiple databases, including mental health records, and is updated with changes of residence. "It's an incredibly rich source of data," says Engemann. The researchers' final data set comprised nearly 1 million Danes who were born between 1985 and 2003 and for whom they had longitudinal records of mental health, socioeconomic status and place of residence.

Satellite data extending back to 1985 allowed the researchers to calculate vegetation density around each residence. Unfortunately these data can't distinguish an old-growth forest from an overgrown field, but in general the more greenery that is packed into a plot of land, the higher the vegetation density.

Armed with these data, the researchers compared the risk of developing 16 different mental health disorders in adulthood with how much green space surrounded each child's residence. And because they had yearly income, work history and education level, they could weigh the relative contribution of green space against socioeconomics of the parents and neighborhood.

After accounting for those potential confounding factors, the researchers found that growing up near green space was associated with a lower risk of developing psychiatric illness in adulthood by anywhere from 15 percent to 55 percent, depending on the specific illness. For example, alcoholism was most strongly associated with lack of green space growing up, and risk of developing an intellectual disability was not associated with green space.

RELATED: Replacing Vacant Lots With Green Spaces Can Ease Depression In Urban Communities
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Replacing Vacant Lots With Green Spaces Can Ease Depression In Urban Communities

The strength of the association between green space and risk of psychiatric disorder was similar to other factors known to influence mental health, like socioeconomic status. According to Engemann, it is estimated that about 20 percent of the adult Danish population will suffer from poor psychiatric health within any given year, making these slight changes in risk potentially important.

"Green space seemed to have an association that was similar in strength to other known influences on mental health, like history of mental health disorders in the family, or socioeconomic status," says Engemann. What's more, the effect of green space was "dosage dependent" — the more of one's childhood spent close to greenery, the lower the risk of mental health problems in adulthood.

Engemann cautions that the study does have limitations: "It's purely correlational, so we can't definitively say that growing up near green space reduces risk of mental illness." Establishing cause and effect for variables like these is incredibly difficult, according to Engemann.

Still, the breadth and depth of data used for this analysis add to the circumstantial evidence linking green space and mental health. "The effect is remarkable," says Lambert. "If we were talking about a new medicine that had this kind of effect the buzz would be huge, but these results suggest that being able to go for a walk in the park as a kid is just as impactful."

The greenery association with better mental health held across both rural and urban areas of Denmark. "You could grow up in very urban areas but still have reduced risk if you're surrounded by green spaces," says Engemann.

The study also can't address how different kinds of green space — and how people use it — affect mental health. Are forests more impactful than sparer park spaces? Do you need to actively use these spaces, or is simply growing up near greenery enough? These are questions Engemann hopes future studies can answer.

One large question remains: Why? What is it about growing up near trees, shrubs and grass that seems to boost resilience against developing mental health problems?

Lambert suggests the explanation might run deep, evolutionarily speaking. She says we evolved surrounded by green space, and something about being exposed to our "native" environment might have powerful physiological and psychological effects.

Additionally, more green space might simply encourage more social interaction, exercise, or decrease air and noise pollution, all of which are known to impact mental health. Even exposure to a wider diversity of microbes in childhood could play a role.

"There are a lot of potential mechanisms to follow up on, but generally I think this study is tremendously important," says Lambert. "It suggests that something as simple as better city planning could have profound impacts on the mental health and well-being of all of us."

Jonathan Lambert is an intern on NPR's Science Desk. You can follow him on Twitter: @evolambert


WATCH THIS VIDEO ON MICHAEL COHEN’S STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS TODAY, 2/27. HE IS VERY GOOD AT FIELDING AND HANDLING QUESTIONS. IT’S A NAIL-BITER, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR SIDE IN THE ONGOING TRUMP V USA DRAMA -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yCtaPHoxB0.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/feb/27/michael-cohen-testimony-trump-news-latest-live-updates-hearing-payments-stormy-daniels-today
Michael Cohen warns Republicans defending Trump: 'I did the same' – live
The president’s former lawyer has testified the president knew about his campaign’s links with Russia and WikiLeaks

Michael Cohen testifies in open House hearing - watch live
Adam Gabbatt

@adamgabbatt
Wed 27 Feb 2019 12.36 EST First published on Wed 27 Feb 2019 08.27 EST

UPDATES:
27m ago Cohen warns Republicans of consequences of Trump loyalty
2h ago Cohen: Trump is 'a racist, a conman, a cheat'
2h ago Cohen: Trump knew in advance about WikiLeaks DNC emails
2h ago Trump was aware his campaign met with Russia, Cohen says
2h ago Cohen begins testimony
2h ago Cohen: Trump lied about Trump Moscow negotiations
3h ago Republicans attempt to postpone hearing

51s ago
17:41
Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky who has wet hair – a shower during the recess, possibly – asks how Cohen knew what Trump wanted when Cohen would act on his behalf. Trump would not give him specific orders, Massie said.

Massie: “Were you a good lawyer to Mr Trump?”

Cohen: “I believe so.”

Massie: Well when you paid off Stormy Daniels that was illegal.

Cohen: “I did what I knew Mr Trump wanted.”

Massie yields after establishing that Cohen probably isn’t a very good lawyer. That was possibly a cack-handed* effort to present Donald Trump as having been given bad legal advice when those hush money payments were made.

Facebook Twitter
7m ago
12:36
The Trump boys are tweeting heartily about this hearing. Of course, we heard Cohen earlier note that Donald Trump Sr “frequently told [Cohen] and others that his son Don Jr had the worst judgment of anyone in the world”.


Donald Trump Jr.
✔
@DonaldJTrumpJr
And that’s what all this is about. Cohen just wants to be famous. He always wanted his own TV show and the limelight and when he couldn’t get it one way he had to try another.

7,928
11:21 AM - Feb 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
5,012 people are talking about this

Donald Trump Jr.
✔
@DonaldJTrumpJr
Funny how things change when you’re trying to save your ass.

GOP
✔
@GOP
For years, Michael Cohen praised @realDonaldTrump’s honesty and integrity.

It was only after Cohen was caught for tax evasion and other personal financial misdeeds, he began lying about President Trump in an effort to save face.

Embedded video
9,917
10:55 AM - Feb 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
6,512 people are talking about this

Donald Trump Jr.
✔
@DonaldJTrumpJr
Only Democrats could hate someone so much that they would try to disrupt nuclear peace talks with testimony from a convicted felon.

20.7K
9:09 AM - Feb 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
12.5K people are talking about this
YouTube ‎@YouTube

Eric Trump
✔
@EricTrump
Have Fun in Prison! https://youtu.be/uL0Ts836EcM via @YouTube

1,973
10:56 AM - Feb 27, 2019
1,016 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Facebook Twitter
10m ago
12:32

Virginia Foxx, Republican from North Carolina: Michael Cohen, you have been convicted of several crimes which were committed for personal benefit. Are you here today for your own benefit?

“No.”

We go again. “I’m concerned you may be using your story”, and your platform, “for your own benefit”, Foxx says. She asks Cohen if he has a book deal. A colleague of hers asked this about an hour ago. Cohen says he still does not have a book deal.

“Can you commit under oath” that you will not pursue book deals, film deals, etc in the future? Foxx, apparently a keen reader, asks.

Cohen will not commit to that.

Now it’s back to Jim Jordan, Republican ranking member. This has to be his fifth or sixth go at Cohen. Jordan was angry to begin with, he’s getting angrier – or at least louder – now.

Jordan asks why Cohen didn’t correct a BuzzFeed story which said Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress regarding the Moscow deal.

Cohen: “We are not the fact checkers for BuzzFeed.”

Lunchtime summary

In explosive public testimony before Congress, Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen has cast the president as a “racist” and a “conman” who engaged in criminal activity after taking office as president to cover up an illegal hush money payment to an adult film actor.

•Cohen said Trump had prior knowledge that his longtime adviser, Roger Stone, was communicating with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election regarding the release of hacked Democratic emails.

•He also said Trump was aware of the infamous Trump Tower meeting between members of his presidential campaign and a Russian lawyer.

•Cohen, who spent a decade as the president’s fixer, testified publicly for the first time in detail about a six-figure sum that was paid to silence adult film actor Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair with Trump.

•Cohen presented checks he said were signed by the president and his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, to reimburse him for the hush money payments.

•Cohen also added that he was instructed by Trump to lie about the affair to the president’s wife, Melania Trump, stating: “Lying to the first lady is one of my biggest regrets because she is a kind, good person.”

Updated at 12.31pm EST
Facebook Twitter
22m ago
12:20
As the investigation into Trump’s administration unfolds…

The Guardian will continue to provide insight, analysis and factual reporting to help bring the truth to light. But we need your help, too. What makes the Guardian different from so many others in media is our editorial independence, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. Every contribution we receive from readers like you, big or small, goes directly into funding our journalism. This support enables us to keep working as we do – but we must maintain and build on it for every year to come. Support the Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Updated at 12.21pm EST
29m ago
12:13
Cohen warns Republicans of consequences of Trump loyalty
Rep Cooper, Democrat, notes that in Cohen’s testimony he listed many of Trump’s flaws but repeatedly noted:

“And yet, I continued to work for him.”

Cooper asks why it took Cohen so long to stop working for Trump.

Cohen then offers a remarkable warning to the Republicans on the committee as to what happens to those who stand by Trump.

“I did the same thing that you’re doing now for ten years. I protected Mr. Trump for ten years,” Cohen says.

“Look what’s happened to me.”

Cohen adds: “The more people that suffer Donald Trump, as I did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that I did.”

Updated at 12.15pm EST

35m ago
12:07
Democrats offer a rebuttal to the Republican tactic of questioning Cohen’s credibility given his felony convictions. (Almost every GOP committee member has brought Cohen’s crimes up so far and expressed outrage – real or faux – over Cohen’s very presence at the hearing.)

A Democrat – sorry things are moving quickly here and I lost the name – points out the number of Trump associates – Flynn, Manafort et al – who have been convicted of crimes.

Jim Jordan fires back, pointing out that a number of people have been fired by Donald Trump.

James Comey was fired, Andrew McCabe was fired, Jordan says. I’m not entirely sure what his point is.

Facebook Twitter
42m ago
12:00
Some context on Jim Jordan, who is leading Republican committee members in their ‘morally outraged’ efforts re Cohen’s past crimes.


Rachael Larimore
✔
@RachaelBL
Timely reminder: Former OSU wrestlers say that Jim Jordan, then an assistant coach, knew about sexual abuses by the team doctor and failed to report it. https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/congressman-jim-jordan-knew-about-sex-abuse-former-wrestlers-say/lzfhebNU5mZ5WrRbfg3aFM/ …

567
10:22 AM - Feb 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Congressman Jim Jordan knew about sex abuse at OSU, former wrestlers say
Former athletes who wrestled for U.S. Rep.

daytondailynews.com
407 people are talking about this
Updated at 12.35pm EST
Facebook Twitter
45m ago
11:57
Questioned by Jody Hice, a Republican from Georgia, Cohen says he spoke to certain Democrats ahead of today’s hearing.

Hice asks Cohen about his lawyer, Lanny Davis. Cohen says he approached Davis about representation.

We might hear more about Lanny Davis before the day is out. Davis served as special counsel to Bill Clinton and supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential run in 2008. He is loathed by the right-wing.

Updated at 12.35pm EST
Facebook Twitter
51m ago
11:51
William Clay, a Democrat, asks Cohen about how Trump would try to inflate his net worth.

“Did the president ever provide inflated assets to a bank” in order to obtain a loan? Clay asks Cohen.

Cohen says some documents were provided to Deutsche Bank to obtain a loan, but it’s not clear what documents. It’s not a smoking gun.

Updated at 12.35pm EST
Facebook Twitter
Advertisement
Jeep®
SPONSORED BY JEEP®
Let It Lead The Way.
The Jeep® Cherokee Offers Head-Turning Style, New Driver-Friendly Technology And Proven Capability That Makes Every Adventure Truly Unforgettable.

1h ago
11:46
Mark Meadows, from North Carolina, has invited Lynne Patton, a black woman who works for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to the hearing. She is sitting behind him.

Meadows asks Cohen about his claims that Donald Trump is a “racist”. Meadows then asks Cohen, essentially, if a black woman would work for a racist. He points to Patton, who stands up.

Cohen asks if the son of a Holocaust survivor (i.e. Cohen) would work for Donald Trump. Patton sits down.

Facebook Twitter
1h ago
11:40
Democrat Eleanor Norton brings up the Access Hollywood video where Donald Trump said his fame entitled him to “grab [women] by the pussy”.

Cohen says he was part of the effort to tamp down the furore over Trump’s statements.

Norton segues from the video to the alleged Karen MacDougal affair with Trump. She discusses the ‘catch and kill’ effort with the National Enquirer to suppress McDougall’s claim.

(David Pecker, chairman and CEO of American Media Inc, which owns National Enquirer, has admitted to coordinating with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to pay McDougal $150,000 in hush money.)

Facebook Twitter
1h ago
11:32
James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, is asking Cohen is his financial crimes were committed to serve and protect the president.

We’re beginning to see what’s happening here. Keen readers/people who have been reading for 15 minutes will note that Jim Jordan asked almost identical questions during his own floor time.

It’s not the most subtle tactic, but Republicans have clearly decided their best way to defend Trump is by attacking Cohen.

Comer laments that the committee has called a convicted felon as a witness. We heard that earlier too.

Updated at 11.33am EST
Facebook Twitter
1h ago
11:31
As the investigation into Donald Trump’s administration unfolds…

Updated at 12.34pm EST

# END OF COHEN


“CACK-HANDED*” –

THIS WORD DERIVATION IS FROM FRIEDMAN’S WEBSITE, https://wordworking.com/contact. IT LOOKS LIKE AN OBVIOUS TYPO, LEFT HAND BOTTOM ROW AND JUST THREE KEYS AWAY, BUT MY RULE IS TO RESEARCH EVERY ODDITY, EVERY QUESTION. IT IS SO INTERESTING! I REALLY LOVE GOOGLE, SO NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY STEAL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION, I WILL CONTINUE TO USE THEM. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REALLY ANCIENT SCOTTISH TERMS, MEANING CLUMSY. IT COMES FROM THE VERY ANCIENT GERMAN WORD MEANING MANURE. ANCIENT GERMANIC FOUR LETTER WORDS ARE USUALLY VULGAR, I’VE HEARD, AND EVERY ONE I’VE SEEN IS. NANCY FRIEDMAN’S CLEVER BLOG TITLE IS “AWAY_WITH_WORDS” AT:

https://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/2008/11/word-of-the-week-cackhanded.html

November 17, 2008
Word of the Week: Cack-Handed
Cack-handed: Clumsy, awkward, inept. (Chiefly British.) Also cackhanded.

In its endorsement of Barack Obama, the British magazine The Economist included this sentence:

Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.

American and British dictionaries differ sharply on the etymology of this term, which is rarely seen on this side of the Atlantic but is common in the United Kingdom. According to Merriam-Webster and American Heritage, the cack in cack-handed comes from English dialect keck, meaning awkward, which in turn came from Old Norse keikr, meaning "bent backward." But here's Michael Quinlon at World Wide Words:

I disagree, as do most British works of reference. The direct association is with cack, another fine Old English term, for excrement or dung. Cachus was Old English for a privy, and both words come from Latin cacare, to defecate.

It almost certainly comes from the very ancient tradition, which has developed among peoples who were mainly right-handed, that one reserved the left hand for cleaning oneself after defecating and used the right hand for all other purposes. At various times this has been known in most cultures. Some consider it rude even to be given something using the left hand. So to be left-handed was to use the cack hand or be cack-handed.

There are similar terms in other languages, such as the French main de merde for somebody awkward or butter-fingered.

Its origins may be vulgar, but cack-handed is regarded only as "informal" in British speech and writing, perhaps no more eyebrow-raising than cacophonous, a word with a related etymology. Still, it's hard to imagine an American equivalent of The Economist—say, the Wall Street Journal—using an American idiom with a related derivation.

(Hat tip for the Economist reference: Glen Turpin.)
Posted at 10:25 AM in British, Etymology, Idioms, Word of the Week | Permalink


I HOPE SANDERS KEEPS UP THIS MOMENTUM, BECAUSE THAT WILL SURELY CAUSE THE DNC DEMOCRATS TO RECONSIDER THEIR PROBABLE PLAN TO SHUT HIM OUT OF THE NOMINATIONS AGAIN. IF IT IS CLEAR THAT THEY WILL LOSE THE ELECTION WITHOUT HIM, THEY WILL PAY ATTENTION, I THINK.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-10-million.html
Bernie Sanders Raises $10 Million in Less Than a Week
Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.
Kathryn Gamble for The New York Times

Image
Senator Bernie Sanders has raised $10 million in the first week of his presidential campaign.CreditCreditKathryn Gamble for The New York Times
By Shane Goldmacher
Feb. 25, 2019

A clutch of advisers to Senator Bernie Sanders began arriving at the Capitol Hill townhouse that served as his makeshift headquarters before dawn last Tuesday, where they readied themselves to track, among other things, the deluge of donations that would land after Mr. Sanders made his presidential campaign official.

As the team snacked on doughnuts that Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s 2016 campaign manager, had brought for launch day, one laptop screen showed a map of the United States. It would light up with an orange dot every time someone gave with the location of each donation.

Within minutes of the 7 a.m. announcement, the whole screen was glowing orange, according to people in the room.

By Monday, after less than a week as a presidential candidate, Mr. Sanders has collected $10 million from 359,914 donors, campaign officials said. But perhaps just as daunting a figure for his rivals is this: Nearly 39 percent of those donors used an email address that had never before been used to give to Mr. Sanders.

For Mr. Sanders, the flood of money from fresh email addresses suggested to his team that he was dramatically expanding a donor network that had already dwarfed his 2020 competition.

“Our second day,” said Ari Rabin-Havt, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, “was bigger than anybody else’s first day.”

Subscribe to The Times
[Keep up with the Democratic field with our candidate tracker.]

There is little surprise that Mr. Sanders, whose 2016 Democratic primary run was powered by $230 million in grass-roots giving, would post big fund-raising numbers if he ran again. But the size of his advantage — he raised $5.9 million in his first day as a candidate, nearly 20 times what Senator Elizabeth Warren did in her first day and nearly four times more than Senator Kamala Harris’s $1.5 million — has established him as a financial front-runner in a crowded Democratic field.

“I think the fact that he has raised so much, so fast, so early should be concerning for anyone else who wants to pick up the liberal flag in this nominating contest,” said Craig Varoga, a Democratic strategist who is unaligned in the race.

Of Mr. Sanders’s wave of day one donations, only 17 people gave him the maximum allowable amount of $2,800, meaning he can ask more than 99.99 percent of his donors to give again. As of late Monday, only 20 donors have given Mr. Sanders the legal maximum; another 46 gave $2,700, the limit in the last campaign.

More than 48,000 donors have already agreed to give to Mr. Sanders over and over, signing up for recurring donations to be drawn from their credit cards worth a combined more than $1 million each month, according to statistics provided to The New York Times by the campaign. The average overall contribution was just under $26.

But the fact that such a large share of donations came from new email addresses is perhaps the most significant figure beyond the overall totals. While some fraction of those new email addresses are surely old donors with updated contact information — college students who graduated, for instance, or people who changed jobs — the idea that a sizable share of Mr. Sanders’s donors could be new undercuts the hope among rivals that Mr. Sanders had maxed out a limited, if impassioned, minority of the party when he ran four years ago.

“There’s an assumption he’s relying on that loyal base of support from 2016,” said Jen Psaki, a Democratic strategist and former White House communications director for President Barack Obama. But a rush of new donors “would make people question the assumption that Bernie supporters are solely Bernie loyalists from 2016, end of story,” she said.

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

Video -- 2:20

Bernie Sanders Set the Agenda. But Can He Win on It?

Senator Bernie Sanders is embarking on a second run for president. This time the field will be bigger, more diverse and filled with candidates who have adopted his progressive populist mantle. CreditCreditSam Hodgson for The New York Times

Mr. Sanders raised $73 million in 2015. This year, he entered the race roughly 70 days earlier in the calendar and raised four times as much on his first day, raising the possibility of a $100 million haul in 2019.

Hillary Clinton, who beat Mr. Sanders in the 2016 primary, raised more than him in that race. But that was with the weight of the Democratic Party establishment behind her, a huge list of supporters from her 2008 run and four million more names from a group called Ready for Hillary that had gathered grass-roots supporters ahead of her campaign.

No 2020 rival of Mr. Sanders has anything close to that.

In a move that seemed designed to compete with Mr. Sanders for small donors, Ms. Warren’s campaign announced on Monday that she would forgo all traditional private fund-raisers and one-on-one meetings with big donors.

Mr. Rabin-Havt tried to tamp down long-term financial expectations for the Sanders campaign. “It will be remarkable to emulate those 2015 numbers again,” he said.

Separately, Mr. Sanders said during a town hall-style forum on CNN Monday night that he would release 10 years of tax returns “soon,” suggesting he would provide more transparency into his taxes than he did in 2016 when he only released one year of filings. Mr. Sanders said he did not release more returns then because “I didn’t win the nomination.”

“Our tax returns will bore you to death,” he said. “Nothing special about them.”

Money alone is not determinative in presidential politics. In the 2016 Republican primary, a super PAC supporting Jeb Bush burned through $100 million as Mr. Bush finished no better than fourth in any of the first three states. But money does pay for television ads and field staff, and Mr. Sanders’s fund-raising advantage will allow him to take risks and make investments others cannot afford.

“He can build a ground game not just in the first four primary states but into the Super Tuesday states,” Ms. Psaki said. “He can expand his playing field in places like California.”

The Sanders campaign shared new statistics on its donors so far, which skew younger than is typical. An internal analysis showed more than 108,000 of Mr. Sanders’s first day contributors were 39 years old or younger, and they gave a combined $2.5 million of the $5.9 million raised. The most common age for a Sanders contributor was 30. Relatedly, more than $3 million of the donations that first day came from mobile devices, a sign of both shifting habits and the relative youth of his donor base. The campaign did not provide a breakdown by gender.

Mr. Sanders has closely tracked his fund-raising haul, campaign officials said, and Mr. Rabin-Havt said that the senator wrote much of the campaign’s initial 1,400-word email announcement himself.

The email did not explicitly ask for money, instead directing people to sign a petition supporting Mr. Sanders. Of those who signed, about 40 percent also contributed, his campaign said.

Mr. Sanders’s two top digital advisers in 2020, Tim Tagaris and Robin Curran, are both veterans of his 2016 run, but others from that team are on or expected to join other campaigns.

Mr. Rabin-Havt noted the universe of Democratic donors was still growing. “We haven’t hit a diminishing rate of return on this yet,” he said.

He added that the Sanders campaign believes it has a unique advantage.

“The secret sauce for Bernie Sanders fund-raising,” he said, “is Bernie.”

Astead W. Herndon and Sydney Ember contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 26, 2019, on Page A18 of the New York edition with the headline: Early $10 Million Haul For Sanders Suggests Network Is Expanding. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe


THIS MAN WOHL GETS THE PRIZE FOR SHEER IMAGINATION LIE UPON LIE, SECOND ONLY TO HIS FEARLESS LEADER DONALD TRUMP. I WONDER WHAT THE FBI DID TO HIM AFTER ROBERT MUELLER TURNED HIM IN. I DO HOPE THIS WILL GET WOHL A PRISON TERM, EVEN IF IT IS SHORT. THE MALICE HERE IS OBVIOUS, AND IN MY VIEW HE’S VERY LIKELY DANGEROUS.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/26/jacob-wohl-spread-twitter-lies-mueller-rbg-2020-election/2917226002/
This 21-year-old tweeted lies about Robert Mueller and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now, he’s eyeing the 2020 election
Gus Garcia-Roberts, USA TODAY Published 7:16 a.m. ET Feb. 26, 2019 | Updated 1:17 p.m. ET Feb. 26, 2019

PHOTOGRAPH -- Jacob Wohl (Photo11: Dan MacMedan, USA TODAY)

OSTA MESA, Calif. – A false claim bubbled up from the internet last month that Sen. Kamala Harris, the recently announced presidential candidate, wasn’t eligible for election because she had immigrant parents and spent part of her childhood in Canada. The claim, an echo of the “birther” conspiracy that trailed President Barack Obama, was widely debunked but still addressed seriously by mainstream news pundits, including CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

Even better for Jacob Wohl, the 21-year-old Californian who ignited the Harris birther claim with a tweet, some people actually seemed to accept it as fact.

“The believability stuck at about 15 to 18 percent by my measurement,” Wohl said in an interview shortly afterward, declaring it “not a bad campaign.”

Kamala Harris is NOT eligible to be President. Her father arrived from Jamaica in 1961—mother from India arrived in 1960

Neither parent was a legal resident for 5 years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement for naturalization

Kamala was raised in Canada

— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) January 22, 2019
Wohl, a self-professed “political and corporate intel consultant” and supporter of President Donald Trump, is dedicated to plying the malleable fringe of the electorate with dubious claims and disinformation schemes.

Start the day smarter: Get USA TODAY's Daily Briefing in your inbox

Amplifying him in that quest are his links to the world’s loudest Twitter cheerleader, Trump. Wohl’s father, attorney David Wohl, says that as a Trump surrogate he was on calls with the 2016 presidential candidate daily. David Wohl has regularly appeared on cable news networks to promote the president and his policies.

Trump has retweeted Jacob Wohl’s praise – of the president’s economy, or just general “WINNING”-ness that the “left-wing media can’t stand” – at least three times. They appear to have met at least once, as evidenced by a photo of father, son and president together, and the younger Wohl says he has spoken to the president “several” times. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on their relationship.

BY INTEL
Intelligent Factories
See more →

On Twitter, where he has 186,000 followers and is adept at quickly responding to Trump’s tweets to gain many more eyeballs, Wohl has claimed, without evidence, that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is secretly dead or in a vegetative state and that pipe bombs sent to prominent Democrats and media outlets were a left-wing “false flag” operation.

He flew to Minnesota last week to “investigate” the rumor that Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar married her brother, a mission for which he tried to fund-raise $25,000 from his online followers. Wohl’s trip to the heartland devolved into bizarre tweets in which he suggested that Minneapolis was so overrun by Somali jihadists that he had to wear a bulletproof vest and travel with a team of “security professionals.”

In the coming days, I will be traveling to Ilhan Omar's district with @Ali and Laura Loomer to gather evidence of the SHAM MARRIAGE to her brother

Evidence will be turned over to DHS

🚨FUND THE FIGHT at https://t.co/QkUCkLaox5🚨https://t.co/lhGOJJPsqh

— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) February 17, 2019
Wohl’s most prominent gambit was also his most disastrous: an apparent sloppy attempt to accuse Trump's nemesis special counsel Robert Mueller of sexual misconduct days before the midterm elections in November. His actions were referred to the FBI for potential criminal investigation. The woman he named as a credible accuser of the special prosecutor, Carolyne Cass, recently told USA TODAY that Wohl “made it up,” deceived her with a false identity and tried to coerce her to appear at a news conference against her will.

Wohl initially maintained that Cass's allegations were credible. When told that Cass said they were inaccurate, Wohl then claimed that he couldn’t speak about the situation because of a legal non-disclosure agreement with Cass, who denied that such an agreement exists. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment on whether the agency was investigating the episode.

Deciphering the Mueller saga is characteristic of how difficult it is to grasp at the truth with Wohl, who represents a political moment in which even the most basic facts are in dispute.

In some ways, Wohl is simply carrying on the dubious American tradition of deceit in politics, said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of “Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect a President.” Jamieson described 19th-century political operatives who would secretly buy newspapers to dictate coverage, and the dissemination of false accounts about President Andrew Johnson being a murderer.

The difference now, she said, is that the internet has democratized that deceit. It’s more difficult online to determine the source of a claim, a major factor in deciding whether to believe it. Being repeatedly bombarded with a claim – social media’s specialty –increases its perceived accuracy, even if it’s false and has been publicly debunked. People are more likely to believe a false claim that fits their ideology, and the internet naturally facilitates people like Wohl finding and communicating with like-minded groups.

“It takes a real talent to figure out what kind of deceptions will gain traction,” Jamieson said, and to have both the knowledge of their demographic and technical ability to “figure out what will resonate as opposed to what will be laughed at.”

Wohl disclosed a raft of schemes he says are in the works that he hopes will resonate in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

He says he plans to create “enormous left-wing online properties” – such as deceptive Facebook and Twitter accounts – "and use those to steer the left-wing votes in the primaries to what we feel are weaker candidates compared with Trump.” It’s a plot similar to what Mueller has charged in indictments that the Russians crafted in an effort to boost the 2016 campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein and hobble Hillary Clinton.

Another stated scheme: seeking to collect damaging information on left-leaning non-profits including Media Matters for America, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Right Wing Watch by offering their insiders “moral reconciliation,” and if that doesn’t work, “things of worth” – such as money.

Or perhaps those stated plans themselves are a ruse to fool the mainstream media, which he calls a “band of lying goblins.”

Wohl stressed that the accuracy of the information he spreads is “not the important part.” All that matters is how far those claims travel, and how many people believe them.

Wohl said he yearns for the days – before he was born – when conservatives would join in outrage over a scene in a sitcom and funnel that unity into other pursuits, like support for unchecked military actions. “You think about these incredibly large-scale wars that were just launched without congressional approval, and they were pretty damn good at carrying out the conservative torch, whatever it happened to be at the time,” Wohl said.

In the spread of information, he said, truth is an obsolete concept. “It’s something that can’t be thought about in a linear, binary true-false, facts-non-facts – you can’t do that anymore,” Wohl said. “It’s just not the way it works.”

Packing heat at the hipster coffee shop
Wohl chose to meet at Coffee Nature, probably the closest thing to a hipster coffee shop in his resident Orange County, in a nod to the tweets that gained him fame and derision before he was best known for allegedly trying to catfish the special counsel.

Since last year, Wohl has more than a dozen times claimed on Twitter to have overheard liberals in hipster coffee shops sharing pro-Trump secrets with one another, such as that they were actually overjoyed by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. The tweets conjure up the image of Wohl furtively eavesdropping on surrounding patrons from behind the foam of an oat milk cappuccino.

He arrived at the Orange County cafe in a black Corvette with new-car paper license plates and extended a rigid hand but did not shake when a reporter grasped it. Sipping a free cup of ice water, the thin, severe-featured Wohl, who speaks in clipped verbiage, quickly worked into conversation that he was carrying a concealed firearm in response to the “voluminous left-wing threats” he has received.

Wohl explained that he picks on bohemian coffee shops because he sees them as the “Temple Mount” of liberalism and calculated that “if you in any way impugn the sanctity of the hipster coffee shop, it’s going to be something that gets them really charged up.” In describing his methods, Wohl casually explained that he makes it up: “I’ll literally hear one thing and I’ll flip it 180 degrees.”

I was sitting in a hipster coffee shop in Downtown LA this morning and couldn't help but overhear the 6 college age women seated at a table who were clamering [sic] with excitement and joy over the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 5, 2018
Wohl said he was eager to correct the record on the Mueller episode, in which his apparent efforts to disgrace Trump’s foremost adversary ended up unraveling into one of the weirdest major news stories in a cycle full of them.

It started with emails received by several news outlets in which the sender claimed an intelligence company had tried to pay her to accuse Mueller of sexual misdeeds. A professor produced emails showing that she had also been approached for information by the company. Reporters followed a bizarre online trail to reveal that Wohl was behind the intelligence company, which seemed to be staffed by an office full of imagined employees. Wohl and his partner in the episode, Republican lobbyist and conspiracy theorist Jack Burkman, then announced a news conference devolving into farce when a woman who they said was going to make allegations against Mueller didn’t show up.

The result of the Elmore Leonard-esque plot was a media cycle of ridicule for Wohl. One outlet’s headline read: “Fabricated Mueller Smear Appears to Have Come From Comically Inept Far-Right Internet Person.” The special prosecutor’s office broke its customary silence to announce that it had referred the scheme to the FBI for criminal investigation.

Wohl claimed at the coffee shop, however, that a goal of his scheme had been to trick journalists into thinking that he had offered to pay for dirt on Mueller, so he made up a person and sent those allegations to media outlets. On his phone, he scrolled through emails from reporters at major outlets like The Washington Post, The New York Times and Buzzfeed who had tried to garner more information from a person who he says did not actually exist.

He described these emails-- of reporters doing their due diligence-- as trophies from a logic-stretching plan that had as the ultimate goal getting reporters to go to a news conference at a D.C.-area Holiday Inn. “The real allegations against Mueller would have been ignored … had we not roped the media into attending the press conference,” Wohl said.

Someone inside Mueller’s office likely sent out the hoax email claiming to be a woman offered payment to make an accusation against Mueller!

They know that Mueller’s real victims are coming forward!

Tick tock...

— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 31, 2018
But those “real allegations” appear to be even more problematic. At the news conference, Wohl distributed a document that was digitally signed, purportedly by the absent accuser Carolyne Cass, in which she said she had been sexually assaulted by Mueller in New York in 2010. In the interview this month, Wohl referred to Cass as a “real accuser” and called her allegations credible.

But when reached by USA TODAY, 34-year-old Carolyne Cass of Los Angeles said Wohl, whom she met on Craigslist, had tricked her by pretending to be an investigator named Matthew Cohen who was trained by Israeli intelligence forces and agreed to help her with “unscrupulous characters ripping me off.”

Cass said she paid the man she knew as Cohen $2,000, for which he did no work but instead offered her the prospect of employment at his intelligence agency and had her speak on the phone to people whose identities she now believes Wohl fabricated.

Cass said it ultimately became clear that Cohen and his associates, imaginary or otherwise, “needed a credible female to put on the line” for false allegations about Mueller. “They made it up,” Cass said of the document accusing Mueller, which was passed around at the news conference. “They wrote it and docu-signed it.”

She claimed Cohen tried to get her to speak at the news conference but she “escaped” and learned only as the scheme exploded that Cohen was in fact Wohl. “He completely lied to me,” Cass said.

Wohl had as recently as this month referred to Cass while speaking in detail about the Mueller episode. But when asked about Cass’s version of events, Wohl said he could not speak further because he had signed a non-disclosure agreement with her and “can’t violate any confidences.” Cass said no such agreement existed.

Burkman also refused to discuss his role in the Mueller scheme.

Both Wohl and Cass say they have not been contacted by the FBI. Stanford Law School professor Robert Weisberg said Wohl’s actions could be construed by a federal prosecutor as wire fraud, obstruction of justice or conspiracy – or as possibly violating various state statutes – but likely fell into a legal “gray zone.”

“The whole thing smacks of illegality and nefariousness and deception, but it still needs to have an anchor in criminal statute,” Weisberg said.

Tax liens and exotic birds

Wohl said he didn’t decide to fully apply his “talents” to politics until the rise of Trump, who he describes as a political soulmate in both ideology and tactics. But he said his political awakening came in 2008, when he was in fifth grade and watched Obama’s inauguration with great trepidation for what it meant for the national debt.

Despite his stated concern for fiscal responsibility, public records suggest that both Jacob and his television pundit father have had their own turbulent financial histories.

A search of television appearances shows that David Wohl – who was admitted to the California bar in 1989 and works largely in criminal defense – has been an analyst on Fox News and other cable stations for more than a decade, and his appearances have shifted from that of a legal expert to a fervent defender of the then-candidate and president.

Like his son, David Wohl has promoted conspiracy theories including that the pipe bombs sent to Democrats and media outlets, for which a Trump supporter in Florida was arrested, were a hoax.

In a brief interview, David Wohl said he had daily conference calls with Trump to hone messaging during the campaign. A spokesman for Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment on the elder Wohl’s role.

A search of public records shows that at least a dozen times since 1995, David Wohl has been the subject of state and federal tax liens in California’s Orange and Riverside Counties. Most recently, the IRS named him and his wife in a property lien for $22,002.31 for back income taxes. Though several of the past liens were marked as released, or paid off, the most recent lien was not shown to have been released.

In divorce filings last year, David Wohl’s wife, Michelle, said that he spends money on guitars, watches, firearms, tickets to concerts and sporting events and a recently purchased “exotic bird" costing $8,000 to $10,000 while “I struggle to make ends meet and live from paycheck to paycheck.”

David Wohl said he had no knowledge of tax liens against him and called this article a "hit piece. ... Trump calls you guys out for (stuff) like this."

He said that he and his wife have since reconciled and that her claims in the divorce were "extreme exaggerations" and "garbage."

"I don't have my lawyer file documents that are garbage," Michelle Wohl said when reached for comment, adding that her filings were under penalty of perjury.

Jacob Wohl’s own history with money got off to a rocky start when, as a teenage hedge fund trader, he was investigated by multiple regulatory bodies in 2016.

The Arizona Corporation Commission and National Futures Association (NFA) investigated allegations including that Wohl and his partner had failed to pay back an investor, did not accurately present the risk of their investments and claimed that they had been in business for 35 years when neither of them had been alive that long.

Wohl father and son teamed up to fend off the regulators. David Wohl said he called the Los Angeles Police Department to report financial investigators for stalking them. Jacob Wohl declared in filings that his treatment by NFA investigators was evidence of the organization’s “broader culture of harassment, stalking and thuggery.”

The Arizona Corporation Commission ordered Wohl to no longer trade securities or provide investment advisory services in the state and to pay just under $33,000 in restitution. The NFA permanently barred Wohl. According to Wohl, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also investigated him and declined to pursue enforcement action. The commission declined to comment.

Wohl said he ultimately sold his half of his financial business to his partner. He maintained that there was “nothing even remotely illegal” about his financial enterprise, saying his father “wasn’t going to let me run a rogue hedge fund.”

As he has in his political schemes, Wohl displayed glee for high stakes, calling his financial career “a good experience” and remarking: “Who gets to go through a SEC investigation at age 18?”

A threat from Avenatti

While describing his recent professional work – a vague resume involving doing “corporate intelligence” for a Los Angeles businessman he won’t name and helping Republican lobbyists “butt out other lobbyists” by gathering information for them – Wohl’s phone began buzzing with the screen reading “Dad.”

He learned in the ensuing phone conversation that Michael Avenatti, the California attorney who has turned his representation of porn star Stormy Daniels into full-time work as a Trump antagonist, had tweeted at Wohl: “I am coming for you.”

Avenatti had been under investigation by Los Angeles authorities for an alleged domestic violence incident and had suggested that Wohl was involved in setting him up. Upon learning that criminal charges would not be forthcoming, Avenatti celebrated with the vengeful tweet.

Wohl responded by retreating to the bathroom of the hipster coffee shop, where he retweeted his father’s message that they would be reporting Avenatti’s threat to the authorities.

It’s not clear why Avenatti has suggested Wohl was involved. In a later interview, Avenatti said he was “not at liberty” to expound on Wohl’s role. Wohl said Avenatti has “accused me of putting a GPS device on his car” and “sending thugs after him to taunt him in public,” both of which he denies.

Avenatti’s response: “I have no idea what this idiot is talking about. This child is so stupid and so hungry for attention that he will say anything.”

Like a drawn-out pro wrestling feud, the duel between Avenatti and Wohl will surely have many chapters, each one more convoluted than the previous. Avenatti vowed that ultimately, Wohl “is going to find himself in a penitentiary somewhere.”

When Wohl came back from the bathroom, he bristled at a reporter’s suggestion that Avenatti – who is prone to melodrama, has scads of detractors and is skilled at intertwining himself in the major events of a bizarre political era – is the closest thing to his foil on the left.

“Kind of,” Wohl protested. “But he’s a loony tune because he’s making provably false accusations.”

DIG DEEPER
You may also be interested in
Judge says ban on rapid-fire 'bump stocks' can go forward


I PREFER THESE TOWN MEETINGS TO THE OTHER WAYS OF PRESENTING THEMSELVES. SANDERS RESPONDS WELL TO PEOPLE IN THE ONE TO ONE SETTINGS. DEBATES ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY AREN’T 100% INTERESTING 100% OF THE TIME TO ME. THEY JUST GO ON TOO LONG. I LIKE THE IMPROMPTU NATURE OF THE TOWN MEETING AND THE AUDIENCE QUESTIONS CAN BE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE THAT NEWS PROS WOULD ASK.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/bernie-sanders-town-hall-february-2019/index.html
CNN town hall with Bernie Sanders
By Meg Wagner, CNN
9:43 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019

video – CNN Live

What we covered here

CNN town hall: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont answered questions at a CNN town hall moderated by CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

His campaign: Sanders announced his 2020 candidacy last week, his second consecutive bid for the Democratic nomination after losing to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

9:32 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019

The crowd chanted "Bernie!" — and then he took selfies with the audience

CNN's town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders just wrapped up. As CNN's Wolf Blitzer closed out the event, the audience chanted, "Bernie! Bernie!"

After the cameras stopped rolling, Sanders thanked the audience and said they asked good questions.

He then walked into the crowd to shake hands — and take selfies. He left the set after a few moments of mingling.

Here's a look at the scene afterward:

9:34 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders: The pharmaceutical industry is "the most greedy entity in this country today"
From CNN's Tami Luhby

When asked about how he would lower drug prices, Sanders said, “Don’t get me going. We have a limited amount of time.”

One out of five Americans can’t afford their medicine, he said, noting that parents post to his social media sites after their children died because they couldn’t afford insulin.

He slammed his longtime foes, the pharmaceutical industry, which he called “the most greedy entity in this country today” that made $50 billion last year.

The senator outlined his plan to reduce drug costs, which would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, permit the importation of medications from Canada and elsewhere and base prices on the cost of medications in other countries.

The pharma industry will be hard to defeat, especially because “they own the Congress. They have lobbyists all over the place,” he said.

“The only way you beat the drug companies is when millions of people stand up and say ‘I’m not going to allow you to kill my wife or my kids’,” Sanders said. “We’re not going to pay outrageous prices.”

9:21 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders stops short of calling Maduro a "dictator," warns against outside intervention in Venezuela
From CNN's Greg Krieg

Sen. Bernie Sanders didn't label Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro a “dictator” tonight, despite criticizing his government for failing to hold democratic elections.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Sanders, “Why have you stopped short of calling Maduro of Venezuela a dictator?”

“It’s fair to say the last election was undemocratic, but there are still democratic operations taking place in that country,” Sanders said. “What I am calling for right now is internationally supervised free elections.”

In a tweet on Saturday, Sanders called for a de-escalation of tensions on the country’s border with Colombia.

"The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis," he tweeted. "The Maduro government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the country, and refrain from violence against protesters."

Sanders on Monday night again warned against the "unintended consequences" of foreign intervention, instead calling for "internationally supervised free elections."

"I'm old enough to remember the war in Vietnam," Sanders said, before ticking off past American political interference in Central and South America. "I am very fearful of the United States continuing to do what it has done in past — the United States overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile, and in Brazil, and in Guatemala."

He then compared the "despotic regime" in Saudi Arabia with the leadership in Venezuela and said the US should do all it could to foster a "democratic climate."

"But I do not believe," he added, "in US military intervention in those countries."

Play Video

9:12 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders says he'd support statehood for Washington, DC

Sen. Bernie Sanders was just asked how he'd ensure that Washington, DC, gets full representation in federal government. (It currently isn't represented by any senators, and its representative is a non-voting delegate.)

The question got a lot of cheers from the audience.

Sanders said he'd support DC becoming the nation's 51st state.

Play Video

9:13 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders said his would-be cabinet will be diverse to reflect "what America is"
Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke about the "racial disparity" in America and vowed to "end all forms of racism in this country."

He also promised that, if elected President, he'd appoint diverse officials to his cabinet.

“I will work in hard as I can, No. 1 to have a cabinet that reflects what America is," he said, adding that his No 2 promise is to "end racism."

Play Video

[Gallery] These Airport Security Photos Captured by Other Travelers Will Make You LOL

8:57 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders praises Trump's meetings with North Korea's Kim Jong Un

Sen. Bernie Sanders — after criticizing President Trump as a "pathological liar" and describing how he is tearing the nation apart — praised the President's summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

“I think nuclear weapons in the hands of a brutal, irresponsible dictator is a bad idea," Sanders said.

He said that if Trump's face-to-face meetings result in the denuclearization of North Korea, they're a "good idea."

Trump is due to meet with Kim this week in Vietnam for their second summit.

Play Video

8:53 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Bernie Sanders explains his Medicare-for-all plan

Asked whether Americans will be able to keep private insurance plans through their jobs, Sanders said they won’t need it because Medicare for all will cover all their health care needs.

“What will change in their plans is the color of their card,” Sanders said, adding that his plan will provide comprehensive coverage, including vision, hearing aides and dental care. Also, Americans can go to any doctor, dentist or hospital they choose.

Sanders pushed back on the idea that people like their health insurance, even though a recent Gallup poll showed that 70% of those with employer plans say their coverage is excellent or good.

“People like their doctors. They like their hospitals. They like the care they’re getting,” Sanders said, noting that the only way to provide health care to all Americans in a cost effective way is through a single-payer system like the one he is proposing.

But if Americans want cosmetic surgery, for example, they can buy private plans to cover it, the senator said.

Play Video

8:46 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders says he'll bring a lie detector to a debate with Trump

Asked how he'd handle a possible presidential debate with President Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he'd come prepared.

"Well, we’ll bring a lie detector along," he said.

Sanders added that he has conservative friends who are honest people and their difference in opinion is "called democracy."

Sanders said Trump, however, is a "pathological liar" who "has to be exposed."

Play Video

8:46 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders on allegations of harassment on his 2016 campaign: "It will not happen again"
From CNN's Greg Krieg

Challenged by a voter to explain how he could represent an increasingly diverse — and female — Democratic Party following reports of sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign, Sanders on Monday night pledged his 2020 bid will be much different.

Sanders cited reforms put in place for his 2018 Senate reelection and said every staffer on his presidential campaign will be trained to identify sexual harassment and have access to an “independent entity” for reporting misconduct.

Asked in early January of this year about the 2016 allegations, Sanders said he was unaware of the charges at the time because “I was little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case” — a remark that fell flat at the time. Sanders insisted on Monday that his remark had been taken out of context.

Play Video
“I was very upset to learn what I learned,” Sanders told moderator Wolf Blitzer, adding that he would carry over the 2018 protocols to the new campaign.

When Blitzer asked how the revelations made him feel, Sanders said:

"It was painful. Very painful. And it will not happen again.”

8:35 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Bernie Sanders explains why he supports democratic socialism

A voter just asked Sen. Bernie Sanders why socialism is preferable to capitalism.

He quickly clarified that he supports "democratic socialism."

Play Video

“We don’t have guarantees regarding economic rights," he said, before referencing President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who once spoke about how all people need decent paying jobs.

“To me, when I talk about democratic socialism, what I talk about are human rights and economic rights”

8:25 p.m. ET, February 25, 2019
Sanders says he'll release 10 years of his tax returns "soon"

Sen. Bernie Sanders promised to release 10 years of his tax returns, like fellow 2020 Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren has.

He did not, however, give a timeline for when he could release them.

"Soon," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Then he added: "They're very boring tax returns."

Play Video

Some Democrats have criticized Sanders for not being more forthcoming with his financial information during the 2016 primary, when he only made public his returns from 2014.

President Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, a departure from more than 40 years of tradition, has riled Democrats and ethics watchdogs who worry he could be concealing assets in an effort to deflect from potential conflicts of interest. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has led the way in calling for more transparency from the President and her fellow Democratic candidates.

"I put the past 10 years of my federal tax returns online. And now I'm calling on every other candidate for President to do exactly the same thing," Warren tweeted earlier this month. She has also posted an online petition calling "on everyone running for president to release their tax returns."

Hillary Clinton challenged Sanders to release his returns during a primary debate in April 2015.

"They are very boring tax returns. No big money from speeches, no major investments," he said then, much like he did on Monday night.

"Unfortunately, I remain one of the poorer members of the United States Senate. And that's what that will show."

According to the most recent public records, Sanders ranks among the lowest earners on Capitol Hill. His net worth is in the bottom dozen of senators from both parties and the smallest of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates.

A day later, Sanders released documents showing that he and his wife, Jane, earned nearly $206,000 the year before, when they paid about $28,000 in federal taxes. They also collected about $46,000 in Social Security benefits.

The lion's share of the couple's income in 2014 came from Sanders' Senate salary, which was $174,000. They have more than $8,000 in gifts.


ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING COURSES THAT I TOOK IN COLLEGE WAS ON LABOR RELATIONS AND HISTORY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS IMMEASURABLE. REASON NUMBER 15 WHY I WANT BERNIE FOR PRESIDENT. HE BELIEVES IN MY IDEA OF WHAT IS GOOD.

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-erie-wabtec/
Bernie Sanders Is Making a National Issue of This Strike
Democrats and progressives need to focus on what the United Electrical union calls the “first major US manufacturing strike of the Trump era.”
By John NicholsTwitter
TODAY FEBRUARY 26, 2019 4:52 PM
fbtwmailPrint
Bernie Sanders at a rally

Bernie Sanders joins striking federal contract workers during a rally in Washington, DC. (AP / Sipa / Olivier Douliery)

When 1,700 members of United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America Locals 506 and 618 struck at the sprawling Wabtec locomotive plant in Erie, Pennsylvania, Tuesday morning, they got an immediate show of solidarity from one of the most prominent political figures in the United States.

“Americans are sick and tired of corporate America and their wealthy CEOs ripping off working families,” announced Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, in a tweet dispatched shortly after the picket line was established. “I’m proud to stand with the locomotive manufacturing workers of @ueunion Local 506 and 618 in their fight against GE/Wabtec to maintain decent wages and working conditions.”

That’s the right response from a contender for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Democrats have to stand in outspoken solidarity with workers, especially when their unions are struggling to preserve manufacturing jobs and maintain fair wages in historic urban and industrial centers such as Erie.

Fights over the direction of American manufacturing, especially in the transportation sector, are not romantic struggles to preserve old or dying industries. Locomotive production is booming internationally because of the role that rail transportation is expected to play in a new and more environmentally sustainable economy—and because new technologies are opening up dramatic new possibilities. The question is not whether there will be locomotive production, but whether new generations of workers will get a fair share of the future.

“I'm proud to stand with the locomotive manufacturing workers of @ueunion Local 506 and 618.” —@BernieSanders

The strike in Erie pits a union with deep roots in Western Pennsylvania and American manufacturing against a powerful multinational corporation—Webtec (Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation)—that, after taking charge this week of a former GE Transportation manufacturing facility, has refused to maintain existing protections for workers. “We are extremely disappointed that the company could not see its way to agree to continue the terms and conditions that we have worked under for decades. Their refusal leaves us with no choice but to go out on strike to protect our members’ and our children’s future,” says UE Local 506 president Scott Slawson.

According to UE: “Wabtec’s terms and conditions, which they imposed when they took over the plant on Monday, include the introduction of mandatory overtime and arbitrary schedules, wage reductions of up to 38 percent for recalled and newly-hired workers, and the right to use temporary workers for up to 20 percent of the work in the plant.”

That’s provoked what the union describes as the “first major US manufacturing strike of the Trump era.”

Sanders has been in the thick of this fight. Last week, he wrote Wabtec CEO Raymond Betler a letter that called out the new boss for trying to squeeze concessions out of workers. “Let’s be clear,” noted Sanders. “Wabtec is not a poor company. It is not going broke. Through the first three quarters of last year, Wabtec made a $256 million profit and had enough money to give you a $3.5 million compensation package.”

“Corporate executives must not use the merger between GE and Wabtec to hurt workers,” wrote the senator, who argued that “the Wabtec/GE merger should not be used to take away the hard-fought gains UE has achieved over the past several decades.”

Sanders promised to “provide my full support and solidarity to the workers at this plant to ensure that they achieve a fair and equitable collective bargaining agreement.” And he has done just that, using his considerable social-media presence and public appearances (including a CNN Town Hall event Monday night) to focus attention on what he has described as a struggle that has meaning for “working Americans everywhere.”

Democrats once went out of their way to align with labor, following the lead of Franklin Roosevelt, who declared two years into his presidency that “It is now beyond partisan controversy that it is a fundamental individual right of a worker to associate himself with other workers and to bargain collectively with his employer.” As the years passed, however, the party’s presidential contenders grew more cautious about throwing in aggressively and consistently with unions as had FDR and the Democrats of the past. Jesse Jackson marched with workers during his Rainbow Coalition campaigns of the 1980s, and candidates such as Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich made shows of solidarity during their bids in the 1990s and 2000s. But too many prominent Democrats tried over the years to steer clear of industrial conflicts and fights over labor rights—and more than a few of them broke with labor on issues such as trade policy. Even when prominent Democrats did take the side of labor, they often did so in the stilted language of politicians who sought to avoid offense to potential campaign donors.

What distinguishes Sanders is a determination to steer into the struggle. He has a history of joining picket lines and did so during his 2016 bid for the Democratic nomination. He’s actually been to Erie and has appeared with UE union officials and members.

That’s an important detail, since Trump assumed the presidency with an Electoral College win based on narrow victories in three historically industrial states with track records of backing Democrats in presidential races: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Erie played a role in tipping Pennsylvania toward Trump, as The New York Times reported after the 2016 election. “Election night maps of Pennsylvania for decades included a bright blue crescent in the upper left corner. It was Erie County, a Democratic stronghold with an industrial economy that President Obama won by 16 percentage points in 2012,” the report noted. “But Mr. Trump flipped the county, winning by two points as he carried Pennsylvania, one of the Rust Belt dominoes whose white working-class voters came out in droves for him.”

The fight for states such as Pennsylvania in 2020 will be about more than particular union fights in particular cities. But labor solidarity has to be a part of the equation.

The example that Sanders is setting is vital, not just for his 2020 campaign but for all the Democrats who are contending for the nomination. Union struggles are essential, not just for Democrats but for the fight for economic justice in a country where the gaps between CEO pay and worker salaries, and between rich and poor, has reached epic proportions. As Sanders says, “We will not have a decent standard of living for our people and the political strength that we need unless we build and grow the trade union movement in this country.”


THE QUESTION OF WHO WOULD DARE RUN AGAINST TRUMP AND WHY IS INTERESTING, BUT I HAVE AN EVEN BETTER ONE. WHY HAVE SOMETHING IN THE RANGE OF 10,000 OF THE BERNIE DONORS THIS TIME BEEN REPUBLICANS? I THINK IT’S THE DESIRE BY MANY SANE AND INTELLIGENT REPUBLICANS TO HAVE THE LORD RID THEM OF A SQUIRMING, BITING FERAL CAT THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY MIGHT ADOPT FOR A PET.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/27/trump-primary-challenger-225392
OPINION
Why a Trump Primary Challenge Would Be a Self-Own* by the GOP
His Republican critics should be careful what they wish for
By RICH LOWRY February 27, 2019

PHOTOGRAPH – Rich Lowry is editor of National Review and a contributing editor with Politico Magazine.

The race for 2020 is taking shape, although there are still significant unknowns, including whether President Donald Trump will get a serious primary challenge.

His fiercest Republican critics say, “Yes — please, please, please, yes.”

They are probably wrong, and certainly it’s nothing to root for.

The logic of the situation favors Trump. His dominance of the party begins with his lockdown support of the right, forcing any primary challenger to the left. This isn’t happy hunting grounds. Self-identified moderates and liberals are only a fraction of the party, and it is grassroots conservative activists who have fueled the most potent Republican primary challenges (Ronald Reagan in 1976, Pat Buchanan in 1992).

Because a primary challenge would naturally come from the left, is unlikely to succeed, and involves alienating the GOP’s grassroots, it is most likely to attract people who don’t have a future in GOP national politics and lack conservative bona fides.

Bill Weld, who has formed an exploratory committee, is a witty chameleon whose most dependable quality is being unreliable. He quit the Massachusetts governorship to try to become Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Mexico, then left Massachusetts and the Republican Party. He was last seen on Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Party ticket in 2016, while at the same time, basically endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Larry Hogan is an admirable man and the very popular Republican governor of Maryland. He’s governed as a pragmatic centrist uninterested in cultural issues.

He says he’s personally anti-abortion but pledged not to disturb the abortion laws in Maryland and has a “C” rating from the National Rifle Association. In 2016, Trump demonstrated there’s more room for ideological heterodoxy in the Republican Party than anyone thought — but not on the cultural issues that Hogan has a long history of minimizing.

On paper, Ohio’s John Kasich is formidable, the former two-term governor of a major state and House Republican budget chairman. But he was an edgy figure circa 1995. His pitch lately has been a mushy “can’t we get along?” message. He demonstrated his lack of national electoral appeal convincingly in 2016 and would have more of an uphill climb in 2020.

Trump is less vulnerable than in 2016 rather than more. He’s now president, rather than an upstart first-time candidate. He’s less of an ideological flyer. He’s been a rock on judges, abortion and religious liberty. Last time, a lot of Republicans told themselves, “Well, at least compared to Hillary, we don’t know what we’re getting with Trump.” Now, they are grateful for what they’ve gotten.

Could all of this change? It would require a torpedo to the bow from the Mueller report or some other enormous scandal and a significant ideological betrayal on something extremely important, like a Supreme Court nominee. The first might be possible, although not likely, and the chances of the second seem remote.

It’s going to take something more than tariffs on steel, lack of interest in tackling entitlements and constant talk of an impending infrastructure proposal to detach him from the Republican rank and file.

The promoters of a Trump primary challenge still haven’t come to grips with how intertwined Trump’s fate is with the party’s. If Trump becomes vulnerable to a primary challenge, it’s a sign that something very bad has happened that won’t be contained to him. Say it’s proof of a criminal conspiracy with the Russians. Is the rest of the Republican Party that has defended Trump so vociferously during the Mueller probe going to emerge from that unscathed? Say it’s a sudden economic downturn. What’s the case that such an event wouldn’t tank the GOP generally?

Indeed, a winning primary campaign against Trump would almost certainly be a catastrophic success. How would the winner put the party back together again to win a general election?

Perhaps the hard-core Trump base and media will enthusiastically back whoever slays their champion. But why would they? Besides the inevitable hurt feelings and perhaps ideological disagreements, they will surely consider recent precedent — Never Trump would be the analogue to Never Hogan.

Of course, a primary campaign doesn’t have to be about winning. Futile gestures can achieve a kind of grandeur in the right circumstances and via the right candidate. Bill Buckley was never going to win the 1965 New York mayoral campaign, but he did promote his brand of conservatism. In their primary challenges, Reagan and Buchanan were movement-builders, not just candidates.

Does anyone really believe that Weld, Hogan or Kasich will define the future of the post-Trump Republican Party? There are people out there who may well have significant say in the party’s future — a Nikki Haley or a Tom Cotton — but for them 2024 will come soon enough (if Trump loses, the presidential jockeying begins in less than two years; if he wins, in less than four).

There is obviously a character case to be made against Trump, although Republican voters are already aware of his flaws and strongly support him nonetheless.

The contradiction in the case for a primary challenge is this: If it’s a bad thing that Trump is potentially a weak general-election candidate, as Trump’s critics say, then why make him potentially weaker with a primary challenge? What many of Trump’s GOP detractors won’t say out loud is that when they talk of defeating Trump, they don’t mean defeating him only in a nomination battle; they mean seeing him lose in a general election.

That Republican voters would sense this, and understandably recoil, is another reason a primary challenge is probably a box canyon.


SELF-OWN* -- THIS IS A COMBINATION OF SLANG AND COMPUTER GAMERS LANGUAGE. IF I WERE TO TRANSLATE IT INTO MY ERA’S SLANG, I WOULD CALL IT “SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT,” ALTHOUGH THAT, I HAVE READ, IS THE INTENTIONAL SELF-INJURY THAT SOME YOUNG MEN WHO WERE SERIOUSLY UNWILLING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MILITARY DRAFT HAD USED. A FOOT DISABILITY WILL KEEP A PERSON OUT OF THE WAR ZONE. IT’S DRASTIC, BUT IF IT SAVES THE REST OF YOUR LIFE, MAYBE IT’S WORTH IT. THE PAINLESS WAY TO AVOID THE DRAFT IS TO BE 6’7” TALL OR MORE. ONE OF THE GRADUATE STUDENTS WITH MY FIRST HUSBAND WAS 6’7” AND HE HAD TO DUCK HIS HEAD DOWN IN A NORMAL STANDARD DOORWAY TO ENTER. THE ARMY DOESN’T ORDER UNIFORMS THAT LARGE.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/self-own-ownage-words-were-watching-slang-definition

Words We're Watching
A Most Incredible 'Self-Own'
Or: making a fool of yourself on the internet.

On social media, people will often try to put themselves in positions where they look smarter than the person with whom they are arguing, only to have it blow up in their faces. They might, for example, inadvertently highlight evidence that contradicts their point, or simply present themselves in a way that comes off as more pathetic than the person they are trying to upstage. It is during such instances that we become witness to the glorious phenomenon of the self-own.

Own is a common verb meaning “to possess,” but self-own relates to a particular sense of own that is popular with hackers and gamers. To be owned, in this instance, means to have someone break into your computer, an act of possession viewed as either a conquest or defeat, depending on whether you’re the one doing the hacking or the poor soul being hacked. As Amanda Hess explains in The New York Times Magazine: “Owning someone isn’t just about taking his things; it’s about diminishing him as a person. With enough specialized technical knowledge, you can actually seize control of another human being, or at least the person’s virtual presence.”

(In the mid-2000s, the variant form pwn emerged as a slang term used primarily by video gamers, purportedly so spelled because a typo slipped into the screen text of a popular game.)

The noun for this sense of own is not ownership but ownage. Own also has a developing sense meaning “to dominate” (“Unlike Mancuso, he has been dominant during the regular season, owning the giant slalom.”—Tim Layden, Sports Illustrated, 3 Mar. 2014).

Usage of own in internet lingo conveys the same notion of conquest. In the dog-eat-dog world of Twitter takedowns, knocking someone off their peg is the name of the game. To that sense of own we combine the prefix self-, used in many a reflexive action, such as self-discipline or self-pity or (in a term more comparable to self-own) self-defeating. Therefore, a self-own does the job of owning, or humiliating, a user before anyone else gets the chance.


POOR JIM JORDAN

THIS IS THE SECOND ARTICLE TODAY ON THE UNKNOWN LIVES OF MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS AND SENATE. IT’S A SAD DAY FOR REPUBLICANS ON CAPITOL HILL. FROM HERE I GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE WILD WOODS OF THE MIND, FOLLOWING THE SITE, “INVERSE.COM” AS IT MEANDERS FROM ONE SUBJECT TO ANOTHER. THEY’RE ALL VERY INTERESTING. SO, AFTER THIS INVERSE.COM STORY, JUST PROCEED TO THE NEXT ONE.

CONGRESSMAN JIM JORDAN SAYS HE DIDN’T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING, NOR HAD HE HEARD ABOUT IT SINCE. IS HE PROTECTING OTHERS, OR PROTECTING HIMSELF? WE IDEALIZE SPORTS PEOPLE IN THE USA, AS WE DO SOLDIERS AND POLICEMEN, AND THERE IS A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE FREQUENCY OF ABUSE IN ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

ON SEXUAL ABUSES, WHEREVER THERE IS NO ADULT FEMALE INFLUENCE, THAT SORT OF SIN/CRIME BEGINS TO HAPPEN MORE THAN TYPICALLY, AND IF IT COMES TO LIGHT, PEOPLE WILL LOSE JOBS. IT’S PARTLY BECAUSE THERE IS AN ALL-MALE ENVIRONMENT, LIKE THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD OR IN PRISONS. HAVING A SEXUAL DEVIANCE AMONG OTHER MALES IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT CAN BE VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND THE EXPECTED COVERUP AMONG “THE GUYS” FOR WHATEVER OCCURS IS ACTUALLY CONSIDERED BY MANY AS HONORABLE. SUDDENLY IN THE MIDDLE OF A SCANDAL LIKE THIS, IT ISN’T AS ACCEPTABLE.

WHO’S WORST ON SEXUAL MISBEHAVIOR, THOUGH, THE REDS, THE BLUES OR THE INDEPENDENTS? SEE THIS FASCINATING SITE, “INVERSE.COM”:
https://www.inverse.com/article/46972-which-political-party-is-the-most-adulterous” WHAT ABOUT THE MOST SEXUALLY DEVIANT? IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE GENERALLY RANDY, ARE THE REPUBLICANS MORE LIKELY TO BE OUTSIDE THE STANDARD RANGE IN THEIR PREFERENCES? READ THE “INVERSE.COM” ARTICLE WHICH I HAVE PLACED BELOW TODAY’S DAYTONDAILYNEWS.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/congressman-jim-jordan-knew-about-sex-abuse-former-wrestlers-say/lzfhebNU5mZ5WrRbfg3aFM/
Congressman Jim Jordan knew about sex abuse at OSU, former wrestlers say
Washington Bureau Updated July 03, 2018
By Jessica Wehrman Laura A. Bischoff Jennifer Smola

Jordan spokesman says he had not been contacted by OSU investigators looking into allegations against former doctor. OSU says it has tried to contact Jordan about the case.

Former athletes who wrestled for U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan when he served as an assistant coach at Ohio State now say he knew team doctor Richard Strauss sexually abused athletes but Jordan failed to report it.

Jordan, R-Urbana, founder of the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, denies knowing anything about the allegations. Ian Fury, a spokesman for Jordan, said in a written statement that Jordan “never saw any abuse, never heard about any abuse, and never had any abuse reported to him during his time as a coach at Ohio State.” Fury said in the statement that Jordan has not been contacted by investigators but will assist them in any way they ask.

NEW: Jim Jordan says ‘I would have done something’ about OSU sex assault claims However, Kathleen Trafford, an attorney representing Ohio State in its investigation of Strauss, said investigators reached out to Jordan’s office by email and telephone to request an interview with him. “To date, Rep. Jordan has not responded to those requests, but we understand from public statements issued on his behalf today that Rep. Jordan is willing to talk to the investigative team.”

Jordan said this spring: “I had not heard about any type of abuse at all.” He said then that “no one reported any type of abuse” to him.

Former wrestler says Jordan ‘knew it all’

“He knew it all. It’s frankly unbelievable that he would make such a statement. It’s beyond comprehension that he is — it’s just unfortunate,” said Mike DiSabato, 50, of Columbus, who joined the OSU wrestling team in 1986. “I consider Jim a friend. I’ve stayed in touch with him over the years. I respect him as a former athlete, as my coach in college and as a person. However, he’s now gone on the record twice saying he knew nothing about Dr. Strauss and the deviant training environment to which we were exposed on a daily basis.”

Ohio State in April announced it was investigating accusations against Dr. Richard Strauss, who treated athletes and students as a team doctor in the athletics program and a physician at the student health services center between 1978 and 1996. Jordan worked as an assistant wrestling coach for part of that time. Strauss, who retired as a professor emeritus on July 1, 1998, died in California in 2005.

RELATED: OSU investigating deceased doctor for sexual misconduct DiSabato said the university allowed faculty and staff to use the showers and locker rooms at the same time as student-athletes. “Every day at 3:30 the showers would fill up with deviant, lewd male predators who wanted to come in and shower with elite male wrestlers. Happened every day. Deviant acts in front of us, excessively soaping themselves in their groin area, public masturbation. All kinds of deviant behavior. Voyeurism.”

PHOTOS: Congressman Jim Jordan throughout the years

He added that Strauss routinely gave medically unnecessary, extensive groin examinations and who took as many as half a dozen showers a day with athletes in different sports complexes. DiSabato said Jordan’s “locker was located right next to Doc Strauss. It was an open, running joke that Doc Strauss was a serial groper.” One wrestler said he told Jordan directly about the abuse. Three Strauss victims and former head coach Russ Hellickson appear in a 12-minute private video, describing the abuse. Hellickson recounts telling Strauss that he showered too frequently and too long with student-athletes. RELATED: Ohio colleges taking steps to avoid unchecked sex abuse cases “I caught people having sex in our wrestling room, in the stairwell to the wrestling room, in the bathroom adjacent to our wrestling facility and I caught people in masturbation,” Hellickson said. “It became a real problem because it affected their mental state, a lot of our wrestlers.”Hellickson, who served as head coach from 1986 to 2006, said in the video that “Certainly, all of my administrators recognized that it was an issue for me. I’m sure that I talked to all of them on numerous occasions about my discontent with the environment.”One victim describes Strauss examining his genitals when being seen for heartburn. Investigators hired by the university’s legal team have received confidential reports of sexual misconduct by Strauss from former student-athletes from 14 varsity sports teams. The investigators are also looking at whether, and to what extent, Strauss may have examined high school-aged students during his time at OSU. RELATED: Sex abuse inquiry on Ohio State doc now includes high school iSabato said he brought his complaints to university leaders multiple times over the years but got no where.“The university is following what I call the Big 10 playbook for cover-up, incompetence and gross moral negligence. I would like you to please quote that,” he said.The university turned the 12-minute video over to investigators.“We remain steadfastly committed to uncovering the truth. We encourage anyone with information about incidents relating to Dr. Strauss and his time at Ohio State to please come forward and contact the independent investigators at osu@perkinscoie.com,” the university said in a written statement.

Political impact

Jordan, a six-term lawmaker whose western Ohio stretches from is a leader of the Freedom Caucus, a group of ultra-conservatives in the House of Representatives. He has said he is considering running for House Speaker after current Speaker Paul Ryan retires at the end of this year.Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, urged caution, saying, “every one of us deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”“I can’t tell you who’s telling the truth or how much of it is the truth,” he said. “We’ll just have to let it come out.”He said the news isn’t likely to quash Jordan’s chances of becoming the speaker of the House, saying Jordan was “very unlikely” to become speaker in the first place.In a statement on her website, Democrat Janet Garrett, who is running against Jordan, said “any allegation of sexual abuse against minors — or complicity regarding such abuse — is very serious. That damage cannot be undone. For any teacher, protecting kids is the absolute first priority — and I say that as a former kindergarten teacher. Ohio State has an obligation to get to the bottom of this with a thorough and fair investigation. Jim Jordan has an obligation to cooperate fully with that investigation.”Jennifer Smola of the Columbus Dispatch and the Associated Press contributed to this report.


Filed Under Data, Politics & Sex

https://www.inverse.com/article/46972-which-political-party-is-the-most-adulterous
Which Political Party Is the Most Adulterous? New Study Points to Patterns
Actions speak louder than voting records.
By Mary von Aue on July 12, 2018

Are Republicans more likely to cheat than Democrats? It’s difficult to say for sure when most polls that look at people’s sexual behavior are self-reported. However, using data from the 2015 leak from Ashley Madison, a website that connects married people looking to have an affair, scientists have found which party affiliates were more likely to use the adultery dating service.

In 2015, a hacker collective known as the Impact Team hacked and published the data from Ashley Madison, an online dating service that connects married people seeking extramarital affairs. Data scientists Kodi Arfer, Ph.D., of University of California Los Angeles, and Jason Jones, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Stony Brook University, analyzed the leaked data alongside voter registration records to see how well a voter’s political views on sexual norms agree with their online behavior. Their findings were published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior on Friday.

At the time of the Ashley Madison leak, the website’s slogan was “Life is short. Have an affair,” establishing the sole intent of its mission. Using the leaked data, Arfer and Jones linked credit card payments made via the cheating site with voter registration records from California, Florida, Kansas, New York, and Oklahoma. The analysis took into account registered Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Green party members, as well as those registered without a party affiliation.

Ashley Madison's branding during the data leak

“I expected that the results would come out with the parties in left-to-right order, with the leftmost party on one end and the rightmost on another, but I didn’t have a good guess which end would have the most Ashley Madison usage,” Arfer told Inverse. Between the 200,000 leaked Ashley Madison accounts and the 50 million voters registered in the five sample states, Arfer and Jones found 80,000 matches. Using this sample, as well as validated regression models controlling for state, gender, and age, the scientists could deduce that Democrats were the least likely to use the website, while Libertarians were the most likely.

“Our results are perhaps the strongest evidence yet that people with more sexually conservative values, although they claim to act accordingly, are more sexually deviant in practice than their more sexually liberal peers,” the study says.

After Libertarians, Republicans are the second most likely registered group to use Ashley Madison. In New York, the disparity between the registered conservative and left-leaning parties is striking. In one validated model that looks at the probability of Ashley Madison usage for a 40-year-old man registered to vote in New York, the likelihood of that man being a Libertarian is every 1 in 98. For a Democrat, it’s 1 in 223.

“I speculated that more right-leaning people might have worse sexual self-control, due to less knowledge of sexuality,” Arfer said. “There’s also the possibility that people with more taboo sexual behavior cynically adopt more restrictive sexual attitudes in order to deflect suspicion. I consider the latter idea less likely.”

Conservatism may have been used as a personal guise in these scenarios, but Arfer finds it more likely that the users’ conservative, oft-religious communities created a taboo around sexuality that deterred sexual education and frank discussion on sexual health. “It would make sense if less sexually knowledgeable people were worse at sexual self-control.”

Looking at Arfer and Jones’ research, it’s clear that conservatives, who are more likely to espouse traditional marriages, might encounter more marital problems from their community’s lack of sexual discourse. This study does offer a solution, however: “Perhaps expanding sex education and weakening taboos against the mere discussion of sex are ways by which society could reduce the incidence of adultery.”


AOC COMPARES CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS TO HOSTAGES. I SUSPECT THAT REPUBLICANS ALWAYS, WHEN IN DOUBT, FOLLOW THE MONEY. THEY’RE HOSTAGES TO THEIR OWN GREED.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-claims-gop-is-experiencing-hostage-situation
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ FEBRUARY 27, 2019 Published 45 mins ago
Ocasio-Cortez claims GOP is experiencing 'hostage situation,' pledges support to impeach Trump
Nicole Darrah By Nicole Darrah | Fox News

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said that Republicans in Congress stand by President Trump because they're in a "hostage situation," and that if a vote to impeach the president were to arise, she'd vote yes — "no question."

Speaking to Rolling Stone in an interview published Wednesday, the freshman rep said Republicans are no longer "in the realm of politics," and continue to support Trump, which she claims is "an unacceptable position."

OCASIO-CORTEZ QUESTIONS COHEN ON TRUMP TAX DOCUMENTS, ASSETS

"There are a lot of Republicans that know what the right thing to do is — not just on impeachment but on a wide range of issues — and they refuse to speak up," Ocasio-Cortez said.

Congresspeople who vote with the president, she argued, despite saying they don't share his views, need to be held responsible.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questions Cohen on whether or not Trump devalued assets to evade taxesVideo

"The problem is that if they vote the same way, what does it matter? I don’t care what’s in your heart if how you are voting is the same as someone who is actually racist. At the end of the day, they think that their intentions are gonna save them, but the actual decisions you make matter," she told the news outlet.

"I am tired of people saying, 'I’m gonna vote the same way as bigots, but I don’t share the ideology of bigots.' Well, you share the action and the agenda of bigots. We need to hold that accountable."

One of the youngest women elected to Congress, Ocasio-Cortez said that without question, she would vote to impeach the president.

"I don’t even know why it’s controversial. I mean, OK, it’s not that I don’t know why it’s controversial," she said. "I understand that some people come from very tough districts where their constituents are torn. But for me and my community in the Bronx and Queens, it’s easy."

Nicole Darrah covers breaking and trending news for FoxNews.com. Follow her on Twitter @nicoledarrah.


IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE TONIGHT, LOOK AT THIS AURORA PHOTOGRAPH OVER ICELAND.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/dragon-aurora-dancing-over-iceland-captured-stunning-photo-ncna974656
'Dragon aurora' dancing over Iceland captured in stunning photo
It even seems to be breathing fire!
Feb. 25, 2019, 9:53 AM EST
By David Freeman

PHOTOGRAPH -- Dragon Aurora over Iceland. Jingyi Zhang and Wang Zheng

Dragons may be make-believe, but a dragon-shaped aurora borealis that flickered in the sky over Iceland this month was breathtakingly real — just have a look at this dramatic photograph.

The photo, taken by Jingyi Zhang on Feb. 6, became NASA's astronomy photo of the day on Feb. 18 and has been widely viewed online since. It shows a swirling green aurora over a dark, snowy landscape where a solitary figure — the photographer's mother — stares up at the sky as if awestruck.


Vast auroras dance over Saturn's north pole in stunning new photos
An aurora borealis forms when fast-moving charged particles from the sun strike Earth's magnetic field, colliding with oxygen and nitrogen atoms and molecules in Earth's upper atmosphere, exciting them and causing them to release particles of light known as photons.

Because these collisions are focused by Earth's magnetic field at the North and South poles, they're most commonly seen in high northern and southern latitudes. In the Northern Hemisphere, they're known as aurora borealis or the northern lights; in the Southern Hemisphere, they're called aurora australis or the southern lights.

Auroras tend to be green, like the dragon-shaped one, but they can also be shades of red, blue, violet, pink and white. They're too faint to be seen in daylight. At night, some are quite dim but others are bright enough to read by.

Recommended

POLITICS
U.S. drops demand for full accounting of N. Korea nuclear program ahead of talks

POLITICS
Cohen testimony suggests NY prosecutors pose major danger to Trump
And while auroras can be beautiful, the so-called solar storms that trigger them can disrupt radio transmissions on Earth and satellite operations in space. "So the solar storms can benefit the auroras ... but hurt some kinds of long-distance communications," Jay Pasachoff, an astronomer at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, said in an email.

Auroras have also been observed on other planets, including Jupiter and Saturn.