Posted on

Black Approval of Trump Is Soaring

Op-Ed

You might recall that, in 2018, a Rasmussen poll showed President Trump with 36 percent approval among African-Americans.

That immediately led to howling from the media and the political class, who said the result must be an outlier or just made up because Rasmussen – they claimed – is a “Republican polling outfit.”

It is actually no such thing. It’s a nonpartisan polling outfit that doesn’t oversample Democrats like most of the others. Its methodology is sound and its poll results usually track pretty well with election results.

Now, we all know that black Americans vote disproportionately for Democrats. In 2016, President Trump was reported to have received only 8 percent of the black vote. I’m convinced he actually did better than that, but he clearly didn’t get anywhere near 30 percent.

Will he this time? He should, although he may not. But he doesn’t need to. If a Republican could boost his share of the black vote to even 12 percent, it would probably lead to an electoral wipeout that would put 40 states or more in the red category. If he could get 15 percent, we’d be talking about a 1984/Reagan-style romp.

TRENDING: Sen. Barrasso: Blood Drained from Schiff’s Face as Trump Counsel Played Damning Clip

Is that possible? Of course it is. People said it wasn’t possible for Trump to win the Republican nomination, and then when he did that, they said it wasn’t possible for him to win the election.

President Trump has broken an awful lot of the rules concerning what is and isn’t possible in politics.

But we know that conventional wisdom says African-Americans will not vote Republican in anything but the tiniest of numbers, and also that they’ll never vote for Donald Trump because of all the talk about him being a racist. Is it possible that they would defy that thinking and vote for him anyway?

Absolutely, and here’s why:

Do you think Trump will win more African-American support in 2020 than he did in 2016?

We black people like prosperity too. We like good jobs, and the Trump economy has created a lot of them. We like to keep more of what we earn, and President Trump cut our taxes. We like having more money to spend, and both wages and disposable income are rising in the booming Trump economy.

We like safe streets, and a justice system that gives people a fair chance, so we like President Trump’s criminal justice reform. We also like being safe from terrorist attacks, so we like the fact that President Trump is willing to take out terrorist threats both at home and abroad.

We like not paying exorbitant prices at the gas pump, so we like the fact that President Trump has opened up so much more domestic oil exploration than was allowed under his predecessor, who wanted to keep it all in the ground to the extent he could control it.

Oh, and I don’t know where some of you got the idea that black people are anti-police, but most of us are law-abiding citizens and we appreciate a president who supports our police officers.

All of us hear, on a daily basis, what a racist President Trump is. The media never stop with it. But what we see in our own lives is something entirely different, and we’re smart enough to recognize that the voices out there are driven by agendas.

RELATED: A Survey Company Sued Me for $480 Million Because I Figured Out How To Expose Their Rigged Game

Do 34 percent of black people approve of President Trump’s job performance? Why not? The results are good, and we can see that as clearly as anyone else.

Unless the people who doubt it think black people are too stupid to understand results. Is that what they think? And if so, what sort of word do you think we might use to describe the way they think?

We’ll ponder that while we’re voting in November to re-elect President Donald Trump.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Posted on

Bloomberg makes debate stage, facing Dem rivals for 1st time

By ALEXANDRA JAFFE AND KATHLEEN RONAYNE

For Mike Bloomberg, the one-way conversation with Democratic voters is about to end.

By spending more than $400 million of his own money and largely bypassing his opponents by skipping the early primary states, Bloomberg has rocketed to double-digit support in enough national polls to qualify for Wednesday night’s Nevada debate.

But as Bloomberg’s support has risen, so has the criticism from his Democratic foes as well as the broader scrutiny of his past comments and record as New York City mayor. As he faces his rivals onstage for the first time, they’ve made it clear they’re eager to take him on.

On Tuesday, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren offered a preview of one line of attack the billionaire can expect face to face.

“It’s a shame Mike Bloomberg can buy his way into the debate,” she tweeted, “but at least now primary voters curious about how each candidate will take on Donald Trump can get a live demonstration of how we each take on an egomaniac billionaire.”

It will be the first time he’s debated in over a decade. And the first time in this campaign that Bloomberg will have to answer before a national audience for racial and sexist comments he’s made in the past. Mark Green, the former New York City public advocate who ran against Bloomberg for mayor in 2001, says that could be tough.

“His insulting, wise-guyish comments on race and women and justice will not be easy to parry if the moderator or rival frames the questions correctly,” he said.

A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll published Tuesday showed Bloomberg with 19% support nationally in the Democratic nominating contest, a striking figure for a candidate who has joined no debates and competed in no primaries.

The former New York City mayor, who launched his presidential campaign in November, will appear in Las Vegas alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Warren, Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Fellow billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer is still hoping to qualify.

While Bloomberg is appearing on the debate stage in Nevada, he still is not participating in Saturday’s state caucus. He’s skipping the first four voting states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — in favor of focusing on the multitude of states that vote March 3, Super Tuesday.

Trying to keep expectations in check, aides have repeatedly noted in recent days that Bloomberg’s rivals have had multiple debates to hone their skills and talking points. On the campaign trail, he’s still using a teleprompter to deliver his short stump speeches, and he rarely takes questions directly from voters.

His aides have also emphasized that the former mayor is expecting fire from all angles, particularly on his status as a billionaire self-funding his campaign and on the “stop-and-frisk” police practice he employed in New York.

But Tim O’Brien, a senior adviser to the campaign, said the debate will be a chance to showcase Bloomberg’s focus and claims to deliver on key Democratic issues, like climate change and gun control.

“The debate’s a chance for us to make it clear that this is a deeply compassionate and principled man who isn’t just a rich guy on a vanity run,” O’Brien said.

Bloomberg’s opponents have telegraphed an array of attacks.

Biden has gone after him on issues relating to race, noting his past comments suggesting ending racist mortgage-lending practices known as “redlining” contributed to the financial crisis, and that Bloomberg’s ads often feature Obama prominently, though the businessman has been a critic of Obama in the past.

Klobuchar argued this weekend that voters wouldn’t want another billionaire in the White House and that her blue-collar background makes her a stronger candidate than the former mayor. Buttigieg said that Bloomberg will have to answer for reports alleging he has a long history of sexist comments and behavior in his business.

Warren and Sanders have perhaps been Bloomberg’s sharpest critics, as both see him as a useful foil to their populist campaign messages. At a campaign rally this weekend, Sanders derided Bloomberg for skipping the early primary states and mocked his riches, joking to the crowd that the businessman is “struggling, he’s down to his last $60 billion.”

But Bloomberg’s aides say he’s eager to take on Sanders, and they’ve characterized the race for the presidency as a three-way contest — between Bloomberg, Sanders and President Donald Trump.

O’Brien suggested Bloomberg will be doing more than just trying to withstand Sanders’ fire.

“I think you’re going to see us go toe-to-toe with Bernie Sanders on important issues,” he said.

“Bernie’s a millionaire, Bernie’s got a troubled record on criminal justice, he supported the 1994 crime bill,” O’Brien said. He said Sanders has previously voted to give gun makers immunity from lawsuits. Sanders has since changed his position.

Bloomberg’s other big challenge could be maintaining his cool on the debate stage amid what’s certain to be a volley of attacks from rivals and tough questions from the moderators. The former mayor has a history of becoming short or testy during press conferences, and is known for his unfiltered comments behind closed doors.

To prepare him, aides have been holding mock debates with Bloomberg in a warehouse office in downtown New York, with some of his top communications advisers playing his opponents. Senior advisers Howard Wolfson and Marcia Hale are playing Sanders and Klobuchar respectively, while Marc LaVorgna and Julie Wood, two longtime mayoral aides who now serve as campaign spokespeople, are playing Buttigieg and Warren.

Bradley Tusk, who served as Bloomberg’s campaign manager in 2009, is running the debate prep.

Green, his former mayoral opponent, said that when he debated Bloomberg the former mayor “was then what he really is now: apparently calm, confident, competent and able to memorize enough of an answer that he’ll get by,”

With expectations low, said Green, no Bloomberg booster, the average voter “will probably say ‘well, he was OK.’”

___

Catch up on the 2020 election campaign with AP experts on our weekly politics podcast, “Ground Game.”

Posted on

Trump threatens lawsuits over Mueller probe

The president went on to accuse Mueller of lying before Congress when he told lawmakers he did not interview with Trump to apply for the job of FBI director, tweeting: “The whole deal was a total SCAM. If I wasn’t President, I’d be suing everyone all over the place. BUT MAYBE I STILL WILL. WITCH HUNT!”

Trump’s posts came on a whirlwind Tuesday during which the president declared himself the country’s “chief law enforcement officer,” insisted on his right to meddle in criminal cases involving his close associates, announced a spate of controversial pardons and commutations, and acknowledged that he was making his own attorney general’s job harder.

The president’s legal threats represent the latest development in his renewed assault against Mueller, which escalated last week after Trump expressed his disapproval of federal prosecutors’ initial sentencing recommendation for Stone.

The former special counsel’s work led to Stone’s arrest in January 2019 and indictment on seven felony charges. Two of the attorneys who prosecuted Stone’s case had previously served on Mueller’s team of investigators. A Washington jury found Stone guilty on all counts in November.

After Trump tweeted last Tuesday that prosecutors’ suggested seven-to-nine-year sentence for Stone was a “miscarriage of justice,” the Justice Department submitted a revised filing that offered no specific term for Stone’s sentence but stated that the prosecutors’ proposal “could be considered excessive and unwarranted.” The four attorneys who had shepherded Stone’s prosecution then withdrew from the case in protest.

Attorney General William Barr confirmed in an interview Thursday that he had personally interceded to walk back Stone’s stiff sentencing recommendation, but maintained that he did so hours before Trump tweeted his objection. Barr also called upon the president “to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases” and urged him to curb his social media activity.

“To have public statements and tweets about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department, about judges before whom we have cases,” Barr said, makes it “impossible for me to do my job and to ensure the courts and the prosecutors and department that we’re doing our work with integrity.”

Despite the attorney general’s scolding, Trump tweeted Friday that he has the “legal right” to demand that Barr take action in a federal criminal case, and he proceeded in his tweets Tuesday to denigrate the “Mueller prosecutors” assigned to Stone’s case.

Addressing reporters on Tuesday afternoon at Joint Base Andrews, the president defended his Twitter use while carefully sidestepping any direct criticism of his attorney general.

“Everybody has the right to speak their mind,” Trump said of Barr, conceding that “I do make his job harder. I do agree with that. I think that’s true. He’s a very straight shooter. We have a great attorney general, and he is working very hard.”

Trump also labeled himself the “chief law enforcement officer of the country” — a title typically reserved for the attorney general — and said he is “allowed to be totally involved” in Justice Department affairs. He added, however, that “I’ve chosen not to be involved.”

Top congressional Republicans on Tuesday joined Trump in praising Barr, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) describing him as a “man of the highest character and unquestionable integrity.”

“Suggestions from outside groups that the Attorney General has fallen short of the responsibilities of his office are unfounded. The Attorney General has shown that he is committed without qualification to securing equal justice under law for all Americans,” the lawmakers said in a statement, adding: “We expect that, as always, efforts to intimidate the Attorney General will fall woefully short.”

Apart from Mueller, the president on Tuesday also invoked on Twitter U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is scheduled to sentence Stone on Thursday and has overseen several other Mueller-related cases.

Seemingly quoting remarks by Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano in a series of tweets, Trump sought to pressure Jackson to honor Stone’s bid for a new trial, disclosed in a court order Friday. Jackson on Sunday ordered the defense and the prosecution in the Stone case to participate in a telephone hearing Tuesday to discuss the case’s status.

Meanwhile, the national Federal Judges Association has reportedly called an emergency meeting for sometime this week to address mounting concerns over Trump’s and Barr’s interventions in politically sensitive cases. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham on Tuesday defended the president’s commentary on Justice Department affairs.

“The president has made clear his position on many different cases, but he leaves AG Barr to do his work. He’s made it clear that the two things are separate,” she told Fox News in an interview Tuesday morning. “But the president will always, always tell the American people what his opinion is.”

Pressed on the president’s tweets Tuesday and his reference to potential legal action, Grisham described him as “frustrated” and promoted news reports of alleged anti-Trump bias by the forewoman of the federal jury that heard Stone’s case.

“This is just another example of the constant barrage of corruption that has gone against this president. And of course, despite that, he continues to do great things,” she said. “But he’s frustrated, obviously, and who knows what he’ll end up doing.”

Trump has wielded litigation as a cudgel for decades over the course of his real estate career, and has continued to threaten lawsuits against perceived political enemies during his time in office — many of which have fizzled out.

Myah Ward contributed to this report.

Posted on

Michael Bloomberg Could Be a Gift to Elizabeth Warren at Democratic Debate

The Democratic National Committee is not the den of Machiavellian fixers that some of the more fervent members of the Sanders crowd think it is. The DNC is too enamored of its donor class. It is too capable of regularly producing titanic blunders. It’s stepped on its own dick so often that “L.L. Bean” is probably permanently imprinted there. But it really isn’t competent enough to connive itself into the mess it’s in right now.

Consider Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Julian Castro are no longer running for president, in part because they couldn’t raise enough money to get on the debate stage due to the rules cooked up by the DNC. However, Michael Bloomberg will be on the stage, because the DNC monkey-wrenched its own rules to allow him to be there. In fact, it went out of its way to do that. And he’s not even on any ballot until two weeks from now. So, pardon me if I point out that the DNC’s rules screwed every single person of color in the field into oblivion before the DNC greased the skids so a 78-year-old white billionaire could make his grand entrance. Does the DNC even know what its base is any more? I know, “vote blue no matter who” and all that, but, trust me, this is not going to be forgotten by a lot of voters the Democrats really are going to need next fall. It’s simply a terrible look, and somebody should get fired behind it.

But the reality is that Bloomberg will be up there with the rest of them, and the dynamic of the primary process will be changed because of it, for good and (mostly) ill. Bloomberg has a history of rank public statements, rank racial attitudes, and rank Republicanism. He also has a unique capacity for irritating the current president*. He also has more money than god, which he has put to use on causes like gun control and climate action. He has a network of mayors who love him, and a network of their staffers that he’s trained through luxurious trips to exciting New York City. That is the organization that he brings with him, plus a flood of advertising and a promise that the flood will continue even if he doesn’t get the nomination, and I will not be holding my breath on that one, especially if he gets treated roughly throughout the primaries.

Bloomberg will change the debate-stage dynamic.

Brett CarlsenGetty Images

So what happens? You don’t have to be Kreskin to know that Bloomberg is going to be Target A for everyone else on stage, with the possible exception of Pete Buttigieg, who knows a lot of the same people, and who is running as the healing balm for our wounded nation, and would really like it if the horses were not scared. Bernie’s going to yell at Bloomberg, constantly, about being a rich carpetbagging motherfcker, which he is. Amy Klobuchar will lean on her blue-collar, midwestern common sense for contrast, and that’s got some potential to bite because she’s really good at selling it. I don’t know where Biden will come down on him—Scranton Joe vs. the Billionaire? Or Good Fella, That Mike. Shame He Doesn’t Know Anything About Being President? And maybe Bloomberg and Steyer can just flat out auction the nomination off, right there on live TV. Rod Blagojevich is a free man now. He can give them both tips on selling something political that’s fcking golden.

Which leaves us with Senator Professor Warren, whose people got very energetic on the electric Twitter machine over the weekend. Her campaign really needs a lift. If they are smart, and if they play this right, Michael Bloomberg could be a gift from the gods. The man couldn’t more embody everything she’s made a career fighting against if he were drawn by Thomas Nast. Again, he’s not even on any Democratic ballot until Super Tuesday, but he bum-rushed the DNC into putting him on the debate stage, and he’s trying to money-whip the nomination before anyone actually gets to vote for him. (Hell, Trump at least ran the whole race last time around.) If you’re running on how monopoly power and the money power have had a corrupting influence on how we do politics in this country in the 21st century, could you have asked for a bigger fish in a smaller barrel?

New Hampshire Democratic Primary Debate

Sanders and Warren will go after Bloomberg full-throttle. Biden? Who knows.

Boston Globe Getty Images

Sanders, of course, has leaned into this issue for decades as well, because his heart is in the right place. The difference between the two, I think, is that SPW knows far more about how the mechanisms of the money power work to sabotage the institutions of politics and government. In her own phrase, she knows how the tricks and traps work better than a lot of the people who set them up. She’s been one of the principal diagnosticians of financial thievery for going on 30 years now, in and out of government. I believe that’s why she worries them more than does Sanders, whom they believe, perhaps falsely, they can simply blow off.

Perhaps coincidentally, Bloomberg leaked his Wall Street reform plan to the New York Times on Tuesday. Perhaps coincidentally, its words are very similar to what you might expect if Warren or Sanders had been born Michael Bloomberg.

A financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent

Toughening banking regulations like the Volcker Rule and forcing lenders to hold more in reserve against losses

Having the Justice Department create a dedicated team to fight corporate crime and “encouraging prosecutors to pursue individuals, not only corporations, for infractions”

Merging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Strengthening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and “expanding its jurisdiction to include auto lending and credit reporting”

And millions and millions of dollars in TV ads to push it. It’s going to be fun watching Bloomberg try to sell himself as the scourge of everyone with whom he’s ever had lunch.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

Posted on

Here’s How Mike Bloomberg Is Preparing For His First Debate in More Than A Decade

Former New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg will take the debate stage for the first time on Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Nevada in what is likely to be a bitter clash with his Democratic rivals—and his team acknowledges he may be a little out of practice.

Bloomberg hasn’t faced off against a political opponent in more than a decade. The last time he participated in a formal debate was in 2009 when he was running for re-election as mayor of New York City. But even then, he was only challenged by one candidate. This time around he’ll face five other Democrats, all of whom have been involved in the presidential race for far longer than he.

The 78-year-old billionaire qualified for the event at the last minute after a national poll from NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist College showed him at 19 percent support—higher than the 10 percent threshold needed to be eligible for the event.

The Nevada debate is expected to be contentious—Bloomberg and his 2020 rivals already have traded insults during the past few days.

“We definitely anticipate that the field is going to attack us and we’re going to have incoming insults from all sides,” a Bloomberg campaign official told Newsweek on Tuesday.

But his inexperience and reputation as a bad speaker—he once ended a speech in 2012 by wondering “who wrote this s***?”—does not necessarily bode well for his performance on Wednesday.

So to prepare, his team has been holding mock debates in which senior campaign members imitate different Democratic candidates. Howard Wolfson, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 run and is now a senior adviser for Bloomberg, has played the role of Bernie Sanders. Wolfson has admitted that his impression of the senator is not the best.

Also participating in the makeshift debate panel is Bloomberg’s press secretary Julie Wood as Elizabeth Warren, senior adviser Marc La Vorgna as Pete Buttigieg and senior adviser Marcia Hale as Amy Klobuchar.

The mock debates were first reported by Politico and CNN on Tuesday morning and later confirmed to Newsweek by a campaign official.


Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg holds a campaign rally on February 4, 2020 in Detroit, Michigan. Bloomberg will participate in his first debate on Wednesday in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bill Pugliano/Getty

The five other candidates who have qualified to participate in the Nevada debate are Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Bloomberg has largely avoided interacting with his 2020 rivals by taking a more unique campaign approach. Instead of focusing on early-voting states such as New Hampshire or South Carolina, where most candidates have been battling each other for months, Bloomberg is spending the most time and resources in states that vote on Super Tuesday and beyond.

So far, he’s spent more than $300 million in television advertising nationwide—more than the rest of the Democratic field combined. In total, he plans to spend $1 billion of his own personal fortune in the 2020 election cycle.

The advertising campaign appears to be paying off, as Bloomberg has climbed in recent polls. The NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist College survey released on Tuesday represented a 15-point jump from his support in the group’s poll in December.

He’s also surged to first or second place in some key battleground states. A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA showed Bloomberg with 21 percent support in California, trailing Sanders by only 4 percentage points. In Virginia, a Monmouth University survey showed Bloomberg tied with Sanders for the lead in Virginia.

Wednesday night’s debate comes just days before Nevada will hold it’s “first in the West” caucuses. The early-voting contest, which will be the first real test for presidential candidates among Latino voters, will be held on February 22.

Posted on

Michael Bloomberg: The rise of the world’s ninth richest man

Image copyright
Getty Images

Image caption

Michael Bloomberg

Even as a child growing up in Medford, Massachusetts, a suburban town near Boston, just at the edge of cosmopolitanism, Michael Bloomberg was keen to be a man in charge.

“He wanted to be the boss of whatever we were working on,” his late mother Charlotte recalled to a biographer in 2009. “He wanted to run everything.”

At 78, Mr Bloomberg has been the boss of many things – the chief executive of a financial data firm, the mayor of America’s most populous city, the head of a national gun control group, the founder of a news service that bears his name.

Speculation over whether the technocratic billionaire would one day run for president of the United States has been rife since his entry into politics in 2001, when he won the New York mayoral race as a Republican.

Now, as one of the richest men in the world, he is seeking America’s highest political office- this time as a Democrat.

From modest roots to moneyed man

Mr Bloomberg was born in 1942 into a middle-class family – the son of a book-keeper.

After studying engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, he got his first job on Wall Street upon completing an MBA at Harvard in 1966.

He secured a position at Salomon Brothers, and by 1972 he had become a partner. But his relationship with the firm ended abruptly nine years later when Salomon Brothers was bought out and Mr Bloomberg was sacked.

He used his stake from the Salomon sale to found his own business – now a global media and financial data empire named after him.

Today Bloomberg LP has offices around the world. It is the leading global provider of financial data and has made Mr Bloomberg a very wealthy man.

With an estimated net worth of $62 billion (£47.6 billion), he was the ninth richest person in the world in 2019, according to Forbes – and the sixth richest in America.

But he has always wanted more and has admitted to being a man who craves admiration.

“Adulation is great,” he was once quoted as saying.

A turn to politics

Image copyright
Getty Images

Though never considered a charismatic candidate, Mr Bloomberg has never lost an election.

In his first race to become mayor in 2001, he switched parties from Democrat to Republican, secured the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, his predecessor and now lawyer to President Trump, and spent tens of millions of dollars to win.

He raised taxes and cut costs – never vote-winners – and gained a reputation as a technocratic killjoy.

In his first term, he banned smoking for bars, fought with transport unions and launched a crusade against street vendors. Tabloid papers began referring to the mayor as “Gloomberg”.

But an improved economy, better school results and falling crime rate under his mayoralty won him a second term in office in 2005 with a victory margin of 20% – the highest for any Republican in New York.

He left the party in the middle of his second term, running and winning a third as an independent. “In God we trust. Everyone else, bring data,” was a favourite Bloomberg motto – centrism, empiricism and pragmatism were his political brand, regardless of his party.

Image copyright
Getty Images

A Democrat once again?

As mayor, constituents described him as “cold” and “business-like”, but effective. When he left office in 2013, his 12 years at city hall were seen as a success by New Yorkers, and his subsequent philanthropic activities – including his biggest project, backing gun control legislation across the US – put him solidly in the Democratic camp once again.

In 2018, he spent $41m backing Democratic candidates running for the US House of Representatives. Twenty-one out of the 24 he supported won, 15 of whom were women. In 2019, he donated $3.9 billion to charities supporting top issues on the left, from green energy to abortion access.

But Mr Bloomberg’s bid to become the man to take on Mr Trump in 2020 has struck a discordant tone with a party that has made demands for race, gender and income equality a large part of its diagnosis for America’s ills.

Comments the former mayor has made about women and people of colour have resurfaced and come back to haunt him. A hard-line policing tactic, stop and frisk, that was expanded by Mr Bloomberg over the course of his mayoral terms has been criticised as racist and ineffective.

Who will take on Trump in November?

Whereas his wealth could once be used to argue (as Mr Trump, another wealthy New Yorker did in 2016) that his interests cannot be bought, today, the accusation levied by opponents is that Mr Bloomberg is seeking to buy the election. He has already spent several hundred million dollars, and has said he is willing to spend as much as a billion.

Could Mr Bloomberg go all the way to the Democratic convention in July? He has the resources, but is working on the persuasion.

In February, his campaign launched an effort to reach black voters, belatedly admitting that he was wrong about stop-and-frisk and pledging to invest $70bn in fighting for economic justice if he was elected.

“Throughout my career,” the billionaire said, “I’ve tried to do the right thing.

“Not the popular thing or the politically correct thing, but the right thing”.

But it takes popularity to win.

Posted on

“Justice is Supposed to be Blind. Bill Barr Can’t See That.”

“Justice is Supposed to be Blind. Bill Barr Can’t See That.” – Comey Attacks AG Barr in WaPo Op-Ed…AGAIN!


James Comey

Fired FBI Director James Comey attacked US Attorney General Bill Barr again on Tuesday in a WaPo op-ed.

Comey obviously feels threatened by Bill Barr because this is the second time he has attacked the Attorney General in one week!

The Democrat-media complex began attacking Barr after he smacked down Mueller’s prosecutors for abusing Roger Stone by recommending a 7 to 9 year prison sentence for process crimes.

Comey wrote a Washington Post op-ed titled, “Justice is supposed to be blind. Bill Barr can’t see that.”

The obligation of all Justice employees is to protect that reservoir, to pass it to those who follow, who will likely never meet or know them.

The problem with reservoirs is that it takes tremendous time and effort to fill them, but one hole in a dam can drain them quickly. The protection of that reservoir requires vigilance, an unerring commitment to truth and a recognition that the actions of one may affect the priceless gift that benefits all.

If Justice Department employees are no longer seen as something separate in American life, we are all less safe. If jurors, judges, victims, witnesses, cops and sheriffs come to see them as part of a political tribe, and so trust them less, something essential is lost.

Now, one person, Attorney General William P. Barr, threatens the reservoir of trust. From the beginning, this attorney general has echoed the president, aping his dishonest characterizations of the department’s work and appearing to respond to President Trump’s self-interested demands for new investigations and prosecutions. And the water began draining. Last week, it started gushing out when the attorney general intervened in a case involving one of the president’s friends to overrule the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors.

This is rich coming from the same FBI director who announced there will be no charges against Hillary Clinton despite admitting she broke the law many times by using a private server to conduct official government business.

Comey usurped the DOJ and made this announcement during a July 2016 press conference just days after then-AG Loretta Lynch met with Hillary’s husband Bill Clinton on a tarmac at Phoenix Int’l Airport.

President Trump ultimately fired Comey for his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Spare us the lecture on how “justice is supposed to be blind,” Comey.

Posted on

Steyer, Klobuchar Face Low Latino Support Ahead Of Nevada Caucuses

Last week, two Democratic presidential candidates, Tom Steyer and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, fumbled when asked by Telemundo to name Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. The mistake was viewed on one of the most-watched Spanish language channels.

Now, according to a Telemundo poll released Tuesday and conducted between February 10 to February 12 before the interview aired,  the two candidates aren’t faring well with the Latino voters in Nevada and it’s clear they didn’t do their homework to salvage that support.

61 percent of Latino voters in Nevada said they want to replace President Donald Trump in 2020, according to the recent poll, however, the question as to who should replace Trump remains. The poll results for Steyer and Klobuchar are as follows:

When asked “If the Nevada Democratic Party Caucus were held today, which one of the following candidates would get your vote?” 5 percent of Latino voters favored Klobuchar and three percent favored Steyer.

When asked “Among all of the presidential candidates, which one do you think has paid the most attention to issues affecting the Latino community?” Klobuchar and Steyer didn’t rank among their fellow Democrats.

The Nevada caucuses will be held Saturday.

During her interview, Klobuchar couldn’t say anything about the Lopez Obrador himself, nor could she identify his administration’s policies except “that they are our neighbors and regardless of who the leader is, it is someone that I will work with.” When pressed to name the Mexican leader, Klobuchar stumbled badly over her words insisting “I know who he is, the Mexican president” and replying “no” when asked blatantly if she could name him. At one point, Klobuchar appeared to look over to others, most likely campaign staffers, almost as if she was trying to phone a friend.

Steyer had a similar reaction to the Telemundo reporter’s questions. He said, “Look, Mexico has had an issue in terms of governmental control for a really, really long time and there has been a question about not just narcotraficantes, but really the question about how the government relates to the people in terms of the PRI controlling that country for so long and the question and really about having a system of laws.”

“I don’t know that much, I mean I’ve read about him but I don’t that much about him”-Tom Steyer

When asked what he knew about the Mexican President, Steyer said, “They elected a Left wing guy who’s very progressive, who’s the absolute diametric opposite of Donald Trump and the question is how are we gonna get along with that guy, how are we gonna find shared values, how are we gonna come to a place where what he’s looking for works with us.” He continued, “I think he’s a very progressive man.”

When asked about the Lopez Obrador’s policies, Steyer said, “I forget, but I will follow his policies” elaborating “I followed this election. I’ve watched what’s happening.”

“I followed this election from the standpoint of… he was the mayor of Mexico City, he’s a progressive man. I’ve followed this policy from the standpoint of what does this mean for him getting along with us, what does it mean for him getting along with a Right-wing, nationalist president of the United States of America, and how are we going to relate to that,” Steyer said, “And so, to me, I followed that very closely because there’s a real question in Mexico: where are they going with their policies? This was a true change. It was a distinct change… So have I met him? No. Do I go to Mexico every single year? Yes. Do I understand that Mexico is at a crossroads in terms of how it is governed and it was a distinct choice that scared the pants off people, off people, of business people in Mexico and the United States. Yes, I do.”

Posted on

Who should I vote for? The case for each 2020 frontrunner

The Democratic primary started with the biggest and most diverse field of contenders ever. It’s been winnowed down since then, but voters remain divided on the best choice to face off against President Trump in November.

Vox does not endorse candidates. But Vox writers have made what they see as the best case for each frontrunner, defined in most instances as a candidate who passed 10 percent in the national polling averages.

Here are their arguments.


Bernie Sanders can unite Democrats and beat Trump in 2020

by Matthew Yglesias

Amanda Northrop/Vox

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is best known for his calls for a political revolution. But Sanders himself, Vox’s Matthew Yglesias argued in January, is more pragmatic than his critics give him credit for, unorthodox in important ways on foreign and monetary policy, and uniquely capable of unifying the Democratic Party against Trump.


Elizabeth Warren has the best shot at a transformative presidency

by Ezra Klein

Amanda Northrop/Vox

The three best arguments for nominating Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Ezra Klein wrote in January: She understands America’s problems better than anyone else in the field. She understands how to wield the powers of the regulatory state. And she has the clearest plan for making ambitious governance possible again.


Joe Biden is the only candidate with a real shot at getting things done

by Laura McGann

An illustration saying “The case for Joe Biden”

Amanda Northrop/Vox

The next president will need the Senate. Vice President Joe Biden is the best person to deliver it to them, Laura McGann argued in January. The 2018 election results showed that swing voters will be key, and Biden offers Democrats their best shot at winning up and down the ballot, while still promising a governing agenda that would make him the most progressive president in recent history.


Pete Buttigieg is more electable than Bernie Sanders — and more progressive than you think

by Dylan Matthews

Amanda Northrop/Vox

The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, best unites the qualities Democrats say they want in a nominee, Dylan Matthews argued in February. He advocates a form of liberalism that’s more ambitious than Obama’s, and has a sophistication about political institutions and structures that Obama sometimes lacked. The combination could prove powerful — redefining the party for a generation.


Mike Bloomberg and his billions are what Democrats need to beat Trump

by Emily Stewart

Amanda Northrop/Vox

Bloomberg is a competent, accomplished alternative to the chaos and bravado of President Trump, Emily Stewart argued in February. There’s evidence to suggest he can win — and that his billions would help Democrats hold the House and take back the Senate too.

Posted on

Federal judges call emergency meeting to discuss Roger Stone case

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to delay sentencing for Trump confidant Roger Trump on his conviction for witness tampering and lying to Congress.

The decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson came after President Trump tweeted in defense of his longtime ally and said Stone’s conviction “should be thrown out.”

Stone’s sentencing, scheduled for Thursday, comes as his attorneys are requesting a new trial, alleging “significant bias” from one juror. The motion was prompted by a Trump tweet.

Jackson gave U.S. prosecutors until today to respond.

The court developments come as the Federal Judges Assn. plans to host an emergency meeting on Tuesday to discuss the intervention of the Department of Justice and President Trump in the Stone sentencing, according to USA Today.

The group was set to meet later this spring, but its leader, Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, told USA Today the group “could not wait” to discuss the actions of Atty. Gen. William Barr and Trump.

Top career prosecutors initially recommended Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison for lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstructing a House investigation. After Trump described the recommendations as a “miscarriage of justice,” the department indicated it would relax its recommendations, leading all four career prosecutors on the case to resign. One left the department entirely.

Rufe said the conference call meeting would consist of 15 to 20 officers and members of the association’s executive committee, adding that she did not know whether the association would share the results.

The nearly 40-year-old voluntary association advocates for federal judiciary independence.

Rufe told USA Today that the association was “not inclined to get involved with an ongoing case,” but was supportive of U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over the trial. “I am not concerned with how a particular judge will rule,” said Rufe, who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2002. “We are supportive of any federal judge who does what is required.”

Jackson has found herself the subject of the president’s ire.

Trump last week questioned her treatment of his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, whom she jailed prior to his convictions after he attempted witness tampering.

“Is this the judge that put Paul Manafort in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, something not even mobster Al Capone had to endure?” Trump tweeted.“How did she treat Crooked Hillary Clinton? Just asking!”

The sealed motion from Stone’s attorneys came one day after Trump tweeted that “it looks like the fore person in the jury, in the Roger Stone case, had significant bias. Add that to everything else, and this is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department.”

Former president of the Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners Tomeka Hart in a Facebook post wrote: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice.”

The post gave renewed attention to the forewoman’s social media postings, including some that suggested an anti-Trump bias. Though her identity was not known to the public, it was known by Stone’s attorneys, who had the chance to challenge her participation in the trial during jury selection.

On Sunday, more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials submitted a letter calling on Barr to resign for ignoring the “long-standing practice” of not allowing political influence in legal decisions.