Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) campaign responded to criticisms from CNN over its socialist platform late this week by quoting Shakespeare and making a false claim.
Nina Turner, national co-chair of the Sanders campaign, made the remarks during a segment on CNN’s “Newsroom,” which featured fallout from this week’s Democrat debate on NBC.
CNN&#8217;s Brooke Baldwin said, &#8220;There&#8217;s this new &#8216;Wall Street Journal&#8217;/NBC News poll that found that two-thirds of the respondents said that they were actually uncomfortable with a socialist president.&#8221;
&#8220;But when you break it down – Shakespeare once said, what is in a name? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet,&#8221; Turner responded. &#8220;What is Democratic socialism? It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. What does that mean?&#8221;
&#8220;I am talking about this particular poll,&#8221; Baldwin responded. &#8220;And I want to – I want an answer on the fact that the majority of America is not comfortable with a socialist president.&#8221;
&#8220;He is a Democratic socialist,&#8221; Turner said, later claiming that &#8220;the majority of the American people&#8221; support Sanders&#8217; government run health care program and free college.
&#8220;Nina, you keep pivoting,&#8221; Baldwin pressed. &#8220;You got to answer the question.&#8221;
&#8220;So, for all of the people trying to make hay over the word, Senator Sanders is not talking about socialism in a traditional sense, in terms of what happens in Europe,&#8221; Turner falsely claimed. &#8220;He never once said that the government should take over the production of all goods and services in this country.&#8221;
For starters, Sanders, who is a socialist, has repeatedly tried to brand his socialism as being the same thing that European countries like <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=denmark%20(from%3ASenSanders%20OR%20from%3ABernieSanders)&amp;src=typed_query">Denmark</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=finland%20(from%3ASenSanders%20OR%20from%3ABernieSanders)&amp;src=typed_query">Finland</a>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=norway%20(from%3ASenSanders%20OR%20from%3ABernieSanders)&amp;src=typed_query">Norway</a>, have – which is false. Those countries are <a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/is-denmark-socialist/">capitalist</a> countries that have large social safety nets – also known as big government welfare programs – that hamper economic growth.
Forbes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#224f70174ad3">reported</a>:
<blockquote>The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning government exerting control or ownership of businesses, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word. Simply look at the long-running affinity of leftists with socialist dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela for proof many on the left long for real socialism.
To the extent that the left wants to point to an example of successful socialism, not just generous welfare states, the Nordic countries are actually a poor case to cite. Regardless of the perception, in reality the Nordic countries practice mostly free market economics paired with high taxes exchanged for generous government entitlement programs.
First, it is worth noting that the Nordic counties were economic successes before they built their welfare states. Those productive economies, generating good incomes for their workers, allowed the governments to raise the tax revenue needed to pay for the social benefits. It was not the government benefits that created wealth, but wealth that allowed the luxury of such generous government programs.</blockquote>
Sanders&#8217; claim that he wants to be like those countries is false, which is evidenced by his repeated demonization of capitalism – which leads to the next point: Sanders is a socialist.
Turner&#8217;s claim that Sanders has &#8220;never once&#8221; advocated for the government to take over the production of goods and services in the U.S. is false.
Sanders has repeatedly advocated for nationalization ranging from the 1970s – when he &#8220;urged the nationalization of most major industries,&#8221; according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/kfile-bernie-nationalization/index.html">CNN</a> – to his current socialist campaign for president, where is he advocating for forcing everyone off of their private health insurance plans and onto a government run health care system, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html">The New York Times</a>.
WATCH:
<iframe title="Sanders Campaign Co-Chair Quotes Shakespeare When Asked About Socialism&#039;s Unpopularity" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V5O-BJncB-A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rally Against Closing of Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia

CNN Grills Sanders Campaign Over Socialism. They Respond By Quoting Shakespeare, Making False Claims.

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders

Socialism

Two Christian students, each struggling with their sexual desires and faith, engage in sexual activity on three separate occasions. Each occasion proceeds the same way, yet the woman would later claim – after a professor suggest she do so – that the final encounter was sexual assault. Her story would then change and evolve over time, something the “trauma-informed” school officials claimed made her more credible, not less.
The case involves a Syracuse University student referred to in court documents reviewed by The Daily Wire as John Doe and a female student referred to only as RP. The two students met through church and began spending time together when they both went to Syracuse. John’s lawsuit stated that neither he nor RP had “extensive sexual experience,” and they were each in a committed relationship when their sexual activity began.
Johns lawsuit insisted that RP gave “affirmative consent at every stage” of each sexual encounter, even though she would later deny this to administrators in an ever-evolving story of sexual assault. On the first encounter, John asked RP to “hang out.” RP responded by saying her boyfriend had just broken up with her. The two had dinner and returned to John’s apartment. They began kissing, which progressed to “mutual fondling,” before the two moved into John’s bedroom. They removed each other’s clothing and attempted vaginal intercourse but could not due to their inexperience. After the encounter, the two struggled with how it violated their Christian values. John also felt extreme guilt for cheating on his girlfriend. He felt “such emotional anguish” that RP even “offered to take him to the hospital,” John’s lawsuit said, but he refused. Instead, John sought counseling from a Christian professional.
The second encounter progressed similarly: The two struggled with their feelings, suggested they avoid each other so as not to be tempted, met up anyway (RP voluntarily drove to John’s apartment), engaged in similar sexual contact, and then again worried about violating their Christian beliefs.
The third encounter was similar as well. After saying they would avoid each other, the two saw each other in church. RP said she didn’t have money for lunch, so John invited her to his apartment to eat. RP would later claim she didn’t want to go to John’s apartment, but she voluntarily drove her own car there. The two started kissing once inside the apartment, which escalated again into John’s bedroom, where the two removed each other’s clothes and engaged in mutual fondling. John said he was aware they would both likely regret the encounter, but RP told him not to worry and that it didn’t bother her, according to John’s lawsuit. During this encounter, the two succeeded in vaginal intercourse. Afterward, the two again discussed their guilty feelings about violating their faith. RP was also upset because she planned to recommit to her previous boyfriend and was no longer a virgin.
Two days later, RP told one of her professors about her sexual encounters. This professor allegedly told her to rethink the consensual events as non-consensual, according to John’s lawsuit. Syracuse never investigated the professor’s role in RP bringing forth sexual assault allegations against John, nor did it seek to determine whether what she told the professor was different than what she would later tell police and administrators. RP also at this time deleted all text messages between herself and John in order to eliminate evidence of their “consensual contact and communications,” John’s lawsuit said.
RP reported John to the Syracuse Department of Public Safety (DPS), who referred her to the Syracuse Police Department (SPD). RP told an officer at this time that she did not consent to any of the sexual relations with John on their third encounter. She would later say she consented to kissing.
DPS issued a no-contact order but did not inform John about it. RP was not informed that John wasn’t told about the order, leading her to make additional claims that he violated the no-contact order. John left a voicemail for RP on November 27, 2016. RP complained a week later but admitted that John had not been inappropriate, and she was not fearful of him. John wasn’t informed of the no-contact order until December 1, 2016.
On December 6, RP changed her story and talked about the struggle with her religious beliefs. It was at this time that she admitted to consensually kissing John on their third sexual encounter. She had also originally told the officer that things never progressed past digital penetration or “hand jobs” during any of their encounters, but now said she faced a pregnancy scare after their second encounter because they had attempted sexual intercourse. She also had previously said their first and second encounters were completely consensual, but now said the attempted intercourse on the second attempt was not consensual. As to their third encounter, she did not reveal that the two engaged in mutual oral sex, and described her involvement passively, including suggesting she “ended up on top of Plaintiff,” and “remained on top of him for a few minutes.”
She also told police she didn’t want John prosecuted for further investigated, yet the school went ahead anyway. Syracuse initiated the complaint against John, and investigated him using “trauma-informed” techniques. As The Daily Wire has previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/junk-science-behind-trauma-informed-investigations-ashe-schow">reported</a>, current “trauma-informed” techniques involve teaching campus investigators that evidence of lying is actually evidence of trauma, meaning there is absolutely no way an accused student can be found not responsible. As John wrote in his lawsuit, “Inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account thereby becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma,” while consistency in the accused male student’s account becomes “evidence that he is a premeditated and experienced sex offender.”
RP never sought trauma counseling, that Syracuse assumed she was traumatized based on its poor, unscientific, training materials.
During his hearing, John alleged in his lawsuit that Syracuse used “archaic stereotypes of male sexual desire” to determine him only “partially credible” because he admitted to his desires for RP. The hearing board found RP “credible” even though her account constantly changed. At the hearing, RP suddenly alleged for the first time she was “fearful of leaving” John’s apartment before the sexual encounter. The hearing board simply disregarded the fact that RP had originally said she had never been fearful or upset of John.
This same hearing board ignored actual evidence that John was traumatized by the encounters, including his counseling.
Naturally, John was expelled from Syracuse for sexual assault. He sued, and on Friday, Judge Brenda Sannes, an Obama appointee, denied Syracuse’s motion to dismiss John’s lawsuit. Sannes cited in her opinion the fact that Syracuse didn’t even provide John with a copy of RP’s accusations against him.
Further, and what can now be seen as a big win for opponents of so-called trauma-informed investigations, Sannes cited Syracuse training as being deficient and leading to her allowing John’s lawsuit to move forward.
“Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the investigation relied on ‘trauma informed techniques’ that ‘turn unreliable evidence into its opposite, such that inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account . . . becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful,’” Sannes wrote. “Plaintiff, on the other hand, was found by the Board to be ‘lacking in credibility’ because he, inter alia, acknowledged his sexual desire for RP and acknowledged that he ‘was still ‘horny’ after she withdrew consent for kissing.’”

Regretful woman

Christian Student Regrets Sexual Encounter, Accuses Male Student Of Sexual Assault. School Uses ‘Trauma-Informed’ Training To Find Him Guilty.

Education

Sexual Assault

Title IX

Clinton Eastwood has always been an anomaly &#8212; a conservative in Hollywood.
And the &#8220;Dirty Harry&#8221; actor, a former mayor of Carmel-By-The-Sea, Ca., has always been active in politics &#8212; even now at 89 years old. On Friday, he weighed in on the 2020 presidential race, picking a candidate you might not have expected.
&#8220;The best thing we could do is just get Mike Bloomberg in there,&#8221; Eastwood told the <a href="http://apkmetro.com/a-hollywood-legend-talks-politics/">Wall Street Journal.</a>
The actor, who now describes himself as a libertarian who has &#8220;respect for other people’s ideas and is willing to learn constantly,&#8221; said President Donald Trump has done &#8220;certain things&#8221; that he supported. But he said he does not appreciate the &#8220;ornery&#8221; state of current politics and would like the president to act &#8220;in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names.&#8221;
&#8220;I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level,&#8221; Eastwood said.
Eastwood set the political world on fire in 2012 when he gave his famous &#8220;empty-chair&#8221; speech at the Republican National Convention. In the speech, Eastwood, then backing GOP candidate Mitt Romney, conducted a mock interview with the chair, representing President Barack Obama.
&#8220;What do you want me to tell Romney?&#8221; Eastwood asked the empty chair. &#8220;I can&#8217;t tell him to do that to himself &#8230; you&#8217;re getting as bad as [former vice president Joe] Biden &#8230; of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Kind of a grin with a body behind it &#8230;&#8221;
Eastwood later asked, &#8220;Mr, President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people?&#8221;
No answer from the empty chair.
Eastwood concluded his speech saying: &#8220;When somebody doesn&#8217;t do the job, you gotta let &#8217;em go,&#8221; as he drew a finger across his throat.
Before the 2016 election, Eastwood told Esquire magazine he was supporting Trump over Hillary Clinton, adding that his anti-Obama views influenced his decision.
&#8220;I&#8217;d have to go for Trump &#8230; you know, &#8217;cause she&#8217;s declared that she&#8217;s gonna follow in Obama&#8217;s footsteps. There&#8217;s been just too much funny business on both sides of the aisle. She&#8217;s made a lot of dough out of being a politician. I gave up dough to be a politician. I&#8217;m sure that Ronald Reagan gave up dough to be a politician.&#8221;
But Eastwood has also praised Trump&#8217;s more macho way. In 2017, during a conversation moderated by Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan, Eastwood mocked the politically correct world of today.
“[Trump’s] onto something, because secretly, everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up,” he said.”We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells,” he said. “We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”
And he said he probably couldn&#8217;t make &#8220;Dirty Harry&#8221; today.
“A lot of people thought it was politically incorrect,” Eastwood said. “That was at the beginning of the era that we’re in now, where everybody thinks everyone’s politically correct. We’re killing ourselves by doing that. We’ve lost our sense of humor.”

CinemaCon 2015 &#8211; CinemaCon And Warner Bros. Pictures Present &#8220;The Legend Of Cinema Luncheon: A Salute To Clint Eastwood&#8221;

Clint Eastwood Offers Surprising Support For This 2020 Candidate

Clint Eastwood

Donald Trump

Michael Bloomberg

The Washington Post is worried that President Donald Trump is removing people from his administration he sees as disloyal to him or his agenda.
In an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/were-cleaning-it-out-trump-embarks-on-expansive-search-for-disloyalty-as-administration-wide-purge-escalates/2020/02/21/870e6c56-54c1-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html">article</a> titled “Trump embarks on expansive search for disloyalty as administration-wide purge escalates,” three Post reporters try to craft a narrative of something nefarious, even though any president would do the same thing.
“Johnny McEntee, Trump’s former personal aide who now leads the effort as director of presidential personnel, has begun combing through various agencies with a mandate from the president to oust or sideline political appointees who have not proved their loyalty, according to several administration officials and others familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations,” the Post reported.
Notice the entire story is based on anonymous “administration officials and others familiar with the matter.”
The article contains just two on-the-record statements, one from former White House adviser Cliff Sims who said there was nothing wrong with the president expecting loyalty in his administration.
“Loyalist shouldn’t be a dirty word,” Sims told the outlet. “Loyalty to the duly elected president and his agenda is exactly what we should expect from our unelected appointees.”
The other statement came from Brendan Buck, longtime adviser to former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), who said finding people who never take issue with a president’s agenda would be difficult (without noting that Obama seemed to have no trouble on this front).
“If they also insist on hiring only people who’ve never taken issue with something the president has done, it’s going to be slim pickings,” Buck said.
Perhaps it’s not so much about being in lock-step with the president but about carrying out his agenda without undermining it through leaks and insubordination.
Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, said on Twitter that there was nothing wrong with Trump cleaning house to expel disloyalty.
“There is nothing g wrong with this. Every POTUS deserves a team committed to the President’s agenda, not their own. Does anyone think if Bernie wins he won’t install his own people, and rid the WH of anyone ‘loyal’ to Trump? This is fine,” Fleischer <a href="https://twitter.com/arifleischer/status/1231213061849088002?s=11">tweeted</a>.
Among those who have been let go so far are John Rood, who was formerly in charge of Defense Department policy and the Vindman brothers, all of whom were seen as working against Trump and helping Democrats try to remove him from office. Victoria Coates, a deputy national security adviser, was moved to the Energy Department. It was announced this week that Trump was moving Ric Grenell, the ambassador to Germany, to Director of National Intelligence. Grenell has worked already to get the community in line with Trump’s agenda. The previous acting head of the intelligence community was Joseph Maguire, whose deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned when Grenell was put in charge.
It is unlikely the Post would be worried if a Democrat president cleared out people who didn’t agree with his or her agenda, as Fleischer said.

President Trump

Washington Post Frets Over Trump Removing Disloyal People In His Administration

Media Bias

Washington Post

It’s easy to say you won’t take money from certain people when you expect to win, but now that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is struggling in the 2020 Democratic primary, she’s rethinking whose money she will accept for her campaign.
Warren had initially rejected super PAC support as part of a campaign bemoaning big-dollar donors. She has now reversed her position, claiming she’s doing so because only she and fellow female primary candidate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are without super PACs, CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/20/elizabeth-warren-reverses-her-position-on-super-pac-support.html">reported</a>.
“So, here’s where I stand. If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I’ll lead the charge,” Warren said. “But that’s how it has to be. It can’t be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only one or two don’t.”
But that’s exactly what a leader should do. Warren is essentially conceding that she has failed to lead and gain followers for her allegedly principled stand.
On Thursday, Warren said it was “just not right” that the only “two women” still running for the Democratic nomination weren’t getting support from super PACs.
“So, look, the first day I got in this race over a year ago, I said I hope every presidential candidate who comes in will agree – no super PACs for any of us. I renewed that call dozens of times,” Warren said. “And I couldn’t get a single Democrat to go along with it.”
If that’s not a metaphor for her entire campaign, I don’t know what is.
“Finally, we reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were still in this race and on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires and could just rummage around their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign,” Warren added.
A dedicated super PAC for Klobuchar, Kitchen Table Conversations, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Friday, while a super PAC for Warren, Persist PAC, filed paperwork on Tuesday.
Opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does not have a dedicated super PAC, but then again, he actually has grassroots support. There is a super PAC connected to the National Nurses United, a union, which is supporting Sanders, and he also has the nonprofit political organization Our Revolution behind him, which doesn’t have to disclose its donors.
Warren is currently in <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/democratic_delegate_count.html">third place</a> in the Democratic primary ahead of the Nevada caucus on Saturday. She received eight delegates in the Iowa caucus. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg stands at the lead with 22 delegates, while Sanders is close behind with 21. Polling-wise, Warren is in <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">fourth place</a> thanks to Michael Bloomberg’s nearly $500 million attempt to buy his way into the election.
Warren is still trying to pretend she’s principled, releasing a statement Wednesday claiming she thinks Democrats shouldn’t accept help from super PACs even as she is now accepting help from super PACs. Her <a href="https://facts.elizabethwarren.com/the-best-president-money-cant-buy/">website</a> also still claims she “would disavow any super PAC formed to support her in the Democratic primary.”
She has not disavowed Resist PAC.

Elizabeth Warren

Now That She’s Losing, Elizabeth Warren Rethinks Ban On Super PAC Cash

Super-Pac

Twitter is suspending 70 accounts that support Michael Bloomberg’s campaign, finding that they have posted identical messages in an effort to commit “platform manipulation.”
“We have taken enforcement action on a group of accounts for violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam,” a Twitter spokesman told the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-21/twitter-suspends-bloomberg-accounts">Los Angeles Times</a>. Some of the suspensions will be permanent, but account owners will also have the chance to verify their control.
Bloomberg, worth an estimated $64 billion, has already dropped nearly $500 million into the race for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. He is deploying a social media outreach as part of his campaign, hiring hundreds of temporary employees to fire out campaign messages through Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Dubbed “deputy field organizers,&#8221; the volunteers are paid $2,500 per month to push out &#8220;campaign-approved language,&#8221; The Times reported.
<blockquote>In posts reviewed by The Times, organizers often used identical text, images, links and hashtags. Many accounts used were created only in the last two months. Bloomberg officially entered the presidential race on Nov. 24.
After The Times inquired about this pattern, Twitter determined it ran afoul of its “Platform Manipulation and Spam Policy.” Laid out in September 2019 in response to the activities of Russian-sponsored troll networks in the 2016 presidential election, the policy prohibits practices such as artificially boosting engagement on tweets and using deliberately misleading profile information.
By sponsoring hundreds of new accounts that post copy-pasted content, Twitter said the campaign violated its rules against “creating multiple accounts to post duplicative content,” “posting identical or substantially similar Tweets or hashtags from multiple accounts you operate” and “coordinating with or compensating others to engage in artificial engagement or amplification, even if the people involved use only one account.”</blockquote>
The Bloomberg campaign responded after the Twitter suspensions.
“We ask that all of our deputy field organizers identify themselves as working on behalf of the Mike Bloomberg 2020 campaign on their social media accounts,&#8221; Sabrina Singh, a spokesman for the Bloomberg campaign, said in a statement. &#8220;Through Outvote [a voter-engagement app], content is shared by staffers and volunteers to their network of friends and family and was not intended to mislead anyone.”
The former New York City mayor has spent more than $463 million in the first two months of his campaign, according to a report filed to the Federal Election Commission. In January alone, Bloomberg dumped $220 million of his own money into his campaign — an average of more than $7 million per day. Those expenditures including $126 million on TV ads and $45 million in online advertising.
Before he entered the race, Bloomberg vowed to take no outside money and spend only his own cash, a vow to which he&#8217;s stuck.
&#8220;According to a campaign aide, the campaign has hired more than 2,100 employees throughout the country and are still in the process of hiring more. A campaign break down of the disclosure report shows it spent over $7 million in payroll last month alone,&#8221; <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-bloombergs-campaign-spent-409-million-january/story?id=69106720">ABC News</a> reported.
Yet Bloomberg isn&#8217;t getting a lot for the money hew&#8217;s poured into the campaign. The mayor stands at just 12% in the most recent <a href="https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/m3wzkd0n59/econTabReport.pdf">national poll</a> conducted by The Economist and YouGov. A couple of other national polls put him a few points higher.
RealClearPolitics keeps a running average on odds from online betting sites. Bloomberg had soared up the charts in recent days, hitting 34.6% on Valentine&#8217;s Day, nearly catching Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who stood at 39%. But <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/democratic_2020_nomination/">those odds crashed</a> after Bloomberg&#8217;s dismal performance in his first televised debate on Wednesday.
The day after the debate, the odds of Bloomberg winning the nomination plunged to 21.8%, while Sanders&#8217; odds soared to 51.8%.

Presidential Candidate Mike Bloomberg Holds Campaign Rally In Nashville

Twitter Suspends 70 Bloomberg-Boosting Accounts For ‘Platform Manipulation’

Former Vice President Joe Biden has a documented history of making up stories to make him sound more interesting on the campaign trail, and he’s up to his old tricks again.
In the past two weeks, Biden has suddenly started claiming he was arrested in South Africa while on his way to visit Nelson Mandela. As The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/biden-south-africa-arrest-mandela.html?0p19G=0038">reported</a>, Biden didn’t include this information in his 2007 memoir and had not spoken about it prominently while campaigning for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
“This day, 30 years ago, Nelson Mandela walked out of prison and entered into discussions about apartheid,” Biden said in South Carolina last week. “I had the great honor of meeting him. I had the great honor of being arrested with our U.N. ambassador on the streets of Soweto trying to get to see him on Robbens Island.”
Biden mentioned the arrest twice more in the next week, claiming he was arrested in between attempts to get his wife, Jill, to agree to marry him. That meant the arrest would have occurred in 1977.
“But if Mr. Biden, then a United States senator from Delaware, was in fact arrested while trying to visit Mr. Mandela, he did not mention it in his 2007 memoir when writing about a 1970s trip to South Africa, and he has not spoken of it prominently on the 2020 campaign trail. A check of available news accounts by The New York Times turned up no references to an arrest. South African arrest records are not readily available in the United States,” the Times reported.
Former congressman Andrew Young, the U.N. ambassador at the time of Biden’s arrest, said he had traveled to South Africa with Biden but was never arrested and was skeptical that members of the U.S. congress would have been at risk in the country.
“No, I was never arrested and I don’t think he was, either,” Young told the Times. “Now, people were being arrested in Washington. I don’t think there was ever a situation where congressmen were arrested in South Africa.”
The Times went on to report that it “could not account for all of the details of Mr. Biden’s overseas travel during the period that included the South Africa trip.” Further, Biden’s campaign didn’t respond to five efforts from the Times to comment and clarify Biden’s remarks.
Biden also ended his story by claiming Mandela himself thanked him for getting arrested while trying to visit.
“After he got free and became president, he came to Washington and came to my office,” Biden said in Las Vegas. “He threw his arms around me and said, ‘I want to say thank you.’ I said, ‘What are you thanking me for, Mr. President?’ He said, ‘You tried to see me. You got arrested trying to see me.’”
The Times speculated that Biden has started telling the story to woo Africa-American voters. Readers may recall that last August Biden was called out for claiming to have tried to pin a Silver Star on a Navy captain who claimed he didn’t deserve the medal. As The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-tells-poignant-story-about-his-encounter-hank-berrien">reported</a>, Biden’s details about the story constantly changed and it appears he completely made up the story.

Joe Biden

Biden Has Suddenly Started Claiming He Was Arrested While Visiting Nelson Mandela – But His Story Doesn’t Add Up

On Friday, <a href="https://morningconsult.com/2020/02/21/michael-bloomberg-polling-post-debate-las-vegas/">Morning Consult</a> released a new national poll conducted before and after the Democratic primary debate, which was held in Nevada on Wednesday. The poll showed a staggering downward trajectory in “favorability” for billionaire late-entrant Michael Bloomberg.
Wednesday was the first time Bloomberg had qualified for a Democratic primary debate.
The poll, which was conducted between February 12-17 and February 20 “among 2,609 voters who indicated they may vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in their state,” shows Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) moving from 28% support to 30%, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) moving from 10% to 12%.
Former Vice President Joe Biden remained steady at 19% support before and after the debate, while former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) each lost one percentage point, 12% to 11% and 6% to 5%, respectively.
Bloomberg fell slightly outside the margin of error, moving from 20% support to 17% support before and after the debate. This may seem like a minor step down, but considering the timing coinciding with his first public challenge at the hands of the other Democratic candidates, it could be indicative of a more dire trend.
Looking further, the Morning Consult poll asked respondents about candidate favorability. For Bloomberg, the results were a disaster. In every demographic category except for one, his favorability plummeted following Wednesday’s debate performance.
Overall, Bloomberg’s net favorability change after the debate was -20 points.
Among men, it was -21 points; among women, it was -18; among liberals, it was -20; among moderates, it was -30; among African Americans, it was -16; and among whites, it was -20 points.
The only category where Bloomberg actually gained net favorability was among conservative “potential Democratic primary voters,” where he gained +2 points following the debate.
Eli Yokley of Morning Consult notes: “No other candidate saw notable change in net favorability, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg of Indiana, whose back-and-forth was the other headline of the night.”
According to the RealClearPolitics average of national polls, Michael Bloomberg sits in third place with 15.2%, behind first place Sanders with 28.7% and second place Biden with 17.3% support.
That said, Bloomberg didn’t compete in Iowa, the first in the nation caucus, or in New Hampshire. The billionaire is not on the ballot in Saturday’s Nevada Caucuses or in South Carolina, which holds its primary on February 29.
The first time Bloomberg will appear on ballots is March 3, known as “Super Tuesday,” when 14 states, American Samoa, and “Democrats Abroad” will hold their primaries. States voting on March 3 include California, Texas, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
Since announcing his candidacy on November 24, Bloomberg has spent approximately “$452 million on advertising,” according to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/02/21/808163144/bloomberg-has-already-spent-450-million-on-ads-since-launching-his-campaign">NPR</a>.
In January alone, per <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/04/16/711812314/tracking-the-money-race-behind-the-presidential-campaign">FEC filings</a>, Bloomberg spent $220,620,862. Aside from Tom Steyer, the other billionaire in the race who is self-funding his campaign, the closest any other candidate has come to Bloomberg in terms of spending is current front-runner Sen. Bernie Sanders, who in January spent $26,534,551.

Menu

Bad News For Bloomberg As Post-Debate Poll Shows Staggering Fall In Favorability

CNN Grills Sanders Campaign Over Socialism. They Respond By Quoting Shakespeare, Making False Claims.

Christian Student Regrets Sexual Encounter, Accuses Male Student Of Sexual Assault. School Uses ‘Trauma-Informed’ Training To Find Him Guilty.

Clint Eastwood Offers Surprising Support For This 2020 Candidate

Washington Post Frets Over Trump Removing Disloyal People In His Administration

Ep. 430 - Lie Or Be Fired

Ep. 958 - From Russia With Love

Ep. 848 - Bloomberg Falls Short

Ep. 429 - The Biggest Loser