“Reproductive abuse” is a newly defined form of domestic violence that keeps a person from making their own reproductive choices.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/life/what-to-do-if-youre-a-victim-of-reproductive-abuse/11817946">reported</a> on the new form of abuse, citing the deputy lead of the Abuse and Violence Program at the University of Melbourne, Laura Tarzia, as claiming this form of abuse can only victimize women.
&#8220;Usually it is perpetrated against women by their male intimate partner, but other family members can also be perpetrators. This is particularly the case for women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds,” Tarzia told the outlet.
Tarzia added that awareness of this particular form of abuse is growing but that there is “still a long way to go to put this issue on the radar.&#8221;
The outlet lists several examples of reproductive abuse:
<blockquote>He refuses to wear a condom.
He hides your contraceptive pill.
He says if you truly loved him you would terminate your pregnancy.</blockquote>
These are certainly controlling and manipulative behaviors, but left out of the article and Tarzia’s statements are that women are not the only victims of such behavior. Sex therapist and author Bettina Arndt pointed out <a href="https://twitter.com/thebettinaarndt/status/1219388031431475201?s=12">on Twitter</a> that there are examples of women abusing men using reproduction.
“Red letter day for the ABC. They&#8217;ve discovered a new form of DV &#8211; reproductive abuse,” Arndt tweeted. “No mention, of course, of a woman&#8217;s planned ‘accidental’ pregnancy, or aborting his wanted child, putting holes in the condom, or pressuring him to have more children. “
Tarzia and the ABC suggested women still weren’t aware that they could be this type of victim, without mentioning that men may not be aware of their own victimhood.
“There is limited research on its prevalence; some US studies estimate <a href="https://srh.bmj.com/content/45/1/61.info">one in four women</a>, and there is Australian research that estimates <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28712124">one in 10</a>,” the ABC reported. “Experts agree these are likely under-reported — like most forms of violence against women — and more work needs to be done.”
As I’ve documented extensively, studies that purport to find one in four or one in five or even one in 10 are overwhelmingly misleading. They use broad definitions of abuse and rely on responses in a survey, meaning it is reliant upon self-reporting, which can’t be trusted. It certainly shouldn’t be relied upon to make policy decisions.
The article also cites a study from Tarzia that explained “reproductive abuse manifests in three main ways: birth control sabotage (such as destroying birth control pills or removing condoms), pregnancy coercion (pressuring or promoting a pregnancy that is not wanted by the woman) and controlling the outcome of pregnancy (for example, threatening a woman if she doesn&#8217;t terminate).”
Of course, these only relate to women, whereas there are situations in each categories where a man could be a victim, such as poking holes in a condom in order to get pregnant, pressuring a man into having a baby or another baby, and threatening a man if he doesn’t pay for an abortion.
The ABC provides no information for men who are the victims of domestic violence, but does include a phone number for an organization that works with men “to end family violence.”

Pregnant woman

‘Reproductive Abuse’: A New Form Of Domestic Violence Activists Only Apply To Women

domestic violence

Sexual Abuse

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) isn’t usually the Republican senator one thinks of to give a scathing speech about Democrat partisanship, but on Wednesday she gave just such an admonishment regarding the organizing resolution for impeachment. 
“First, the Democratic House impeachment managers told us the evidence against President Trump was ‘overwhelming.’ Right after, we heard there wasn’t enough evidence, and we would need to allow additional testimony in order to get it,” Blackburn said.
The first-term senator went on to criticize the impeachment process taken by House Democrats:
<blockquote> House Democrats had ample opportunity to seek testimony from the witnesses they are now requesting, but they decided instead to rush through their unsubstantiated articles of impeachment. The Democrats are entangled in an intellectually dishonest effort to force a constitutional challenge against executive privilege in the name of taking down President Trump at all costs. We don’t need more testimony – we need less abuse of the Constitution, less mania and zero impeachment do overs. President Trump, like any American, has the right to seek relief in the courts, and if Democrats will punish him for this right, they will do it to anyone. Enough is enough.
Majority Leader McConnell pledged that the trial in his chamber would employ fair process. And today, the Senate set fair rules to review the House’s work. We will continue to run a thorough, constitutional process so we can all get back to improving the lives of the American people.</blockquote>
Blackburn also published <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-marsha-blackburn-impeachment-trial-is-a-political-farce-no-more-witnesses-or-documents-are-needed">an op-ed</a> at Fox News Tuesday evening calling the impeachment trial “a political farce.”
“In the days to come, out of respect for the Constitution, 100 senators will sit quietly and listen to arguments that will no more reveal President Trump’s darkest intentions than they will those of Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other person who has relied on candor and objectivity to keep our country afloat,” she wrote.
“No additional witnesses or documents are necessary for the impeachment trial. To admit them would be to legitimize Democrats’ caricature of fairness, and the continuation of a process that will never be more than a political farce,” Blackburn continued.
Her remarks come after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) gave reporters on Tuesday <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-ted-cruz-sums-up-first-day-of-impeachment-trial-with-old-saying-offers-prediction">a summary</a> of the first day of the impeachment trial and offered a prediction.
“We’ve seen one motion after another after another. They’ve been redundant; they’ve been making the same arguments,” Cruz said. “This seems to be a time for Adam Schiff and the House managers to lecture the American people and attack the president.”
“But, you know, there’s an old saying that ‘If you have the facts, you bang the facts. If you have the law, you bang the law. If you don’t have either, you bang the table,&#8217;” Cruz continued. “Well, this afternoon, we’ve seen a whole lot of table banging.”
“And at the end of the day, we’re in the same spot we were in when we began the day,” he continued, “which is the House articles of impeachment that were passed on a partisan basis, they don’t meet the constitutional standard.”
Cruz then predicted the House managers wouldn’t “meet the constitutional threshold” to remove Trump from office.

Marsha Blackburn

Republican Senator Offers Blistering Rebuke Of Democrat Impeachment Efforts

Impeachment

Ted Cruz

The attorneys general of 21 states — predictably all Republicans — have sent <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/443876192/State-AG-letter-to-Senate-on-impeachment#from_embed">a letter</a> to the Senate opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Fox News <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ags-urge-senate-to-reject-impeachment-in-stinging-letter-a-dangerous-historical-precedent">exclusively reported</a> on the letter, which was submitted to the Senate on Wednesday morning and called the impeachment “a dangerous historical precedent.”
&#8220;If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers&#8217; design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers,&#8221; the attorneys general wrote.
&#8220;Impeachment should never be a partisan response to one party losing a presidential election. If successful, an impeachment proceeding nullifies the votes of millions of citizens. The Democrat-controlled House passing of these constitutionally-deficient articles of impeachment amounts, at bottom, to a partisan political effort that undermines the democratic process itself. Even an unsuccessful effort to impeach the President undermines the integrity of the 2020 presidential election because it weaponizes a process that should only be initiated in exceedingly rare circumstances and should never be used for partisan purposes,” they continued.
The attorneys general added: “This body should never permit impeachment proceedings to proceed where they are permeated with the clearly partisan objective of energizing a political party’s base to, ultimately, influence a presidential election. Such a raw political and unconstitutional use of the impeachment power should not be countenanced by the Senate.”
The attorneys general suggest that the Democrats’ claim that Trump abused his power of the presidency is constitutionally flaw and suggests Trump “can be impeached for exercising concededly lawful constitutional authority ‘motivated’ by thoughts a House majority unilaterally deems ‘corrupt.’” They point out the Democrats first article of impeachment does not identify any high crimes or misdemeanors committed by Trump but instead repeats the phrase “abuse of power” for effect.
As to Democrats’ second article of impeachment, claiming Trump obstructed Congress, the attorneys general wrote that, under “the House’s ‘unilateral control’ theory of obstruction, the President could be impeached anytime he vigorously invokes and seeks to protect executive privilege in response to the House’s demand for Executive Branch information.”
The attorneys general suggested that if House Democrats seriously believed Trump was unjustified to invoke executive privilege, it should have taken the traditional route of going to court to challenge the assertion. Instead, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) withdrew the subpoena and plowed ahead with impeachment.
The attorneys general later in their letter take Democrats to task for delaying the Impeachment trial by refusing to hand over the articles of impeachment for nearly a month.
“A delayed impeachment trial also harms the nation because it cripples the office holder’s ability to govern effectively and attempts to cast a pall over his legitimacy, a pall which is lifted only by conviction or acquittal. When the officeholder is the President of the United States, a delayed impeachment is particularly harmful, because undermining a President’s constitutional authority, even temporarily, creates serious risks to national security and the separation of powers,” they wrote.

President Donald Trump

‘Dangerous Historical Precedent’: 21 State AGs Send Letter Asking Senate To Reject Impeachment

Donald Trump

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced Wednesday morning that she has filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for the former secretary of state’s claims that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.”
In a <a href="https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2020-01-22-rep-tulsi-gabbard-files-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton-over-defamatory-statements">press release</a> published to Gabbard’s presidential election campaign website, Gabbard claimed Clinton “deliberately and maliciously made false statements in an attempt to derail Rep. Gabbard’s campaign.” Clinton made the remarks about Gabbard during an October 17, 2019 interview, saying, “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary … [is a] favorite of the Russians… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.”
Gabbard’s press release notes that after Clinton’s comments, the media “extensively republished and disseminated these statements, which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset.”
In <a href="https://d3ba7j4nna908t.cloudfront.net/attachments/Tulsi-HRC_2020-01-22_Complaint_filed.pdf">the lawsuit</a> itself, Gabbards attorneys at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price &amp; Hecht LLP allege that Clinton possibly made the remarks “out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated.” They allege Clinton lied about Gabbard “publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” and that the claims have harmed Gabbard.
The lawsuit calls Clinton “a cutthroat politician by any account,” who held a grudge against Gabbard because the Hawaiian politician endorsed Clinton’s presidential rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in 2016. Clinton went on to lose the election to President Donald Trump.
“Clinton had no basis for making her false assertions about Tulsi—and indeed, there is no factual basis for Clinton’s conspiracy theory. Clinton’s peddling of this theory has harmed Tulsi, has harmed American voters, and has harmed American democracy. Tulsi brings this lawsuit to ensure that the truth prevails and to ensure this country’s political elites are held accountable for intentionally trying to distort the truth in the midst of a critical Presidential election,” the lawsuit says.
Clinton made her now infamous allegations against Gabbard during an interview in October 2019 with former President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe on his podcast “Campaign HQ.” Clinton’s remarks in full stated:
<blockquote>She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. And, that’s assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she’s also a Russian asset. Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.</blockquote>
The lawsuit alleges that Clinton then “doubled down” on the defamatory statements the next day when her official spokesman, Nick Merrill, told CNN “If the nesting doll fits” when asked whether Clinton had been referring to Gabbard. “This is not some outlandish claim. This is reality,” Merrill continued.
Gabbard’s attorneys claim Clinton’s allegations immediately harmed their client, as “[m]illions of Americans heard (or read about) a well-known authority figure, Clinton, stating as fact that Tulsi was a ‘Russian asset’ and ‘the favorite of the Russians.’” They allege Clinton’s claims were “accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states.”
Gabbard claims in her lawsuit that Clinton refused to retract the claim, even though several prominent public figures – as well as Gabbard – asked. Gabbard says she wrote to Clinton to explain how the comments were false and ask for a retraction, but that Clinton refused “and instead stood by them.”
“Tulsi is not a Russian asset. No one—Russia or anyone else—controls her or her presidential campaign,” the lawsuit says. “Instead, Tulsi is a loyal American servant, declaring her allegiance to the United States of America both as a soldier and as a member of Congress. She has been serving for over sixteen years in the United States Army National Guard and has voluntarily deployed twice to war zones in the Middle East.”
While Gabbard’s attorneys claim Clinton’s remarks harmed their client, it will be difficult to prove that in court. The bar for proving defamation against a public figure like Clinton is high, and Gabbard’s lawsuit presents no evidence of actual harm to her or her campaign. They don’t include poll numbers or fundraising numbers as evidence that Clinton’s remarks had any negative effect on the campaign – or any evidence that anyone even remembered what Clinton say four months ago. Still, the lawsuit claims Gabbard “has suffered significant actual damages, personally and professionally, that are estimated to exceed $50 million—and continue to this day.”
The complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District.
This is a breaking story. Check back for updates.

Hillary Clinton, Tulsi Gabbard

BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Tulsi Gabbard

Men and women are both capable of holding the title “Crazy Ex,” and for one young woman in the South East England county of Ken, her crazy ex ended up getting her and her family arrested.
Charlotte Clark-Hughes, 26, ended her years-long relationship with Tristan Smith, whom she’d met in January 2014 while they both attended the University of Kent. Clark-Hughes <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/controlling-cop-framed-ex-fake-21308260?_ga=2.86682136.1661900252.1579619141-amp--Bpwee6TTVPZ40uLAp14SA">told The Mirror</a> that Smith at first appeared to be the “perfect gentleman.”
“We were both in a Facebook freshers group and got chatting. He was lovely, friendly and we started dating months later,” she told the outlet.
About six months later, however, Smith became verbally abusive.
“We were arguing and he shouted that he wished my family dead. I was upset but hoped it was just a row,” Clark-Hughes said. She told the Mirror that Smith then “guessed my passwords and started to check my Snapchat and texts regularly, knowing I didn’t like it.”
About the time Smith started mistreating Clark-Hughes, he also started working with the Kent Police department as a volunteer special constable.
“He did 20 hours a week as he saw it as a potential career,” Clark-Hughes told the Mirror. “He talked a lot about what actions constituted crimes. Looking back, it’s sick.”
Nearly two years into their relationship, in December 2015, falsely accused Clark-Hughes stepfather of beating her disable mother. Two months later he claimed Clark-Hughes was cheating on him and told her to stop seeing her friends, the Mirror reported.
“My self-esteem was so low I did,” she says. “He always put me down. He’d scream, ‘I wish you’d die in a fire’ – then apologise with chocolates.”
In September 2017, Clark-Hughes tried to break up with Smith while visiting her family.
“He pinned me down, screamed in my face, then bit me on the shoulder and tried to set fire to the dog bed,” she told the Mirror. “I was terrified. The next day, he bought me flowers.”
Three weeks later, Clark-Hughes broke up with Smith by text and then fled to Spain.
“I had to get away,” she told the outlet. “He sent 50 voicemails begging me to come back. I ignored them.”
“A few weeks later he sent an email declaring his love for me. I replied saying if he contacted me again I would call the police,” she added.
Smith would tell his brother in October 2017 that he wanted to “tear apart” his ex’s family for revenge – and he attempted to do just that.
He claimed Clark-Hughes’ mom and stepdad (who were no longer together at that point) sent him a threatening text message, which Smith actually sent himself. Before it was discovered that Smith lied, Clark-Hughes’ stepdad was arrested and kept in jail for 20 hours, while her mom was taken the next day. Her mother spent 10 days in the hospital after the ordeal because the stress caused her neuromuscular disease to flare up, the Mirror reported.
The two were cleared after it was discovered they couldn’t have sent the text – since one of their phones was broken and the other was lost in Spain at the time.
Smith then accused Clark-Hughes of sending threatening messages to his former flatmate. Clark-Hughes was arrested but later released pending further investigation when she explained she couldn’t have sent the messages because she was not near her phone when they were sent. Police later determined Smith sent the messages himself after hacking into Clark-Hughes’ accounts.
After she was released from prison, Clark-Hughes found emails from Facebook warning her that someone was trying to access her account from a different location.
Smith then started to claim Clark-Hughes was stalking and harassing him. To really sell the lie, he installed a panic alarm and CCTV and told police he had to fight armed intruders in his home. Police watched the videos from Smiths home and determined he lied about the attacks. He was arrested on “six charges of perverting the course of justice, one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of gaining unauthorised access to a computer with intent to commit an offence,” the Mirror reported.
He was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to more than four years in prison.

Traffic officer

British Volunteer Police Officer Frames Ex-Girlfriend But Surveillance Cameras Proved He Lied

Crime

false accusations

United Kingdom

A legal drama facetiously referred to as “woke law” recently aired an episode where the principal cast actually condemns law enforcement while defending gang members.
The show is actually called “All Rise,” about a woman who inexplicably became a judge despite a clear bias against police and prosecutors. The latest episode, which aired Monday, was about an ex-gang member who was charged with murder, <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/sadi-martin/2020/01/20/all-rise-disses-police-praises-gang-members">according to NewsBusters</a>.
“An ex-gang member is charged with murder and in this trial the prosecution uses a bug in the meeting room to find out what other gang members were involved in the murder, putting the defendant&#8217;s life at risk,” the outlet reported. “Sara Castillo, the court stenographer, feels the need to burst into Judge Lola Carmichael&#8217;s chambers before she makes the decision of whether or not the prosecutor should have done this and in this conversation Sara reveals anti-police sentiments, claiming that gang members are &#8220;used&#8221; to further political agendas and not all of them are criminals.”
Below is the exchange between the stenographer and the judge:
<blockquote>Sara: &#8230; Not all gang members are criminal. They run businesses. They raise incredible families. They contribute to the community. They just need a place to belong, that&#8217;s it. But they all get targeted.
Lola: Sara, I need you to stop.
Sara: People use them. They use these &#8212; these boys, these men, some of whom are my family. They are used by &#8212; as a political platform to get sheriffs elected, to get D.A.s elected, to raise funds for police rather than for social services.</blockquote>
Okay, Sara.
Essentially, the show spends the episode pretending that gang members are just victims of a cruel society while police are opportunistic liars.
NewsBusters’ Sadi Martin has detailed other episodes of the show that are quite eye-roll inducing, such as <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/sadi-martin/2019/11/05/all-rise-all-pc-latest-episode">an episode</a> from November where a person who identifies as non-binary is suspected of arson but the show suggests we’re supposed to let them get away with the crime because the person’s identity is fluid.
“Guilty. Not guilty. Two options always presented to you, which, as my friend Jax has helped me see, is a very binary way of looking at the law. For what&#8217;s between guilty and not? Less guilty, sort of guilty, guilty but we totally understand why they did it. Turns out guilt, like everything else, is fluid,” the non-binary character’s defense attorney says in court.
The show’s <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/sadi-martin/2019/09/24/new-cbs-legal-drama-all-rise-all-woke">pilot episode</a> in late September set the tone that minorities are all victims and cops are evil, with the show’s main character, Judge Carmichael, walking into the wrong courtroom (so smart) and seeing a female defendant who was not wearing pants. As NewsBusters reported at the time, “The courtroom scene escalates extremely quickly and almost unbelievably from Carmichael reprimanding people in the room for allowing Daphne in half naked, to the policeman going crazy, pulling a gun and shooting at the judge.”
Yep, exactly what happens in real courts all across America.
The episode continues by showing every minority involved in the case is innocent while every white person is a liar out to get non-white people.

All Rise

Woke TV Show ‘All Rise’ Praises Gang Members, Maligns Law Enforcement

Hollywood

Woke

China is facing another deadly epidemic of the virus that lead to the SARS panic in the early 2000s.
The new version of the coronavirus, a type of pathogen that causes a range of illness including the common cold and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has claimed its sixth life in the communist nation, CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/21/asia/china-china-coronavirus-sars-intl-hnk/index.html">reported</a>. China now has more than 300 confirmed cases of the virus as of Monday, and The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-coronavirus-kills-third-person-spreads-to-more-cities-11579494221">reported</a> that it has “spread quickly around the country and across Asia, infecting 156 new patients in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen and other densely-populated cities, and reaching South Korea for the first time—a major escalation in the pneumonia-like disease’s transmission.”
On Monday, China’s state-run media outlet Xinhua News Agency reported that China President Xi Jinping called on authorities to “release outbreak information in a timely manner and deepen international cooperation,” in order to stop the spread of the virus. A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Geng Shuang, said at a press briefing on Monday that the country has “formulated prevention and control plans, treated patients, monitored their close contacts, conducted epidemiological research and released information in a timely matter,” the Journal reported.
More from the Journal:
<blockquote>Beijing, Shanghai and the southern metropolis of Shenzhen—three of the country’s biggest and most prosperous cities—confirmed a total of 14 patients infected with the pneumonia-causing virus, all of them on Monday, according to state media and local authorities.
South Korean authorities, meantime, said Monday that a 35-year-old Chinese woman who had flown into the country from the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where the outbreak first occurred, had contracted the coronavirus.</blockquote>
Further, the epicenter of the outbreak, Wuhan, has seen a massive jump in cases – from 62 on Sunday to 198 on Monday. Authorities in the region said 35 of the cases were severe and nine were critical.
On Tuesday, that number increased again by 77, CNN reported, and the country has confirmed that the virus can spread between humans.
“Tour agencies have been banned from taking groups out of Wuhan and the number of thermal monitors and screening areas in public spaces will be increased. Traffic police will also conduct spot checks on private vehicles coming in and out of the city to look for live poultry or wild animals, after the virus was linked to a seafood and live animal market, according to a report by state media outlet the People&#8217;s Daily, citing Wuhan&#8217;s Municipal Health Commission,” the outlet reported.
CNN reported that many now fear it is too late to contain the virus. “Though infections were first detected in Wuhan in mid-December, infrared temperature screening areas were not installed in the city&#8217;s airports and stations until January 14, according to state media.”
Other provinces, including Zhejiang, Tianjin, and Shanghai have also reported an increase in cases as of Tuesday. More from CNN:
<blockquote>The death toll rose to six Tuesday evening, after the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission confirmed that a 66-year-old male and a 48-year-old female died on January 20.
It added that 60 new cases were confirmed by the end of Monday in Wuhan city, where a 15-year-old is the youngest to be infected.</blockquote>

China virus

Remember SARS? New Virus Spreading In China Kills Sixth Person

China

Health

The massive 2020 Democratic field is altogether outraising President Donald Trump, but Trump is outraising every single candidate individually.
CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/trump-2020-election-democratic-opponents-raise-more-money-than-him.html">reported</a> that neither President George W. Bush nor President Barack Obama was outraised to such an extent during their re-election year, but they also faced far few candidates. Republicans did outraise Obama during the 2012 presidential election campaign, but only slightly (and it obviously didn’t work). Bush outraised Democrats in 2004.
“The president has blown past individual Democratic presidential campaigns in fundraising for his 2020 reelection bid. But the crowded primary field together more than tripled his 2019 cash haul, according to a CNBC analysis of Federal Election Commission filings and campaign statements,” the outlet reported.
Bush and Obama, however, faced fewer serious contenders during their re-election bids, and though both were severely disliked by their opponents, there was not as much vitriol around them during re-election as there has been against Trump since the moment he became a candidate. At the time of his re-election, Bush was still benefitting from the moves he made after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. People largely supported the war at that time. For Obama, he still carried the cultural popularity he had with him in 2008, even though the economy was not doing well.
Also, Bush had maybe five serious contenders in 2004, while Obama had four or five in 2012. By contrast, Trump currently has four serious contenders, with two billionaires buying their way toward a nomination, and two withdrawn candidates who had major media support initially. Not to mention the largest total number of candidates vying to take on an incumbent president.
“The cash edge reflects a Democratic voter base energized and motivated since Trump’s 2016 election, [Center for Responsive Politics director of research Sarah] Bryner said. She added that the pace of donations could reflect a dislike of Trump more than a fondness for any particular candidates — though Democratic contender and prolific fundraiser Sen. Bernie Sanders has a famously devoted following,” CNBC reported.
The cash may also be due to the influx of wealthy donors who love the attention they get for being “anti-Trump” like Hollywood megastars.
But none of this may actually make a difference in 2020. Remember, Hillary Clinton far outraised Trump in 2016 and look where that got her.
Individually, Trump has a huge advantage over each candidate.
“Trump still had a fundraising advantage over any of his potential challengers entering 2020. His campaign said it raised $46 million in the fourth quarter, higher than Sanders’ $34.5 million, the biggest haul in the Democratic field,” CNBC reported.
And not all the money each candidate raises will go into a coffer against Trump after they withdraw, as much of that money has to be used to pay off campaign debts.
The totals compiled by CNBC, however, are staggering.
“Trump had $143.8 million in total receipts, versus $515.6 million for his Democratic challengers. That’s 28% of his rivals’ total. In individual contributions, the president’s $76.3 million made up only 16% of the $471.6 million raised by the Democrats,” the outlet reported.
The election is still about 10 months away, so anything could change by then.

CNBC Touts Democrat Contenders Outraising Trump In 2016 &#8211; But No Single Candidate Has Outraised Him

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) no longer wants to talk about her own allegations that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), her Democratic primary rival, is sexist after her claims last week backfired.
A reporter asked Warren in Iowa about Sanders’ recent comments to NHPR about whether gender is an obstacle for female politicians. Sanders said: “Look, I, th- the answer is yes. But I think everybody has their own sets of problems. I’m 78 years of age. That’s a problem.”
Warren refused to respond to Sanders statement, saying: “I have no further comment on this. I have no further comment on this. I have been friends with Bernie for a long time. We worked together on many, many issues and I’ve said all I’m going to say on this.”
Another reporter pointed out that Warren and Sanders’ camps have been talking about this issue for the past week, to which Warren responded again by saying she had nothing more to say on the issue.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Warren responds: “I have no further comment on this. I have no further comment on this&#8230;I have been friends with Bernie for a long time. <a href="https://t.co/LxrJPVaLXG">https://t.co/LxrJPVaLXG</a> <a href="https://t.co/9pKVV7M2s4">pic.twitter.com/9pKVV7M2s4</a>
&mdash; Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlxThomp/status/1218971703470063617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2020</a></blockquote>
 <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That’s a definite change from last week, when Warren accused Sanders of sexism after CNN reported Sanders told Warren during a meeting in December 2018 that a woman couldn’t be president. Political observers were quick to suggest Warren’s camps started the rumor themselves for political gain over Sanders, whose policies are similar to Warren’s.
Warren appears to be trying to fill some non-existent void between Sanders and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She has tacked on to numerous proposals from Sanders, but rarely comes up with her own that he then follows.
The problem for Warren’s claim last week about Sanders is that Sanders vehemently denied saying it and Warren has a history of lying and using her gender (and alleged heritage) for personal gain. Sanders does not. That’s not to say Sanders is always honest, but he does sincerely believe his claims about socialism and health care and college (even if he is wildly wrong).
Nothing about Sanders’ past suggest he’s so sexist as to suggest to Warren’s face that a woman couldn’t be president. Based on what he said to NHPR, it’s more likely he said something like gender might be an issue (making a comment that he believes America is sexist), that Warren turned around to use against him.
The issue came up during last week’s Democratic debate. After the debate, Warren went up to Sanders and told him, “I think you called me a liar on national TV,” as if she hadn’t done the same.
Sanders replied to her by saying, “What?”
Warren repeated her claim.
“No, let’s not do it right now,” Sanders responded. “You want to have that discussion, we’ll have that discussion.”
Warren concluded the conversation by saying, “Anytime.”
The comments <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-cnn-releases-audio-of-post-debate-confrontation-between-warren-sanders">were caught</a> by CNN audio and video, leading writer Aaron Mate to speculate that it was all coordinated by the Warren campaign.
“CNN just aired the post-debate Sanders-Warren exchange. Both accuse the other of calling the other a liar. Warren intitiated [sic]. The fact that this was done on stage w/ camera &amp; audio, and the fact that Warren’s camp started this whole thing, makes me wonder if they staged this too,” he tweeted.
Warren&#8217;s desire to avoid the conversation comes after former Obama official Stephen Cobb <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-official-warren-sanders-spat-didnt-play-out-well-for-either-of-them-biden-could-benefit">suggested</a> the spat didn&#8217;t play &#8220;out well for either of them&#8221; and only helped their rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren Refuses To Answer Any More Questions About Sanders Being Sexist After Earlier Claim Backfires

Bernie Sanders

Sexism

Tragedy struck Kansas City, Missouri, just hours after the Chiefs defeated the Tennessee Titans to secure a place in Super Bowl LIV. A gunman opened fire on people waiting in a line outside a bar, killing two and injuring 15 more.
The New York Daily News <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-kansas-city-bar-shooting-leaves-two-dead-fifteen-injured-20200120-n7cos3skdjhkbhfxrshpmo2nae-story.html">reported</a> that the shooter, according to police, was one of those who died at the scene. The shooting occurred around 11:30 p.m. outside 9ine Ultra Lounge
“He killed a woman and wounded 15 other people, three of whom were in critical condition, which was hosting a party to celebrate the Chief’s return to the Super Bowl (the team hasn’t made an appearance in 50 years) before he was shot by an armed security guard, the city’s police Capt. David Jackson told reporters at the scene,” the outlet reported.
Jackson also said that police found “quite a chaotic scene” after they arrived and asked for assistance from other law enforcement agencies.
“A preliminary investigation found that the gunman approached the line of people outside the bar and started shooting, but police are still investigating whether he was targeting a specific person or just randomly opened fire, Jackson said. It was also not clear if there was an altercation prior to the shooting,” the Daily news reported.
In addition to the deaths, 15 people reportedly sought medical attention from area hospitals due to the shooting. KSHB <a href="https://www.kshb.com/news/crime/police-investigating-shooting-at-a-nightclub-in-independence">reported</a> that three of the victims are listed in critical condition. The outlet also reported that an armed security guard working at the club apparently shot and killed the suspect. ABC News <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-15-injured-kansas-city-shooting/story?id=68398118">reported</a> that no responding officers fired their weapons.
Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker told reporters at the time that the shooting put “a tragic end to such a wonderful day in Kansas City.”
“It’s just hard to stand here and talk about this kind of tragedy on really one of the best days Kansas City has had in a long time,” she added.
Police still don’t know why the gunman opened fire. The Kansas City Police Department released a statement saying the “next anticipated information release will most likely be the ID of deceased victims once the next of kin have been notified.&#8221;
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas <a href="https://twitter.com/QuintonLucasKC/status/1219215467279278085">praised</a> the security guard who took out the gunman, saying he, “appears to have kept the situation from being even worse.&#8221;
The shooting occurred alongside attacks in Honolulu, Hawaii and San Antonio, Texas. In total, six people were killed in the three shootings. In Honolulu, two police officers – Tiffany Enriquez and Kaulike Kalama – were killed after responding to a stabbing. The officers were shot while they helped a woman who had been stabbed in the leg, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/six-people-including-2-police-officers-killed-multiple-shootings-n1118706">reported</a>. The home where the incident occurred caught fire after the stabbing. The suspect, identified as Jerry Hanel, and two other women who were in the home at the time have all been accounted for.
In San Antonio, an argument inside a club during a concert led to a shooting that killed two people and injured five others.

Police car

Gunman Kills 2, Injures 15 In Kansas City After Team Clinches Super Bowl Spot

Police

Shooting

The 15-year-old girl who claimed she was raped while jogging during the day will now face charges.
The girl, whose name has not been released, faces two counts of “false reporting of a crime to police,” WWSB <a href="https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/01/15/teen-girl-who-north-port-police-say-made-up-story-about-being-sexually-battered-now-facing-charges/">reported</a>. The first count relates to her initial claim of sexual battery and the second refers to another claim she made about a physical assault a few days later.
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/florida-teenager-claimed-she-was-sexually-assaulted-while-jogging-she-just-admitted-she-made-it-up">reported</a> that the girl claimed she was out jogging near her neighborhood when a man attacked and raped her and then fled in a black four-door car. She gave police a DNA sample and worked with a sketch artist to come up with a drawing of the man she claimed had attacked her. She said her attacker was a white, 36- to 38-year-old man about 5’8” with dark hair and a goatee.
Josh Taylor, a police spokesman, initially <a href="https://www.fox13news.com/news/police-teen-sexually-assaulted-while-jogging-in-north-port">told Fox 13</a> that authorities believed it “was a targeted attack” on the teen based on her accusation. Taylor added that the “DNA will tell a lot,” but that it would take time, leaving a potential attacker “roaming the streets.”
The girl made the accusation on January 6, prompting police to spend the next week investigating her claim.
“The North Port Police Department said it spent the next week investigating the teenager’s claims by speaking with neighbors and business owners in the area. Police determined something just wasn’t right about the girl’s story – they couldn’t find any witnesses or video of the alleged incident despite it taking place in broad daylight,” The Daily Wire reported.
When police spoke to the girl again after finding no evidence of her claims, she admitted to making up the story. Police then issued a statement to the media, saying it would “continue to investigate all reports such as this with the rigor and respect they deserve.”
The statement also called out false accusations.
“False reports of this nature are not taken lightly and can impact the perception of real reports of sexual battery,” the statement said. “Anytime we have a report this serious, we simply can not take the chance of failing to educate the public when necessary.”
WWSB reported that “a sexual assault kit and exam found no internal or external injuries.”
After the girl admitted to lying about the initial report, police were again called out on January 13. This time the girl told them that around 7:20 p.m. she let her dog out only to be pushed to the ground by an unknown man, who then ran off. She told police the push knocked her out and that the next thing she remembered was a friend waking her up, WWSB reported.
Detective interviewed her the next day and she admitted making that story up as well.
Police initially told Fox 13 after the girl’s first story that they would focus on getting her whatever help and support she needed. It appears now that police might actually take seriously the false accusations, though punishment will likely be minimal.

Teenage girl jogging in city park

Florida Teenager Who Allegedly Lied About Sexual Assault Will Face Charges

Florida

Rape

Fans were shocked last week when the 92nd annual Academy Awards nominations were released and some prominent names were missing from the Best Actor category.
Jennifer Lopez wasn’t nominated for her role in “Hustlers,” Adam Sandler wasn’t nominated for “Uncut Gems,” Eddie Murphy was snubbed after appearing in “Dolemite Is My Name,” and Awkwafina didn’t get nominated for “The Farewell,” even after winning for the role at the Golden Globes. The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/academy-members-viciously-reveal-why-lopez-sandler-murphy-got-snubbed-from-oscars/amp/">spoke to</a> several members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Services about why the actors weren’t nominated.
Terry Moore, who votes on Oscar nominees and was herself nominated in 1952 for her supporting role in “Come Back, Little Sheba,” told the outlet that Lopez’s performance was overrated.
“I would have been shocked if she did get it,” Moore said.
“First of all, ‘Hustlers’ is not an ‘Oscar movie.’ It’s a little too rough around the edges, and I’m assuming some other people in the acting category didn’t see it,” another actor and Academy member told the outlet. “Florence Pugh seems to have gotten the J. Lo spot — maybe because ‘Little Women’ is a prestige movie and she’s a bright, new star.”
“Actors tend to think of Jennifer Lopez as a phenomenon more than an actress, per se. [It’s like last year, when] Lady Gaga lost the Oscar to Olivia Colman — a real actor’s actor,” the unnamed character actor and Academy member said.
This anonymous source also explained why Sandler was snubbed for his performance in “Uncut Gems.”
“That [performance] was a tour de force. He’s emerging as a truly great actor, but then he does cheesy Netflix comedies that are really dumb,” the actor told the Post. He also told the outlet that some Academy voters probably didn’t even watch “Uncut Gems,” “Hustlers,” or “The Farewell.”
“There are a lot of movies, a lot of performances per year for us to watch. Unfortunately, actors become brands. Sandler’s brand doesn’t scream ‘Oscar,’ but Leo Di Caprio’s and Jonathan Pryce’s do,” he added.
The Post suggested Sandler’s joke on Howard Stern’s show may have kept him from the nomination as well, since the comedian said, “If I don’t get [the Oscar], I’m going to f–king come back and do [a movie] again that is so bad on purpose just to make you all pay.”
One voting member told the Post that there “was an arrogance” to Sandler and that his joke showed “a lack of respect.”
Voters also snubbed Murphy because he apparently campaigned too hard for the nomination by hosting “Saturday Night Live,” a show he had ignored for 35 years.
Moore said she “didn’t like his attempt for it,” but said that if Murphy or Sandler make “another great film” they could be nominated.
<ol>
<li>Murray Abraham, the “Amadeus” actor who won best actor at the 1985 Oscars, told the actors who didn’t make the cut this year that, “Either you can accept it graciously, or you can fight against it.”</li>
</ol>
The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/2020-oscar-nominations-joker-best-picture-no-women-directors-j-lo-snubbed">reported</a> on this year’s nominees.

Jennifer Lopez

Here’s Why J. Lo, Adam Sandler, And Eddie Murphy Were Snubbed At The Oscars: Report

Adam Sandler

Eddie Murphy

The only people that were really going to watch President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate were reporters and die-hard Trump haters privileged enough to not have to work.
So, naturally, journalists “are up in arms,” as The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/business/media/senate-impeachment-trial-media.html">reported</a>, about not getting free rein inside the Capitol building during the impeachment trial, which they themselves baited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) into starting. As the Times noted, however, Republican Senate leadership hasn’t even written down the rules for coverage yet, but reporters don’t need much to get them outraged at Republicans.
“Even sedate C-Span is aggrieved, calling on the Senate to allow its television crews to document the trial, instead of the government-controlled cameras that — as was the case during Bill Clinton’s trial 21 years ago — will limit what viewers see and hear inside the Senate chamber,” the Times reported.
NPR <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/17/797126423/reporters-battle-new-restrictions-in-trying-to-cover-senate-impeachment-trial">reported</a> that the “restrictive new ground rules” that confine reporters “to small cordoned-off sections in areas where unrestricted access was typically standard.” Reporters also will not be allowed to walk with senators for interviews even if the senator wants to talk. Finally, reporters will not be allowed to “approach senators for interviews in the halls surrounding the Senate chamber.”
The Times painted the rules as a threat to the free press and, of course, democracy itself.
“There’s long been this understanding that we both serve the same people at the end of the day, and that it’s a mutually beneficial relationship,” Sarah Wire, a Los Angeles Times reporter, told The New York Times. “Senators want to talk to us because they know we’re communicating their message to their voters back home.”
Senators don’t need reporters to communicate their message to voters. They have their own platforms to do this. The press is no longer some gatekeeper to information, no matter how much they like to tell that to themselves.
The Times suggested the reason for the restriction may be valid due to the presence of Chief Justice John Roberts, who will be presiding over the trial.
“Typically, reporters’ movements in the Capitol are limited when high-profile people visit, like Vice President Mike Pence,” the Times contended.
Impeachment proceedings began after the media reported a “whistleblower” raised serious concerns over a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. The whistleblower claimed Trump demanded a quid pro quo from Zelensky in exchange for U.S. aid. Pelosi announced they would start an impeachment inquiry soon after news of the whistleblower’s complaint broke. A day later, the White House released the transcript of the phone call, which showed no such quid pro quo.
Democrats then started claiming Trump bribed Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running for president, and his son, Hunter for their Ukraine dealings while the elder Biden was part of the Obama administration. Bribery, however, was not included in the articles of impeachment that Pelosi sent to the senate nearly a month after the House of Representatives voted on the allegedly urgent threat to our nation.

Trump

Senate To Limit Press Coverage Of Impeachment Trial That Almost No One Was Going To Watch Anyway

Media

U.S. Senate

On July 24, 1975, a woman in Reston was violently attacked and raped.
The attack occurred around 4:30 a.m. The victim testified at trial that she was alone in her apartment that night and that she had previously left her balcony door open. She said she woke up and saw a man standing next to her bed, who allegedly told her that if she did what he told her to do he wouldn’t hurt her. She said the room was too dark for her to see the man clearly. He went on to sexually assault and rape her. The victim said that after the rape the man asked her several questions but she was too frightened to answer. He then stole money from her purse and left.
The first person the woman called was her boyfriend, who arrived at her home 25 minutes later. He called the police, who arrived 10 minutes after that. The investigator assigned to the case collected “the clothing that the victim wore during the attack and the clothing the victim put on after the attack,” according to the <a href="http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1171286.pdf">petition</a> for a writ of actual innocence filed on March 7, 2019.
The woman was taken to the hospital, and DNA samples were taken and placed in the property room at the police station. The woman worked with police to create a sketch of the man she believed attacked her. She was presented with a photo lineup but could not identify her attacker.
Two months later, on September 24, Fairfax police officers interviewed a witness for an unrelated crime. This witness was shown the police sketch created for another crime and asked this witness if she knew anyone who resembled the sketch. She said the man looked like her brother’s friend, Winston Lamont Scott.
Scott’s photo was then shown to the rape victim in a second photo lineup and she identified him as her attacker. Scott was arrested on September 29, 1975 and charged with “one count of rape, one count of carnally knowing the victim with the mouth, and one count of burglary,” court documents said. Scott pleaded not guilty to all counts.
A local pathologist who testified against Scott said he performed a sexual assault examination on the victim but found no evidence of recent trauma, however, he did collect a semen sample he said had been deposited “within a relatively short period of time.” Another witness, an expert in “bodily secretions” testified that she found sperm in the jeans the victim wore shortly after the attack. Scott’s attorneys tried to have the first expert’s evidence stricken since he only ended up finding that Scott and the victim had the same blood type. Defense attorneys also argued against the chain of command for the victim’s jeans.
Scott was 19 at the time of the crime, and testified that he helped a friend paint their parents’ house on the day before the attack, then ate dinner at a shopping mall and was out with his friends until about 11:30 p.m. He then returned to his friend’s house to sleep. He testified he did not leave the house and had no car at the time. He said woke up around 8:00 a.m. the next to continue painting. Scott’s friend and his friend’s mother testified that Scott was at their house the night the crime was alleged to have occurred, and that the victim’s apartment was nearly five miles away.
Scott was found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison. He served five years and was paroled, The Richmond Times-Dispatch <a href="https://www.richmond.com/news/local/crime/compensation-bill-has-been-filed-to-pay-nearly-to-man/article_00ac8584-4860-589e-a4b9-5c69992d47d1.html">reported</a>.
In 2010, the DNA collected from the victim back in 1975 was finally testified and did not identify Scott’s genetic profile. It would be another seven years before Scott was officially excluded by DNA. The Virginia Supreme Court exonerated Scott in March 2019, providing him the writ of actual innocence.
Now Virginia legislators are hoping to pass <a href="g">a bill</a> that would pay him $160,000 for his wrongful conviction.
“Provides relief in the amount of $159,535 to Winston Lamont Scott, who was wrongfully convicted of rape, carnal knowledge, and burglary in 1976. Mr. Scott served over five years in prison. In March 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a writ of actual innocence to Mr. Scott and vacated his convictions based upon previously unavailable DNA evidence. The bill also allows Mr. Scott to receive career and technical training within the Virginia Community College System free of tuition charges, up to a maximum of $10,000,” a summary of the bill states.

Man in handcuffs

He Was Falsely Accused Of Rape In 1975. A Virginia Bill May Get Him $160,000 In Compensation.

Virginia

Despite documented and totally foreseen failures in New York’s bail reform law – including the death of an innocent person due to the actions of one of the released criminals – Democrat politicians in the state don’t appear ready to make changes that would fix the law.
The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/state-democrats-stay-the-course-on-bail-reform-law-despite-outrage/">reported</a> that “Department of Correction statistics show there were a total of 5,569 people in city jails on Thursday, a 19% drop from the 6,877 counted on Nov. 21.”
The drop comes after city judges started releasing defendants without bail ahead of the bail reform law taking effect on January 1.
As The Daily Wire has previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/another-bail-reform-fail-gang-member-released-from-prison-sent-back-same-day-for-committing-same-crime">documented</a>, numerous defendants who were released without bail went on to commit crimes similar to the ones they were arrested for in the first place. In one case, a man with a criminal history and numerous drunk driving offenses was released under the new bail reform law and went on to cause a crash that resulted in the death of a 27-year-old. The man responsible for the crash was charged with a DWI.
The Post also reported examples of defendants released only to commit the same crimes that got them arrested, including an accused bank robber and a woman accused of an anti-Semitic attack.
As the Post reported, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) failed to mention any of the issues with the bill during his annual State of the State Address, nor did he tout the bill. Cuomo has in the past <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/13/cuomo-again-supports-change-to-new-bail-law-but-gives-no-specifics/">suggested</a> he would support changes to the law but has offered no specifics.
Democrats in the state legislature also appear to be stalling on any changes.
“Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) has said he’s ‘ready to let the law continue the way it is’ and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Yonkers) said, ‘I want to be able to sort out the fact from fear­mongering,’” the Post reported.
Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay criticized Democrats for failing to act.
“New York liberals’ pro-criminal platform now allows people to sucker-punch a police officer, rob five banks or kill someone with a car and just walk away with an appearance ticket,” Barclay said. “It’s no wonder jail populations are going down.”
Last week, Eusebio Jax-Mejia, 21, was released after being arrested for stealing a vehicle. Within hours of his release, he stole another vehicle – from outside the Delaware County Public Safety building.
Earlier in January, a man who had been charged with second-degree manslaughter in connection with the murder of a 29-year-old woman from Albany was released due to the bail reform law. The man allegedly admitted to causing the woman’s death, but that is apparently no longer enough to keep him in jail under the new law.
The Post also <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/brick-man-is-nycs-newest-bail-reform-poster-boy/">reported</a> on “Brick Man,” who got the name because he would use a brick to smash the windows of businesses he would then burglarize. He had been arrested three times in connection with burglaries but was released thanks to Cuomo’s bail reform law. After his release, he allegedly committed two more smash-and-grabs.

Andrew Cuomo

New York Democrats Don’t Appear Concerned About Bail Reform Failures

bail reform

New York

Disney is continuing to uphold its reputation as a company hellbent on going after anyone other than itself that may profit from its characters.
The company has a tendency to go after artists who use Disney character likenesses in their art. The latest example of this behavior involves the adorable viral character known as “Baby Yoda” from Disney’s “The Mandalorian.” First, some clarification, the character is not actually Yoda, as the series takes place long after Yoda was born, but it is a juvenile of the same species, which isn’t named in Star Wars lore.
Disney is now targeting Etsy, a website for artists to sell handmade or vintage items. Creators have been going crazy for Baby Yoda, producing everything from crocheted dolls to T-shirts to coffee mugs to <a href="https://www.etsy.com/listing/745943528/baby-yoda-air-freshener-custom-air?ga_order=most_relevant&amp;ga_search_type=all&amp;ga_view_type=gallery&amp;ga_search_query=baby+yoda&amp;ref=sr_gallery-1-11&amp;organic_search_click=1&amp;frs=1">car air fresheners</a> (it comes in multiple, non-Baby Yoda associated scents, like Pina Colada).
But Disney hates when someone else makes money off of their characters. The New York Post <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/01/17/disney-appears-to-be-cracking-down-on-baby-yoda-knockoffs/">reported</a> that the megacompany is “cracking down” on Etsy for the Star Wars-inspired creations. The Verge <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21069124/baby-yoda-dolls-etsy-disney-mandalorian-copyright-takedown-enforcement">reported</a> that Disney appears to be focusing on the most popular Baby Yoda-inspired products.
“Several Etsy sellers tell The Verge they have had their listings removed, cutting off popular products and disrupting existing sales,” the outlet reported. “One seller, Tanya, who runs the stuffed animal storefront YourStuffedMemories, had been <a href="https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1514734&amp;xs=1&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsy.com%2Flisting%2F750337366%2Fthe-baby-child-baby-alien-plush-star%3Fref%3Dshop_home_active_1%26crt%3D1&amp;referrer=theverge.com&amp;sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.com%2F2020%2F1%2F17%2F21069124%2Fbaby-yoda-dolls-etsy-disney-mandalorian-copyright-takedown-enforcement%3FsubId1%3Dxid%3Afr1579366652276gdf&amp;xcust=xid:fr1579366652276gdf">selling homemade Baby Yoda plushies</a> for about a month when she received a message from Etsy. It had deactivated her sales listing after getting a complaint from Disney over her usage of the words ‘Star Wars,’ ‘mandalorian,’ and ‘Yoda’ to sell the plushies.”
More from The Verge:
<blockquote>Another seller, Kate, had a listing for a Baby Yoda-style dice bag at her HedgeCrafts store removed by Etsy for similar reasons, as did the 1OOAcreWoodshop storefront, which sells knit wool plushies of the character. Most of the stores that The Verge talked to had takedowns issued in the last week.
The original listings for these stores were extremely popular: one Yoda doll had “over 2,000 views and 300 favorites,” while another seller said that she used to see at least 100 to 200 views a day. Removing the listings also caused issues with existing orders for at least one seller, delaying shipments as they tried to reconcile orders in Etsy’s system between the old and new listings. (My own order for a Baby Yoda from YourStuffedMemories was among those delayed.)</blockquote>
The outlet added that the crackdown has occurred since Disney finally started selling its own Baby Yoda products, even though none of those products are actually currently available.
Disney, whose obviously known for their massive merchandise catalogue, was slow to provide Baby Yoda products after the episodes aired and the adorably little creature went viral, as if the company didn’t foresee the popularity.
“It’s a difficult situation for sellers. Baby Yoda (like the terms ‘Star Wars,’ ‘The Mandalorian,’ and ‘Yoda’) is owned by Disney, and the company has the legal right to enforce its intellectual property and prevent others from profiting off its work,” the Verge reported. “But fans have been eager for products Disney isn’t offering, and sellers’ handmade toys can deliver a burst of new customers to Etsy shops that typically sell much lower-profile goods, like stuffed unicorns and wall decorations.”

Baby Yoda

Disney Targeting Etsy Over Baby Yoda Merchandise

Disney

A Virginia city councilman showed up to a council meeting Tuesday evening wearing an AR-15-style rifle. The move has angered some of his peers, one of whom wants and apology.
Nathan Clark, a Portsmouth, Virginia city councilman, chose to wear the “accessory” on Tuesday because the council would be considering a resolution to turn the city into a Second Amendment Sanctuary, The Virginia-Pilot <a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-portsmouth-gun-vote-0115-20200115-6bw43dspmjcdtbq5mjrhlps4yq-story.html">reported</a>.
“Clark — who is seeking re-election this year — brought his gun and issued a press release to emphasize his support for hundreds of Second Amendment advocates who packed chambers to capacity,” the outlet reported, adding that the resolution narrowly passed.
Naturally, gun-control supporters were outraged by Clark’s support of his Second Amendment Rights.
The Pilot <a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/government/local/vp-nw-portsmouth-gun-emails-20200117-fjtmcjg7jnhlnio6i5fpisjv74-story.html">reported</a> Friday that two fellow politicians raised concerns about Clark’s stunt within days of the meeting. Emails obtained by the outlet “show Councilman Shannon Glover first raised the issue in an email to the entire council late Wednesday.” Vice Mayor Lisa Lucas-Burke wrote to the council Thursday morning that Clark’s move “was a disgrace, disheartening and an embarrassment.” She added, “Most of us were blindsided by the display.” Lucas-Burke and Glover reportedly agreed about their concerns, and the vice mayor suggested Clark apologize.
The emails included Councilman Bill Moody, who defended Clark and said he didn’t “believe that Council(man) Clark needs to apologize for exercising his right as a law enforcement officer to carry his weapon to a public meeting.”
Moody then took a jab at the liberals on the council. “I can appreciate liberals’ knee jerk reactions but if they have a problem with the law they should use the system they now control to change it,” he wrote.
Clark had issued a press release ahead of his publicity stunt before the council, which drew criticism from outside Virginia, the Pilot reported. The father of a teenager who was killed during the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting posted a tweet critical of Clark.
“My daughter did not know someone carrying an AR 15 would kill her,” wrote Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter was killed in the shooting. “Citizens you represent should not be forced to accept (your) engaging in open intimidation with (your) AR 15.”
Clark <a href="https://wtkr.com/2020/01/15/portsmouth-council-member-under-fire-for-carrying-rifle-at-city-council-meeting-on-gun-rights/">told WTKR</a> that the gun was loaded but that he had training with this type of weapon and he noted that during the meeting.
&#8220;I had a lot of people come and talk to me after it,&#8221; Clark told the outlet. &#8220;No one appeared intimidated. There the police officers that were there; they were aware that I had it.&#8221;
Nearly 90% of the counties in Virginia have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries following Virginia Democrats’ passing of gun-control laws in the state.
President Donald Trump has weighed in on the Democrats’ gun-grabbing measures, tweeting that “Your 2nd Amendment is under very serious attack in the Great Commonwealth of Virginia.”
He added: “That’s what happens when you vote for Democrats, they will take your guns away. Republicans will win Virginia in 2020. Thank you Dems!”
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virginia-supreme-court-upholds-dem-governors-gun-ban-on-capitol-grounds">reported</a> Saturday that the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun ban on Capitol Grounds in preparation for a pro-gun rally on Monday.

American AR-15

Virginia Councilman Defends Second Amendment By Bringing Rifle To Council Meeting, Other City Officials Triggered

Gun Control

Gun Laws

In a Friday night news dump (so you know the story has no meat), House Democrats released a series of text messages between former Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA).
The implication Democrats and their media supporters want you to take away is that since Parnas is a criminal, anyone who had contact with him is also somehow involved in criminal activity and that anyone who has looked into matters involving Ukraine has done something wrong.
Parnas was indicted in October 2019, something not mentioned in The Daily Beast <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/docs-show-parnas-helping-nunes-aide-derek-harvey-set-up-interviews-with-ex-ukrainian-officials?ref=scroll">article</a> covering the text messages, yet he and Nunes aide Derek Harvey stopped speaking months earlier – even before President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that sparked the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.
Nunes had been investigating Ukraine’s roll in what became Russiagate – the claim that Trump’s 2016 election team conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election – long before Trump’s call with Zelensky.
The text messages between Parnas and Harvey started in early 2019. The committee was conducting its own investigation into the origins of Russiagate and their findings were largely validated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report in March 2019 and Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report in December 2019.
It makes sense that Nunes’ team would be looking into all angles regarding Russiagate, even Ukraine’s alleged involvement (which the Beast claims is a “conspiracy theory”) but the media wants people to believe this is all very nefarious and that Nunes is somehow involved in what Democrats want Trump impeached over.
But just as with Democrats <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-democrats-subpoenaed-and-published-phone-records-for-devin-nunes-rudy-giuliani-journalist-john-solomon">first major text message dump</a>, in which they tried to smear Nunes directly, the latest round of released texts show nothing nefarious actually happened. Democrats and the left-leaning media just want you to think this is all evidence against Trump and Republicans.
When text messages were first released, Democrats tried to smear journalist John Solomon in the same way they are smearing Nunes and Harvey. Solomon was writing an article and spoke to Parnas to get in touch with other contacts. It is common for journalists to have sources and to talk to less-than-reputable characters, yet the media painted this as some sort of conspiracy.
They’re doing the same to Harvey. As mentioned earlier, Harvey spoke to Parnas before he was indicted. Democrats have had far more contact with Parnas since he was indicted than Republicans had before.
There’s something else the media is ignoring about Parnas: He’s a proven liar. He claimed Nunes took a secret trip to Vienna to meet with former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Victor Shokin to discuss digging up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, who is on camera boasting about getting Shokin fired in exchange for U.S. aid. Both Shokin and Nunes deny this meeting took place, and Nunes has produced evidence he was in Libya and Malta at the time he was supposed to be in Vienna.
Yet no media outlets are asking Parnas about this discrepancy during his Trump-bashing media tour.
Parnas has also claimed he met with Nunes in-person at one of Trump’s hotels, yet there is no evidence to suggest this occurred and Parnas has a documented history of lying about Nunes.
Bottom line: Democrats are using years-old text messages to try to smear Nunes, who has actually been right about Democrat efforts to indict Trump for things the Left actually did.

Devin Nunes

Newly Released Text Messages Between Nunes Aide And Lev Parnas Are A Big Nothingburger

Media Bias

Long on narrative and short on sourcing, Washington Post writers Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker published <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-inside-trumps-stunning-tirade-against-generals/2020/01/16/d6dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html">an adapted excerpt</a> from their new upcoming book “A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America.”
In the article published Friday, the writers describe at length a meeting between President Donald Trump, some advisors, and military leaders. The conversation is alleged to have taken place in a secure room called “the Tank” back when Gen. Jim Mattis was still Secretary of Defense, Rex Tillerson was still the Secretary of State, and Steve Bannon was still a White House adviser.
The Post writers paint a narrative as if they had audio or video recordings of the meeting or personally witnessed the conversation. It’s a typical narrative topic, but in this case – and with the outlet’s past bias against Trump – such writing serves only to conceal the fact that the sourcing for the conversation is rather thin. At one point during the conversation, Trump is alleged to have told the military leaders: “I wouldn’t go to war with you people. You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”
Who claims Trump said this? The Post authors don’t let us know. The only kind of sourcing we get is Tillerson allegedly later told “close aides” that he felt Mattis said nothing during the discussion to defense himself because, as a Marine, he would not talk back to the commander in chief. Other sources include “one attendee,” “another,” and “a third attendee.” There were also “Others at the table,” apparently. Tillerson also apparently “told others” there was a woman in the room who was crying. There’s also a statement from “one senior official.” Eventually, the writers refer to one attendee as a “victim” of the meeting.
The Amazon description for the book suggests Leonnig and Rucker had “deep and unmatched sources throughout Washington, D.C.” who told them about Trump’s “rages and frenzies but also moments of courage and perseverance.” They also apparently spoke to “some of the most senior members of the Trump administration and other firsthand witnesses.”
We have seen from the Post’s past reporting, as well as The New York Times’ and other left-leaning outlets, that anonymous sources are constantly used to paint a particular narrative. These anonymous sources are allowed to control the news cycle without have to prove how they could possibly know what had transpired. Many times, as with this article, people who were told about the meeting after the fact are used to craft the narrative.
Let’s say Tillerson, Bannon, Mattis, and the other big-name people who were in the room spoke to the Post. They’re all former officials who have a bone to pick with the president, but in the Trump era of “journalism,” leaving the Trump administration and speaking ill of the media’s most hated president instantly provides an impenetrable shield of credibility.
This is not to say Trump absolutely did not say what the Post claims, but given the media’s willingness to accept bad faith, anonymous sources to paint their preferred portrait of the Trump administration, it’s hard to believe anything they publish.
For good measure, that Amazon description flat-out states their bias, claiming that despite Trump’s claims to help the country, we have only suffered with him as president and our nation has plunged into “chaos.” This conveniently ignores that wages are rising and the unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest in decades and that Americans who don’t already hate Republicans are actually doing much better than they were under the Obama administration.

Washington Post Writers Claim Trump Called Military Leaders ‘Dopes And Babies’

Washington Post

The man who was appointed to assess the FBI’s response to a federal court order demanding the bureau explain how it would fix the errors and misleading statements that led to the illegal surveillance of Carter Page, a former adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, has previously and fervently defended the bureau in the past, leading some to question whether he is the man for job.
David Kris, a former senior Obama Justice Department official, was appointed on January 10 to serve as amicus curiae to “assist the Court in assessing the government’s response” to a court order from then-Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) presiding judge Rosemary Collyer that required the government the government to provide a sworn written statement about how it would take steps to make sure it would never mislead the FISC when applying for electronic surveillance warrants.
As Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) explained in a letter to James E. Boasberg, the current presiding judge for FISC, Kris “does not appear to be an objective – or likely effective – amicus curiae for several reasons.”
“At minimum, the selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI to ensure it effectuates meaningful reform,” the congressmen continued.
They then point to several examples where Kris has previously defended the FBI against accusations that it had mislead the FISC while obtaining warrants against Page. Kris in 2018 claimed – along with every other left-leaning media outlet – that a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee (then under Republican control) that detailed the abuse of the FISA warrant process was itself wrong.
“Based on my familiarity with the FISA process and the people who run it, I have high confidence that they would have provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess [ex-British intelligence officer Christopher] Steele’s credibility and the provenance of the other information on which they relied,” Kris said at the time.
He was wrong, as the Inspector General’s (IG) December 9 report validate what the House Intelligence committee found in 2018.
Kris also claimed that the applications (which were later determined to contain <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ig-report-here-are-the-17-specific-inaccuracies-and-omissions-in-the-fbis-fisa-warrants-against-carter-page">serious errors and omissions</a>) “already substantially undermine the President’s narrative and that of his proxies, and it seems to me very likely that if we get below the tip of the iceberg into the submerged parts and more is revealed it’s going to get worse, not better” for Page.
Again, as the IG determined, the FBI never had any basis to conclude Page was a foreign agent yet still went forward with obtaining surveillance warrants against him.
Even after the IG found the FBI had mislead the FISC in its warrant applications, Kris downplayed the role of the FBI, saying that the conduct was not political and was merely sloppy. In testimony, IG Michael Horowitz stated that the FBI did not rule out political bias, even though the report concluded it had found none.
Based on these statements, Jordan and Meadows requested answers to nine questions regarding Kris’ appointment and role:
<ol>
<li>Please identify with specificity all the candidates you considered to serve as amicus curiae to assess the government&#8217;s response to Judge Collyer&#8217;s order dated December 17, 2019.</li>
<li>Please explain whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris&#8217;s writings and statements about Carter Page and the FBI&#8217;s electronic surveillance of Mr. Page prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not.</li>
<li>Please explain whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris&#8217;s writings and statements about the memorandum issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence dated January 18, 2018, prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not,</li>
<li>Please explain what specific steps the FISC will take to better protect the civil liberties of American citizens who are not represented in ex parte proceedings for electronic surveillance.</li>
<li>Please explain whether the FISC intends to review FBI filings in other matters to determine whether, as Judge Collyer wrote, “the government &#8230; provide[s] complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court.&#8221; If not, please explain why not.</li>
<li>Please explain whether you believe that the FISC bears any responsibility for the FBI&#8217;s illegal surveillance of Carter Page.</li>
<li>Please explain with detail when the FISC first received any indication that information contained in the FBI&#8217;s surveillance applications for Carter Page was misleading or false. Please explain what actions, if any, the FISC took at that time to address the FBI&#8217;s misconduct.</li>
<li>Please explain whether the FISC conducted any internal review to examine the accuracy or validity of information contained in the FBI&#8217;s surveillance applications for Carter Page prior to the release of the Justice Department OIG&#8217;s report. If so, please explain the scope and process of the FISC review and any findings or information it generated.</li>
<li>Please explain with specificity what disciplinary action, if any, the FISC intends to pursue for attorneys who knowingly filed false or misleading information with the FISC with respect to applications to surveil Carter Page.</li>
</ol>

Menu

Ashe Schow

Articles by Ashe Schow