On Friday, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b4747822-277e-4d2c-b896-eb4e04672c09">SurveyUSA</a> released a new national Democratic primary poll, which was conducted between January 14 &#8211; 16 on 5,000 adults, 4,069 of whom “are registered voters,” with “1,086 likely to vote in a Democratic Primary.”
The survey asked: “Where you live, if there were a Democratic primary today, which Democrat would you vote for to be the Democratic Party&#8217;s nominee for President of the United States?”
In first place is former Vice President Joe Biden with 32%. In a distant second place is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 21%, and in third place is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 14%.
In fourth and fifth place are Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, each with 9% support.
When broken down by age, Biden still leads in three of four groups. 27% of the 35-49 age group support Biden compared to 25% for Sanders, and 16% for Warren. 45% of the 50-64 age group support Biden compared to just 12% for Sanders and 13% for Warren. Biden’s support dips a bit to 37% among the 65+ group, but Sanders tanks with the elderly voters with just 8%. Warren nabs 13%.
However, among the 18-34 age group, Sanders explodes with 38% support compared to Biden’s 20% and Warren’s 16%.
Biden also dominates among African American voters, where he has 50% support compared to second-place Sanders’ 18%, and Warren’s 9%. Among Hispanic voters, Biden and Sanders are virtually tied with 31% and 30%, respectively. Warren sits in a distant third with 10% Hispanic support.
Another area where Biden triumphs over the rest of the field is among religious individuals who attend regular services.
46% of those who attend religious services “regularly” support Biden compared to 14% who support Sanders and 13% who support Warren.
Among those who “almost never” attend religious services, the field is much more open. 26% of those who “almost never” attend religious services support Biden compared to 22% who support Sanders, and 17% who support Warren.
“Strongly pro-life” respondents also side with Biden in a major way, giving him 44% support over second-place Sanders’ 16% and Warren’s 8%. The “strongly pro-choice” respondents are more spread out, with 27% supporting Biden, 24% supporting Sanders, and 17% supporting Warren.
According to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> average of national polls, Biden remains in the lead with 28.4% to Sanders’ 20.4%, and Warren’s 14.8%.
In Iowa, Biden and Sanders are in a near tie with 20.7% and 20.3%, respectively. In New Hampshire, which votes second, Sanders actually leads Biden 22.5% to 21%. Warren sits in third place in the state with 16.3% support, with Buttigieg nipping at her heels with 14.5% support.
Biden’s largest advantage is still in South Carolina, where he leads Sanders by 17% (32% to 15%).
What this new SurveyUSA poll appears to indicate is that while Sen. Bernie Sanders is on the rise nationally, and Biden remains in a healthy first position, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was once considered a potential threat to the former vice president, continues on her steep tumble.
With Iowa just 15 days away, the candidates are losing time to change the numbers before the caucus state sets the tone of what’s to come afterward.

Joe Biden.

Biden Flies High In Post-Debate Poll; Warren Continues Months-Long Tumble

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders

Democratic Party

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

On Sunday, Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) appeared on NBC’s “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-19-2020-n1116261">Meet the Press</a>” with host Chuck Todd to discuss the upcoming Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Near the beginning of the segment, Todd asked Perdue about what the trial will “look like.”
Perdue replied, stating that it’s dependent on how the Tuesday vote goes, adding that Republicans have “tried to enter these negotiations with the other side, but they won&#8217;t have any conversation until we deal with witnesses up front,” which allegedly isn’t the way things were done “during the Clinton trial.”
<blockquote>&#8230;Mitch McConnell will put forward his proposal, we&#8217;ll have a vote on that. That proposal right now will look very similar to 24 hours of presentation by the House managers over two days, and then 24 hours of presentation by the president&#8217;s team over two days, and then 16 hours of questions submitted by the members in writing to the chief justice. The chief justice decides whether or not they get asked and how they get asked and [in] what sequence. And then we have, at that point, the opportunity to do exactly what we did after phase one in the Clinton trial, and that is to decide where we go from here? Do we have more witnesses? Do we need clarification?</blockquote>
Todd then asked why Republicans allegedly don’t want to hear from Giuliani associate Lev Parnas “under oath.” Perdue responded, saying that Parnas’ information is “second hand,” and that “he’s been meeting with the House Intel Committee.”
<blockquote>If the House felt like this information was pertinent, I would think they would have included his testimony in this information.</blockquote>
Todd pressed Perdue as to why Parnas ended up “so close to the president.” Perdue dismissed that suggestion. Todd then asked Perdue if he is troubled by Parnas’ proximity to the president via Rudy Giuliani. Perdue also dismissed that suggestion before shifting gears to the impeachment process as a whole.
<blockquote>The headlines of the Washington Post on the day President Trump was inaugurated said that the campaign to impeach this president has already begun. This is an impeachment looking for reasons. They want to undo the 2016 election and, in fact, the 2020 election, I believe.</blockquote>
Perdue castigated the House trial as “not fair” and “illegitimate” because Trump was “denied &#8230; due process.” He claimed the Senate trial would hopefully be fair.
After a back-and-fourth about the substance, or lack thereof, of the impeachment charges, Todd asked Perdue if he would be comfortable defending former President Obama if he were in the same situation.
Perdue shot back:
<blockquote>In Fast and Furious, he [Obama] did exactly this. He withheld evidence from the House of Representatives, and the Republicans decided that it was not obstruction of Congress. The Democrats agreed, and we did not pursue it. Nancy Pelosi, Nadler, all said that that was not obstruction. And yet, in this case, when the president decides to use executive privilege, they now, all of a sudden, say, &#8220;Oh, no. That is obstruction of Congress.&#8221; So, it&#8217;s a little bit hypocritical&#8230;</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CZgGyVAyYZE" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sen. David Perdue.

WATCH: Republican Sen. David Perdue Talks Senate Trial Process And Pushes Back On Question About Defending Obama

Barack Obama

David Perdue

Donald Trump

Impeachment

Lev Parnas

On Sunday, conservative author and radio host Hugh Hewitt appeared on NBC’s “<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-19-2020-n1116261">Meet the Press</a>” with host Chuck Todd.
During one of the segments with Hewitt, Todd played the clip from Tuesday’s Democratic primary debate in which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) approached rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and accused him of calling her “a liar on national TV.”
Rewind.
The feud between Warren and Sanders <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-official-warren-sanders-spat-didnt-play-out-well-for-either-of-them-biden-could-benefit">began in earnest</a> with a report from Politico on January 11 in which it was claimed the Sanders campaign was instructing its personnel to tell voters that Warren was a candidate who couldn’t broaden her appeal beyond the “highly educated” and “more affluent.”
Warren responded to the report, saying that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
Then, CNN dropped a bombshell story claiming that during a private meeting in 2018, Sanders told Warren that he “did not believe a woman could win.”
In response to CNN’s report, Warren said: 
<blockquote>Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.</blockquote>
At Tuesday’s debate, CNN’s Abby Phillip asked Sanders about the alleged exchange, and Sanders denied that it ever happened. Phillip then turned right around and asked Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Sanders appeared confounded that Phillip would state her question in such a way, and the audience notably laughed.
Warren replied: “I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
After the debate, while mics were still recording and cameras on, Warren approached Sanders, refused his handshake, and confronted him over the debate exchange. Sanders replied that it was Warren who had called him a “liar,” but that they shouldn’t have such a discussion then and there.
On Sunday, Todd asked Hewitt his opinion on the feud as a conservative, noting that it might end up helping former Vice President Joe Biden, “who might be the tougher foe” in the general election.
Hewitt stated that he believes it is Mayor Pete Buttigieg who would benefit from the internecine fighting:
<blockquote>I thought the winner of the split was Pete Buttigieg because either the Warren voter or the Sanders voter who is turned off, they&#8217;re not going to go to Joe Biden. They&#8217;ve already committed to a progressive.</blockquote>
Hewitt then added that he will be voting for Sen. Sanders in the Virginia primary:
<blockquote>I can tell you one thing. Because Virginia allows early voting and because I don&#8217;t know where NBC or Salem will have me on March 3rd, I&#8217;m voting this week. And because it&#8217;s Virginia, I get to vote in the Democratic primary. I&#8217;m voting for Bernie Sanders. And I think a lot of people will because he&#8217;s authentic –</blockquote>
Todd asked if Hewitt’s Sanders vote was “calculated voting.” Hewitt replied that it’s because he believes Sanders to be “authentic,” and that he wants a clear distinction between a real “socialist” and those who are simply imitators.
<blockquote>TODD: Yeah? You&#8217;re going to vote for Bernie Sanders against Donald Trump?
HEWITT: No. I&#8217;m going to vote for Donald Trump. But I want a clear choice between the authentic, traditional socialist and all the people who just pretend to be.
TODD: Oh wow.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: Hugh Hewitt announces that he will vote in the Democratic primary in Virginia on March 3rd. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MTP?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MTP</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/IfItsSunday?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#IfItsSunday</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hughhewitt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@hughhewitt</a>: &#8220;I&#8217;m voting for Bernie Sanders.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/AiqCDukM7T">pic.twitter.com/AiqCDukM7T</a>
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) <a href="https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1218938634805616641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2020</a></blockquote>

Hugh Hewitt.

WATCH: Conservative Hugh Hewitt Explains His Decision To Vote For Bernie Sanders In VA Primary

Hugh Hewitt

On Friday, The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh retweeted a post from NPR in which the news organization writes: “Elizabeth Warren has pledged to cancel up to $50,000 of debt for 95% of student loan borrowers if she&#8217;s elected president – and she says she could cancel those debts all on her own.”
Walsh wrote above the tweet:
<blockquote>No such thing as &#8220;canceling&#8221; debt. If we&#8217;re being honest, we&#8217;d call it what it is: debt transfer. We&#8217;d be transferring debt from the people who took out the loans to people who did not take out the loans. Of course it sounds utterly unjust and crazy when you put it like that.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
No such thing as &#8220;canceling&#8221; debt. If we&#8217;re being honest, we&#8217;d call it what it is: debt transfer. We&#8217;d be transferring debt from the people who took out the loans to people who did not take out the loans. Of course it sounds utterly unjust and crazy when you put it like that. <a href="https://t.co/evrD4phn2O">https://t.co/evrD4phn2O</a>
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1218162030236008454?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
The article linked in NPR’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796329598/cancelling-student-debt-is-easier-than-it-sounds?utm_source=twitter.com&amp;utm_campaign=npr&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_term=nprnews">tweet</a> suggests that Warren could accomplish the alleged “cancellation” of student debt without Congress.
Here’s the <a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/student-loan-debt-day-one?source=soc-WB-ew-tw-rollout-20200114">direct text</a> from Warren’s own website:
<blockquote>But the Department of Education already has broad legal authority to cancel student debt, and we can’t afford to wait for Congress to act. So I will start to use existing laws on day one of my presidency to implement my student loan debt cancellation plan that offers relief to 42 million Americans – in addition to using all available tools to address racial disparities in higher education, crack down on for-profit institutions, and eliminate predatory lending&#8230;
When I am president &#8230; I’ll direct the Secretary of Education to use their authority to begin to compromise and modify federal student loans consistent with my plan to cancel up to $50,000 in debt for 95% of student loan borrowers (about 42 million people).</blockquote>
While Walsh’s tweet has more than 13,400 “likes” as of publication, and approximately 3,700 retweets, some commenters don’t seem to understand the idea that the government cannot “cancel” debt.
User @EllenGirl71 wrote: “There *is* debt forgiveness. It means that no one will be paying it back. The US government federal student loan debt can be forgiven any time the US govt decides to forgive it.”
There were numerous commenters who tried to argue with @EllenGirl71, but the following two exchanges were some of the more illuminating ones.
@MarkFidelman wrote: “Sorry Ellen, the money came from tax dollars or private investors. Someone lost in that transaction. It also sends a chilling message to future taxpayers and investors that the government can’t be trusted.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sorry Ellen, the money came from tax dollars or private investors. Someone lost in that transaction. It also sends a chilling message to future taxpayers and investors that the government can’t be trusted.
— Mark Fidelman (@markfidelman) <a href="https://twitter.com/markfidelman/status/1218553641616867329?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
Ellen replied: “The borrowers are also taxpayers, and they and the country are losing in this transaction. I would prefer that they spend that $1 trillion in the economy. The status quo of high household debt is the one unacceptable choice.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
The borrowers are also taxpayers, and they and the country are losing in this transaction. I would prefer that they spend that $1 trillion in the economy. The status quo of high household debt is the one unacceptable choice.
— Ellen (@EllenGirl71) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenGirl71/status/1218608123830849536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2020</a></blockquote>
In another exchange, @TheProbableMatt wrote: “It is absolutely magic. Grants &amp; gifts also cost money. Where is that money coming from? It has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is almost always future taxation rather than budget cut somewhere else. even then the federal govt does not generate income. They take ours.”
Ellen replied: “Nothing magical about forgiving a loan. It does not get transferred to someone else. No one else owes that money now. If I forgive you the 500 I lent you, no one else has to pay me back. The money just stays in your pocket.”
Matt shot back: “And it still came out of your pocket. You are expecting the government to eat the $500. The govt doesn&#8217;t eat money. They tax. This is how economics work.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nothing magical about forgiving a loan. It does not get transferred to someone else. No one else owes that money now. If I forgive you the 500 I lent you, no one else has to pay me back. The money just stays in your pocket.
— Ellen (@EllenGirl71) <a href="https://twitter.com/EllenGirl71/status/1218257303708880897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
And it still came out of your pocket. You are expecting the government to eat the $500. The govt doesn&#8217;t eat money. They tax. This is how economics work.
— Matt Meyer (@TheProbableMatt) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheProbableMatt/status/1218258168511434752?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote>
As Walsh and others stated, debt cannot simply vanish. It must be shifted.
Here’s an imperfect and very simplified, but apt analogy.
There are five siblings. Two of the five went to college, while the other three started their adult lives working in trades. All five siblings live at home with their parents in their large house, and pay rent.
The two who went to college each borrowed $50,000 from their parents in order to obtain their degrees. So, in addition to paying their parents $700/month for rent, they shell out an additional $300/month in loan payments. That’s $1,000/month, respectively.
The two college-educated siblings are struggling, so their parents decide to “cancel” their collective debt. At this point, the combined debt of the two siblings stands at $60,000.
In order to recoup their investment, the parents who have “cancelled” the debts of their college-educated children raise the rent on all five siblings to $820/month, thus equally distributing the collective debt. Now, the college-educated siblings only pay an additional $120/month, but the three siblings who never borrowed any money in the first place have the $120/month burden as well.
This is a stripped down version of how such debt “cancellation” would work in a system in which individuals borrow money from the government.
Debt does not disappear, but is simply redistributed.

Cash.

CAMP: Student Debt Cannot Be ‘Cancelled,’ Just Redistributed

Debt Forgiveness

Education

Matt Walsh

This week, former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy appeared on Fox News to discuss the upcoming impeachment trial in the United States Senate.
During the segment, hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith played a clip from a recent interview conducted by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow with Giuliani associate Lev Parnas.
<blockquote>PARNAS: I didn&#8217;t feel that they were trying to get me out, and at that point, I had a meeting with John Dowd and [Kevin] Downing inside the jail, and John Dowd just, instead of comforting me and, you know, trying to calm me down, telling me like it&#8217;s going to be okay, like don&#8217;t worry, basically start[ed] talking to me like a drill sergeant &#8230;
MADDOW: Were they telling you to sacrifice yourself in order to protect the president?
PARNAS: That’s what I felt.</blockquote>
After introducing Gowdy to the program, Smith asked: “So, what is your response when you hear that?”
Gowdy replied, urging viewers to watch the entire interview:
<blockquote>I would encourage your viewers to listen to the entire interview, not just the snippets. Remember, Parnas was upset because he expected Giuliani and Trump to come to his defense. This is a guy charged with falsifying records, making a false statement, conspiracy to defraud the FEC. He’s upset – by the way, John Dowd is not Trump&#8217;s former lawyer; that&#8217;s not how I would characterize him. He is Parnas’ hand-picked lawyer. That’s who hired John Dowd and Kevin Downing. It was Lev Parnas. So, if he&#8217;s upset that he hired these two, he&#8217;s got nobody to blame but himself. He wanted Giuliani and Trump to come to his defense in these three charges that he&#8217;s facing. That’s why he&#8217;s upset. You only get that from watching the entire interview, not from reading the stories and not from listening to that snippet.</blockquote>
Hemmer then queried: “Was he asked precisely – if he said the president knew exactly what he was doing, has he described what those meetings were about, or conversations were about? Have you heard that yet?”
Gowdy responded, tearing apart Parnas’ credibility in the process:
<blockquote>You know, Bill, what I didn&#8217;t hear was the follow-up. “Okay, with total certitude, you say President Trump knew what you were doing. Convince us of that. Give us the evidence.” Remember, he also said that Bill Barr was in the loop and then when cited for evidence, he said, “Well, he’s friends with diGenova and Toensing, and his name was mentioned in [the] transcript.” If that&#8217;s the only evidence you have that Bill Barr is part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States and get a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, if the only evidence you have is who he&#8217;s friends with and his name was mentioned in the transcript, that ain&#8217;t much evidence &#8230; so, I need to hear the follow-up questions.
&#8230;the way lawyers interview people, when you cross-examine them, Parnas gave three different answers to the same question about Mike Pence. His first answer is, “I&#8217;m absolutely certain Pence knew about it,” and then about three seconds later he said, “Well, he had to have, right?” and then the last answer was, “Well, it was possible.” Those three answers don&#8217;t do you well in the courtroom. They do great if you&#8217;re writing headlines; they do not do well in the courtroom.</blockquote>
Following Gowdy’s answer, Smith shifted to Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “Well, Nancy Pelosi didn&#8217;t rule out the possibility of talking to him in this impeachment process. I mean, what are we supposed to think the impact of those interviews are going to have as this impeachment trial is officially underway now?”
Gowdy replied, castigating Pelosi for seemingly having such a “low threshold” for smearing an individual like Bill Barr:
<blockquote>I was stunned at how little it takes in Speaker Pelosi&#8217;s eyes to call for special counsel. You have someone who&#8217;s under indictment, a Ukrainian under indictment that no one would have believed six months ago, who says that it&#8217;s possible that Bill Barr may have been in on it based on the fact that his name was in a transcript – and she&#8217;s willing to call for special counsel. I mean, I think the threshold for besmirching someone&#8217;s reputation, particularly someone like Bill Barr, ought to be a little higher than relying on one of six or seven different answers that Lev Parnas gave to the same question in an MSNBC interview.</blockquote>
Gowdy added that “if you’re going to make Lev Parnas the center of your impeachment prosecution,” one has to be ready to call numerous other witnesses in order to assess the credibility of Parnas’ claims, which could lead to a months-long trial.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LkpsKSyeRL4" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Trey Gowdy.

WATCH: Trey Gowdy Rips Lev Parnas’ Credibility; Slams Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

Trey Gowdy

William Barr

On January 11, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/11/bernie-quietly-goes-negative-on-warren-097594">Politico</a> reported that the campaign for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was allegedly instructing its people to attack rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) by implying she is a candidate who cannot expand beyond the “highly educated” and “more affluent.”
Following the report, Warren <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/claws-out-elizabeth-warren-accuses-bernie-sanders-of-playing-dirty-trashing-her-in-iowa">said</a> she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
CNN then dropped a bombshell <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html">report</a>, claiming that in 2018, Sanders told Warren that he didn’t believe a woman could win in 2020.
In response to CNN’s report, Warren said: 
<blockquote>Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate. I thought a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.</blockquote>
During Tuesday’s Democratic <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-refuses-to-shake-sanders-hand-after-debate-fellow-candidate-weighs-in-on-kerfuffle">presidential debate</a>, the fissure was brought to the fore. Moderator Abby Phillip of CNN asked Sanders about the alleged exchange, and Sanders denied he ever said that a woman couldn’t win.
“As a matter of fact, I didn’t say that. And I don’t want to waste a lot of time on this because this is what Donald Trump, maybe some of the media would want,” Sanders <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-warren-refuses-to-shake-sanders-hand-after-debate-fellow-candidate-weighs-in-on-kerfuffle">replied</a>. “Anybody who knows me knows it is incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be president of the United States.”
Sanders went on to talk about Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote, and that he would back any woman on the stage with him if they were to become the nominee.
Phillip then asked Warren: “What did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Sanders looked incredulous that such a presumptuous question would be asked, and the audience laughed.
Warren responded: “I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But, look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised, and it’s time for us to attack it head-on.”
Following the debate, Warren <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-debate-audio/index.html">approached</a> Sanders while still on camera and with mics still recording, and accused him of calling her “a liar on national TV.” Sanders rebuffed Warren, first claiming that she was the one calling him “a liar,” then stating that if they wanted to talk about it, they should do so later.
CNN was widely trashed on social media, and by political commentators, for the way in which the exchange was handled.
Speaking with <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/478722-ex-obama-official-on-sanders-warren-feud-i-dont-think-it-played-out-well-for-either-of-them">The Hill</a> on Thursday, former Obama official and former Virginia Deputy Attorney General Stephen Cobb said that the internecine fight between Warren and Sanders didn’t play “out well for either of them,” and if any candidate were to benefit from the kerfuffle, it would be former Vice President Joe Biden.
“If you are arguably the front-runner or a front-runner and you go into a debate where everyone is taking potshots at each other and you can kind of rise above the fray, you get to come out the winner,” Cobb said.
However, one new poll conducted entirely after the debate has Sanders in the lead.
According to the latest <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-democrats-poll/sanders-climbs-now-tied-with-biden-among-registered-voters-reuters-poll-idUSKBN1ZG00D">Reuters/Ipsos</a> national poll, which was conducted between January 15 &#8211; 16 (the two days following the debate) on “681 Democrats and independents, including 552 who were registered to vote,” Sen. Sanders takes the lead with 20% support. In second place is Biden with 19%. In third is Warren with 12%.
Reuters notes that this poll showed “an increase of 2 percentage points [for Sanders] from a similar poll that ran last week.”
That said, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> national average of polls, Biden still leads Sanders by a healthy 8% (28.4% to 20.4%). Biden also leads Sanders in Iowa by 0.4%, but in New Hampshire, Sanders leads Biden by 1.5%. Warren sits in third place nationally, fourth place in Iowa, and third place in New Hampshire, per RealClearPolitics polling avareges.

Dem debate.

Obama Official: Warren/Sanders Spat Didn’t Play ‘Out Well For Either Of Them,’ Biden Could Benefit

On January 8, fitness guru Jillian Michaels appeared on Buzzfeed’s morning show “AM to DM” on Twitter.
During the segment, host Alex Berg praised singers like Lizzo for “preaching self-acceptance.” This led to the following exchange between Berg and Michaels:
<blockquote>MICHAELS: I love her music, yeah, 100%. I don’t know anything about her. I’m sure she’s a cool, awesome chick.
BERG: Yeah, and I love that they’re putting images out there that we normally don’t get to see of bodies that we don’t get to see being celebrated.
MICHAELS: But why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? That’s what I’m saying. Why aren’t we celebrating her music? Because it isn’t going to be awesome if she gets diabetes. I’m just being honest. I love her music, like, my kid loves her music, but there’s never a moment when I’m like, “And I’m so glad she’s overweight.” Like, why do I even care? Why is it my job to care about her weight?</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hNtIE2Ln7j8?start=418" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Well, that’s the clip that blew up on social media. There’s actually some more context. The full exchange between Berg and Michaels about fat acceptance and the unhealthy nature of obesity can be read at the end of this piece.
Following the interview, Michaels got <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jillian-michaels-on-lizzo-why-are-we-celebrating-her-body-wont-be-awesome-if-she-gets-diabetes">smacked</a> on social media for her comments about Lizzo. The fitness guru received <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jillian-michaels-on-lizzo-why-are-we-celebrating-her-body-wont-be-awesome-if-she-gets-diabetes">backup</a> as well.
On Wednesday, Michaels posted a photo to her Instagram from when she was 14 years old and 175 lbs. She captioned the image: “Here&#8217;s me at 5&#8217;0 tall and 175 lbs. If I can do it – anyone can. Share your story&#8230;”
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/B7WQJ6qJSb1/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="12">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<a style="color: #000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B7WQJ6qJSb1/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Here&#8217;s me at 5&#8217;0 tall and 175 lbs. If I can do it &#8211; anyone can. Share your story&#8230;</a>
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">A post shared by <a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px;" href="https://www.instagram.com/jillianmichaels/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Jillian Michaels</a> (@jillianmichaels) on <time style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px;" datetime="2020-01-15T16:52:57+00:00">Jan 15, 2020 at 8:52am PST</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
Some indeed shared their stories below the post.
User Kimberspores wrote: “I was close to 180lbs at 5&#8217;3&#8243; at one point. Now I&#8217;m at 145 and working on losing more with your help. I honestly have never felt more inspired than when you&#8217;re yelling at me from my tv screen.”
User Thesarahsaurus13 wrote: “You helped me go from 165 to 120 lbs! But better than that, you give me the motivation to get up and care about myself every day! Thank you!!”
Others thanked Michaels for not backing down.
User irrevelry wrote: “Started following you after your comments about heavy entertainers&#8230;nothing personal against overweight people it’s just the truth. Thank you for standing by your statements. Gravitas for sure. We need more of your voice of reason.”
Michaels replied:
<blockquote>Honestly – I was asked a question [if] I celebrate her being overweight. Had zero intention to involve her. I don&#8217;t celebrate ANYONE overweight because it kills people. BUT it doesn&#8217;t mean I don&#8217;t celebrate the actual person. Sorta like if your best friend was a smoker – you love them, celebrate them, but certainly wouldn&#8217;t celebrate the fact that they smoke&#8230; <a href="https://www.instagram.com/prettybitches_bychloe/">@prettybitches_bychloe</a> I’m looking at you.</blockquote>
As of publication, Michaels’ throwback photo has over 25,600 “likes” on Instagram.
Below is the full exchange between Michaels and Berg from “AM to DM”:
<blockquote>BERG: Well, you&#8217;ve said before that you think political correctness has gone too far in the health and fitness world. What did you mean by that?
MICHAELS: Political correctness has just, like, come so – I can&#8217;t even – I think it’s insane, and it&#8217;s like, the pendulum, just, as far as it swings in one direction, it swings back in the other, right? And you&#8217;ve got these crazy extremes whereas, “Oh, she&#8217;s, you know, she&#8217;s too fat to be a pop star!” Well, you say things like that, and you know, then there&#8217;s gonna be, you should never be able to say things like that, right? But for years, people were. They could fat-shame, and they could exclude people, and they could make people feel less than in all forms of media, and we should always be inclusive, but you cannot glorify obesity. It’s dangerous. It kills people. It’s the number one cause of bankruptcy in our country.
So, there&#8217;s a middle ground here. Now it&#8217;s like, “Oh, that woman is 250 pounds! Good for her!” and it&#8217;s like, it shouldn&#8217;t be one way or the other. It’s really no one&#8217;s business to comment. It’s not something you should judge. It’s not something you should celebrate. That woman&#8217;s health is up to her – but, I mean, 250 pounds, I would say 999 times out of 1,000 is going to mean heart disease, cancer, diabetes, autoimmune issues, and early death.
BERG: I have to say, I personally found, and I love celebrities like Lizzo or Ashley Graham who are really preaching self-acceptance.
MICAHELS: I love her music, yeah, 100%. I don&#8217;t know anything about her. I&#8217;m sure she&#8217;s a cool, awesome chick.
BERG: Yeah, and I love that they&#8217;re putting images out there that we normally don&#8217;t get to see of bodies that we don&#8217;t get to see being celebrated, and&#8230;
MICHAELS: But why are we celebrating her body? Why does it matter? That’s what I&#8217;m saying. Like, why aren&#8217;t we celebrating her music? ‘Cause it isn&#8217;t gonna be awesome if she gets diabetes. I&#8217;m just being honest. I love her music, like, my kid loves her music, but there&#8217;s never a moment where I&#8217;m like, “And I&#8217;m so glad that she&#8217;s overweight!” Like, why do I even care? Why is it my job to care about her weight?
BERG: For a lot of people, that image resonates that they feel good enough, and actually, I want to get to a tweet about this that was in response to your conversation with Wendy Williams yesterday when you spoke a little bit about body positivity, and Cocoa Popps tweeted: “Saw Jillian Michaels talk about people ‘celebrating obesity.’ Body positivity isn&#8217;t about celebrating being unhealthy. (and you can be overweight and be healthy.) It’s embracing yourself without society&#8217;s permission. Very disappointed by what she said and the presumptive tone.” So, what do you say to a response like that?
MICAHELS: Okay, I would say, first of all, most people that are that are morbidly obese are not healthy. Now, if they&#8217;re working on losing weight – and because they&#8217;re working out and they&#8217;re eating right you can reverse that stuff pretty quick – but I mean, I&#8217;ve been doing this a real long time. I have yet to meet a person that&#8217;s gotten themselves to 200, 250, 300 pounds, and the doctor goes, “Looking good!” I mean, no. Just no. Just no. So, I would say to Cocoa Popps, like, first of all, this isn&#8217;t what you do, so you don&#8217;t know. You haven&#8217;t been to the doctor with person after person after person after person that&#8217;s 100 lbs overweight and looked at their labs – like, you just, you don&#8217;t know. That’s not what you do.
I&#8217;m not saying, and never have I said, that we shouldn&#8217;t be inclusive and accepting. I&#8217;m saying that I don&#8217;t love Lizzo because she&#8217;s overweight. I like her because of her music – and by the way, if you said to me, like, “Hey, Lizzo can live to be 90 and motivate people, or she can die at 60 and motivate people,” why wouldn&#8217;t I say, like, “I really hope she&#8217;s as healthy as she can be”? It’s not about saying that I don&#8217;t respect her, [that] I don&#8217;t think she&#8217;s awesome. I absolutely do, but I also would hate to see her get sick, and I mean &#8230; it&#8217;s the number one cause of bankruptcy in the country, like, come on! It’s a problem. These are facts.</blockquote>

Jillian Michaels and Lizzo.

Jillian Michaels Posts Pic Of Herself When She Was Overweight After Lizzo Blow Up

fat acceptance

Jillian Michaels

obesity

On Sunday, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” with host Jake Tapper to discuss his previous statement regarding his dissatisfaction with the briefing senators were given on the Soleimani strike.
Tapper first asked about the nature of the briefing.
Lee replied:
<blockquote>In that briefing, we didn&#8217;t receive very much information that wasn&#8217;t already available through public media sources.
This is one of the things that&#8217;s very frustrating. When something like this happens, when events are unfolding quickly, events that will have a profound impact on national security and military strategy, Congress does need to know about it, in part so we can evaluate the scope of our authority to act or choose not to act. We didn&#8217;t get that. And that was disappointing.</blockquote>
Lee later made clear that the American people are safer without Soleimani alive:
<blockquote>I want to make very clear, I issued a statement within a few hours of the attack on General Soleimani announcing that this was a good development from the standpoint of the security of the American people. We are, in fact, safer as a result of the fact that he&#8217;s dead.
If you see a wounded veteran anywhere in America, and they&#8217;re missing a limb or they&#8217;re badly disfigured, odds are pretty good that veteran may have been wounded by an IED that was developed and deployed under General Soleimani&#8217;s leadership and at his direction. And so this development is good for the security of the American people.</blockquote>
Lee added: “But it does matter that we give the details to members of Congress, and it does matter to figure out where we go from here, and to make sure that any further action is authorized by Congress.”
Tapper referenced Republican-turned-Independent Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) reportedly claiming that he doesn’t believe “an attack was imminent,” and as a result, the Solemani killing was an abuse of power by the president.
Lee stated that he doesn’t have enough information at the moment “to ascertain really specific details as to the imminence of the attack,” but he believes the president and briefers that there was a “basis” for their conclusions.
After an exchange about the potential new war powers resolution, Tapper and Lee engaged in an illuminating exchange:
<blockquote>TAPPER: So, listen, you and I agree Soleimani had the blood of innocents on his hands, and was a bad person. The question is whether or not the intelligence behind his attack was what it is being presented as.
And do you have any concerns? I mean, we have heard mixed messages and conflicting stories about the reason for the attack, whether it&#8217;s the existential threat that Soleimani posed versus imminent attacks versus an attack on one embassy versus an attack on four embassies.
You and I have sat through this movie before – conflicting, changing information, intelligence juiced in order to justify certain actions. How worried are you about the integrity of the information we&#8217;re being told?</blockquote>
Lee replied, making a salient point:
<blockquote>Well, I&#8217;m worried, and as a United States senator and as a voter and citizen, I have learned not to simply take the federal government&#8217;s word at face value. I mean, look, we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We were lied to for a couple of decades about what was happening in Afghanistan. We have been lied to about a lot of things.
It&#8217;s not to say that the government is always lying or that the people who run it are inherently evil. It&#8217;s just that they&#8217;re human, and these things do happen. And so that&#8217;s important to ask these questions, to make sure that we know the details.
And insofar as we&#8217;re dealing with the inherent tension between the Article 2 commander in chief power enjoyed by the president and the Article 1, Section 8, declaration of war power, on the other hand, controlled by Congress, members of Congress do need to be apprised of the information underlying a particular decision.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o2F-Ic0P77Y" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rubio-calls-iran-briefing-compelling-lee-calls-it-insulting-cruz-tries-to-thread-needle-for-lee">Rubio Calls Iran Briefing ‘Compelling’; Lee Calls It ‘Insulting’; Cruz Tries To Thread Needle For Lee</a>

Sen. Mike Lee.

Sen. Lee Makes Salient Point On Iran: ‘I Have Learned Not To Simply Take &#8230; Government’s Word At Face Value’

Iran

Mike Lee

Qasem Soleimani

[WARNING: Spoilers for Netflix’s “Don’t F**k With Cats”]
On December 18, when most Americans were preparing to spend the joyful Christmas holiday with family and friends, Netflix dropped one of the most disturbing true crime docuseries in quite some time.
“Don&#8217;t F**k With Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer” is a three-part docuseries dealing with a cat and mouse game that played out between a group of internet sleuths and a deranged man who uploaded a video of himself killing two kittens in a vacuum bag.
Well, that’s how it started.
From the very beginning, an electric horror pulses through the veins of “Don’t F**k With Cats.”
A mystery man uploading an anonymous video to the internet in which he sweetly pets two kittens before placing them into a sealed vacuum bag and suctioning the air out until the kittens have died is the starting gun to this docuseries that explores evil, viral infamy, and complicity.
Shortly after the video goes viral, a small cadre of internet “nerds” decide to find the man responsible for the sickening footage – but the task is more difficult than they imagined.
Just when they feel like giving up, clues, seemingly from the killer himself, begin to arrive in the form of Facebook notifications. Has the kitten killer infiltrated their vigilante Facebook group? Has he been watching them toil away this entire time? The cat might have had the the mouse by the tail all along.
But this is only the beginning. Two more videos have been posted – one in which a kitten is fed to a python, and another in which a kitten is tied to a broomstick and drowned in a bathtub.
As if these sickening videos weren’t enough, the killer ups the ante by sending the group a photo of himself lounging while holding a kitten. The killer has blurred his own face in the image, but just enough to be maddening to his seekers.
Tips come flooding in about the identity of the mysterious kitten killer, but the alleged sicko is difficult to track down as he travels the world. The sleuths now know who the killer is, but ache as they are able to accomplish nothing material.
The game takes an even more heinous turn (if that’s possible) when the killer uploads a new video of himself stabbing a human to death with what appears to be an ice pick. The internet sleuths know who perpetrated this crime, but their pleas for officials to listen seemingly fall on deaf ears.
Now that the kitten killer has tuned into a murderer, officials begin investigating. The twists and turns come fast and furious in the final episode, and are so unbelievable and unthinkable, one might be forgiven for wondering if this docuseries is scripted.
In the end, the internet sleuths are left to wonder if they helped advance the narrative of this vile, fame-seeking killer; if they fed the animal-slaughtering beast who would eventually graduate to murder. It’s a question that cannot be fully answered.
Altogether thrilling and sickening, pulse-pounding and horrifying, “Don;t F**k With Cats” is a docuseries for the ages. If you’re fascinated by true crime tales, this is a must-watch.
“Don’t F**k With Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer” is available to stream right now on Netflix.

Netflix

CAMP: Netflix Docuseries ‘Don’t F**k With Cats’ Is A Twisted Ride For True Crime Fans

Don’t F**k With Cats

True Crime

The Washington Post recently released a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washington-post-ipsos-poll-of-african-americans-jan-2-8-2020/a41b5691-e181-4cda-bb88-7b31935103d9/">survey</a> of only African American adults with questions pertaining to the 2020 election, and the Democratic candidates more specifically.
The survey, which was conducted between January 2 &#8211; 8 on 1,088 “non-Hispanic black adults,” has a margin of error of +/-3.5 points overall, and +/-4 points among the smaller sampling of 769 “Democrat-leaning registered voters.”
To the 769 who leaned Democrat, the survey asked: “If the Democratic primary or caucus in your state were held today, for whom would you vote? Which candidate would you lean toward?”
Perhaps not surprisingly, the overwhelming plurality of respondents chose former Vice President Joe Biden, who came out with 48% support among African American voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) came in a distant second place with 20% support. No other candidate reached double digits.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had 9% support, followed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), who were tied with 4% support. In sixth place was businessman Andrew Yang with 3% support, and in seventh, a tie between Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire Tom Steyer, each with 2% support.
Again, unsurprisingly given the answer to the first question, when asked who their second choice would be, 24% of Democrat-leaning African American voters chose Sanders, 20% chose Warren, and 17% chose Biden.
Rounding out the top seven spots were Booker with 8%, Bloomberg with 5%, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Yang with 4%, and Buttigieg and Steyer with 3%. For comparison, “None of these” took 11% of the second choice vote.
Perhaps the most interesting question posed to Democrat-leaning African American voters was this: “Are there any candidates you would definitely NOT consider supporting for the Democratic nomination?”
Respondents were told they could choose multiple candidates for their answers.
Roaring into first place with 23% of Democrat-leaning African American voters saying they would “definitely NOT consider” her is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI). The candidate has not fared well among the Democratic establishment due in part to her heterodox views. This sentiment, which appears to have extended to voters, can be traced all the way back to her resignation from the DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton in February 2016.
Coming in second in the category that no candidate wants to be in is Michael Bloomberg with 17%. Third place is Pete Buttigieg with 15% of Democrat-leaning African American voters saying “No thanks.”
Other notable mentions are former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick with 13%, Klobuchar with 11%, and Yang with 10%.
At the bottom of the list are Sanders with 7%, Warren with 6%, and Biden with 5%.
However, 44% of Democrat-leaning African American voters said they “would support any of the candidates above.”
Another fascinating question pertained to name ID. When asked about “favorability,” only two Democratic candidates escaped the fate of low name recognition among African American adults – Biden (3% “never heard of”) and Sanders (5% “never heard of”).
Even Warren had a “never heard of” number of 17%. Almost every other candidate’s “never heard of” percentage was in the 20s and 30s, including ostensible top-tier candidate Pete Buttigieg, who 34% of African American adults had “never heard of.”
Check out the entire poll <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washington-post-ipsos-poll-of-african-americans-jan-2-8-2020/a41b5691-e181-4cda-bb88-7b31935103d9/">here</a>.

Top Dem candidates.

Washington Post Poll Of African Americans Reveals Stunning Info About Perceptions Of Some Dem Candidates

African American

Pete Buttigieg

In a recent episode of “The Late Show” on NBC, host Stephen Colbert took a few minutes out of his seemingly endless mockery of President Trump to turn the screws into a Democratic candidate.
Taking a shot at Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) interview with Elle Magazine in which she advised women to “dump” men who ghost them, Colbert said:
<blockquote>That sounds lovely, but “dump the guy who ghosted you?” Ghosted means they’re already gone! Everyone knows that as soon as they ask “The Late Show” interns to explain it to them. That’s universal.</blockquote>
Colbert then played a clip from Warren’s recent interview with Cosmopolitan in which she was asked about her skincare routine. Warren’s response was&#8230;interesting.
<blockquote>COSMO: You knew this was coming. What is your skincare routine?
WARREN: [I had] a much older cousin named Tootsie, and years ago, I was, I guess probably somewhere in my twenties, and we were at a big family reunion – and Tootsie was beautiful – and I looked over at her and I said, “Toots, how do you have such gorgeous skin?”</blockquote>
It was at this point that Colbert paused the clip to state that Warren might be the only person who could say, “‘Toots, how do you have such gorgeous skin?’ and have it not be creepy. Somewhere out there, Joe Biden is like, ‘Oh, but I can’t sniff one neck?! C’mon!’”
Back to the clip:
<blockquote>WARREN: She said, “Ponds moisturizer every morning, every night, and never wash your face.” So, from Tootsie to me to you. &#8230; I never wash my face.</blockquote>
Colbert laughed at Warren’s answer, suggesting that Tootsie was “messing” with her. 
Imitating a stereotypical elderly female smoker, Colbert then imagined what Toots actually said to Warren, including giving origin to Warren’s infamous Native American heritage scandal:
<blockquote>Hey, watch this. HEY, LIZ! Use Ponds constantly, never wash your face – and did you know we’re half Native American?! Tell everyone! That’s a wrap on Toots. Toots is out! Never wash. Never wash. Just don’t bathe.</blockquote>
Colbert concluded: “I never met her. I never met her, and I love Toots.”
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cDTx4BqGn6g" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Sen. Warren is currently experiencing a seeming fall from grace following her slow but steady rise to the top of the Democratic primary field in the latter months of 2019.
As of publication, Warren has landed in fourth place in Iowa (behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Vice President Joe Biden, fourth place in New Hampshire, third place in Nevada, and third place in South Carolina.
Even nationally, Warren is in a somewhat distant third place with 14.8% support, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> polling average. Biden sits in first with 29.3% support, and Sanders has taken second with 20.3% support.
The only state in which Warren stands at the top is in her home state of Massachusetts (however, the polls for Massachusetts are months old, and don’t necessarily reflect current sentiment among Democratic voters).
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-faces-ancestry-question-at-town-hall-i-shouldnt-have-done-it-i-am-not-a-person-of-color">Warren Faces Ancestry Question At Town Hall: ‘I Shouldn’t Have Done It. I Am Not A Person Of Color’</a>

Warren.

WATCH: Colbert Hilariously Rips Elizabeth Warren’s Peculiar Cosmo Interview

Stephen Colbert

On Friday, a surprising new Democratic primary poll was released by <a href="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/01/10/rel1_ia.-.democrats.pdf">CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom</a> that shows a new leader of the pack in the state of Iowa.
The new poll, which was conducted between January 2 &#8211; 8 on “3,131 active registered voters in Iowa, including 701 likely Democratic caucusgoers,” asked respondents to list their first and second choices for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The poll also includes a follow-up: “I’m going to read the list one more time, excluding any names you may have already mentioned. This time, please tell me if the person is someone you are actively considering or not.”
Iowa voters’ first choice among the Democratic candidates was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 20%. Second place went to Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 17%. Third place went to Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 16%, followed closely by former Vice President Joe Biden with 15%.
Aside from the 11% of voters who were “not sure,” the next two candidates were Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) with 6% and businessman Andrew Yang with 5%.
When asked to rank their second choice, respondents moved some folks around. Taking first place (in the second choice category) was Warren with 16%. Second place was Buttigieg with 15%. 13% of respondents had no second choice. Biden and Sanders tied for fourth place with 12% each.
Perhaps the most interesting and informative was the “actively consideration” category because it shows who still stands a chance even if they are lower in the primary rankings.
Tying for first place in the “actively considering” category were Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg with 29% each. Second place went to Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Joe Biden, each with 28%. Third place went to Klobuchar with 27%, fourth to Warren with 26%, fifth to Sanders with 23%, and sixth to billionaire Tom Steyer with 22%.
When the poll asked “likely Democratic caucusgoers” if their minds were made up or if they could still be persuaded to move to another candidate, 40% said that their mind was made up while 45% said that they could still be persuaded. In November, those numbers were 30% and 62%, respectively.
With this latest poll (as well as the accumulation of other recent polls), Sanders has dethroned Buttigieg from his perch atop the Iowa caucus candidate list – but just barely.
As of publication, the RealClearPolitics average for the Iowa Democratic caucus, which takes place on February 3, has Sanders in first place with 21.3%, Buttigieg in second with 21%, Biden in third with 17.7%, and Warren in fourth with 17%.
Sanders also leads in New Hampshire, which will vote second on February 11, with 21.5% to second-place Biden’s 18.8%, and third-place Buttigieg’s 18.3%.
Nevada and South Carolina, which vote February 22 and 29, respectively, are still strongly Biden country, and nationally, Biden still holds a commanding lead over all competitors with an RCP average of 29.3% to second-place Sanders’ 20.3%. Third and fourth place nationally belong to Warren (14.8%) and Buttigieg (7.5%).

Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders Flies Into First In Latest Iowa Poll; Buttigieg Plunges

On Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) criticized senators who, after being briefed about the strike against Qassem Soleimani, were not “convinced [that] action against” the leader of the Iranian Quds Force “was justified.”
This appeared to some to be a potentially veiled swipe at Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who stated that the Iran briefing was “inadequate” and “insulting.”
Following the briefing on Iran, Sen. Lee spoke to reporters. The senator made sure to first note that he respects the way in which President Trump has conducted himself with respect to foreign military engagement:
<blockquote>I want to state at the outset I support President Trump; I support and respect the manner in which he has approached his commander in chief powers. I believe that more than any other president in my lifetime, President Trump has shown a lot of restraint; he&#8217;s been reluctant to get us involved in wars all over the globe; he&#8217;s been very mindful and respectful of the fact that when the American people are asked to give up blood and treasure, they&#8217;re sending off their sons and their daughters, their moms and their dads, into battlefield, and he&#8217;s therefore very careful about it. I respect that enormously. My comments at the moment are not directed toward the attack that occurred on Friday. We’ll leave that to another day.</blockquote>
After making sure his initial point was clear, Lee went on to discuss his primary issues with the briefing:
<blockquote>I will say that we were brought into this briefing today to talk to us about that attack on Friday. I had hoped and expected to receive more information outlining the legal, factual, and moral justification for the attack, but was left somewhat unsatisfied on that front.
The briefing lasted only 75 minutes whereupon our briefers left. This, however, is not the biggest problem I have with the briefing, which I would add was probably the worst briefing I&#8217;ve seen – at least on a military issue – in the nine years I&#8217;ve served in the United States Senate. What I found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, “Do not debate; do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran, and that if you do, you&#8217;ll be emboldening Iran.” The implication being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement against the government of Iran.
Now, I find this insulting and demeaning, not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States, to which we&#8217;ve all sworn an oath. It is, after all, the prerogative of the legislative branch to declare war. Article 1 section 8 makes that very clear.</blockquote>
Lee stated that he entered the briefing on the fence about “whether to support the resolution under the War Powers Act introduced” by a Democratic senator, but came out in support of it (pending amendments that would make it satisfactory).
Lee concluded:
<blockquote>It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government – I don&#8217;t care whether they&#8217;re with the CIA, with the Department of Defense, or otherwise – to come in and tell us that we can&#8217;t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American; it&#8217;s unconstitutional; and it&#8217;s wrong. And I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future and to the power that belongs to Congress.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DyDVVIO5OH0" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Speaking later with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, Lee <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/tv/mike-lee-on-fox-news-doubles-down-on-fiery-iran-presser-officials-wouldnt-answer-questions-on-imminent-threat/">clarified and expanded</a> on his remarks:
<blockquote>First of all, as to the substance of the strike itself on Friday with General Soleimani – he was a bad guy. I have yet to take a position on that. I was hoping to be able to reach a conclusion as to the logical, legal, constitutional, and moral justification today. I didn&#8217;t feel like I got my questions answered. I&#8217;m willing to assume for purposes of this discussion with you right now, Martha, that that may have been legally justifiable.
What I’m concerned about is the flippant attitude that they [those who briefed the senators] reflected, both with regard to the underlying facts on Friday’s attack and especially as they relate moving forward to any subsequent attack that we might undertake on Iran. There was a dismissive attitude, one that was displayed in such a way that resulted in them saying “We can’t identify what circumstances in which we would need to come back to Congress to get approval or authorization.” That’s antithetical to the Constitution.</blockquote>
Lee continued:
<blockquote>We repeatedly asked them, “Under what circumstances would you need to come back to us to get authority from Congress before taking an action against Iran? For example, what if you decided that you wanted to take out the supreme leader. Would you in that circumstance need to come back to Congress for a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force?” Astoundingly, they refused to answer that question. I find that simply unacceptable.</blockquote>
When MacCallum asked Lee about the briefers’ explanation as it pertained to “the justification for the imminence of the attacks,” Lee replied:
<blockquote>They kept telling us that there would have been an imminent attack had they not taken this strike on Friday, which, again, for purposes of this conversation, I’m willing to assume may well have been lawful. But then when we would ask them, “What was the nature of that attack? When and where would it have occurred? By whom would it have been carried it out?,” they refused to answer the question, and they deferred in the same way they would if we weren’t in a classified environment, saying, “Well, we can’t talk about that.” Well, we were in an underground bunker designed for that very purpose. And they should have told us.</blockquote>
Senator Marco Rubio didn’t share the same perspective, tweeting on Wednesday and Thursday:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question.
Anyone who walks out &amp; says they aren’t convinced action against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215016844081422338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>Natl Security officials gave a compelling briefing to Senators just now. They answered every important question. Anyone who walks out &amp; says they aren’t convinced action against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash">#Soleimani</a> was justified is either never going to be convinced or just oppose everything Trump does.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Any Senator who left the briefing on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Iran</a> &amp; claims <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> wasn’t planning a near term attack on Americans is calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley a liar.
Because Gen. Milley stated clearly &amp; firmlythat Soleimani was about to kill Americans.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215242295857090561?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>Any Senator who left the briefing on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Iran?src=hash">#Iran</a> &amp; claims <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash">#Soleimani</a> wasn’t planning a near term attack on Americans is calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Milley a liar. Because Gen. Milley stated clearly &amp; firmly that Soleimani was about to kill Americans.</blockquote>
Rubio later attempted to clarify, issuing another tweet: “Some reporting about GOP Senator upset after Iran briefing leaves false impression it’s because information provided didn’t justify #Soleimani strike. It was because administration didn’t offer hypothetical scenario requiring congressional authorization for military action.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Some reporting about GOP Senator upset after Iran briefing leaves false impression it’s because information provided didn’t justify <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Soleimani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Soleimani</a> strike
It was because administration didn’t offer hypothetical scenario requiring congressional authorization for military action
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) <a href="https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1215258695329775616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
Appearing on Fox News, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a close friend of Lee, seemingly tried to bridge the gap, telling host Shannon Bream:
<blockquote>I think Mike was frustrated because the administration, particularly when asked some forward-looking questions about what level of congressional authorization and congressional consultation was necessary, I think the administration was a little too quick to dismiss the role of Congress. Listen, I&#8217;m a believer in the Constitution. Under the Constitution, it is Congress that has the power to declare war, and I think any time you&#8217;re looking at long-term sustained military engagement, you need congressional authorization. That&#8217;s what Mike was reacting to, is the administration was pretty dismissive of that.</blockquote>
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zACxAyVjSeA?start=145" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Rubio Calls Iran Briefing ‘Compelling’; Lee Calls It ‘Insulting’; Cruz Tries To Thread Needle For Lee

Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz

On Thursday, Campus Reform uploaded a video in which Eduardo Neret asks students at the University of Tampa “about student loan debt, and how it should be paid for.”
Neret begins by asking various students how much debt they carry from their student loans. The debts vary among respondents, from $0 to $5,000 to $24,000 to simply “a lot” of student loan debt.
“So, there have been a lot of talks in society and in politics about the federal government wiping out student loan debt,” Neret states. “Does that sounds like a good idea to you? Would you be for that?”
The students’ initial replies were unsurprising:
<blockquote>“Yes. 100%.”
“Yeah, yeah I would.”
“Absolutely.”
“Yeah, totally.”
“I think that everybody that goes to school should be able to go to school debt free and be able to start off their career with no debt to owe to anybody.”</blockquote>
A female student wearing a Budweiser T-shirt suggested raising taxes “for other people or something.” She then noted, “but that’s like other people paying for your stuff, you know?”
Neret then offered a solution to those who stated that they didn’t have any student loan debt:
<blockquote>Since you don’t have student loan debt, something we’re asking students is, would you be willing as someone who has no debt to pay a little bit more so that some of your peers who do have debt could get that erased off? Would you be willing to maybe pay more tuition, pay more taxes so that someone could get their debt lowered?</blockquote>
At Neret’s suggestion, some students were hesitant.
“Probably&#8230;maybe, maybe?” said a female student wearing a blue and white striped shirt.
When Neret asked what was keeping her from committing to the idea, she replied: “Cause like, I have to make my own money, so like, if I make my money, like, I kind of want to keep my money that, like, I make, and not have to, like, give it to my friends.”
A male student with black glasses simply stated “No.” When asked why he wouldn’t pay more taxes or tuition, he elaborated:
<blockquote>Because I’m paying my price just like everybody else is, and, you know, as long as it’s equal, then, you know, it is what it is.</blockquote>
Some students demurred, noting that it’s “not their money,” rather, it’s their parents who are paying for tuition. Other students did say they would be willing to pay extra.
Neret pressed several of the students, asking why it would be acceptable for taxpayers to pay more, but not necessarily students who don’t have any debt.
One student replied: “Everyone’s gonna pay taxes sooner or later, so, like, you know, it’s just fair for people to, I guess, help students out that are gonna be our future workers.”
A student with a Calvin Klein backpack had the following exchange with Neret:
<blockquote>NERET: Why do you think it’s maybe more fair for someone in the real world, like a taxpayer, to pay more, but not maybe someone on a campus?
CK: Because they have their own other issues that they’re still paying for, even if it’s not student debt. So, they have to take care of themselves as well.
NERET: But don’t you think maybe someone who’s working and has a family – don’t you think taxpayers have things to take care of, too?
CK: Yes, so I guess I’m not really exactly sure what I would say, but I agree that they do have things that they need to take care of, too.</blockquote>
Finally, three students offered different takes.
“I’d be in favor of, like, more things that would limit the amount that they can take out in loans, and then lowering the interest rates, and actually making school cheaper,” said a female student wearing a blue fleece.
When Neret asked her why she wouldn’t “be in favor of just wiping” out student debt entirely, she responded:
<blockquote>Because, like, the people took out those loans, so they have to pay it back, and it’s like, if they don’t, are we just gonna go into more debt for the government to pay it back?</blockquote>
A male student wearing a wrestling shirt stated that it wouldn’t be fair to raise tuition on everyone else, adding, “I think the bigger issue is making it harder to get the student loans. I think the issue with ‘anybody can get as much as they want’ is what’s causing this.”
Another male student said that while it would be great to exit school debt-free, he doesn’t believe debt erasure would be “good for us as a nation,” given the already enormous debt the United States holds.
Check out the entire video below:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQaDbA3-0dY" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Campus Reform.

WATCH: When Students Asked To Put Their Own Money On The Line For Debt Forgiveness, Do Opinions Change?

Student Loans

On August 1, 2018, Martin Gottesfeld was found guilty of conspiracy to intentionally damage a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371, and intentional damage to protected computers in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (a)(5)(A).
Gottesfeld is the “guardian hacktivist” who allegedly initiated a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) campaign on Boston Children’s Hospital in protest of the hospital’s alleged medical kidnapping of Justina Pelletier.
I’ve been covering the Gottesfeld case for approximately two years now. You can read my previous coverage of his case (and Justina’s) below:
<blockquote><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/story-martin-gottesfeld-hacktivist-who-faces-15-frank-camp">The Story Of Martin Gottesfeld: The Hacktivist Who Faces 15 Years In Jail For Trying To Save A Young Girl’s Life</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guardian-hacktivist-martin-gottesfeld-convicted-frank-camp">‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld Convicted; Faces Up To 15 Years In Prison</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/prosecution-trying-keep-jailed-hacktivist-martin-frank-camp">Jailed Hacktivist Martin Gottesfeld Fires Back At Prosecutors Who Are Trying To Keep Him From Using ‘Torture’ Defense</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/potential-judicial-conflicts-interest-arise-martin-frank-camp">Potential Judicial Conflicts Of Interest Arise In Martin Gottesfeld ‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Case</a></blockquote>
In November 2016, while in custody and awaiting trial, Martin Gottesfeld was remanded to the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City. While in the MCC, Gottesfeld was allegedly placed in the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU, sometimes called “special housing,” depending on the prison) for 81 days.
Following his conviction in 2018, Gottesfeld was transferred through several prisons, eventually landing in FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit (CMU) in Terre Haute, Indiana.
There are only two known Communications Management Units in the United States – one in Terre Haute, and the other in Marion, Illinois. According to the <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/get-involved/tools-resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/cmus-federal-prison-system-s-experiment">Center for Constitutional Rights</a> (CCR), these special prison units reportedly house “dangerous terrorists and other high-risk inmates,” the vast majority of whom are Muslim.
The inmates in these secretive CMUs are closely monitored, and have restricted access to computers. Their communication with the outside world, even family, is severely limited, and sometimes nonexistent, reports CCR.
As of publication, Martin Gottesfeld’s wife Dana hasn’t spoken with her husband for more than eight months. The only means by which Dana and others can glimpse Gottesfeld’s activities is via court filings in his ongoing lawsuit with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP).
Rewind.
In November 2018, while Martin Gottesfeld was in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts, he <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.2.0.pdf">filed a lawsuit</a> against acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) Hugh J. Hurwitz, acting Deputy Director of the U.S. Marshall Service David Anderson, MCC Warden Esker Tatum, and MCC Medical Director Anthony Bussonich, alleging mistreatment while in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.
Gottesfeld claims in the lawsuit that he “never received written notice of the reason(s) for his placement in the SHU as required by 28 CFR 541.25 [a federal regulation],” and that he “was never offered the opportunity to attend any administrative detention hearing.” Gottesfeld even contends that “no such hearing(s) were ever conducted.”
According to Gottesfeld, who at that point had begun a hunger strike, the conditions in the SHU were objectionable, with “an uncontrolled rodent and insect infestation,” and poor ventilation.
<blockquote>The temperature in the SHU regularly approached that of the outdoors during the winter due to insufficient insulation in the exterior walls. Rather than fix the building or leave the heat at a sufficient level, the eventual amelioration effort of the MCC administration weeks after the problem’s annual emergence in late-2016 was to hand out thermal underwear, which did not cover the face, feet, or hands.</blockquote>
Gottesfeld also alleges that Medical Director Anthony Bussonich threatened to force-feed him during his “constitutionally-protected” hunger strike.
In a January 2017 <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/martin-gottesfeld-letter-new-york-prison_n_58879bede4b0b481c76b4498">letter</a> to then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) Thomas R. Kane, Gottesfeld wrote that “roaches are found in the food, and I have personally observed insect eggs as well.”
Gottesfeld added that certain cells “have hit the 50-degree range, while others are much colder,” and alleged that the warden turned up the heat to sufficient levels on inspection days before turning it back down.
<blockquote>There are also water leaks all over at least the 9th and 10th floors, with visible signs of rust and corrosion. Not only does this potentially impact the structural stability of the building, but the pools of standing water [resulting from the leaks] are a breeding ground for infection.</blockquote>
Since the lawsuit was filed in November 2018, the defense, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Alexander J. Hogan, has moved to have it <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.53.0.pdf">dismissed</a> on multiple grounds.
Gottesfeld has been able to effectively communicate with the outside world via court filings in the ongoing lawsuit. In a series of articles, Gottesfeld and former inmate Francis Schaefer Cox described alleged heinous conditions inside FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit. The pair even described an alleged CMU inmate homicide, which reportedly took place in November of 2018.
In a court <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.69.0.pdf">document</a> filed on August 12, 2019, Gottesfeld wrote about the alleged conditions inside the CMU and the CMU’s special housing unit (SHU), reportedly nicknamed “the burrito cooker” because a steam pipe allegedly runs underneath the floor that emits so much heat, one can reportedly cook food on the floor:
<blockquote>Multiple other survivors credibly and uniformly detail inhumane conditions during their extended stays in the FCI Terre Haute CMU&#8217;s &#8220;special housing unit,&#8221; including extreme heat, lack of ventilation, insect infestation, sleep deprivation due to constant loud noises, and contaminated drinking water that is known to cause convulsive vomiting and dangerously dehydrating diarrhea.
Without a single exception, these survivors all also described being deprived of their legal work, writing implements, paper, and postage stamps, thus leaving them unable to reach the courts despite sometimes facing imminent filing deadlines.
Those in the CMUs, moreover, cannot confidentially contact the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is the internal watchdog for the DOJ, so the inability of CMU inmates to send reports to the OIG without the FBOP pre-screening them presents serious issues and conflicts of interest. Indeed, federal inmates elsewhere can send private electronic messages to the OIG instantaneously, but not those in the CMUs.</blockquote>
A former inmate at the FCI Terre Haute CMU appears to corroborate Gottesfeld’s assertions about the conditions inside the facility, calling the cells hot and incredibly dirty. This former inmate also claims that the water does not run clear, has a terrible smell, and leaves corrosive marks in the toilets and sinks.
I reached out to FCI Terre Haute for comment on the allegations regarding the water, and received the following reply from Public Information Officer (PIO) Jenna Epplin:
<blockquote>Every staff member and inmate at FCC Terre Haute is provided with potable, non-toxic, drinking water. All drinking water at FCC Terre Haute is tested monthly, at a minimum, and is compliant with the State of Indiana’s Drinking Water Permit, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The water is tested by a third party agency and the results are sent directly to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management for review.</blockquote>
Asked to comment on CMU inmates’ ability to speak with the Office of the Inspector General, PIO Epplin stated: “Inmates are afforded the opportunity to contact the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) directly, if they so chose. Inmates can add the phone number to their approved phone list or write a letter directly to OIG.”
I further asked Epplin: “Can inmates contact the OIG anonymously and without being monitored?” As of publication, Epplin has not replied. Additionally, the OIG has yet to return my request for comment.
When asked about Gottesfeld’s alleged placement in the SHU, as well as the claims of “insect infestation,” Epplin stated: “We do not discuss conditions of confinement for safety and security reasons.”
According to Gottesfeld, there was a <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.69.0.pdf">radical Islamic-inspired murder</a> that took place in the FCI Terre Haute CMU in November 2018. The alleged victim’s name was Robert David Neal.
Writing alongside Gottesfeld in the court document, Francis Schaeffer Cox reports that 68-year-old Neal’s alleged attacker stabbed Neal, then attempted to decapitate Neal with a wire. Following his murder of Robert Neal, the alleged attacker proceeded to stab another inmate approximately 12 times. The inmate reportedly survived.
There is little information available to the public about the alleged murder. The only news outlet to report on it was the <a href="https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/death-of-terre-haute-federal-prisoner-under-investigation/article_f0e44ec2-bcfe-5046-b97e-9c6770f0eb79.html">Tribune-Star</a>, which wrote in part:
<blockquote>An investigation continues into Saturday&#8217;s death of an inmate at the federal prison in Terre Haute. The manner of death of Robert David Neal, 68, was a homicide, Vigo County Coroner Susan Amos said Wednesday. She declined to release further information about his death due to the ongoing investigation.</blockquote>
When asked about the investigation of the alleged murder of Robert David Neal, PIO Epplin stated: “The investigation into the death of inmate Robert David Neal is being handled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
The FBOP Office of Public Affairs declined to comment on the case, and the FBI didn’t provide me with any new information.
Fast-forward to December 2019.
In a recent <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">court filing</a>, Gottesfeld claims that he filed a “motion for sanctions” against Hogan. Separately, on December 6, Gottesfeld asked for a “true copy” of his “order of commitment.”
It was after these two filings that Gottesfeld was allegedly placed in the Communications Management Unit SHU.
According to D.C. Code 16-1905: “A person committed or detained, or a person in his behalf, may demand a true copy of the warrant of commitment or detainer. An officer or other person detaining a person, who refuses or neglects to deliver to him or to a person in his behalf a true copy of the warrant of commitment or detainer, if one exists, within 6 hours after the demand, shall forfeit to the party so detained the sum of $500.”
Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">contends</a> in the filing that the only order of commitment he ever received was “missing the required seal of the court, the signature of the clerk, and the signature of a U.S. Marshal.” He also states that in his request for the order of commitment, he closely mirrored the language in the relevant code in order to “avoid &#8230; ambiguities.”
However, according to Gottesfeld’s filing, one Rebekka Eisele filed an incident report claiming that he had attempted to “extort” some 73 “individuals, agencies, and entities” by demanding a copy of his order of commitment under the law.
Gottesfeld doesn’t believe that Eisele actually penned the report herself, given the language used, as well as what he perceives to be an idiosyncrasy between her in-person behavior and what is written in the document.
<blockquote>In contrast to Ms. Eisele&#8217;s actual demeanor, whoever wrote the incident report claimed, “I feel threatened by inmate Gottesfeld’s demands and I believe he is trying to extort me&#8230; Inmate Gottesfeld is attempting to intimidate and compel me&#8230; by threat of financial demise.” Of course, demanding a “statutorily-authorized sum” with citation to a specific, applicable statute, such as D.C. Code § 16-1905, cannot be “extor[tion]”.</blockquote>
Gottesfeld claims that while Eislele has nothing to gain from him being placed in the SHU, Hogan and his clients do.
“With me in the SHU, [Hogan&#8217;s] opponent is significantly hamstrung in contesting whatever he may file,” writes Gottesfeld, “including motions for extensions, and a motion to withdraw or otherwise contest his client&#8217;s admissions.”
Gottesfeld also contends that he has “no access whatsoever” to a typewriter or a desk while in the Communications Management Unit SHU, and restricted access to a legal library.
<blockquote>I served upon AUSA Hogan a motion for sanctions &#8230; the merits of which I cannot yet bring before The Court due to the twenty-one-day safe-harbor provision of Fed.R.Civ.P.11(c). Fearful of retaliation from AUSA Hogan, the defendants in the case, and their agents here at FCI Terre Haute, I mailed a copy of the motion to a licensed attorney in Brooklyn for safekeeping and filing by my next friend in the case of interference here at the FCI.</blockquote>
[The attorney to whom Gottesfeld mailed his motion has come forward, and revealed their copy of the document.]
In the filing, Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">writes</a>:
<blockquote>On Monday evening, December 9th, 2019 – after AUSA Hogan was served the motion, but before I could file it with The Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c) – agents of AUSA Hogan and the defendants in the case placed me in the SHU inside the FCI Terre Haute CMU.</blockquote>
Two days after allegedly being placed in the SHU, Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">claims</a> that one Captain Brogan of the FBOP said the following to him: “You know why you&#8217;re here, right?”
“I take Captain Brogan&#8217;s meaning to signify that the defendants in the case and AUSA Hogan want me to know that they are displeased with my recent motion practice, particularly the motion for sanctions,” Gottesfeld <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">writes</a>.
Gottesfeld states in his filing that while in the SHU at FCI Terre Haute’s Communications Management Unit, the only water to which he has access is from the sink. He writes that the water is “<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138/gov.uscourts.nysd.505138.116.0.pdf">toxic</a>” and appears corrosive of the metal basin. He further states that the only time he is able to drink is during the three times a week he is allowed to shower, and that a CMU medical professional allegedly had to administer fluids intravenously at one point.
Although the secretive CMU isn’t forthcoming with details, an individual with a second-hand knowledge of the situation at the facility told me that the water is indeed potable, and that Gottesfeld’s claims cannot be true.
At this point, it is critical to note that the veracity of Gottesfeld’s claims pertaining to the conditions in the Communications Management Unit cannot be independently verified.
This is due, in part, to the cloak of secrecy surrounding the CMU. Additionally, it’s highly unlikely that those heading an institution where abuses have been alleged to have taken place would readily admit that such abuses were taking place under their supervision. The same applies to employees of said institution.
I have reached out to multiple former and current employees of FCI Terre Haute in order to corroborate the conditions alleged by Gottesfeld. Several employees (current and retired) have rebuffed my requests for comment. I have also twice reached out to AUSA Hogan for comment on the ongoing litigation between his clients and Gottesfeld. As of publication, he has not replied.
Martin Gottesfeld has now filed his first appeal to have his case re-examined. Wife Dana and the Gottesfeld family are attempting to raise $50,000 to retain a new attorney for the appeal, even starting a <a href="https://www.gofundme.com/f/hire-appeals-lawyer-for-marty">GoFundMe</a>.
For more information, you can check out the official <a href="https://freemartyg.com/">FreeMartyG</a> website.

Martin and Dana Gottesfeld.

‘Guardian Hacktivist’ Martin Gottesfeld Alleges ‘Toxic’ Water In Secretive CMU Prison Where He’s Being Held. Prison Responds.

Martin Gottesfeld

Prison

On Saturday, December 28, former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden held a campaign event in Washington, Iowa.
During a question and answer session, a young man asked Biden about his support for Obamacare:
<blockquote>I just need this question. So we&#8217;re going to take a trip back 2008 real quick. During the run-up to the passage of Obamacare, President Obama promised my father that if he likes his plan, he can keep his plan, and that his insurance will be cheaper. After passage, his plan was no longer allowed and his insurance costs doubled. Since you supported the plan, were you lying to my dad? Or did you not understand the bill you supported?</blockquote>
Biden began his answer with a what appears to have been a joke, the offered an incoherent ramble:
<blockquote>No, look, the fact is that what I&#8217;m talking about now is that when – because I get asked the question – since, what I do is I&#8217;d add a public option to the existence of Obamacare, meaning that a Medicare-like option is available if in fact you – but there&#8217;s 160 million people out there who&#8217;ve negotiated a health care plan with their employer that they like and they don&#8217;t want to have to give up like Medicare for All requires. It says you have to give it up. You cannot have any private insurance.</blockquote>
Biden then told the young man that costs have “gone down.”
<blockquote>What happened is, and by the way, the cost of Obamacare has gone down in the last two years, not up as you probably know, you seem to know this, number one. </blockquote>
Then, he talked about the fact that people shouldn’t be forced to give up their insurance plans:
<blockquote>Number two is that when you put yourself in a position of – I have faith in the American people – that if you&#8217;ve worked and given up significant portions of your salary over the last two, five, 10, 12 years to get a healthcare plan you like that you negotiated with an employer, then in fact, you should not be forced to give it up. You should have the choice. If you want to keep it, you can keep it. And if in fact the employer eliminates the plan, which he could, eliminates the plan, then you&#8217;d have the option to buy into a subsidized plan of Obamacare.</blockquote>
Following this, Biden spoke for another four minutes before arriving back at a semblance of an answer in which he noted that “no one did understand Obamacare.”
<blockquote>We&#8217;ve changed a lot of things for the better, and we&#8217;ve tried under five Democratic presidents, tried to change those things, and people say, &#8220;Well Biden, why now do you think you can add the public option and why can you further subsidize it?&#8221;
Well, because people, there&#8217;s two ways people know when something is important. One, when it&#8217;s so clear when it&#8217;s passed that everybody understands it – and no one did understand Obamacare, including the way it was rolled out.
And the gentleman&#8217;s right, he said, &#8220;You could keep your doctor if you wanted to,” and you couldn&#8217;t keep your doctor if you wanted to necessarily. He&#8217;s dead right about that. But the fact is that when something&#8217;s taken away, when you – people didn&#8217;t know. I used to say to President Obama, &#8220;Mr. President, why don&#8217;t you take a victory lap? You got this passed. Let people know exactly what&#8217;s happened.&#8221;
&#8230;And he&#8217;d say, &#8220;We don&#8217;t have time to take a victory lap. We have too many things we have to do.&#8221; So people didn&#8217;t know, and we lost the House of Representatives after that passed. And people attributed to the fact that Obamacare passed and that was one of the arguments made, whether it&#8217;s true or not.</blockquote>
In the end, Biden simply didn’t answer the young man’s very simple question.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kIKPlOgaCW8" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Former President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” was ranked as Politifact’s 2013 “<a href="https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/">Lie of the Year</a>.”
After the Obamacare rollout disaster, and at least 37 documented instances of Obama using the “keep your plan” phrase “without caveats,” reports Politifact, the president was forced to concede that what he claimed just wasn’t true.
Speaking with NBC’s Chuck Todd in November 2013, Obama <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/53492840#53492840">said</a>: “We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

Biden Dodges ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Obamacare Question: ‘Were You Lying &#8230; Or Did You Not Understand The Bill You Supported?’

Health Care

Obamacare

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared on Fox Business Network’s “Sunday Morning Futures” with host Maria Bartiromo to discuss the strike against Qasem Soleimani, leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, as well as the ongoing withholding of impeachment articles by Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
During the segment on impeachment, Bartiromo first asked Graham what he was expecting in a Senate trial.
Graham replied:
<blockquote>Well, I hope to have the trial over by the end of January. [We] would use the Clinton model, where you take the record established in the House, let the House managers appointed by Pelosi make the argument, let the president make his arguments of why the two articles are flawed, and then we&#8217;ll decide whether or not we want witnesses – but this should be done in a couple of weeks.</blockquote>
Graham said that he views Pelosi’s withholding of the articles as “a political stunt,” and that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) isn’t “going to let [Pelosi] run the Senate trial,” adding that Pelosi’s “time is over.”
Bartiromo then pressed Graham as to how the Senate can begin an impeachment trial if the House won’t deliver the articles, as required by the Senate rules.
The <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf">Senate rules</a> pertaining to impeachment read in part:
<blockquote>When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against [insert name]’’; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of Representatives.
Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.</blockquote>
Graham replied:
<blockquote>Well, we&#8217;re not going to let Nancy Pelosi use the rules of the Senate to her advantage. This is dangerous for the presidency as an institution. They’ve impeached the president, but the speaker of the House is holding the articles back, trying to extort from the majority leader of the Senate a trial to her liking. They’re trying to hold these articles over the head of the president.</blockquote>
Graham added that he believes the reason the House is holding the articles of impeachment is because “they’re so weak,” and “they’re looking to add something.”
<blockquote>What I would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Senator McConnell to change the rules of the Senate so we could start the trial without her if necessary.</blockquote>
When asked how long that would take (days or weeks), Graham castigated Pelosi’s behavior, saying that “the Founders never envisioned you&#8217;d have a speaker do something like &#8230; withhold the articles demanding the Senate bend to her will.” Graham then said that if Pelosi “does not [release the articles], I would urge Senator McConnell, with my colleagues, to change the rules of the Senate so that we could proceed to the trial without Nancy Pelosi being involved.”
Bartiromo again asked about the timing, and further asked if Graham would “file a motion to dismiss.”
Graham reiterated his previous answer, adding that the House would be invited to participate in the trial, but “if they don&#8217;t come,” he would like the Senate to “dismiss the case and get on with governing the country.”
“This is an abuse of power; this is constitutional extortion. What she&#8217;s doing is very bad for the presidency, it&#8217;s very bad for the Senate as an institution, and it cannot stand,” Graham concluded.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N7La8nC4E3E?start=441" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>

Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Change Senate Rules To Begin Impeachment Trial; Pelosi Withholding Articles Is ‘Constitutional Extortion’

Lindsey Graham

On Thursday, Major-General Qasem Soleimani, leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, was killed in an air strike ordered by President Trump. Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. forces.
The decision has divided Washington and the media, largely along party and ideological lines.
On Saturday, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick sent out two not-so-cryptic tweets seemingly in response to the killing of Soleimani:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism.
— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213552939786096640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world.
— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/1213553331181764608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism. America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad. America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world.</blockquote>
While Kaepernick wasn’t ratioed, with his tweets garnering a combined 134,000 “likes” and 29,900 retweets as of publication, the former quarterback was still roundly mocked by many.
Former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly spiked Kaepenick on Saturday, writing: “Because everything is racist. Everything. Even fighting back against terrorists who kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud?”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Because everything is racist. Everything. Even fighting back against terrorists who kill Americans. Nike, feeling proud? <a href="https://t.co/sfc1Yz3phY">https://t.co/sfc1Yz3phY</a>
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1213603362605658112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>
Kelly’s tweet led to the following exchange with African American filmmaker Ava DuVernay:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
No, I will not be shamed over calling out bullshit claims of racism &#8211; which undermine the legitimate claims. Killing a terrorist is not about skin color; it’s about protecting our country from a guy who murdered hundreds of Americans, period.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1213890628435795974?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
If you think Soleimani was killed because of his skin color, you’re the one who needs to educate herself. Work on shaming someone else.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1213892557861728262?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>DUVERNAY: Shame on you, Megyn.
KELLY: No, I will not be shamed over calling out bulls*** claims of racism – which undermine the legitimate claims. Killing a terrorist is not about skin color; it’s about protecting our country from a guy who murdered hundreds of Americans, period.
DUVERNAY: You should be ashamed. Educate yourself before you talk about racism and legitimate claims. You sound like what you are. Ignorant. Attention seeking. And desperate. That will be all.
KELLY: If you think Soleimani was killed because of his skin color, you’re the one who needs to educate herself. Work on shaming someone else.</blockquote>
DuVernay then shared that she had “muted” Megyn Kelly on Twitter. The exchange led to comments both in support of Kelly as well as DuVernay.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none">
<a href="https://t.co/9rJ9bjZ7ct">pic.twitter.com/9rJ9bjZ7ct</a>
— Ava DuVernay (@ava) <a href="https://twitter.com/ava/status/1213892053504937984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
Following Kelly and DuVernay’s war of words, the former Fox News anchor sent another tweet pertaining to the killing of Soleimani:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
From <a href="https://twitter.com/WSJ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WSJ</a>: 
Trump acted against a terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans.//Qasem Soleimani bestrode the Middle East spreading terror &amp; death. Trump’s decision to order the general’s death &#8230;is belated justice for the hundreds of Americans whom Soleimani had a hand in killing.
— Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1213895641325297665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<blockquote>From @WSJ : Trump acted against a terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans.//Qasem Soleimani bestrode the Middle East spreading terror &amp; death. Trump’s decision to order the general’s death &#8230; is belated justice for the hundreds of Americans whom Soleimani had a hand in killing.</blockquote>
Kaepernick was last in the news in November when he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/espns-stephen-smith-blasts-colin-kaepernick-he-dont-want-to-play-he-wants-to-be-a-martyr">ducked out</a> of an NFL “private workout” just half an hour prior to it starting. Kaepernick allegedly moved the workout to a new location because the league informed him that he would not be allowed to bring in his own film crew.
Following the stunt, ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith blasted Kaepernick, saying in part:
<blockquote>You see? You see? He don’t want to play; he wants to be a martyr. But guess what? It ain’t working this time.</blockquote>
Smith added: “He wanted to show up to a high school in Georgia, not an NFL facility, a high school, and then YouTube it live – like the average Joe out there gets to decide if he’s on an NFL roster. You don’t want to work; you just want to make noise, and you want to control the narrative. It’s over. Colin Kaepernick’s aspiration in the NFL for an NFL career, it’s over.”

Journalist Megyn Kelly, former quarterback Colin Kaepernick, Filmmaker Ava DuVernay.

Megyn Kelly Spikes Kaepernick Over ‘American Terrorist’ Tweet; Gets Into Twitter War With Director Ava DuVernay

Ava DuVernay

Colin Kaepernick

Megyn Kelly

On Friday, The Hill released a new <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/476689-bloomberg-rises-to-third-place-alongside-warren-in-national-poll?amp">Hill-HarrisX</a> poll that shows a major bump for 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and former mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg.
The poll, which was conducted on 431 self-identified Democrats and “left-leaning Independents” between December 27-28, asked respondents the following: “Who is your preference to become the Democratic nominee in the 2020 election for President?”
In first place is former Vice President Joe Biden with 28% of the vote. In second place is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) with 16%. Tied for third place are Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bloomberg, each with 11%.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg sits in fourth place with just 6%, and rounding out the top six is “unsure” with 12%.
This news bodes well for Bloomberg. However, according to the <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html">RealClearPolitics</a> national average, the former New York City mayor still trails the pack with just 5.8% support &#8212; within striking distance of fourth place Buttigieg’s 7.9% support, but far out of reach of Biden (29.4%), Sanders (19.4%), and Warren (14.8%).
Looking more deeply into the polling data, one can see where Bloomberg’s support lies.
Among the 18-34 age group, he has only 6% support, which rises to 11% among the 35-49 group. Among the 50-64 group, his support dips to 10%, then among 65+, his support explodes to 21%.
Bloomberg’s highest support comes from the “silent generation,” 32% of whom favor him. Tied again, 32% of the silent generation also support Warren.
Less than one month ago, <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/475138-buttigieg-slips-in-new-national-poll">Hill-HarrisX</a> had Michael Bloomberg at 5% nationally among Democrats. That said, this new poll seems to be an outlier. In the seven most recent polls other than Hill-HarrisX featured on RealClearPolitics, Bloomberg averages just 5% support nationally.
Needless to say, the former mayor isn’t faring well in the early caucus/primary states either.
In Iowa, Bloomberg is in tenth place at 1.3%, trailing Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), businessman Andrew Yang, fellow billionaire Tom Steyer, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).
In New Hampshire, Bloomberg isn’t even on the board.
Polling in early states might not bother Bloomberg as his strategy is quite a bit different from the other Democratic contenders. According to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/12/27/791674881/billionaires-bring-big-money-to-democratic-primary">NPR</a>, as of December 27, the former mayor “spent more than $100 million on advertising” despite only having been in the race since November 24, 2019:
<blockquote>As a late entrant in the race, Bloomberg is bypassing campaigning in the first four primary states and is instead focused on marshaling his money into advertising. In recent weeks he&#8217;s been blanketing the airwaves, introducing himself to voters in essentially every TV market in the country.</blockquote>
The advertising seems to have worked in some capacity, ginning up at least 5% national support &#8212; and he has the means to spend even more. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#5eb94bbd3d78">Forbes</a> reports that Michael Bloomberg is worth an estimated $56.7 billion, making him the 14th richest person in the world, and the ninth richest in the United States.

Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg Tied With Elizabeth Warren In New National Poll

Michael Bloomberg

On Friday evening, Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters appeared on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” to discuss the Trump administration&#8217;s decision to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-u-s-kills-two-top-iranian-military-leaders-bigger-than-bin-laden-al-baghdadi-reports-say">kill Qasem Soleimani</a>, head of the Iranian Quds Force.
After noting that Peters is regularly critical of President Trump, Cooper asked the Lt. Col. for his thoughts on the move by the administration “to take out Soleimani.”
Peters replied, “I think it was absolutely the right decision. And I was actually very disappointed by the reaction from the other side of the aisle today, which seemed awfully petty.”
He added that Soleimani was a powerful individual and that the United States is lucky he is now dead:
<blockquote>General Soleimani was the ace of spades that our enemies in the Middle East had. Soleimani was a visionary strategist; he was a brilliant mastermind of terror. Here&#8217;s a man who, with a paucity of resources, was able to build while fighting the U.S. military, however surreptitiously, he was able to build the most expansive Persian empire in 2,500 years.
&#8230; Iran&#8217;s influence now stretches from Western Afghanistan, touches Central Asia, goes west through Iraq, through Syria, through Lebanon, through the Mediterranean Sea, down to Gaza. It&#8217;s a remarkable achievement and we are very, very, very lucky this man is dead. And I, for one, am grateful, and have no reservations about it.</blockquote>
Cooper then laundry-listed Soleimani’s record: He’s “responsible ultimately for the killing and murder of hundreds of American forces, American men and women, but also probably hundreds of thousands of others in Syria and beyond.”
Peters went on to emphasize Cooper’s point that Soleimani wasn’t only responsible for American deaths, but Iraqi and Syrian deaths as well.
“Yes, that&#8217;s an absolutely critical point that people forget,” Peters said. “Yes, he&#8217;s got the blood of thousands of Americans dead and wounded on his hands, but plenty of Iraqi blood and certainly an incredible amount of Syrian blood as he and the Russians have supported and at times spearheaded Assad&#8217;s campaign against the civilians of Syria.”
Peters added that Soleimani was “a man dedicated not only to killing Americans, but to the destruction of Israel.”
Supplies of missiles have also proliferated under Soleimani’s watch, according to Peters, including as many as “40,000 by Hezbollah in Lebanon.”
“So I just cannot understand how people can be reluctant to see this guy go,” Peters told Cooper.
Repercussions will follow, “but it’s not going to be World War III,” said Peters, adding that in the long-run, we “may well be” safer.
Cooper then asked Peters if the timing was appropriate, to which the Lt. Col. responded that he wanted Soleimani taken out years ago, and that while “actions have consequences &#8230; inaction also has consequences.”
<blockquote>And in the short-term, you&#8217;ll see “death to America” protests. The hardcore anti-Americans will rally to him. In the long-term, we don&#8217;t know exactly what will happen.</blockquote>
“The Middle East is so convoluted that we cannot say for certain where we&#8217;ll be in five years. But we can now say with certainty that Soleimani is dead, and we have avenged the deaths and the maiming of many brave Americans,” Peters concluded.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
“General Soleimani was the Ace of Spades that our enemies in the Middle East had,” says Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on the US lethal strike on Iran’s top military leader. “&#8230;We are very, very, very lucky this man is dead&#8230; we have inflicted justice on a monster.” <a href="https://t.co/rdpMcVDzck">pic.twitter.com/rdpMcVDzck</a>
— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) <a href="https://twitter.com/AC360/status/1213292750659084289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2020</a></blockquote>

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters On Soleimani Strike: ‘Absolutely The Right Decision’

Middle East

Ralph Peters

Menu

Frank Camp

Articles by Frank Camp