The great John Solomon....suggested in latest Q drops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=155&v=kk-V7VImDBE https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...d-affect-an-american-election-the-one-in-2018
I posted this in the signs thread but thought it might be pertinent here also. https://www.rt.com/usa/454653-epstein-interview-google-elections/ Google flipped seats, shifted millions of votes to Dems in 2018 midterms, researcher tells RT Google’s biased search algorithm actually flipped seats in the 2018 US midterm elections, according to a researcher who found the search engine’s “dramatically biased” results could have shifted over 78 million votes to Democrats. “Upwards of 25 percent of the national elections in the world are being decided without people’s knowledge by Google’s search algorithm,” senior research psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology told RT, calling the search engine the “deciding factor” in close races. Epstein, who received his PhD in psychology from Harvard University and is the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, said that his methodology was thorough and meticulous. “We did this very, very carefully. We had field agents focusing on three congressional races in California which were very hotly contested races in Republican districts,” Epstein told RT. “And we gave to these field agents about 500 election-related search terms. Each one had different search terms for different districts, where there are different issues, of course. “And the point is, we simply looked at what kind of search results they received when they were conducting election-related searches.” Epstein’s study of three 2018 California House races found Google played the deciding role in flipping those Republican-held seats to the Democrats, influencing millions of undecided voters by controlling what they saw when they searched 500 election-related terms. Google’s results showed a “significant liberal bias,” unlike Bing’s or Yahoo’s – and with 90 percent of the search engine’s market share in the US, that bias is enormously influential. Search results favoring one side of an issue can influence anywhere from 20 to 80 percent of undecided voters, depending on the issue and demographic group, Epstein said. He has spent six years investigating the role of what he calls the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) in swaying public opinion, more recently focusing on the political ramifications by looking at various countries’ elections. “People trust algorithmic output. They trust Google. They think because it’s generated by a computer, they don’t see the human hand - they think it’s impartial and objective and, because of that, their opinions change,” Epstein said. While Google denies it manipulates search rankings to manipulate political sentiment or makes election-specific tweaks, Epstein says their response is disingenuous – he never claimed they re-ranked results, merely that the results they displayed were biased. We found very consistently that on Google they ended up with search results favoring liberals and favoring liberal news sources, and it was quite a dramatic effect. Despite denials, Google has already faced hefty government fines for manipulating search results. In 2017, the European Union imposed a €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion) fine on the tech giant for purportedly tailoring search results to favor its own comparison shopping service. Google was hit with a $21.1 million fine a year later – this time in India, where the company was accused of directing web users who were searching for flights to its own flight search page – depriving other businesses of gaining a foothold in the market.
No Collusion? No problem. Squirrel! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ds-Democrats-turn-attention-away-Mueller.html
As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges ......... Ukraine Prosecutor General Yurii Lutsenko’s probe was prompted by a Ukrainian parliamentarian's release of a tape recording purporting to quote a top law enforcement official as saying his agency leaked the Manafort financial records to help Clinton's campaign. The parliamentarian also secured a court ruling that the leak amounted to “an illegal intrusion into the American election campaign,” Lutsenko told me. Lutsenko said the tape recording is a serious enough allegation to warrant opening a probe, and one of his concerns is that the Ukrainian law enforcement agency involved had frequent contact with the Obama administration’s U.S. Embassy in Kiev at the time. “Today we will launch a criminal investigation about this and we will give legal assessment of this information,” Lutsenko told me ........ Unlike the breathless start to the Russia collusion allegations — in which politicians and news media alike declared a Watergate-sized crisis before the evidence was fully investigated — the Ukraine revelations deserve to be investigated before being accepted. After all, Ukraine is dogged by rampant corruption. It is a frequent target of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dirty tricks. And it is a country that, just last year, faked a journalist's death for one day, reportedly to thwart an assassination plot. But the chief prosecutor, a member of parliament and a court seemingly have enough weight to warrant serious scrutiny of their allegations and an analysis of the audio tape. ........ We know the FBI set up shop in the U.S. embassy in Kiev to assist its Ukraine–Manafort inquiry — a common practice on foreign-based probes — while using Steele as an informant at the start of its Russia probe. And we know Clinton’s campaign was using a law firm to pay an opposition research firm for Steele’s work in an effort to stop Trump from winning the presidency, at the same time Steele was aiding the FBI. Those intersections, coupled with the new allegations by Ukraine’s top prosecutor, are reason enough to warrant a serious, thorough investigation. If Ukraine law enforcement figures who worked frequently with the U.S. Embassy did leak the Manafort documents in an effort to influence the American election for Clinton, the public deserves to know who knew what, and when. ......... Investigating what's going on in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and whether elements in Ukraine tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election to help Clinton, are essential steps to rebooting a key relationship. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges
Because he knew where all the bodies were buried....literally! Make No Mistake: The Mueller Investigation Was All About Flynn https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/make-no-mistake-the-mueller-investigation-was-all-about-flynn/
Please, pass my Brexit bill and I will leave you alone! lol maybe 3rd time is a charm? https://www.foxnews.com/world/briti...-will-resign-after-a-brexit-deal-is-delivered Theresa May announced Wednesday she will step down as Britain's prime minister if her twice-defeated Brexit deal is finally passed in parliament, marking a last-ditch effort to persuade Conservative lawmakers to back her. May told the influential backbench 1922 committee in a closed-door meeting that she is "prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to secure a smooth and orderly Brexit." "I have heard very clearly the mood of the parliamentary party," she said, according to Reuters. "I know there is a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations – and I won’t stand in the way of that." BREXIT OR NO BREXIT, THE US-BRITISH ALLIANCE REMAINS VITAL Conservative lawmaker James Cartlidge told reporters Wednesday as he left the closed-door meeting that May said “she would not remain in post for the next phase of the negotiations." May's office also confirmed the news. “I ask everyone in this room to back the deal so we can complete our historic duty - to deliver on the decision of the British people and leave the European Union with a smooth and orderly exit," May said in the meeting, according to extracts released by her office. TRUMP BACKS BREXIT BY PROMISING A 'LARGE SCALE TRADE DEAL' WITH UK In recent days, the prime minister has faced increased calls for her to step down so that another leader can take over the next stage of Brexit negations. By leaving sooner, she increases the chances of her European Union divorce deal passing before the new April 12 deadline. May’s announcement is the latest dramatic turn in Britain’s three-year Brexit crisis, which still remains uncertain how, when or even if it will leave the European Union. The government is now expected to bring the deal back to parliament for a third vote on Friday. “It was inevitable and I just feel she’s made the right decision. She has actually read the mood of the party, which was a surprise,” said Conservative lawmaker Pauline Latham, according to Reuters. Also Wednesday, British lawmakers debated and are set to vote on a series of alternatives for the Brexit deal as they sought to bring some clarity to the process. It’s unclear when the vote will happen. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow selected eight widely differing options for votes from a list of 16 submitted by lawmakers. They include calls to leave the EU without a deal, to stay in the EU's customs union and single market, to put any EU divorce deal to a public referendum, and to cancel Brexit if the prospect of a no-deal departure gets close. Almost three years after Britons voted to leave the EU, the date and terms of its departure are up in the air. Last week, the EU granted Britain a delay to the scheduled March 29 exit date, saying that if Parliament approves the proposed divorce deal this week, the U.K. will leave the EU on May 22. If not, the government has until April 12 to tell the 27 remaining EU countries what it plans to do — leave without a deal, cancel Brexit or propose a radically new path. Many EU officials are keen to avoid the messy participation of a departing member state. But the chief of the European Council told European lawmakers that the EU should let Britain take part if the country indicated it planned to change course on Brexit. Donald Tusk said the bloc could not "betray" the millions of Britons who want to stay in the EU. "They may feel they are not sufficiently represented by the U.K. Parliament but they must feel that are represented by you in this chamber. Because they are Europeans," Tusk said. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://freebeacon.com/issues/soros...utlets/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Soros Bankrolled Unverified ‘Hate Crime’ Database Used by Major Media Outlets 'Documenting Hate' receives data from SPLC, CAIR, and partners with more than 100 outlets BY: Joe Schoffstall Follow @JoeSchoffstall March 27, 2019 5:00 am Liberal billionaire George Soros bankrolled a massive "hate crime" database that is used by more than 100 media partners—including Google News Labs, New York Times Opinion, and ABC News—to report alleged hate crimes, according to tax documents and interviews. The database, launched following the election of President Donald Trump, is "unverified" and receives stories of alleged "hate" from the likes of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization currently in upheaval over charges of institutional racism perpetrated by its recently fired co-founder, Morris Dees, and the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights group that was previously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator of terrorism. Media partners involved in the initiative have access to the unverified database, and use it to report stories of hate in the Trump era. ProPublica, an investigative reporting nonprofit based in New York City, launched the project, known as "Documenting Hate," in 2017. The New York Times backed the project in January 2017 editorial, "Why We Need a Project to Document Hate Crimes." "Reliable data on hate crimes is hard to come by. As reports of racist, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic harassment and attacks poured in after the election of Donald Trump, many Americans wondered whether they represented a nationwide increase in hate crime," the Times editorial board wrote. "While the Southern Poverty Law Center saw a dramatic increase in reports after the election, it’s not yet clear whether this indicates a nationwide trend." ABC News later ran a piece titled, "Help ABC News, ProPublica and other newsrooms across America track hate crimes across the US" that also cites the SPLC as to why it is needed. The announcement urges the public to share their stories if they have been a victim of a hate crime. The project received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from George Soros's Foundation to Promote Open Society, according to the group's most recent tax forms. On page 321 of the Foundation to Promote Open Society's 2017 tax forms, a $200,000 contribution is shown to ProPublica "to create a well-reported data set of hate crimes and to produce high-quality investigative reporting on the subject" while another $375,000 donation was made to ProPublica "to support the hate crimes tracking project." Soros gave $200,000 more to the group, which was split between "general support" and a separate initiative on online price discrimination. Soros vowed to put $10 million into combating hate crimes following Trump's election. While "Documenting Hate" is not specifically mentioned by name on the tax forms, the Soros donations were, in fact, for the project, which made it possible for the initiative to launch and maintain itself, according to a phone interview with Richard Tofel, the president of ProPublica. Tofel said that the $375,000 contribution was used for "Documenting Hate" in 2017, while the $200,000 donation was used for 2018 so the group could maintain and continue the project. Soros was the first funder of the project; his grants expired in December. Google is now the funder of the project, according to Tofel. "It made it possible for us to start ‘Documenting Hate,'" Tofel said. ProPublica proposed the idea internally and shortly after the presidential election proposed it to Soros's Open Society Foundations, which then provided the funding. When asked about the SPLC's role in the project, Tofel said that they receive stories of alleged "hate crime" incidents from the group. He added that an "overwhelming majority" of incidents comes from media partners actively soliciting tips. "Documenting Hate" also counts other left-wing groups such as CAIR, Anti-Defamation League, Matthew Shepard Foundation, and the Human Rights Campaign as partners. Tofel specified that the database is not an effort to collect statistical data, but rather "soliciting people's stories," which includes individuals reporting their own alleged experiences or experiences they have observed. The more than 100 media partners involved in the initiative have access to the database for reporting purposes, which is not available to the public because it not verified. Tofel said that "all sorts" of national news stories have come from the database, but it is up to the media partners who have access to verify and do further reporting. "If you solicit people telling individual stories this widely, some of the things people report will be true, some of them won't—a few of them won't. Part of the job of any good journalist is to verify things before publishing," Tofel said. The Free Beacon sought access to the database in its initial email inquiry to ProPublica, which was not acknowledged before or after speaking to Tofel. Other media partners involved in "Documenting Hate" include Google News Labs, BuzzFeed News, Huffington Post, the Guardian, the Boston Globe, NBC News, and Fusion. Seventeen university newspapers and six colleges are also involved with the initiative. The project does not contain any right-leaning publications or organizations. "The partners include organizations you'd think of as legitimate-but-liberal news outlets—the Los Angeles Times, PBS and ABC News. But they partner with blatantly left-wing outlets with little credibility like The Root, TPM and Vox," said Dan Gainor, the vice president for Business and Culture at the Media Research Center. "They actually partner with far-left Splinter, which doxed White House aide Stephen Miller by posting his cell phone number so readers could harass him. AJ Plus is another partner. It's owned by Al Jazeera, the state-run propaganda site from Qatar." Many hate crime incidents that have been reported by major news outlets in recent years have turned out to be false. Wilfred Reilly, an assistant professor of political science at Kentucky State University, found more than 400 hate crime hoaxes while conducting research for a book, Hate Crime Hoax. "A great many hate crime stories turn out to be hoaxes. Simply looking at what happened to the most widely reported hate crime stories over the past 4-5 years illustrates this: not only the Smollett case but also the Yasmin Seweid, Air Force Academy, Eastern Michigan, Wisconsin-Parkside, Kean College, Covington Catholic, and "Hopewell Baptist burning" racial scandals all turned out to be fakes. And, these cases are not isolated outliers," Reilly wrote in USA Today following the Jussie Smollett incident. Jonathan Kaplan, spokesperson for the Open Society Foundations, said that the grants were made out of concern over a "national wave" of incidents following the 2016 presidential elections "The Open Society Foundations supporting the Documenting Hate project out of our concern about the national wave of hate incidents that followed the 2016 election," Kaplan said following publication. UPDATE: Following publication, Tofel specified that the $375,000 grant from Soros was used in 2017 while the $200,000 grant was used in 2018, adding that they had expired in December. Google is now funding the project, according to Tofel. This post has been updated to reflect this information.
Sunday, March 24, 2019, Last modified on Monday, March 25, 2019 END OF A FAIRY TALE: No “Collusion with Russia” (as if we didn’t know) Written by Christopher A. Ferrara | https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...ith-russia-as-if-we-didn-t-know#disqus_thread For almost three years the DNC-mainstream media consortium has labored to elevate a fantasy about a non-crime—“collusion” between the Trump campaign and “Russia”—into grounds for invalidating the Presidential election of 2016. House and Senate Committees and a Special Counsel have embroiled the Trump administration from its inception in endless, absurd investigations into the inchoate conspiracy theory that Trump and “the Russians” somehow “colluded” to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. The theory was concocted by Clinton herself, who (illegally) funneled millions of dollars in campaign funds to a law firm that in turn hired an ex-British spy to create opposition research against Trump dressed up as a bogus “intelligence” dossier based on anonymous Russian sources, which was then passed off to the FBI by John McCain and others. Hillary’s imaginary allegation of Trump-Russia collusion emanated from her actual collusion with Russians in concocting the Russian dossier! That is, the same Russians who supposedly wanted Trump to win the election worked with Hillary’s rented ex-spy to prevent Trump from winning the election and then to undermine his Presidency. Based on this nonsensical claim, based in turn on the phony dossier that Clinton had paid for, corrupt FBI and DOJ officials, conniving with corrupt members of the “intelligence community,” launched an equally phony worldwide “counterintelligence” investigation into Trump and his associates. Then, without ever revealing that Hillary Clinton had paid for the dossier, the same corrupt officials used it to trick the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) into granting a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application (FISA) for a warrant to wiretap and otherwise spy on Trump associate Carter Page—and who knows who else—renewing that application three times based on the same fabricated evidence. One of the FISA warrant applications was signed by none other than Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who, after Jeff Sessions had recused himself, participated in this veritable coup attempt against the very President he was supposed to be serving, at one point even proposing that he wear a wire in an effort to gather evidence that Trump is mentally unfit to serve as Chief Executive. In his letter appointing Robert Mueller as Special Council on May 17, 2017, the same Rosenstein did not even bother to articulate a legally sufficient basis for the appointment of a Special Council—that being only the investigation of a reasonably suspected federal crime. Instead, he charged Mueller and his posse of Democrat activists with the task of investigating imaginary and amorphous “links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump,” which would not be criminal even if they existed. And, of course, there were never any such “links” or “coordination,” as Mueller has finally informed us after two years and $25 million in pointless expenditures, telling us nothing more than what was perfectly obvious from the moment Clinton’s laughable conspiracy theory was first aired. Along the way, several bystanders were indicted for process crimes that did not exist until the investigation created them, or past crimes having nothing to do with the investigation, all in a failed attempt to suborn what would have been prejurious testimony about Trump’s fantasized “collusion with Russia.” Numerous Russians who will never stand trial were also indicted, essentially for financing political social media content in the United States—a make-believe crime that Mueller knew would never be subjected to serious appellate review, which it would never have survived in the Supreme Court. In sum, what we have endured since Trump’s election is the greatest hoax in the history of American politics, the history of American criminal jurisprudence, and indeed American history in general. But even in his report finding no evidence of “collusion with Russia,” Mueller keeps hope alive for the hoaxters by refusing to make a standard prosecutorial decision on the ludicrous contention that Trump “obstructed” his baseless investigation. Mueller declines to take a position on supposedly “complex” questions about whether Trump “obstructed justice” by actions that were all perfectly legal and within his rights and prerogatives as President, including the firing of the intolerable Comey the Righteous. Mueller cunningly punts the issue—really a non-issue—even though his investigation was never impeded in the least but on the contrary ran amuck for nearly two years while Trump was constrained to protesting the witch hunt via his Twitter account. Trump/Mueller As Attorney General Barr notes in his letter summarizing Mueller’s report: “The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him.’” So, Mueller, endlessly extolled by the media as man of unimpeachable integrity, has just done the most unethical and despicable thing a prosecutor can do: publicly declaring that while he found no crime, he will not exonerate the target of his investigation. Muller thus left it to Barr and—is this a joke?—Rosenstein to exonerate Trump via Barr’s letter, which declares the obvious: that Trump obstructed nothing. And now the rabid Democrats can claim a “coverup” by Barr and Rosenstein, as Muller surely knew they would. By the way, here Mueller has finally revealed that Trump was the target all along, despite Rosenstein’s and Comey’s lying assurances, clearly designed to lower Trump’s guard, that he was not a target. What this entire farce has revealed is the endemic and irremediable corruption of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the “intelligence community” and, of course, the incessantly lying media. But these corruptions are only symptoms of a terminal breakdown of whatever is left of the moral fabric of this nation, in which state after state, in response to Trump’s election and pro-life initiatives, is now explicitly enacting the legalization of outright infanticide, as if the already available abortion on demand throughout the nine months of pregnancy were insufficiently contemptuous of God and His Law. That Trump, such as he is, seems to represent our last best chance, humanly speaking, to avoid the inescapable terminal abyss of post-Christian political modernity is the only reason he has been subjected, and will continue to be subjected, to investigatory harassment at virtually every level of government, national, state and local—a spectacle I daresay is without precedent in the entire history of Western polities. Trump is truly at the center of a looming American apocalypse. Published in Remnant Articles
Excellent interview last night on Hannity with President Trump. The video is at the link and is worth a listen. Trump says FISA declass is coming and that we have to get to the bottom of how this whole cherade began and who was behind it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...eller-probe-is-concluded-slams-treasonous-fbi
She also mentions that her husband voted for Hillary but that is no big surprise since apparently Hillary is the true face of the GOP according to the Bush clan.
...I'm no expert, but then, neither are most experts. But to me, The Bush family was part of the problem, and only a slightly better choice than a democrat. And again, my own opinion is that "part" of why Barbara Bush was so popular among some on the left was because she was pro choice.
You are right IMO. There are some who say she and Grorge HW were deep state NWO all the way-- as far as I could tell and very pro choice. But locals in Maine where they spent their summers think very highly of the Bushes. She was always friendly and kind. So two sides to every story I guess. I dont think they qualify as current Republican values. They were old style wealthy country club Republicans. Big difference.
Honestly, I really do know better than to post anything remotely related to both major parties in the U.S. I'm not a political expert by any stretch. I only have my personal opinion and sense of what does and does not feel right. Yet, the Biography of Barbara Bush does strike me as worth a read for perspective. What to me feels very wrong is our long standing and suffering 2 party system. Any one else runs as an Independent under duress. This is why another party has caught my strong attention - American Solidarity Party, which yes, includes in its platform a strong Pro-Life stance, incorporating everything between conception and natural death.
Make no mistake. The noose is also being tightened against our globalist deep-state pope who has spoken out more against Trump, against fences, about global warming than he has about pro-life issues. Where is PF about fake news? Silenzio like McCarick, Vigano, his homo and Masonic partners. Pray for him yes. But hey, who am I to judge?
Worth a watch. Nunes has been a patriot through this entire scandal and President Trump acknowledges him in a great way. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1111284757839659008
...I became an independent years ago, mostly because the republicans, to me, lost their backbone. I'm sure people who know what they are talking about could change my mind on this matter, but I often think the two party system ends up just being a framework for people to take one side or the other, and all the baggage that comes with it. In my opinion, every single issue, big and small, should be publicly explained, a list of all possible options for handling it put on the table, and then the country votes on which option is best. That's an over-simplification, but I firmly believe lunacy and evil has gripped our political system, and I place a large proportion of that on the left. As a Catholic, I'm of the opinion that American bishops needs to come out much stronger against abortion and the democrat party which embraces it, especially given the extreme to which it is now headed...infanticide.
Nevada Democrat accuses Joe Biden of touching and kissing her without consent at 2014 event By Michael Brice-Saddler | Washington Post | Mar 29, 2019 | 8:55 PM | https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-joe-biden-kiss-lucy-flores-20190329-story.html Democratic candidate Lucy Flores speaks at a Bernie Sanders event in Las Vegas in February 2016. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times) A onetime Democratic nominee for Nevada’s lieutenant governor accused former vice president Joe Biden on Friday of touching and kissing her without her consent during her campaign in 2014, an experience she says left her feeling mortified and confused. In an essay published by The Cut, Lucy Flores wrote that when she learned the then-vice president had offered to appear at a rally in Nevada to support her campaign, she was grateful. But that feeling changed, she said, when Biden approached her from behind as she was getting ready to address the crowd. She wrote that she felt the vice president place two hands on her shoulders before moving closer to her from behind. Then, she says, Biden kissed her on the back of her head. - - - He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn't process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, "tragame tierra," it means, "earth, swallow me whole." I couldn't move and I couldn't say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience. - - - As a young Latina, Flores said, she was used to feeling like an outsider in a political world dominated by white men - but she'd never experienced something so “blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before.” While she told a few members of her staff what happened, Flores said she was initially reluctant to talk to anyone else. “Is it enough of a transgression if a man touches and kisses you without consent, but doesn’t rise to the level of what most people consider sexual assault?” she asked. “I did what most women do, and moved on with my life and my work.” A spokesman for Biden said Friday that the former vice president was “pleased” to support Flores in 2014, and neither he nor his staff had “an inkling that Ms. Flores had been at any time uncomfortable, nor do they recall what she describes.” “But Vice President Biden believes that Ms. Flores has every right to share her own recollection and reflections, and that it is a change for better in our society that she has the opportunity to do so,” the statement read. “He respects Ms. Flores as a strong and independent voice in our politics and wishes her only the best.” During a March 16 speech in Dover, Del., Biden referred to himself as a “tactile politician.” “I always have been, and that gets me in trouble as well, because I think I can feel and taste what is going on,” he told the crowd. Over the years, images and videos have shown Biden embracing, kissing and standing close to women. These instances were brushed off by some who saw his actions as “lighthearted,” and Flores lamented that Biden could keep his title of “America’s Favorite Uncle” despite myriad publications documenting his actions. “In this case, it shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with,” she wrote. Flores’ account also comes as Biden faces scrutiny over the way he handled the accusations Anita Hill made against Clarence Thomas during his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. On Tuesday, at an event honoring those who have worked to combat sexual assault on college campuses, Biden apologized again for his handling of the matter in 1991, when Hill faced accusatory questioning from a panel of white men. “To this day, I regret I couldn’t come up with a way to get her the kind of hearing she deserved, given the courage she showed by reaching out to us,” Biden said in New York at the Biden Courage Awards. Some pointed out that his use of the word “couldn’t” suggested he didn’t have the power to change the course of the hearing. Washington Post staff writer Felicia Sonmez contributed to this report. READ MORE: Who’s running for president and who’s not » 2020 Democratic presidential candidates | By Priya Krishnakumar and Janet Hook Jan. 13, 2019 UPDATED MARCH 14, 2019 "Many Democrats are exploring a possible run, reaching out to donors and gauging interest in their potential candidacy. Here's a guide to who's running, who seems interested and who's dropping major hints." [Right now, this is a list of 30 Democrats and 15 are officially running at this moment(?). ] "Early polling indicates Biden would be a front-runner in a crowded field."
