EXCLUSIVE: Google Leftists Panic About Leaks, Threaten Employment of Colleagues

Left-wing employees at Google are threatening the employment of their colleagues amid a panic about frequent leaks revealing political bias in the company’s products and working atmosphere.

Leaked internal discussion threads from Google provided exclusively to Breitbart News show left-wing Google employees reporting one of their colleagues for alleged “leaks,” while worrying about the legal implications of cracking down on a conservative at the company over his public complaints about working conditions.

The discussion took place last week on the “transparency and ethics” discussion group, from which the alleged leaker had recently been ejected – a failed attempt to stem the tide of leaks showing political bias at the tech giant.

Announcing the ejection of the alleged leaker, a Google employee wrote that vigilance about leaks was “especially important in light of the recent leaks that named our friends and colleagues in Breitbart and the Daily Caller.”

“If you have any knowledge of someone else who definitely leaked from THIS group, be sure to report it at go/stop-leaks,” wrote another Google software developer, referring to an internal messaging system for reporting potential leaks.

“I noticed a certain someone who leaked from this group still works here. Is that the new norm? Is there something specific that makes his leak okay? What’s up with all this” wrote a different employee.

Another Google software engineer said that it would set “an incredibly bad precedent if he is not terminated in light of acknowledging responsibility for the leak.”

The “leak” in question was a Medium post by conservative Google software engineer Mike Wacker. In the post, the employee published anonymized messages from inside the company to draw attention to hostile working conditions faced by employees who express non-leftwing opinions at Google.

Leftists at Google are now also blaming Wacker for the leak of messages from the transparency and ethics discussion group about Kay Coles James, the conservative voice on Google’s now-canceled AI advisory council. In the messages, Google employee accused the African-American grandmother and president of the Heritage Foundation of being a “vocal bigot” who supported “exterminationist views.”

Some Google employees urged caution, noting that there was no evidence that Wacker leaked the discussion, and that persecuting him for his Medium post might have legal implications.

“The odds of them showing up in, for example, a lawsuit for discrimination, or unfair dismissal, are high” said one employee, who warned against empowering “far-right extremists”.

“They serve the propaganda purpose of establishing further that Google is discriminatory against ‘conservative’ voices (ie: the far-right extremists, and the people perfectly happy to work with them if they don’t directly agree such as any republican voter) and that ‘leftists’ as a whole are a mob persecuting anyone they imagine might be an ‘enemy’ without regard of the facts.”

“it occurred to me … that some amount of his conversation might be considered protected speech given that it’s talking about working conditions” wrote another employee.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, workers can engage in public discussion of working conditions at their places of employment. In recent cases, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has upheld the right of employees to hold these discussions on social media platforms.

James Damore, who was fired from Google after publishing an internal memo advocating for viewpoint diversity which was subsequently leaked to the press by his opponents inside the company, brought a case before the NLRB after his dismissal. The NLRB, lobbied by Google, ruled in favor of firing Damore for so-called “discriminatory statements,” but also said that much of the rest of his memo, which discussed working conditions at Google, was protected by labor law.

Nevertheless, a Google employee insisted that the company’s leadership was “looking into” what to do with Wacker, but warned that even though the purported leaker had been ejected from the group, members should still be cautious about further leaks.

“The same email list which leaked recently is probably not the appropriate forum in which to be discussing the matter of what is being done about the leakers.”

Breitbart News has reached out to Google for comment.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Coal Miners Give AOC Brutal Reality Check After She Promises To Kill Their Industry

In a video released earlier this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez narrated a strange version of a Green New Deal future that appeared more like a delusional fever dream than a practical plan.

She imagines high-speed bullet trains, a Democratic-led government, the demise of fossil fuels, and “in transition” energy sector workers relegated to planting mangrove trees under the guidance of Native American elders.


TRENDING: Unreal: Young Girl Expelled After Defending Herself from Males in School Bathroom

Despite being only slightly less realistic than the “Star Wars” franchise, this line of thinking in our nation’s leadership needs to be taken as a credible threat.

Of course, the coal miners of West Virginia know this all too well.

Through the generations, they’ve experienced the ups and downs of coal country and the government overreach that can deal death blows to communities.

And there’s one little problem they have with Ocasio-Cortez’s plan:

“There is no America without coal.”

In the video, a group of coal miners savages Ocasio-Cortez’s position on the fossil fuel, delivering a brutal fact check about what her policies would actually do to workers.

“The Green New Deal would be bad for coal miners because it’s going to put every coal miner out of a job,” said a man who identified himself as Kentucky coal miner Chris Dingess.

“If the Green New Deal passed,” said Dingess, “this is what it would do to me: I’d lose my home. I wouldn’t be able to pay for my vehicles. I’d have to find a new profession and start all over from scratch, and try to figure out a way to live.”

RELATED: 2020 Dem Goes Off-Script, Admits He’s ‘Concerned’ About Rise of Socialism in Democratic Party

This is a far cry from the future of sustainable mangrove-planting jobs envisioned by Ocasio-Cortez.

Do you agree with these coal miners?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

And since these men have witnessed the brutal reality of what regulation can do to a coal mining community, their prediction is actually based in the real world.

“AOC, this is my message from coal country,” said a man who identified himself as John Manuel, a West Virginia coal miner with 37 years in the industry.

“We have been coal miners all of our lives. Things have gotten safer and better in the coal industry for the coal miners.

“And we are here to stay.”

If a New York liberal like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to put these men and the tens of thousands of others like them out of a job, she’d better be prepared to face the consequences of her actions.

Gutted communities, unemployment, and a power crisis would only be the beginning of her “decade of the Green New Deal.”

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

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Mueller Report Twitter Moments: 76 Anti-Trump Tweets, Just 1 Pro-Trump

Big Tech bias hits even at times of major news. After the Mueller Report was released April 18, journalists and pundits took to social media to analyze the findings. But no one would know there was  “no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’” from looking at the curated Twitter Moments.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Barney Frank: Buttigieg wouldn’t be getting all of this attention if he wasn’t gay

He’s right, and the attention to which he refers isn’t the unflattering kind. He explicitly says that Buttigieg’s trailblazing status as an openly gay presidential candidate has been an asset to him (at least so far) — which feels vaguely scandalous coming from Frank. Normally among the left it’s acceptable to acknowledge progress in growing public acceptance of minority groups but to admit that minority status might be an advantage supposedly risks breeding complacency. The bottom line of every social-justice argument is “there’s much more work to be done.” Listening to Barney chatter about how being gay is momentarily helping someone in the race to become leader of the free world, that argument is a harder sell.

“If he were straight, I don’t think he’d be getting the attention that he’s getting,” Frank told host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Wednesday. But Frank added, that when Buttigieg “gets the attention, he is so talented and good at this and solid that he makes the most of it.”…

Frank called Buttigieg’s progress “both a sign that the prejudice is diminishing and it is an opportunity further to diminish the prejudice by giving him this platform.”…

“People don’t get heckled if nobody thinks they’re a threat,” Frank told Matthews about the protesters. “The fact that these bigoted lunatics start acting out in public, it’s a sign of their desperation.”

Democratic voters are still getting to know Buttigieg but his favorablility so far has been overwhelmingly positive, on the order of 50/5. If his orientation becomes a problem for him in the primary, it won’t be because voters sour on him or on the fact that he’s gay. It’ll come from their anxiety that an openly gay candidate just can’t prevail in a general election, especially against a candidate like Trump whose image relies so heavily on machismo. Remember this poll from deep-blue California last week?

Those numbers can change, of course. I’m sure there were polls in 2007 that showed Democrats highly skeptical that the country was ready for the first black president; a year later Obama won the most votes of any candidate in American history, a record that still stands. Buttigieg has something in common with Obama, namely, that his personal style contrasts sharply with the nastiest stereotypes thrown at people like him. Bigots will tell you that blacks are stupid, promiscuous, and aggressive; Obama was a Harvard-trained law professor, devoted family man, and so chill that people compared him to Mr. Spock. They’ll tell you that gays are effeminate, flamboyant, immoral, and extremely promiscuous; Buttigieg is a veteran, low-key in a classic midwestern way, a practicing Christian, and married to another man. Some progressives would claim that he’s not “gay enough” just as some of Obama’s “woker” critics on the left grumbled that his sense of black identity wasn’t as developed as it should be (he lost his first run for Congress in Chicago to former Black Panther Bobby Rush partly for that reason, in fact) but it’s their shared ability to turn stereotypes about the groups to which they belong on their heads that makes iffy voters more comfortable with them.

As for Frank’s point about gayness being an asset, I had the thought last night that we haven’t had a truly “traditional” presidential election in the United States in more than 20 years. The 1996 election, I’d say, was “traditional” notwithstanding Perot’s formidable third-party presence. We had a traditional campaign in 2000 but the results of the election itself were, er, untraditional. The 2004 election was untraditional because it was largely a referendum on Bush’s response to 9/11 and his decision to invade Iraq. 2008 and 2012 brought us the first black president and 2016 brought us the first woman nominee versus a celebrity real-estate developer turned game-show host. Whether there’s an actual “trend” in all that and/or whether it’s a byproduct of the country’s population becoming more diverse — of course we’ll have fewer white and male nominees over time — is a question left to smarter cultural critics than me. But it may be that some Democrats have effectively decided that their nominating process should itself be a vessel of social justice by elevating members of previously marginalized groups to fully mainstream status, in which case yeah, Buttigieg’s orientation would definitely be an asset next year. We’ve had a black nominee (and president), we’ve had a woman nominee, logically lefties would next want to signal that being gay also shouldn’t be seen as a political disability.

Here’s Frank. The clip is worth watching for two reasons, one Chris Matthews’s weird pronunciation of Buttigieg’s last name (he says Boo-DED-itch instead of BOOT-edge-edge) and the other Frank’s story of Joe Biden getting nuzzle-y in classic Biden fashion with … Frank’s husband.

The post Barney Frank: Buttigieg wouldn’t be getting all of this attention if he wasn’t gay appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

D.C. Progressive Housing Program Causing Chaos in Upscale Liberal Apartment Complex

Tenants are fleeing a D.C. high rise as the city’s progressive housing policy has led to panhandling, marijuana smoking, and at least one overdose death in the past year.

Sedgewick Gardens is an historic landmark in a high-priced neighborhood in northwest Washington, D.C., the Washington Post reported. But in the past two years, it has also come to play home to a number of formerly homeless people, many of whom may not have been pushed into housing before exposure to treatment as part of the District’s "housing first" approach to policy.

It is standard practice, according to the Post, for D.C.’s government to require that residential buildings be mixed income, i.e. afford the opportunity for lower-earning people to live there.

"But the situation at Sedgwick Gardens is different," the Post explained. "Many of the new tenants are previously homeless men and women who came directly from shelters or the streets, some still struggling with severe behavioral problems."

The pushing of formerly homeless people into housing prior to access to drug treatment or psychological care is part of the "housing first" approach to homelessness assistance, which argues that housing is itself a kind of care, and so people should always be provided with housing as soon as possible.

Motivated by this philosophy, in late 2016 the D.C. Housing Authority substantially increased the payout level of the housing vouchers it makes available to low-income residents. Under the vouchers, residents pay 30 percent of their income towards rent, while the city pays the rent. In 2016, the maximum rent subsidy was raised to 175 percent of fair market rent, raising the subsidy for a one-bedroom apartment to $2,648 per month.

This figure was well beyond the rent for upscale locales like Sedgwick Gardens, where a one-bedroom will run about $2,200 per month. As such, a number of voucher-eligible individuals, many of whom were coming out of homelessness, were moved into the apartments.

The neighborhood itself is quite liberal—the Post notes that 95 percent of voters there opposed President Donald Trump in 2016—but the results of the move-in were what the Post describes as "a high-stakes social experiment that so far has left few of its subjects happy."

That experiment has led to a tripling of police calls to the complex, rising to 121 in 2018 compared to 34 in 2016. Only five of the 2018 calls actually were eventually linked to a crime. But they also were prompted by other harrowing situations, including a man barricading himself in his apartment and threatening to shoot police with a shotgun if they intruded; and another man found to have died from using drugs laced with the deadly synthetic opioid fentanyl.

These two events are the most extreme examples of a general coarsening of the environment. Tenants have complained of panhandling in the halls, the smell of marijuana in the hallways, and feces on the landing of the stairwells.

Lorraine Starks, a formerly homeless woman who moved into Sedgwick Gardens thanks to the program, sees it as an example of a few bad apples causing trouble for everyone else. In her view, the city failed to screen a number of new residents, who now "are trying to turn it into a ghetto."

"It’s not about the voucher program. It’s not about racism. It’s about people’s conduct and behavior," Starks told the Post.

The post D.C. Progressive Housing Program Causing Chaos in Upscale Liberal Apartment Complex appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Mark Levin Predicted Mueller Report Would Invite Impeachment Regardless of Guilt

Thursday’s release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 381-page report vindicates a prediction made for nearly two years by conservative radio host and attorney Mark Levin: that Mueller’s report would attempt to provide a basis for Congress to impeach President Donald Trump even if it found no collusion and no obstruction of justice.

Attorney General William Barr noted that Mueller had found no evidence of collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 elections. He also said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had considered “ten episodes” listed by Muller as potential cases of obstruction of justice, and concluded that the facts did not support charges being brought — that, in fact, Trump had cooperated fully with the investigation.

Still, Democrats — and journalists — latched onto statements by Mueller in the report that seemed to invite Congress to investigate the president for obstruction of justice even if his conduct did not meet the legal standard for prosecution.


Levin predicted this result almost from the moment Mueller was appointed, and has been warning ever since that Mueller’s report would provide a pretext for impeachment even if he could not prove Trump did anything wrong.

In June 2017, Levin said on the Mark Levin Show: “Mr. Mueller may be investigating individuals and so forth, but his purpose for being unleashed against the president of the United States is to make the case for impeachment, not indictment. This is very, very important to understand.”

In 2018, Levin warned that Mueller was preparing an “impeachment report,” warning he had “turned his ‘collusion’ investigation into a potential ‘constitutional crisis’.”

While Republicans interpreted the Mueller report as a vindication of the president, and called for a new investigation into how the false allegations against the president began, Democrats and the media are reacting to the report in the precise manner Levin had predicted.

House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) — who would be responsible for drawing up articles of impeachment — said Thursday that impeachment was a “possibility.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Yuma becomes first border city to declare state of emergency due to migrant releases

The number of illegal immigrants detained at the Southern border and then released in border cities has risen to the point that Yuma, Arizona became the first city to declare a state of emergency Tuesday. Mayor Douglas Nicholls delivered that message during a press conference. The U.S. Border Patrol has been releasing migrants to Yuma’s shelter system for the last few weeks.

“There’s an imminent threat of having too many migrant releases into our community, and it’s above our capacity as a community to sustain,” Nicholls said as he announced the measure Tuesday.

The Border Patrol has released more than 11,000 migrant family members at nongovernmental shelters or bus stations along the border since March 19, when it began the practice of releasing noncriminal families directly from custody with notices to appear in court “as a last resort” as apprehensions spiked.

Mayor Nicholls, a Republican elected to the office in 2014, said he hopes that by declaring a state of emergency more border cities will follow his lead and then the cities can band together for more federal aid. Yuma is a city with a population of about 100,000. Their shelters and facilities are at capacity. Yuma is not a sanctuary city and there are no sanctuary cities in Arizona.

The mayor said that U.S. Border Patrol agents have released 1,300 migrants in Yuma in the past three weeks. The only shelter in the city is a former Salvation Army store with a capacity of 200. The city has no way of accommodating shelter for them. He’s concerned about the safety of his city’s citizens and of the migrants, too.

“I had to do something to change the discussion and to change the posture, to get more resources or get the situation resolved in one manner or another,” he said.

Without help from the federal government, Mr. Nicholls said he worried that there could be a “catastrophic situation” with migrants left to wander the desert city with no help as summer temperatures start to rise. The high temperature for Friday is predicted to be 100 degrees.

The process of declaring a state of emergency is that a governor requests the declaration of the president. So, in this case, Mayor Nicholls will send his declaration to Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Ducey said he’ll review the declaration once he receives it. However, it isn’t looking very hopeful for Mayor Nicholls. Ducey said he thinks it is the responsibility of Congress to handle the immigration crisis, not the White House.

Border cities are desperate for help. The Border Patrol has no ability to continue to hold migrants at the border because their shelters are full. Democrats raised a stink over a makeshift shelter under a bridge in El Paso that provided shelter in tents so it was shut down. There is no sign of relief in sight. The caravans from Central America continue to travel to the U.S. border and the policy of catch and release is once again in effect.

Meanwhile, border cities like Yuma are left to cope with a situation caused by no fault of their own. Mayor Nicholls points out that larger cities use non-profit networks to cope with the influx of those needing shelter and provisions.

Federal immigration authorities have said they are working with local nonprofit agencies to house and care for migrants after their release and before the move on to the interior of the country. Shelters in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been frequently full for months, with newly arriving migrants immediately replacing those departing.

Mayor Nicholls made the first move to ask for emergency aid. It’s a reasonable request. Even if Congress acted overnight (it won’t) the situation will be with us for the near future. Something has to be done to help border cities and towns. Setting free those asking for asylum or being detained for illegally entering the country with the requirement of appearing in court at a later date has failed.

The post Yuma becomes first border city to declare state of emergency due to migrant releases appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

EXCLUSIVE: Assange’s Lawyer Responds to Mueller Report, Says it Properly Notes First Amendment Concerns

Julian Assange’s DC-based lawyer Barry Pollack has responded to the report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. He pointed out that it acknowledged the First Amendment concerns with prosecuting WikiLeaks merely for publishing information, and that it “appears to discuss the lack of evidence of intent to violate the law.”

Speaking to the Gateway Pundit, Pollack said that the report did not contain any significant new information regarding his client.

“The report does not seem to contain any significant new information regarding the role of WikiLeaks,” Pollack said. “WikiLeaks was plainly receiving information from sources and publishing material of public interest.”

“In a section that appears to be about whether any charges could be brought against WikiLeaks for campaign finance violations, the report not only properly notes the first amendment concerns such a prosecution would pose, but also appears to discuss that lack of evidence of intent to violate the law.”

WikiLeaks also responded to the report from its official Twitter account, saying that the organization has “always been confident that this investigation would vindicate our groundbreaking publishing of the 2016 materials which it has.”

The pro-transparency organization also called for the full unredacted report to be released, criticizing the “large redactions which permit conspiracy theories to abound.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald noted that the statements of Attorney General Barr appeared to uphold WikiLeaks’ right to publish.

“It should also be noted that Barr said that WikiLeaks could not have committed a crime by publishing the DNC/Podesta emails unless they participated in the hacking itself, which I don’t believe anyone [has] claimed they did,” Greenwald tweeted.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Assange’s Lawyer Responds to Mueller Report, Says it Properly Notes First Amendment Concerns appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Herman Cain to Senate GOP: No, I won’t withdraw from consideration for a Fed seat

A growing headache for McConnell and maybe for Trump too. Actual headline from the Daily Beast this evening:

I think when Trump first floated Cain’s name for a Fed slot, he expected Senate Republicans would go along without a fuss. And why not? That’s what they almost always do, especially with presidential nominations. In fact, they just got done nuking a Senate rule that required 30 hours of debate for certain nominees, replacing it with one that requires two hours instead. It seemed like they were building a conveyor belt to streamline confirmation of Trump’s picks for key vacancies.

And then suddenly there were four Republicans hinting that Herman Cain’s appointment to the Federal Reserve was dead on arrival.

When Trump was asked whether that opposition would lead him to yank Cain’s nomination, he dodged. He didn’t strongly rebuke the idea but he hasn’t made any moves to throw Cain under the bus either. Instead he left the matter up to Cain, saying that it would be for the nominee to decide whether he wanted to withdraw. But that was risky: What if Cain refused? That would put McConnell and his caucus back on the hot seat in having to potentially embarrass the president by rejecting his nominee. But it would put Trump on the hot seat too by leaving him effectively powerless to yank Cain’s nomination now in the name of avoiding embarrassment. The whole reason populists like Trump is that he’s willing to fightfightfight the establishment; if Cain is willing to fight on against Mr. Establishment Mitch McConnell, how could Trump possibly stand in his way?

A confirmation hearing may be inevitable, then, with Democrats destined to air Cain’s #MeToo dirty laundry extensively and Trump-skeptical Republicans like Mitt Romney destined to scoff at his political independence from the president.

Cain, a former pizza executive and 2012 GOP presidential candidate, told The Wall Street Journal in an interview Wednesday that he is “very committed” to sticking to his potential nomination, saying, “I happen to believe that you need some new voices on the Federal Reserve.”…

Cain stood firm, telling the Journal on Wednesday: “I don’t quit because of negative criticism. I don’t quit because of negative attacks. And I don’t quit because several senators have expressed reservations about my qualifications.”

“What Kudlow was doing was giving me an out, and I appreciate that, but I don’t want an out,” Cain said. “You know that the president is a fighter, and Kudlow is a fighter. They might be getting a lot of blowback from some folks, I don’t know. But I don’t think they’re getting uncomfortable with it.”

He fights! And he’s being smart about broadcasting his commitment to seeing this through. Cain knows that the more public he is about wanting to battle for the seat, the more support for his nomination will grow among the grassroots right and the harder it’ll be for Trump to bow to McConnell’s wishes by yanking the nomination. For example, Cain has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today arguing that the Fed already has enough academics. What it needs, he says, is people who have firsthand business experience with markets who’ll know how to interpret the monetary signals they’re emitting:

The Fed still operates on the “professor standard,” enshrined with Bill Clinton’s nominations of pure academics. Their textbooks say strong economic growth, particularly strong wage growth, causes inflation, which Fed policy should temper. Both the Bush and Obama administrations perpetuated the professor standard, and both presided over income stagnation…

We need new voices at the Fed that understand stable money and know how to interpret important market signals—and that means breaking the professor standard. Monocultures tend to be fragile, but is the Fed so closed off that it can’t handle challenges to its models or the assumptions that feed them? So fragile it can’t consider that the economy is driven by production, not consumption, and that the dollar’s commodity value is important to the real investment that fuels production? I hope not.

Do you want more Ivory Tower eggheads on the Fed or do you want hardnosed business people who actually know what they’re talking about? Which sort of person should the Trump revolution bring to power? He’s making it awfully hard on the White House to cut him loose with arguments like that. And yet:

Not just Cain but Trump’s other nominee, Stephen Moore, is at risk. I’ve been thinking that the Senate GOP might try to split the baby in this case, rejecting Cain but confirming Moore as a sop to the White House. But that’s politically dicey too. Unless Republicans make a big show of the #MeToo concerns about Cain in voting him down, it’ll be hard to argue that he’s meaningfully less qualified for the position than Moore is. Remember that Cain was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City years ago. Confirming Moore, a white candidate, but not Cain under those circumstances is … bad optics, shall we say. And given how badly Cain seems to want the seat, he might notice those optics and call attention to them.

Here he is on Fox Business, again playing to a Trump-friendly audience by vowing to fight for the seat. If I were a nominee for a Fed spot and one of the knocks against me was that I was too much of a crony for the president to be trusted with that role, I probably would have declined the invitation here to defend Trump on an unrelated, politically supercharged matter like Russiagate.

The post Herman Cain to Senate GOP: No, I won’t withdraw from consideration for a Fed seat appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com