Karl Rove explains why some Democratic senators may vote to acquit Trump

Fox News contributor Karl Rove explained Monday why he believes some Democratic senators could break ranks with their colleagues and vote to acquit President Trump following the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.
"Looking at it, you've had a number of Democrats, [Sen. Joe] Manchin of West Virginia, [Sen. Doug] Jones of Alabama...all have sort of [made] temperate comments about this," Rove said on "America's Newsroom."
"Sure, most Democrats are gonna be like Kamala Harris and these others who have made it clear they're voting to convict no matter what," Rove continued, emphasizing that some Democratic senators are questioning whether Trump's removal is "what we ought to be doing as a country" and whether they should "just be going along with the herd."
Over the weekend, Rove told "Fox News Sunday" that he believed "it is much more likely we'll have more Democrats voting to retain the president in office than Republicans [voting to convict]."
In December, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., shared similar sentiments on "Hannity," saying he believed that one or two Democratic senators who hail from states won by Trump in 2016 could vote to acquit-- singling out Jones and Manchin.
"I'm very much torn on it," Manchin told CNN recently. "I think it weighs on everybody."
Jones, considered by many analysts to be the most vulnerable incumbent up for reelection this year, said last month that he was "concerned" of the ramifications that an impeachment inquiry would have on the country.
Rove predicted that while all senators will vote with their respective party on procedural matters, their ultimate vote may prove to be in Trump's favor.
"I think they'll go with the rest of the Democrats on procedural questions like...witnesses...," Rove said, "but I think that's going to be a different question than the ultimate one of should we remove the president from office."
After formally opening Thursday, the Senate's impeachment trial will begin in earnest Tuesday afternoon.
Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Why NY Times, hedging its bets, actually favors Klobuchar over Warren

It’s perfectly obvious that the New York Times copped out when it comes to backing a Democratic candidate. The more interesting question is why.
The editorial board, seemingly unable to settle on one contender, endorsed two instead, picking Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Voters, of course, only get one pick (or risk jail as a result). The central conceit of newspaper endorsements is that editors study the candidates and their records—and, in the case of the Times, interview them—to make a recommendation for busy people who don’t have time to conduct that kind of examination. Instead, they punted.
But a careful reading suggests the Times is really endorsing Amy Klobuchar, and not just because her name was first. Given its determination to defeat President Trump, the paper is hedging its bets, with the Minnesota senator still mired in single digits and betting most of her chips on Iowa. If she gets knocked out, the Times is still backing Warren.
The editorial begins by praising Warren as a great storyteller with “the passion of a convert,” a former Republican from Oklahoma. And it hailed many of her liberal proposals. But then come the cavernous caveats.
Warren’s wealth tax is “constitutionally suspect” and would be tied up in the courts for years.
She’s displayed “some questionable political instincts.” She can sound like she sees “a universe of us-versus thems.” She’s backed away from Medicare for All. She goes too far in “placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country needs a more unifying path.”
That sounds like a rationale for not supporting the Massachusetts senator, and that’s the point where the piece pivots.
Amy Klobuchar is “the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.” Her “bipartisan credentials” would make her “a deal maker…and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.”
Sounds like a closing argument.
While there’s a mild swipe about Klobuchar treating her staff poorly and having “struggled” to gain traction on the trail, the Times says she’s “enormously popular” in Minnesota. It’s pretty clear the editors would like her to be president.
But here’s the thing: Warren is a full-throated progressive who’s embraced some of Sanders’ proposals. Klobuchar is a moderate liberal who’s running against their big-government plans. It’s inconsistent for the Times to embrace both, except to have a horse in each lane.
Newspaper endorsements don’t have nearly the clout they once did, except perhaps locally. The Washington Post helped elect a couple of D.C. mayors, and the Union-Leader’s nod in New Hampshire is a boost to GOP candidates.
For Klobuchar, the support of the Des Moines Register would be worth its weight in gold. In fact, she joked that the backing of the Quad-City Times was more important because it covers four cities and the Times serves only one.
The Times endorsement is like chicken soup and certainly doesn’t hurt a Democratic candidate. But a co-endorsement is like a weak handshake instead of a big kiss.

Harmeet Dhillon: Trump impeachment -- If Schiff were a prosecutor, he'd be in serious trouble

It’s good for Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., that his prosecutor days are behind him, and that he’s now only playing one on TV as House manager for the impeachment. He’s enjoyed putting on a show for the cameras, pretending to be a brave civil servant prosecuting President Trump for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But if he behaved in a real courtroom the way he has since Democrats’ crusade against the president began, a court would sanction him and throw him off the case, and his law license could be taken away.
From the very beginning of the impeachment charade, Schiff has injected himself and his own personal hatred into what is meant to be a rare, solemn, and bipartisan process, all while pantomiming the restrained, professional behavior of an officer of the court. He’s blatantly lied, in the committee room and in public, about the evidence we've seen, ranging from a series of breathtaking whoppers regarding now-discredited surveillance warrants to fictionalizing the content of the president’s call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Schiff repeatedly refused to allow cross-examination of his supposed witnesses — including the “whistleblower” who, by his own admission, holds no first-hand knowledge of the facts in question. (Where are those whistleblower transcripts, by the way? Suppressed by Schiff.) Worst of all, he’s had access to evidence and knowledge that casts doubt on his entire contrived corruption narrative, and he’s prevented the president and Republicans from using it in their defense.
If the U.S. attorney or district attorney in charge of Schiff’s office didn’t have the good sense to remove such a prosecutor from trying a case, a judge would do it for them. Even if he were the head prosecutor, he might well be referred to the state bar for disciplinary charges.
Making things up, trying to railroad the defendant, manipulate the jury, bias the outcome, suppressing evidence, procuring false evidence, tampering with evidence – any one of these things can and do get prosecutors disbarred. Just ask Mike Nifong, the North Carolina district attorney overseeing the now-infamous 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case.
Like Schiff, Nifong took a thin and implausible case, based on the accusation of a troubled young woman, and twisted it to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent Duke lacrosse players. He tried parading them in front of the country as brutal, privileged rapists, while presenting himself as the champion of the voiceless, a lone defender of justice.
Like Schiff, Nifong viewed the defendants in his case as merely a means to further his own fame and political career, going on a TV-talking-head-spree like an early precursor to Schiff. He exploited a tense political situation around racial division and campus sexual assault the same way Schiff is exploiting political polarization in America today.
And like Schiff, Nifong messed up. He got caught. Remember when Schiff had to ridiculously claim he didn’t know the identity of the whistleblower, despite his office advising him on how to come forward with his conspiracy theory about the president’s phone call with Zelensky? Nifong had to claim he didn’t have the DNA evidence to show the Duke kids were innocent, despite the fact that he had worked with the crime lab director to withhold it.
The difference is that, because he was a real prosecutor, Nifong paid for his actions when he was caught. Evidence that can exonerate defendants in a criminal case is called “Brady material.” Withholding it is a classic example of prosecutorial misconduct. Nifong was brought up on ethics charges, resigned from his office, and was forced to surrender his law license. For good measure, he then spent a day in jail for contempt of court. Schiff’s sentence for his Pinocchio behavior? More time on cable news.

From the start, this entire impeachment process has been political and illegitimate. Impeachment is always inherently political, but the denial of due process to the president is historic.

Schiff is not a prosecutor. He’s a politician, and ultimately the only price he’ll pay for his utter contempt of the Constitution and the public trust is the political hit that he will take when the president is speedily acquitted in the Senate.
From the start, this entire impeachment process has been political and illegitimate. Impeachment is always inherently political, but the denial of due process to the president is historic. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., miffed by Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s lackluster showmanship in the House Russiagate hearings, delegated the hastily conjured impeachment process to Schiff, who has made a mockery of the role of a prosecutor.
Schiff is the one who solicited evidence, colluded with “witnesses” who were anything but, suppressed evidence that would be Brady material in a court of law, lied to his own “grand jury” by falsely mimicking the president, and went on television to poison the “jury pool” of senators with his running commentary, lies and pressure tactics. He’s never been held accountable for his daily shredding of the Constitution he swore to uphold, and he probably never will be, given the far-left district he represents in Los Angeles County.
Courts and bar associations come down hard on lying, cheating, feckless prosecutors not only because they fail to uphold their duties to the defendant and to the courts, but also because they undermine public confidence in the system of justice itself. What Schiff is doing is a million times worse, because every American is watching this charade and seeing a lawyer with power misbehave and make a mockery of our ultimate law, the Constitution. His disgraceful performance will permanently mar our civic fabric and people’s confidence in fair trials, due process, equal protection of the laws.
Only the voters in Schiff’s district can hold him accountable – but his misconduct leaves a stain on Nancy Pelosi’s legacy as speaker of the house, and on the Democratic Party, whose leaders’ zeal to overturn the results of the 2020 election have blinded them to the maxim that a prosecutor’s first job is to do justice, not rack up indictments regardless of merit.

Senate impeachment trial set to begin as Trump adds last-minute reinforcements to defense team

After an opening salvo of back-and-forth arguments from President Trump's attorneys and Democrats' impeachment managers on Monday, Senate impeachment trial proceedings are set to begin at 1 p.m. ET on Tuesday with the expectation they will stretch well into a wild night on Capitol Hill -- even as key procedural questions, including the timeline for debate and whether additional witnesses will testify, remain undecided and hotly contentious.
In a surprise move Monday night, a detachment of high-profile House Republicans announced that they would formally join the president's legal team, including Reps. Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Lee Zeldin. The last-minute show of force underscored the fluid nature of the Senate trial, which is also set to feature full-throated arguments against impeachment from constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and Bill Clinton independent counsel Ken Starr.
“We are not planning for them to present statements on the Senate floor," a senior administration official told Fox News, referring to the latest additions to Trump's defense team, headed up by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump's personal attorney Jay Sekulow. "The group will continue to give critical guidance on the case because of their strong familiarity with the facts and evidence."
Jordan Sekulow told Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday night that his father and the rest of Trump's legal team were "champing at the bit and ready to go." He maintained that executive privilege, a longstanding constitutional principle protecting executive branch deliberations from disclosure, by itself defeated the "obstruction of Congress" article of impeachment, while Democrats had only hearsay evidence and speculation to support their "abuse of power" charge. Neither "obstruction of Congress" nor "abuse of power" are federal crimes, and they have no established definition.
Democrats have seethed openly ever since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., failed in her gambit to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's hand before the House would turn over the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi had sought a commitment allowing Democrats to call witnesses prior to arguments in the trial -- but, with just hours to go until the proceedings commenced, McConnell, R-Ky., dashed those hopes.
McConnell specifically revealed Monday that he wanted a condensed, two-day calendar for each side to give opening statements, at 12 hours per day. After the four days of opening arguments, senators would be allowed up to 16 hours for written questions to the prosecution and defense, followed by four hours of debate. Only then would there be votes on calling other witnesses, likely next week. At the end of deliberations, the Senate would then vote on each impeachment article.
Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said in a statement Monday night that McConnell's resolution, overall, "aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts." Romney was among a small number of Republican senators who said they wanted to consider witness testimony and documents that weren't part of the House impeachment investigation.
Democrats, however, were incensed by the speedy timeline. Some took to calling McConnell "Midnight Mitch," the latest in a string of unintentionally flattering nicknames. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called McConnell's rules package a "national disgrace," adding, "it’s clear Sen. McConnell is hell-bent on making it much more difficult to get witnesses and documents and intent on rushing the trial through."
Even before McConnell's announcement, congressional Democrats apparently were off-balance: "The House managers have absolutely no idea what the structure of the trial two days before the trial begins,” one source with House Democrats working on the impeachment trial complained to Fox News late Sunday.
“It is completely unfathomable,” fumed another source with the Democrats. “Is Sen. McConnell going to have 12-hour trial days which run until 2 or 3 in the morning?”
McConnell is expected to kick off the afternoon's proceedings by introducing his proposed resolution for the parameters for the trial, which he has said will pass with at least 53 votes. Senators will not be directly speaking out in the debate over McConnell's resolution, which is slated to last for approximately two hours -- only members of Trump's defense team, and the seven Democrats serving as House impeachment managers, are expected to participate.
Schumer likely will then present his counter-proposals to McConnell's motion, followed by another two hours of debate among the managers and Trump's counsel. Potential proposals include requests to subpoena specific witnesses -- including, perhaps, Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas or former National Security Adviser John Bolton -- or to adjust debate time.
Then, at approximately 6 p.m. ET or even later, Fox News is told to expect a closed Senate session of indeterminate length after the debates. When the Senate returns to open session, lawmakers -- including two leading Democratic presidential contenders, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- likely will vote in turn on any amendments to McConnell's proposal, then McConnell's proposal itself.
McConnell's proposal also was said to include a so-called "kill switch," allowing Trump's team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly.
In a sign of the prevailing give-no-ground mentality ahead of the trial, Trump's legal team traded blows with House prosecutors on Monday, asserting that the president did "absolutely nothing wrong" and urging the Senate to reject an impeachment case it called “flimsy" and a "dangerous perversion of the Constitution."
House Democrats impeached the president for "abuse of power" related to his administration's withholding of U.S. military aid to Ukraine while he suggested the country investigate rival Joe Biden's dealings in Ukraine. The aid was eventually released, and Ukrainian officials have denied feeling any undue pressure. The administration's refusal to comply with Democrats' probe, citing executive privilege, led to the "obstruction of Congress" count.

"It is a constitutional travesty."
— President Trump's legal team, on the impeachment proceedings

The 110-page filing from the White House condemned the "rigged" House impeachment process, calling the majority vote to impeach there a "brazenly political act ... that must be rejected."
The White House's legal argument hinged in part on Trump’s assertion he did nothing wrong and did not commit any recognized crime, as well as on poking holes in the hearsay witness testimony offered by Democrats.
For example, the White House pointed out that EU ambassador Gordon Sondland had said he "had come to believe" that aid to Ukraine was linked to an investigation of Biden, "before talking to the president." Additionally, Trump's lawyers pointed out that Sondland admitted having "no evidence" other than his "own presumption," and that he was "speculating" based on hearsay that the Trump administration ever linked a White House meeting with Ukraine's leaders to the beginning of an investigation.
"After focus-group testing various charges for weeks, House Democrats settled on two flimsy Articles of Impeachment that allege no crime or violation of law whatsoever—much less 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' as required by the Constitution," the lawyers wrote. “It is a constitutional travesty."
Additionally, the White House released Justice Department legal opinions meant to bolster its case that defying subpoenas from Congress did not amount to "obstruction of Congress."
One opinion, dated Sunday, said Trump administration officials were free to disregard subpoenas sent last fall before the House of Representatives had formally authorized an impeachment inquiry. That approval, the memo said, was necessary before congressional committees could begin their own investigations and issue subpoenas for documents and testimony.

A copy of a Senate draft resolution to be offered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., regarding the procedures during the impeachment trial of President Trump. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick)

Meanwhile, the prosecution team of House managers was spending another day on Capitol Hill preparing for the trial, which will take place under heavy security. The Democrats made their way through crowds of tourists in the Rotunda to tour the Senate chamber.
In their own filing Monday, House prosecutors replied to Trump's "not guilty" plea by making fresh demands for a fair trial in the Senate. "President Trump asserts that his impeachment is a partisan ‘hoax.' He is wrong," the prosecutors wrote in their reply.
They wrote that the president can't have it both ways -- rejecting the facts of the House case but also stonewalling congressional subpoenas for witnesses and testimony. "Senators must honor their own oaths by holding a fair trial with all relevant evidence," they wrote.
No president has ever been removed by the Senate. The current Senate, with a 53-47 Republican majority, is not expected to mount the two-thirds voted needed for conviction. Even if it did, the White House team has argued it would be an "unconstitutional conviction'' because the articles of impeachment were too broad.
Administration officials have argued that similar imprecision applied to the perjury case in Clinton's impeachment trial.
The White House has also suggested the House inquiry was lacking because it failed to investigate Biden or his son Hunter, who served on the board of a gas company in Ukraine in a lucrative role while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president. Should Democrats insist on calling witnesses like Parnas and Bolton, Republicans have openly suggested that they might then push for a subpoena the Bidens.
In a show of confidence, Trump tweeted a video late Monday touting his achievements in office, including the nation's historically low unemployment rate, booming stock market and rising wages, with the note: "THE BEST IS YET TO COME!"
Fox News' Caroline McKee, Chad Pergram, John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dems Backfiring Impeachment Cartoons

Tim Scott on Dems' impeachment focus: 'They're pretty concerned' because Americans 'now solidly behind' Trump

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said Sunday that Democrats have been focused on impeachment because “they’re pretty concerned” due to the fact that “they believe the American people are now solidly behind President Donald Trump.”
Scott appeared on “Fox & Friends Weekend” one day after House impeachment managers filed their brief to the Senate, claiming the evidence against Trump “overwhelmingly” established abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Scott added that “the most important statement made about this entire impeachment process was made by [Texas] Congressman Al Green when he said if we don’t impeach him, he might win.”
The South Carolina senator also pointed out, “[House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi held the impeachment documents for nearly a month, which means there is no existential threat. There is no national-security threat.”
Scott explained, “I believe the Democrat strategy is not to bring more illumination to the case, but to put a bull’s eye on the back of [Colorado Republican Sen.] Cory Gardner, [Iowa Republican Sen.] Joni Ernst, [Arizona Republican Sen.] Martha McSally, [North Carolina Republican Sen.] Thom Tillis. That is the strategy they’re using to try to win back the Senate,” Scott said, referring to Republican senators facing tough reelection campaigns.
“This is actually not about removing the president, this is about removing enough senators in the Republican Party in order to take control of the Senate and to rebuke the president for the next four years because they’re pretty concerned.”
In Saturday’s 111-page brief, the impeachment managers wrote, “President Trump’s conduct is the Framers’ worst nightmare.”
The brief was the Democrats’ opening salvo in the historic impeachment trial, with House managers arguing Trump used his official powers to pressure Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 U.S. presidential election for personal political gain, then tried to cover it up by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his alleged misconduct.
“The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that he is guilty. ... The Senate must use that [impeachment] remedy now to safeguard the 2020 U.S. election, … protect our constitutional form of government and eliminate the threat that the President poses to America's national security,” the brief stated.
Scott said Sunday that Democrats were reacting in such a way because their “greatest fears are coming true” due to Trump’s success.
“The fact is that this president has focused on bringing opportunities to the poorest communities in the nation,” Scott said. “This president has helped bring the minority unemployment rate to record lows for Asians, for African-Americans, for Hispanics.”
Scott noted the country’s 3.5-percent unemployment rate. “Our stock market is going through the ceiling. They are trembling in their boots, so the only thing they have focused on their minds today is not President Trump, it is removing senators from office so that they can have control of the United States Senate.”
He went on to say, “There’s no question that President Trump’s economic agenda has brought more prosperity into the African-American community than we’ve seen in my lifetime.”
“This president is producing the type of results that only say one thing to the African-American community,” Scott continued. “We believe that there is high-potential, incredible people who only needed opportunity and access to those opportunities. President Trump has brought so many of those to the community that I believe that we’re going to have a record turnout on behalf of the president [in November].”
Fox News’ Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Steve Hilton on royal drama: 'I'm sick of Harry. I'm sick of Meghan. I'm sick of this story'

Steve Hilton weighed in Sunday on the drama involving the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to "step back" as members of the royal family, reacting to Prince Harry on Sunday publicly addressing the situation.
"To be completely honest, I'm sick of Harry. I'm sick of Meghan. I'm sick of this story. I'm sick of the royals," Hilton said on his show "The Next Revolution." "As far as I'm concerned, when the Queen, who we all love very much, is finished with her reign then Britain should go and stop being a banana republic as it is when we have the royal family and become a real republic."
"Abolish the monarchy," Hilton added. "That is my populist take."
In a speech given at a dinner for supporters of the Sentebale charity in London Sunday, the Prince addressed why he and his wife, Meghan Markle, choose to relinquish their "royal highness" titles and move part-time to Canada.
"The decision that I have made for my wife and I to step back is not one I made lightly," the Prince said. "It was so many months of talks after so many years of challenges. And I know I haven't always gotten it right, but as far as this goes, there really was no other option. What I want to make clear is, we're not walking away, and we certainly aren't walking away from you."
Former deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, a guest on the program, said that Prince Harry may regret his decision to "break with his family" when he is older.
"I think Prince Harry as a young man and his may end up regretting and have a number of years to regret, regret breaking with his family, particularly with his grandmother, and that sometimes things done in haste and youth are not the things that keep you happy in old age," McFarland said.
Jenna Ellis, a Trump 2020 senior legal advisor,  praised the Prince for his decision.
"He may have been born into this, but he's making, now as a husband and a father, the best decisions for his family," Ellis said.
Hilton said Prince Harry should step out of the limelight.
"Please just sort of go away and figure it out and just stop with this endless obsession with the royals," Hilton said.
Fox News' Nate Day contributed to this report

New York Times editorial board endorses Warren, Klobuchar for president

The New York Times announced late Sunday that its editorial board was breaking "from convention" and will endorse two candidates for president in 2020: Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The paper’s endorsement has traditionally been one of the most coveted for a Democratic politician. The editorial board wrote that in choosing these two candidates, it recognizes that both "radical" and "realist" models should be considered.
The paper said it spent more than 12 hours with the candidates before coming to its conclusion.
"The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country," the editorial read. "But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values."
The paper called Warren a "gifted storyteller" who has "emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left." The editorial board called her path to the White House "challenging, but not hard to envision."
Warren reposted the article on Twitter, joking, "So I guess @AmyKlobuchar and I are now both undefeated in New York Times endorsements!"
Klobuchar was described as the "standard-bearer," but for the party’s center. The paper gushed that she is the very definition of "Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness."
The paper pointed to her goals of slashing childhood poverty, achieve 100 percent net-zero emissions by 2050 and her push for a more robust public option in healthcare. He moderate approach to governing would make for a formidable deal maker in Washington, the editorial wrote.
Reports on how she treats her staff “gave us pause,” but she pledged to do better in the future, the paper wrote.
Perhaps as important as who the paper endorsed is who it did not.
Joe Biden, the former vice president who continues to lead in polls, but his agenda does not go far enough on issues like climate and health care, the board wrote. The editorial board also wrote that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., appeared to have missed his moment. The paper pointed out that he would be 79 when he's sworn in and has recently suffered a heart attack. "His health is a serious concern," it wrote.
The paper said it is looking forward to watching South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg develop as a politician and said it was impressed with his resume, but it also pointed out that he never won more than 11,000 votes. The paper said it hopes Andrew Yang, the entrepreneur, also continues to work in politics and recommended looking to New York to get started.
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor who the editorial board endorsed twice, falls short of the editorial board’s aspirations for 2020. The editorial pointed to issues like barring his own media company from investigating him and his refusal to let women who signed nondisclosure settlements speak to the media. The paper said his campaign approach “reveals more about America’s broken system than his likelihood of fixing it.”