Search This Blog

Sunday, June 9, 2024

It Leaked From A US-Backed Lab

 by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

For The New York Times, which started this whole fiasco dating from Feb. 27, 2020, with a podcast designed to drum up disease panic, it’s been a drip, drip, drip of truthiness ever since.

A fortnight ago, the paper finally decided to report on vaccine injury from shots that vast majorities never needed and that stop neither infection nor transmission. And now, as of June 3, we have as decisive an article as one can imagine that shows that “a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.”

“Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them,” the article reads.

“Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics.”

The author is scientist Alina Chan of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. For purposes of documentation, let’s go through the points she makes.

1. The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, Hubei Province, the Chinese city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.

2. The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan Institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.

3. The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS‑CoV‑2.

4. The hypothesis that COVID-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.

5. Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.

Keep in mind that people saying exactly this from the very outset of the crisis were censored by social media at the behest of government agencies. Media personalities ridiculed this view. It was called a wild conspiracy theory, unworthy of any respectable and responsible person. This went on for three years, with brutal results. People lost large channels and social media followers and accounts. This ruined whole livelihoods.

Now, here we are four years later, and we have the paper of record willing to admit that it was true all along.

Yes, it is infuriating.

Why does this matter? Because it is the turning point in the history of modern civilization. All the top public health officials had suspicions of this from the very outset. We know this from their own writings.

Instead of opening a clear and open investigation, they pursued a different path: Deny the leak, roll out the supposed antidote (vaccine), use experimental technology, and lock down the world’s population to stop the spread so that the vaccine would get the credit for ending the pandemic.

That’s the summary of what happened, based on my four years of research into this. In other words, to deflect blame, these people hatched an audacious plot to wreck rights and liberties the world over, in a futile attempt to prohibit natural exposure from ending the pathogenic wave (as always happened before). Instead, they would use the crisis to shove through approval of a technology that had never before received regulatory approval.

This explains the disparagement of natural immunity, the absence of seroprevalence tests, the removal of repurposed generics from the market that could have helped people, the rise of censorship of any dissident scientists, and the complete absence of any serious research into early spread in the last quarter of 2019. It’s quite simply an astonishing plot of immense importance to the whole of the world, all stemming from an attempt to cover up a lab leak.

That’s why the topic is important. This is not just a technical point. It is the first chapter of a wild and seemingly fictional novel of apocalyptic implications. The House subcommittee now investigating the public health response is barely scratching the surface in public, but behind the scenes, there is plenty of knowledge among investigators that there is much more going on.

Here’s the key point. The national media does not want this discussed. The agencies don’t want this investigated. The tech companies that censored people all along do not want this considered. The Democrats certainly don’t want this subject pursued. Many Republicans don’t want to examine this in any detail.

There is only one force at work that is pushing any of this forward, and that is public opinion, which, in turn, is fed by the handful of writers, researchers, scientists, moms, and many other grassroots people who correctly refuse to let this go.

This is the only reason these hearings are happening. It is the only path to getting the truth.

Of this, I’m thoroughly convinced. If we think the American people have already lost trust in public health and government, we haven’t seen anything yet. Once the whole story is out in the open, and we are headed in this direction, we’ll see a collapse without precedent.

The timeline is going far too slowly. There is no excuse for why we are only getting clarity on the basics fully four years later. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no basis for approving any more funding for these agencies or biodefense research and no basis for approving any new treaties or agreements from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Let’s not forget that it was the WHO that pushed hard for the world to copy the Chinese Communist Party in its crazy virus-control methods of violating human rights on a scale that should never have been tolerated in the West. And yet based on that advice, the United States, the UK, the European Union, and nearly every nation in the world adopted these policies, in contradiction to all laws and human rights.

Out of nowhere, our Constitution and Bill of Rights were overridden by bureaucracies about which most Americans knew absolutely nothing.

It boggles the mind that this happened, and we are still paying an egregious price in terms of inflation, learning loss, excess death, collapse of public health, expansion of government, pervasive censorship, and much more.

It felt like martial law at the time, and it is not clear that this ever went away. We absolutely must know the truth. More than that, we need to repudiate every bit of the COVID-19 response, including the mandates to get a vaccine that was, in fact, never proven to be safe or effective.

So yes, it matters that this virus likely leaked from a U.S.-funded lab. That was the beginning of the story. There is much more to it.

Buffett Controls 3% Of Treasury Bill Market, More Than "International Organizations, Stablecoin Issuers ..."

 Berkshire Hathaway has struggled to find sizable deals in recent quarters, leaving Warren Buffett sitting on a mountain of cash and cash equivalents. According to JPMorgan analysts, Buffett now wields control over a staggering 3% of the entire US Treasury Bill market.

At Berkshire's annual meeting in May, Buffett told the audience, "It's a fair assumption" that its cash pile would exceed $200 billion at the end of this quarter amid the dearth of big-ticket deals due to very few opportunities. 

Buffet's growing cash and or cash equivalents stockpiles intrigued fixed-income analysts at JPM, including a team led by Teresa Ho, who wrote in a recent note to clients that Berkshire Hathaway keeps excess cash primarily invested in T-bills. 

"Over the years, their T-bill position has grown so large that, as of March-end, it owned $158bn in T-bills, comprising 3% of the market," Ho said. 

She continued, "Berkshire Hathaway currently holds more T-bills than international organizations, stablecoin issuers, offshore MMFs, or LGIPs." 

Berkshire Hathaway's current cash position is about 17.5%, which is in line with its long-term average when measured against the firm's total assets. Since 1997, the firm has kept cash on its balance sheet at an average of 13%. 

Current figures from Bloomberg show Berkshire's cash and cash equivalents total $188 billion. 

"We'd love to spend it, but we won't spend unless we think there's really something that has very little risk and can make us a lot of money," Buffett said at last month's annual meeting. 

Buffett and his companies are cautious about finding deals as the high-for-longer interest rate environment unfolds, especially after Friday's screaming hot payrolls data forced Citi to shift its first rate cut forecast from July to September. 

Fed swaps are only pricing in 1.58 cuts through the end of the year. 

The absence of deals will only mean Berkshire's giant cash and cash equivalents pile will continue growing until valuations become more attractive. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/warren-buffett-controls-3-treasury-bill-market-more-international-organizations-stablecoin

Bird Flu Triggers Supply Chain Snarls In Dairy Industry As "Farmers Increasingly Culled Cows"

 The latest US Department of Agriculture data shows bird flu has infected at least 80 dairy herds across ten states. There are growing concerns about rising cow mortalities from the virus and the risk of farmers culling cows to stop the spread. This could ignite economic stress across the farm belt and unleash a supply shock. 

Reuters spoke with a USDA spokesperson who was aware of H5N1 virus-related deaths among cow herds but said that most cows recovered. No official figures have been provided on the number of cow mortalities in South Dakota, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, and Colorado. 

Here's more on the cow deaths: 

In South Dakota, a 1,700-cow dairy sent a dozen of the animals to slaughter after they did not recover from the virus, and killed another dozen that contracted secondary infections, said Russ Daly, a professor with South Dakota State University and veterinarian for the state extension office who spoke with the farm.

"You get sick cows from one disease, then that creates a domino effect for other things, like routine pneumonia and digestive issues," Daly said.

A farm in Michigan killed about 10% of its 200 infected cows after they too failed to recover from the virus, said Phil Durst, an educator with Michigan State University Extension who spoke with that farm.

Michigan has more confirmed infections in cattle than any state as well as two of three confirmed cases of US dairy workers who contracted bird flu.

In Colorado, some dairies reported culling cows with avian flu because they did not return to milk production, said Olga Robak, spokesperson for the state Department of Agriculture.

Ohio Department of Agriculture spokesperson Meghan Harshbarger said infected cows have died in Ohio and other affected states, mostly due to secondary infections.

The Texas Animal Health Commission also confirmed that cows have died from secondary infections at some dairy operations with avian flu outbreaks.

Officials could not provide figures for the number of statewide cow mortalities.

New Mexico's state veterinarian, Samantha Uhrig, said farmers increasingly culled cows due to decreased milk production early in the outbreak, before the US even confirmed bird flu was infecting cattle. Culling decreased as farmers learned that most cows gradually recovered, she said. -Reuters 

Last month, the USDA informed farmers lactating dairy cattle are not eligible for interstate transportation, which has snarled the dairy supply chain. 

Southern dairy farms that raise baby calves from more northern states until they're ready to be returned and milked have been impacted the most by delays in shipping when a herd tests positive for the virus, according to Joe Armstrong, a professor of cattle production at the University of Minnesota.

"Some of these systems are built to constantly move animals, and if you can't move them, you run out of space really fast," Armstrong said. "This is big money." -Bloomberg

Shipping delays could intensify following the USDA's announcement of expanded testing for dairy cows, which is likely to reveal more infections.

"What's clear is this disease has really slowed down the interstate movement of cattle," Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM) told Bloomberg's Skye Witley

Traders are watching rising milk futures in Chicago, up more 27% since early April.

Here's a larger timeframe for milk futures. 

The dairy industry could be in the beginning stages of a mess as farmers cull cows and supply chains become snarled due to bird flu.

One major concern is whether the virus jumps from dairy to beef cows. If that's the case, then culling beef cows to stop the spread could catapult retail prices even higher because the nation's total herd population has collapsed to 1951 levels.

Can you guess which billionaire has been advocating to ban cow farts?

He also has fake meat to sell.

Meanwhile...

As we noted days ago, if the government starts claiming that culling the nation's dairy and beef cows is the only way to combat bird flu, it will raise alarm bells that there might be an underlying agenda at play. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/bird-flu-triggers-supply-chain-snarls-dairy-industry-farmers-increasingly-culled-cows

Wall Street Moves to Texas

 New York politicians, watch out. A new stock exchange based in Texas could soon challenge Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange—and the Empire State’s status as America’s financial capital.

The TXSE Group on Wednesday announced it has raised $120 million for a new electronic trading platform dubbed the Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). Its investors, including BlackRock and Citadel Securities, “represent a significant portion of the equity volume on U.S. lit exchanges and together comprise a majority of all U.S. listed retail volume,” the group said. (A lit exchange is an open and public one, in contrast to a so-called dark pool of capital.)

That’s a strong vote of confidence in the Texas exchange—and of frustration with the New York duopoly. TXSE CEO James Lee explained that the new exchange’s goal is to “create more competition around quote activity, liquidity and transparency.”

For years public companies and brokers have complained about high fees at Nasdaq and the NYSE, but they’ve paid up for access to America’s deep capital markets. Even so, the duopoly’s fees have helped drive some 40% of trading volume off the two exchanges, resulting in less liquidity and worse pricing on the exchanges.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler’s solution? Force brokers like Robinhood to funnel small retail orders into public auctions operated by the exchanges, where market-makers like Citadel would compete for the best price with institutional investors. His proposed regulation, like other SEC rules, would strengthen the duopoly.

TXSE investors have a better solution: Reduce fees and create other incentives that make exchange-based trading more attractive, improving liquidity and prices for all investors. The Texas Stock Exchange also seeks to offer public companies and exchange-traded product sponsors more “predictability around listing standards and associated costs.”

Ah, listing standards. Nasdaq has mandated boardroom diversity quotas for companies that list shares on its exchange. Starting this year, they must have a woman, “underrepresented minority” or “LGBTQ+” member—or publicly explain why they don’t. Boards of bigger companies must include at least two “diverse” directors by the end of next year.

Nasdaq’s goal is to shame companies into adopting the political left’s values. The duopoly enjoy nearly carte blanche authority to regulate corporate governance of listing companies, subject to the approval of the SEC. Nasdaq’s diversity diktat has raised concerns about what next could be required. Net-zero climate commitments?

The Texas exchange is also a form of political arbitrage. New York Democrats have long taken Wall Street for granted, imposing punishing taxes and regulation. Progressives in Albany recently threatened to revive a long-dormant stock transfer tax to pay for their migrant and mass transit messes. Go ahead, make the Texas exchange’s day.

New York, the home of Alexander Hamilton and J.P. Morgan, has been losing ground to Sun Belt states for some time. New York’s finance jobs have grown 1.6% since the start of the pandemic compared to 12.2% in Florida and 12.4% in Texas. Goldman SachsWells Fargo and Bank of America have expanded in Dallas.

TXSE says Texas and the southeast “lead the nation in economic expansion and population growth,” adding that the Lone Star State is “home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state and more than 5,200 private equity-sponsored companies, many of which are preparing to access the public markets.”

These and the more than 1,500 publicly traded companies in the Southeast might prefer listing shares closer to home. Workers on Wall Street might also prefer relocating to a state with lower taxes, an affordable cost of living, and safer, cleaner streets. The top state-and-city income tax rate in New York is 14.8%. Texas has no income tax.

Because Wall Street accounts for a large share of New York tax revenue, the Texas Stock Exchange could pose as much a threat to the state’s tax-and-spend politicians as to the NYSE and Nasdaq. There’s no guarantee the Texas exchange will succeed, but it’s notable that markets are seeking to correct a lack of competition. Mr. Gensler, take note.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-stock-exchange-txse-new-york-blackrock-citadel-securities-james-lee-bb72c36c

Can democracy survive the ‘defenders of democracy’?

 In 2024, the greatest test for our Constitution may be whether it can survive the “Defenders of Democracy.”

Ronald Reagan often said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Today, Reagan’s line cannot compare with the line that sends many of us into a fetal position: “I’m a Democrat and I am here to save democracy.” 

The jump scare claim is that unless citizens vote for us, the end of democracy will begin shortly. In 2022, House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told “Fox News Sunday” that “democracy will be ending” if Democrats lost the midterms.

The rhetoric has continued to ramp up with the upcoming election.

From President Joe Biden to a host of progressive politicians and pundits, the 2024 election is all about saving democracy. The public has been told that if the Democrats lose power, citizens will be living in a tyrannical hellscape. Vice President Kamala Harris stated in one interview that 2024 “genuinely could be” the last democratic election in America’s history. Dozens of Democrats have said that democracy will end if Biden is not reelected.

The Washington Post even ran an op-ed titled, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”

Many Americans have tuned out the overheated rhetoric, as shown by Donald Trump’s continuing lead in many polls even after his conviction in Manhattan. The warnings also ignore that our system has checks and balances that protected democracy for centuries as the world’s oldest and most successful constitutional system. These dire predictions would require all three branches to fail in an unprecedented fashion.

While these figures cite the Capitol riot on Jan 6., 2021 as evidence of the pending collapse of democracy, the system worked as designed on that day. Congress refused to be deterred by the riot and virtually every court (including many presided over by Trump-appointed judges) rejected challenges to the election.

The most obvious threats today to the democratic system are coming from the left, not the right. 

Democratic secretaries of state sought to block Trump from the ballot in 2024, and Democratic members sought to bar roughly 120 colleagues from their respective ballots. It seemed that the greatest threat to democracy was its exercise by voters. Fortunately, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the theory and added, “Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos.” 

There has also been a push by Democrats to keep third-party candidates off ballots. Again, the last thing democracy needs is for voters to have more democratic choice.

In New York, Democratic congressional candidate Paula Collins even suggested that, after the election, the focus must be on “re-education” of MAGA voters, although she acknowledged that “that sounds like a rather, a re-education camp. I don’t think we really want to call it that. I’m sure we can find another way to phrase it.” 

Democratic operatives are using the same rationalization to call for biased reporting to help Biden get reelected. 

Democratic strategist James Carville this week demanded more “slanted” media coverage against Donald Trump to save democracy. Carville was triggered by New York Times editor Joe Kahn suggesting that the newspaper report the news in a fair and neutral manner. The suggestion sent many pundits into vapors at the very thought of reembracing objectivity in journalism.

“I don’t have anything against slanted coverage,” Carville insisted. “I really don’t, I would have something against it at most other times in American history, but not right now. F— your objectivity. The real objectivity in this country right now is we’re either going to have a Constitution or we’re not.” 

It was particularly galling to hear the call for “slanted coverage” in the same week that the Hunter Biden laptop was authenticated and used as evidence in his Delaware trial. The government has called the widely reported claim that the laptop was “Russian disinformation” a debunked “conspiracy theory.” Carville was making his pitch for more biased reporting to the very media that buried the laptop story before the last election and spent two years in denial of its authenticity. 

Yet, many journalists agree with Carville. Some journalism schools have been teaching that reporters need to dump concepts of objectivity and neutrality to achieve political and social reforms.

This week, reporters were irate after Washington Post publisher and CEO William Lewis issued a blunt message that the newspaper could not survive after losing half of its readership and tens of millions of dollars last year. He told the staff: “People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

The fear that these newspapers might cover Biden and Trump in a fair and balanced way was immediately denounced as . . . wait for it . . . a threat to democracy. After Carville’s meltdown, the Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan warned Kahn and others that “our very democracy is on the brink, and how the Times covers that existential threat is of extraordinary importance.” She then asked whether the paper will “forthrightly identify the problems posed by a radicalized Republican Party that is increasingly dedicated to lies, bad-faith attacks and the destruction of democratic norms.”

Sullivan expressed alarm that the media would “try to cut the situation straight down the middle as if we were still in the old days — an era that no longer exists?”

The “era” appears to be the golden age of journalism when most Americans respected and patronized the same media outlets. Now, citizens are fleeing mainstream media, and polls indicate that they view reporters as pursuing the very political agendas embraced by figures like Carville and Sullivan.

Many voters are also responding to what they see as the politicalization of the criminal justice system, particularly with Trump’s recent trial in Manhattan. Again, these cases are being embraced as key to “defending democracy” when many citizens view them as the very antithesis of a nation committed to the rule of law. 

This glaring disconnect was evident when President Joe Biden spoke on the top of the Point-du-Hoc in Normandy on the 80th anniversary of D-Day. Biden again used the event to suggest that democracy was in danger in the United States with the upcoming election. Yet, Biden has overseen widespread government censorship with federal agencies targeting those with opposing views on everything from elections and climate change to COVID-19 and transgender policies.

As Democratic secretaries of state sought to bar Trump from ballots, Biden refused to oppose the efforts. When liberal law professors and members demanded to pack the Supreme Court to guarantee a liberal majority, Biden refused to denounce it during the last campaign.

This is why some in the country may view Biden and the Democrats as existential threats not just to democracy, but to themselves. They see a party that is engaged in efforts to cleanse ballots (of Republicans), censor dissenting voices and prosecute political opponents. That is not exactly what propelled those men to climb the cliff of Pointe-du-Hoc in 1944.

Fortunately, our democracy does not depend on any president. It was designed by James Madison to withstand the worst, not the best, motivations of our leaders. After all, Madison wrote in Federalist #51, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

The system that he designed has withstood political, economic and social crises, including a civil war. It may even protect us from today’s “defenders of democracy.”

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4711193-can-democracy-survive-the-defenders-of-democracy/

Biden channeling Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy?

 It has been a disappointing spring for the president. Historically low job approval numbers, especially for his handling of the economy. Inflation, driven by food and gas prices, remains above 3 percent. Antisemitic protests disrupting campuses and two wars still raging with no end in sight. And his nemesis, Donald Trump, continues to score significantly better on issues with voters nationally and in the key target states that will likely determine the election.

For a sitting president seeking reelection, his current status with the voters has reached red alert status, and Joe Biden’s team knows it. They’ve admitted something needs to change. Some have argued for a more active campaign trail for Biden to counter the age narrative. This explains what seemed like a spur-of-the-moment decision to agree to two debates, one of them before either candidate has been officially nominated. 

Democrats generally seem to agree that Biden must go harder at Trump, drive up his negatives and once again be the “good guy” alternative. It worked in 2020, but it won’t work now. 

The Biden 2020 campaign strategy was simple: portray himself as a seasoned centrist who would bring the country together and return the White House to normalcy. After three-and-a-half years governing with liberal policies to appease his base, that direction for Biden is no longer an option. Independents, who won him the election, now overwhelmingly have an unfavorable view of both the job he is doing and him personally. The majority coalition that elected him is gone, as those critical voters no longer view another four years of Biden as a positive.

So another strategy has emerged, almost by default given Biden’s limited options. It is one that seems oddly familiar, as it mirrors Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 campaign strategy. 

In 2016, the economy was the top issue, just as today, with the exit polls showing 36 percent of voters saying it was excellent/good and 62 percent saying not so good/poor. But instead of an economic strategy, Clinton’s campaign focused on driving negative stories on Trump’s personal life rather than policy differences, with one goal in mind: to drive up his negatives. They succeeded. Trump ended the campaign with a 60 percent unfavorable. 

But the harsh tone of her campaign also pushed up her negatives, to a 55 percent unfavorable in the exit polls and an election night loss. Clinton had gone after Trump supporters, calling them “deplorables” in front of a laughing New York City audience. That speech, in my view, was critical in tipping the scales to Trump, so it’s mystifying to me that Biden has adopted a similar messaging strategy, referring to Trump supporters derogatorily as MAGA extremists. 

Adopting a belittling tone, Biden has pointedly derided half the country for supporting Trump after promising voters unity. As a result, his unfavorables now match Clinton’s and Trump’s.

For many Democrats, last week’s jury decision to convict Trump on 34 felony counts was a moment to celebrate. For the Biden campaign, they now believe they have the words to defeat him: “convicted felon.” 

Like Clinton and her deplorables, Biden now has his own line to push his “save democracy” mantra while bashing his opponent. But will it work any better than Clinton’s personal attacks? 

The problem facing Biden is that there are few topics he can actually talk about other than Trump. The biggest one is the economy. He continues to tell voters that the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, but almost 60 percent of voters disapprove of how he is handling the economy. 

On the issue of inflation, the Real Clear Politics disapproval average for Biden is 63 percent — but it’s not just the economy. His RCP disapproval average on immigration is also at 63 percent. For foreign policy, it’s at 60 percent, and crime is at 55 percent. Overall, disapproval of the job he is doing as president is at 56 percent. 

Democrats want Biden to increase the attacks on Trump, and certainly they believe the phrase “convicted felon” is just what Biden’s lackluster campaign needs. It allows them to move away from talking about the economy, and they quietly hope Republicans follow them in making the race about the Trump trials, not Biden’s policies. 

This is not an unfounded belief. Republicans are truly outraged by what they see as nothing more than a Democratic Party political show trial and believe that Judge Juan Merchan crafted the instructions to the jury to overwhelmingly benefit the prosecution. 

Trying to judge the long-term implications of the New York trial is difficult, given that the public is clearly working through their reaction to it. CBS News was in the field right after the verdict came in (May 30–June 1), and the results show some conflicting views. For example, the survey found that the country believed Trump got a fair trial by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent. However, when voters were asked whether the trial had made them more or less confident in the U.S. judicial system, 27 percent said more confident, 40 percent less confident and 33 percent said it had no impact. 

Independents in the poll broke 54 percent-46 percent saying the trial was fair, but only 19 percent also said the trial made them more confident in the judicial system. 

Thus, Republicans need to be careful. While fundraising and Republican unity have significantly improved since the trial, it’s important to remember that in the 2022 election, Republicans had the best advantage in party identification in the history of exit polling. Yet it did not produce a red wave for one reason: The GOP lost independents. 

Trial or no trial, Biden is in trouble. Channeling Hillary Clinton’s campaign strategy isn’t going to fix his problem.

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.

https://rollcall.com/2024/06/05/biden-channeling-hillary-clinton-campaign-strategy/