hotair--2020-01-23--Jonathan Turley: Jerry Nadler made a "major blunder" by accusing Senate Republicans of engaging in a

Jonathan Turley: Jerry Nadler made a "major blunder" by accusing Senate Republicans of engaging in a cover-up

Meh .
Nadler ’ s a tool and ineffective in his role ( which is why Schiff is guiding the Democratic case , not him ) but I can ’ t take this argument seriously given the circumstances of the trial .
Turley ’ s right to note that Lisa Murkowski , a rare persuadable Republican , was annoyed at Nadler after his accusation on Tuesday night .
This morning we found out that another ( theoretically ) persuadable Republican , Susan Collins , was so irritated that she sent John Roberts a note demanding an intervention .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had jotted down a note that eventually made its way to Roberts via Secretary for the Majority Laura Dove .
Collins said she believed the back and forth between House Judiciary Chairman Nadler ( D-N.Y. ) and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone violated Senate rules and felt compelled to point that out , even though senators are required to stay at their desks and not speak during the trial .
“ It reminded me that if we were in a normal debate in the Senate , that the rule would be invoked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for impugning another senator .
So I did write a note raising the issue of whether there ’ d been a violation of the rules , ” Collins said .
“ I gave that note to Laura Dove and shortly thereafter the chief justice did admonish both sides .
And I was glad that he did.
” You don ’ t insult the jury in a case you ’ re trying , an astonished Turley says in the clip below .
Right , but what if the jury already reached its verdict before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ jury ” in this case isn ’ t even the real jury ?
Schiff and Nadler know they need 20 Republican votes to remove Trump and that they ’ re getting two Republican votes at best , and probably not even that many .
And neither of those two will be Susan Collins , who needs Republican support to win reelection in Maine next fall .
The real jury is the electorate that will either give Trump another four years as president or oust him this fall .
Nadler saw an early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jury that refusing to call John Bolton would be tantamount to a cover-up , a claim which literally every Democrat in the country will be making if in fact the Collins crew declines to subpoena Bolton .
He just chose to do it on the Senate floor itself , with a national audience watching .
( Well , sleeping at the time but watching the clip of his remarks later . )
What ’ s that we keep saying about the trial ?
“ Impeachment is a political process ” ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The counterargument is that , although Trump is sure to be acquitted , there ’ s still a real chance that Collins and Murkowski will vote with Schumer to call Bolton and other witnesses and so House Dems would be smart not to piss them off .
Again : Meh .
No one knows if Bolton would be a good witness for Democrats on balance or a bad one .
He ’ ll doubtless have some criticism of the Ukraine matter , but various Democratic witnesses were critical of it during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budged .
( If anything , they started tilting a bit towards Trump . )
There ’ s no reason to believe Bolton has a game-changing secret he ’ s prepared to reveal .
In which case , what ’ s the better outcome for Dems ?
That he testifies , says some mildly disapproving things but doesn ’ t incriminate Trump , and Republicans like Collins and Murkowski get credit for courageously voting to call him ?
Or Collins and Murkowski don ’ t vote to call him and then Democrats get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and breathlessly insisting that Bolton would have exposed the whole plot ?
Politically they ’ re better off if he isn ’ t called , which I suspect is part of the reason they ’ re so unwilling to make a Bolton-for-Hunter-Biden trade .
So what harm did Nadler actually do to his side by pissing off the GOP and making the calling of witnesses less likely ?
If I were Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow , I ’ d go whole hog during my defense argument in ripping on Democrats .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decorum ” or whatever , it ’ s nonetheless useful grandstanding for the jurors watching at home .
Impeachment is a political process .

Meh. Nadler’s a tool and ineffective in his role (which is why Schiff is guiding the Democratic case, not him) but I can’t take this argument seriously given the circumstances of the trial.
Turley’s right to note that Lisa Murkowski, a rare persuadable Republican, was annoyed at Nadler after his accusation on Tuesday night. This morning we found out that another (theoretically) persuadable Republican, Susan Collins, was so irritated that she sent John Roberts a note demanding an intervention.
In an interview on Thursday, Collins confirmed that she had jotted down a note that eventually made its way to Roberts via Secretary for the Majority Laura Dove. Collins said she believed the back and forth between House Judiciary Chairman Nadler (D-N.Y.) and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone violated Senate rules and felt compelled to point that out, even though senators are required to stay at their desks and not speak during the trial. “It reminded me that if we were in a normal debate in the Senate, that the rule would be invoked to strike the words of the senator for impugning another senator. So I did write a note raising the issue of whether there’d been a violation of the rules,” Collins said. “I gave that note to Laura Dove and shortly thereafter the chief justice did admonish both sides. And I was glad that he did.”
You don’t insult the jury in a case you’re trying, an astonished Turley says in the clip below. Right, but what if the jury already reached its verdict before the trial started?
What if the “jury” in this case isn’t even the real jury? Schiff and Nadler know they need 20 Republican votes to remove Trump and that they’re getting two Republican votes at best, and probably not even that many. And neither of those two will be Susan Collins, who needs Republican support to win reelection in Maine next fall. The real jury is the electorate that will either give Trump another four years as president or oust him this fall. Nadler saw an early opportunity to make the point to that jury that refusing to call John Bolton would be tantamount to a cover-up, a claim which literally every Democrat in the country will be making if in fact the Collins crew declines to subpoena Bolton. He just chose to do it on the Senate floor itself, with a national audience watching. (Well, sleeping at the time but watching the clip of his remarks later.)
What’s that we keep saying about the trial? “Impeachment is a political process”? Well, that’s how Nadler treated it.
The counterargument is that, although Trump is sure to be acquitted, there’s still a real chance that Collins and Murkowski will vote with Schumer to call Bolton and other witnesses and so House Dems would be smart not to piss them off. Again: Meh. No one knows if Bolton would be a good witness for Democrats on balance or a bad one. He’ll doubtless have some criticism of the Ukraine matter, but various Democratic witnesses were critical of it during the House process and the impeachment polls barely budged. (If anything, they started tilting a bit towards Trump.) There’s no reason to believe Bolton has a game-changing secret he’s prepared to reveal. In which case, what’s the better outcome for Dems? That he testifies, says some mildly disapproving things but doesn’t incriminate Trump, and Republicans like Collins and Murkowski get credit for courageously voting to call him? Or Collins and Murkowski don’t vote to call him and then Democrats get to run around screaming “COVER-UP” and breathlessly insisting that Bolton would have exposed the whole plot?
Politically they’re better off if he isn’t called, which I suspect is part of the reason they’re so unwilling to make a Bolton-for-Hunter-Biden trade. So what harm did Nadler actually do to his side by pissing off the GOP and making the calling of witnesses less likely?
If I were Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, I’d go whole hog during my defense argument in ripping on Democrats. If that’s bad for “Senate decorum” or whatever, it’s nonetheless useful grandstanding for the jurors watching at home. Impeachment is a political process.


hotair--2020-01-23--Mnuchin slams Thunberg in Davos- Study economics, then lecture us

Who had Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in the pool ?
Mnuchin wins as the first adult in the room bold enough to call out Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg for her climate alarmism gone wild .
In Davos , where Miss Thunberg is being celebrated by adults from across the world as a wise environmental expert , Mnuchin delivered some wisdom of his own – go take an economics class young lady , then get back to us .
Yesterday John wrote about the latest absurdity coming from Greta as she addressed attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that investments in fossil fuel companies end immediately .
The money side of the battles with Big Oil and their partners was addressed many times in the Fire Drill Fridays protests led by Jane Fonda in Washington , D.C .
Radical environmentalists want big banks and investment firms to stop funding the energy sector .
It really is that simple in their minds .
It is a dangerously naive mantra .
During a press briefing with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in Davos , he had the nerve to state what is obvious to most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to complete her education before she appoints herself as a world policymaker .
The rest of the adults are busy allowing a once-respected economic forum to turn into a social justice warrior ’ s dream event .
Climate alarmism is a key topic in panel discussions and speeches .
It ’ s a joke .
“ Greta Thunberg has called for a public and private sector divestment from fossil fuel companies .
Does that pose a threat to US economic growth ?
” a reporter asked Mnuchin .
“ Is she the chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m confused , ” the secretary replied .
“ It ’ s a joke .
After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us.
” Yes , I know that President Trump has tweeted about Greta Thunberg but he tweets about everyone .
It ’ s different coming from a member of his cabinet who isn ’ t known for such engagement .
Mnuchin was able to be good-natured and at first , joke about not knowing who she is and then went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is in sharp contrast to world leaders , and leaders-in-waiting , like Prince Charles , who pay special attention to Thunberg and make photo ops out of greetings .
Prince Charles met her after delivering his own speech on climate alarmism .
He , too , has fallen prey to the propaganda of those who would like us to believe that our planet will be over in 10 to 12 years .
Thunberg responded to Mnuchin on Twitter .
She explained that she is taking her gap year from school .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thunberg , Mnuchin was interviewed on CNBC ’ s Squawk Box .
He was asked about his comments .
This gave Mnuchin the opportunity to assure the television audience that Trump and his administration are not anti-environmental extremists .
What is missing from the radical left ’ s agenda on the environment is common sense solutions that will not destroy the economies of the United States and other countries around .
Thunberg should concentrate efforts on lecturing China and India , for example , who have not done much to halt carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States has exceeded expectations .
Mnuchin said that President Trump wants clean air and water just like everyone else .
Trump has pledged that the U.S. will join the initiative to plant a trillion trees .
And Mnuchin was able to slap down a question on if the administration should support a carbon tax .
His answer is no , the administration does not support a carbon tax .
The administration is all about cutting taxes , not finding new ones .
It ’ s good to hear the pushback from a cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mnuchin was able to calmly deliver some rational thoughts on climate change and the Trump administration ’ s policies while educating on the economic disaster of initiatives pushed by the Greta Thunbergs of the world .
More of that , please .

Who had Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in the pool? Mnuchin wins as the first adult in the room bold enough to call out Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg for her climate alarmism gone wild. In Davos, where Miss Thunberg is being celebrated by adults from across the world as a wise environmental expert, Mnuchin delivered some wisdom of his own – go take an economics class young lady, then get back to us.
Yesterday John wrote about the latest absurdity coming from Greta as she addressed attendees at the World Economic Forum in Davos. She is not alone in her demands that investments in fossil fuel companies end immediately. The money side of the battles with Big Oil and their partners was addressed many times in the Fire Drill Fridays protests led by Jane Fonda in Washington, D.C. Radical environmentalists want big banks and investment firms to stop funding the energy sector. It really is that simple in their minds. It is a dangerously naive mantra.
During a press briefing with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin in Davos, he had the nerve to state what is obvious to most of us – this young woman needs to complete her education before she appoints herself as a world policymaker. The rest of the adults are busy allowing a once-respected economic forum to turn into a social justice warrior’s dream event. Climate alarmism is a key topic in panel discussions and speeches. It’s a joke.
“Greta Thunberg has called for a public and private sector divestment from fossil fuel companies. Does that pose a threat to US economic growth?” a reporter asked Mnuchin. “Is she the chief economist, or who is she? I’m confused,” the secretary replied. “It’s a joke. After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us.”
Yes, I know that President Trump has tweeted about Greta Thunberg but he tweets about everyone. It’s different coming from a member of his cabinet who isn’t known for such engagement. Mnuchin was able to be good-natured and at first, joke about not knowing who she is and then went on to suggest she take a class.
This is in sharp contrast to world leaders, and leaders-in-waiting, like Prince Charles, who pay special attention to Thunberg and make photo ops out of greetings. Prince Charles met her after delivering his own speech on climate alarmism. He, too, has fallen prey to the propaganda of those who would like us to believe that our planet will be over in 10 to 12 years.
Britain's Prince Charles meets Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg at World Economic Forum in Davos #reutersdavos #wef20 pic.twitter.com/Yx8jD3k7AT — Reuters (@Reuters) January 23, 2020
Thunberg responded to Mnuchin on Twitter. She explained that she is taking her gap year from school.
My gap year ends in August, but it doesn’t take a college degree in economics to realise that our remaining 1,5° carbon budget and ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and investments don’t add up. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/1virpuOyYG — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
So either you tell us how to achieve this mitigation or explain to future generations and those already affected by the climate emergency why we should abandon our climate commitments. 2/3 — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
Graph from @CarbonBrief by @hausfath and @robbie_andrew based on United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) emissions gap report. 3/3 — Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) January 23, 2020
After he dropped his little truth bomb on Thunberg, Mnuchin was interviewed on CNBC’s Squawk Box. He was asked about his comments. This gave Mnuchin the opportunity to assure the television audience that Trump and his administration are not anti-environmental extremists. What is missing from the radical left’s agenda on the environment is common sense solutions that will not destroy the economies of the United States and other countries around. Thunberg should concentrate efforts on lecturing China and India, for example, who have not done much to halt carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. The United States has exceeded expectations.
Mnuchin said that President Trump wants clean air and water just like everyone else. Trump has pledged that the U.S. will join the initiative to plant a trillion trees. And Mnuchin was able to slap down a question on if the administration should support a carbon tax. His answer is no, the administration does not support a carbon tax. The administration is all about cutting taxes, not finding new ones.
It’s good to hear the pushback from a cabinet member and not someone on Twitter. Mnuchin was able to calmly deliver some rational thoughts on climate change and the Trump administration’s policies while educating on the economic disaster of initiatives pushed by the Greta Thunbergs of the world. More of that, please.


hotair--2020-01-23--NPR: Suuuuuure sounds like SCOTUS will strike down bar on public funding for religious schools

Bye bye Blaine ?
In oral arguments yesterday , the Supreme Court questioned the litigants in a challenge to a Montana constitutional provision that bars any government benefit from flowing to private schools run by churches — even tax breaks for contributions .
While it ’ s sometimes dangerous to assume a direction from the Socratic style of questioning used at Supreme Court hearings , NPR detects a significant drift in yesterday ’ s debate for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue : Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito compared the exclusion of parochial schools from taxpayers-funded aid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That view suggested that Wednesday ’ s case has the potential for much broader public funding of parochial schools .
… Representing the state of Montana , lawyer Adam Unikowsky told the justices that the states until now have generally had the power “ to decide that they ’ re only going to fund the public school system.
” But Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly seemed to suggest that religious families who want to send their children to parochial schools should be treated equally under the constitution .
Just how far the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Chief Justice Roberts , who after a long night at the impeachment trial , did not entirely tip his hand .
Perhaps Roberts didn ’ t need to “ entirely ” tip his hand .
Three years ago , the court ruled against the so-called Blaine Amendments in Trinity Church v Comer , which struck down a Missouri bar on funds for playground renovations from going to the Lutheran church that brought the lawsuit .
Thirty-seven states adopted the Blaine Amendments starting in the mid-nineteenth century after an effort to amend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop funding for Catholic education failed to gain support .
In that decision , the court ruled that religious schools had the right to participate in neutral funding programs if other private schools could access them , a decision that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch noted that the application would be wider than just “ playground resurfacing.
” Justices Alito and Brett Kavanaugh both cited the Blaine project ’ s roots in anti-Catholicism , although Montana argued that the 1972 version of the constitutional bar did not have any such animus : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 1880s , there was undoubtedly grotesque religious bigotry against — against Catholics , ” said Adam Unikowsky , arguing on behalf of the Montana Department of Revenue .
“ That was the clear motivation for this , ” Justice Brett Kavanaugh replied .
“ In the 1972 Constitution , which is where this provision was enacted , I don ’ t think there ’ s any evidence whatsoever of any anti-religious bigotry , ” Unikowsky said .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor had earlier noted a “ long history ” of people opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implied that Montana in 1972 no longer exercised the anti-Catholic bigotry of the 1800s but still chose to bar public funding of religion in line with the U.S. Constitution ’ s “ Establishment Clause.
” Justice Samuel Alito asked how it wasn ’ t merely coincidental that laws such as Montana ’ s occurred in a time of anti-Catholic bigotry .
“ I ’ m not going to get into an argument with you about what happened in 1972 , but do you really want to argue that the reason why a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the 1840s , at the time of the Irish potato famine , that had nothing to do with discrimination based on religion ?
” Alito asked .
At the very least , this suggests that the court is heading for a 5-4 split on this question .
Trinity went on a 7-2 split , with only Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting , and with Kagan in concurrence with the majority opinion and Stephen Breyer in a separate concurrence on more limited grounds .
The issue here will be that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact on Blaine amendments , perhaps in effect striking them down in full altogether .
That opens questions — which came up in oral arguments as well — as to just how much the state would owe religious schools when it came to equal funding access .
That ’ s probably more a question of parity with other private schools rather than with public schools , but there might be some gray areas when it comes to charter schools , a public-private partnership , for instance .
Will Roberts side with Montana , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case ?
If it ’ s truly coming down to Roberts as a swing vote , I ’ d expect him to rule on the side of religious liberty and go with the plaintiffs .
However , Roberts might be tempted to write the opinion to tailor it so that it emphasizes limits on how far this decision goes in dealing with public funding issues in order to attract a couple of the liberal wing ’ s jurists into a broader coalition .
Perhaps Roberts can even get back to Trinity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be a rather high expectation .
Don ’ t count chickens before they hatch , however .
Plenty can happen between oral arguments and the final verdict , and has often enough to show that assumptions based on oral arguments have the same reliability as assumptions in practically any other context .

Bye bye Blaine? In oral arguments yesterday, the Supreme Court questioned the litigants in a challenge to a Montana constitutional provision that bars any government benefit from flowing to private schools run by churches — even tax breaks for contributions. While it’s sometimes dangerous to assume a direction from the Socratic style of questioning used at Supreme Court hearings, NPR detects a significant drift in yesterday’s debate for Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue:
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito compared the exclusion of parochial schools from taxpayers-funded aid programs to unconstitutional discrimination based on race. That view suggested that Wednesday’s case has the potential for much broader public funding of parochial schools. … Representing the state of Montana, lawyer Adam Unikowsky told the justices that the states until now have generally had the power “to decide that they’re only going to fund the public school system.” But Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly seemed to suggest that religious families who want to send their children to parochial schools should be treated equally under the constitution. Just how far the Supreme Court will go in that regard may depend on Chief Justice Roberts, who after a long night at the impeachment trial, did not entirely tip his hand.
Perhaps Roberts didn’t need to “entirely” tip his hand. Three years ago, the court ruled against the so-called Blaine Amendments in Trinity Church v Comer, which struck down a Missouri bar on funds for playground renovations from going to the Lutheran church that brought the lawsuit. Thirty-seven states adopted the Blaine Amendments starting in the mid-nineteenth century after an effort to amend the US Constitution by Rep. James Blaine to stop funding for Catholic education failed to gain support. In that decision, the court ruled that religious schools had the right to participate in neutral funding programs if other private schools could access them, a decision that Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch noted that the application would be wider than just “playground resurfacing.”
Justices Alito and Brett Kavanaugh both cited the Blaine project’s roots in anti-Catholicism, although Montana argued that the 1972 version of the constitutional bar did not have any such animus:
“I mean, I think that in the 1880s, there was undoubtedly grotesque religious bigotry against — against Catholics,” said Adam Unikowsky, arguing on behalf of the Montana Department of Revenue. “That was the clear motivation for this,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh replied. “In the 1972 Constitution, which is where this provision was enacted, I don’t think there’s any evidence whatsoever of any anti-religious bigotry,” Unikowsky said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor had earlier noted a “long history” of people opposing public funding of religious groups. She implied that Montana in 1972 no longer exercised the anti-Catholic bigotry of the 1800s but still chose to bar public funding of religion in line with the U.S. Constitution’s “Establishment Clause.” Justice Samuel Alito asked how it wasn’t merely coincidental that laws such as Montana’s occurred in a time of anti-Catholic bigotry. “I’m not going to get into an argument with you about what happened in 1972, but do you really want to argue that the reason why a lot of this popped up beginning, coincidentally, in the 1840s, at the time of the Irish potato famine, that had nothing to do with discrimination based on religion?” Alito asked.
At the very least, this suggests that the court is heading for a 5-4 split on this question. Trinity went on a 7-2 split, with only Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting, and with Kagan in concurrence with the majority opinion and Stephen Breyer in a separate concurrence on more limited grounds. The issue here will be that a similar decision will necessarily broaden the Trinity impact on Blaine amendments, perhaps in effect striking them down in full altogether. That opens questions — which came up in oral arguments as well — as to just how much the state would owe religious schools when it came to equal funding access. That’s probably more a question of parity with other private schools rather than with public schools, but there might be some gray areas when it comes to charter schools, a public-private partnership, for instance.
Will Roberts side with Montana, or will he go with the plaintiffs in this case? If it’s truly coming down to Roberts as a swing vote, I’d expect him to rule on the side of religious liberty and go with the plaintiffs. However, Roberts might be tempted to write the opinion to tailor it so that it emphasizes limits on how far this decision goes in dealing with public funding issues in order to attract a couple of the liberal wing’s jurists into a broader coalition. Perhaps Roberts can even get back to Trinity’s 7-2 vote, although that might be a rather high expectation.
Don’t count chickens before they hatch, however. Plenty can happen between oral arguments and the final verdict, and has often enough to show that assumptions based on oral arguments have the same reliability as assumptions in practically any other context.


hotair--2020-01-23--Too good to check: "Anxious" Obama reportedly considering a public statement about Bernie's rise in

Too good to check: "Anxious" Obama reportedly considering a public statement about Bernie's rise in the polls

I don ’ t buy it but I ’ m happy to do my part to stoke a Democratic civil war by promoting this tweet from Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino .
Just doesn ’ t sound like O. I think he ’ s worried about his legacy in a party that ’ s drifting left and doesn ’ t want to antagonize the younger generation of Bernie-friendly Democrats .
He ’ s already taken some knocks during this primary for his comparative centrism relative to the DSA agenda .
ObamaCare was supposed to be a momentous accomplishment but some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a giveaway to corporate America when a bolder left-wing president might have pushed for a bigger government role in health care .
There ’ s enough residual loyalty to Obama among Democrats that Bernie and other leftist stars like AOC have to be respectful ( publicly , at least ) of his record .
But if O joins the battle to try to thwart the great socialist hope when he ’ s on the brink of an historic victory , the gloves will come off .
Either Bernie will win the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost his grip on the party , or O will make lifelong enemies of the Berniebros , who ’ ll do what they can to make sure history isn ’ t kind to his achievements .
He ’ d rather stay out of this primary .
But can he afford to ?
He said this in November : In an unusual address to a room of wealthy Democratic donors , Obama urged Democratic candidates to be pragmatic in their messages to voters .
While he didn ’ t mention any specific presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the average American voter does not align with views from “ certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.
” … “ Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality , ” Obama said .
“ The average American doesn ’ t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.
” Hmmmm .
A few days after he made those comments , Politico published this piece : Publicly , he has been clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the primary for or against a candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack .
“ I can ’ t even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something , ” said a close adviser .
Instead , he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly and to unite the party when the nominee is clear .
There is one potential exception : Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were running away with the nomination , Obama would speak up to stop him .
( Asked about that , a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is . )
… When it comes to Sanders , I asked one close adviser whether Obama would really lay himself on the line to prevent a Sanders nomination .
“ I can ’ t really confirm that , ” the adviser said .
“ He hasn ’ t said that directly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m hesitating at all is because , yeah , if Bernie were running away with it , I think maybe we would all have to say something .
But I don ’ t think that ’ s likely .
It ’ s not happening.
” ( Another close Obama friend said , “ Bernie ’ s not a Democrat.
” ) When that story was published , Bernie was fourth in Iowa and neck-and-neck with Elizabeth Warren for second place both nationally and in New Hampshire .
Two months later , he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa per the last Des Moines Register poll of that state , and has second place all to himself nationally as he gains on Biden .
He ’ s not “ running away with the nomination ” yet but he could be three weeks from now if IA and NH come through for him .
And once we ’ re at that point , it might be too late for Obama to influence events by speaking up .
Logically , Gasparino ’ s right .
If O really does fear a Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now , when late deciders in the early states are making up their minds .
And if he does choose to say something , the question will be asked : Why doesn ’ t he just endorse Biden ?
If he says something vague and anodyne about how voters should carefully consider “ electability ” in a veiled shot at Bernie , that message might not be received by the voters he ’ s targeting .
Even if it is received , some Sanders supporters will simply reply that Bernie is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guy whose strength with younger adults will mobilize new voters to turn out and whose strength with working-class whites will reclaim some of the swing voters whose support for Trump was decisive in 2016 .
If Obama thinks Biden is the party ’ s best chance he should say so clearly , leaving no doubt .
Does he dare ?
I ’ m thinking … no , probably not : Gasparino ’ s tweet may be part of an effort by some anti-Bernie Dems in the party to pressure Obama into speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s allegedly thinking about it , then wait for some of his centrist buddies to find out and call him up and say , “ Are you really thinking of doing this ?
Because you should.
” Maybe they can talk him into it .
But probably not .
Exit quotation from Obama crony Jim Messina , who once cheered Donald Trump ’ s nomination in the expectation that Clinton couldn ’ t lose to him : “ I think it is clear to me , with these swing voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama voters in midwestern states , Bernie Sanders is not the candidate we need to beat Donald Trump in November .
”

I don’t buy it but I’m happy to do my part to stoke a Democratic civil war by promoting this tweet from Fox Business correspondent Charles Gasparino.
SCOOP: Dem Party sources who have spoken w @BarackObama say former prez is growing increasingly anxious about @BernieSanders rise in the national polls & where the avowed socialist would take the country; he is considering a public statement addressing it more now @FoxBusiness — Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) January 23, 2020
Just doesn’t sound like O. I think he’s worried about his legacy in a party that’s drifting left and doesn’t want to antagonize the younger generation of Bernie-friendly Democrats. He’s already taken some knocks during this primary for his comparative centrism relative to the DSA agenda. ObamaCare was supposed to be a momentous accomplishment but some progressives treat it as a momentous betrayal, a giveaway to corporate America when a bolder left-wing president might have pushed for a bigger government role in health care.
There’s enough residual loyalty to Obama among Democrats that Bernie and other leftist stars like AOC have to be respectful (publicly, at least) of his record. But if O joins the battle to try to thwart the great socialist hope when he’s on the brink of an historic victory, the gloves will come off. Either Bernie will win the nomination anyway, proving that Obama’s lost his grip on the party, or O will make lifelong enemies of the Berniebros, who’ll do what they can to make sure history isn’t kind to his achievements.
He’d rather stay out of this primary. But can he afford to? He said this in November:
In an unusual address to a room of wealthy Democratic donors, Obama urged Democratic candidates to be pragmatic in their messages to voters. While he didn’t mention any specific presidential primary candidate or proposal, Obama warned that the average American voter does not align with views from “certain left-leaning Twitter feeds or the activist wing of our party.”… “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision we also have to be rooted in reality,” Obama said. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”
Hmmmm. A few days after he made those comments, Politico published this piece:
Publicly, he has been clear that he won’t intervene in the primary for or against a candidate, unless he believed there was some egregious attack. “I can’t even imagine with this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something,” said a close adviser. Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly and to unite the party when the nominee is clear. There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)… When it comes to Sanders, I asked one close adviser whether Obama would really lay himself on the line to prevent a Sanders nomination. “I can’t really confirm that,” the adviser said. “He hasn’t said that directly to me. The only reason I’m hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don’t think that’s likely. It’s not happening.” (Another close Obama friend said, “Bernie’s not a Democrat.”)
When that story was published, Bernie was fourth in Iowa and neck-and-neck with Elizabeth Warren for second place both nationally and in New Hampshire. Two months later, he’s leading in New Hampshire, leading in Iowa per the last Des Moines Register poll of that state, and has second place all to himself nationally as he gains on Biden.
He’s not “running away with the nomination” yet but he could be three weeks from now if IA and NH come through for him. And once we’re at that point, it might be too late for Obama to influence events by speaking up. Logically, Gasparino’s right. If O really does fear a Sanders nomination then the time to say something is now, when late deciders in the early states are making up their minds.
And if he does choose to say something, the question will be asked: Why doesn’t he just endorse Biden? If he says something vague and anodyne about how voters should carefully consider “electability” in a veiled shot at Bernie, that message might not be received by the voters he’s targeting. Even if it is received, some Sanders supporters will simply reply that Bernie is the most electable candidate in the field, the guy whose strength with younger adults will mobilize new voters to turn out and whose strength with working-class whites will reclaim some of the swing voters whose support for Trump was decisive in 2016. If Obama thinks Biden is the party’s best chance he should say so clearly, leaving no doubt. Does he dare?
I’m thinking … no, probably not:
Not surprising but I guess worth reporting: actual sources in Obama world are giving a collective LOL to the idea that he is considering putting out a statement warning against Bernie. — Sam Stein (@samstein) January 23, 2020
Gasparino’s tweet may be part of an effort by some anti-Bernie Dems in the party to pressure Obama into speaking up against Sanders. Leak the fact that he’s allegedly thinking about it, then wait for some of his centrist buddies to find out and call him up and say, “Are you really thinking of doing this? Because you should.” Maybe they can talk him into it. But probably not.
Exit quotation from Obama crony Jim Messina, who once cheered Donald Trump’s nomination in the expectation that Clinton couldn’t lose to him: “I think it is clear to me, with these swing voters I care about, the Trump — Obama voters in midwestern states, Bernie Sanders is not the candidate we need to beat Donald Trump in November.”


hotair--2020-01-24--Is the leader of white supremacist group 'The Base' working for the Russian government?

Today the BBC and the Guardian have separately published stories identifying the leader of the white supremacist group known as The Base .
Though he has gone by aliases including “ Norman Spear ” and “ Roman Wolf ” his real name is Rinaldo Nazzaro and he is currently living in Russia : A video posted online in March 2019 shows Nazzaro in Russia wearing a t-shirt bearing an image of President Vladimir Putin along with the words “ Russia , absolute power ” .
We traced Nazzaro and his Russian wife to an upmarket property in central St Petersburg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – the same month to which the FBI dates the creation of The Base… Nazzaro married a Russian woman in Manhattan in 2012 .
She had moved to the city from her homeland around four years earlier and her CV says she spent time working in a bank .
In 2018 – when he first began promoting The Base online using the “ Norman Spear ” pseudonym – they moved with their children to Russia .
Here ’ s the photo of Nazzarro in his Putin t-shirt : Also today the Guaridan published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified Nazzaro but also found that he has long been suspected by some of being a Russian spy : Richard Tobin , a Base member , is awaiting trial in New Jersey over allegations that he coordinated the September vandalism of synagogues in Michigan and Wisconsin .
In a December custody hearing , the prosecuting assistant US attorney cited Tobin ’ s self-professed belief that “ Norman Spear ” was a Russian spy… Meanwhile , “ Norman Spear ” appears to have had no extended history in the neo-Nazi movement before emerging as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an internally placed source , the only people within the movement who vouched for “ Spear ” were connected to the Northwest Front ( NWF ) … Law enforcement sources have indicated on background that Nazzaro is believed by some agencies to be working for the Russian government .
At first glance , the idea that this dirtbag is a Russian agent or spy seemed a little far-fetched to me but the more I think about it the more it makes sense .
Remember , Putin ’ s GRU stooges have been murdering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soil for several years .
Also remember that back in 2016 Russia organized partisan events online designed sow discord by playing into existing divides in the US political landscape .
The most well know of these was a Black Lives Matter-style rally in New York City that involved at least 5,000 people .
If you ’ re already willing to murder people on foreign soil and organize people around racial issues is it really that much of a stretch to imagine Putin might try to combine the two ?
That ’ s sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing .
This guy living in Russia is recruiting Americans to carry out attacks which are designed to exacerbate divides that already exist .
I don ’ t think that ’ s so far-fetched at all .
In fact , I think Putin would like the idea a lot .

Today the BBC and the Guardian have separately published stories identifying the leader of the white supremacist group known as The Base. Though he has gone by aliases including “Norman Spear” and “Roman Wolf” his real name is Rinaldo Nazzaro and he is currently living in Russia:
A video posted online in March 2019 shows Nazzaro in Russia wearing a t-shirt bearing an image of President Vladimir Putin along with the words “Russia, absolute power”. We traced Nazzaro and his Russian wife to an upmarket property in central St Petersburg purchased in her name in July 2018 – the same month to which the FBI dates the creation of The Base… Nazzaro married a Russian woman in Manhattan in 2012. She had moved to the city from her homeland around four years earlier and her CV says she spent time working in a bank. In 2018 – when he first began promoting The Base online using the “Norman Spear” pseudonym – they moved with their children to Russia.
Here’s the photo of Nazzarro in his Putin t-shirt:
Also today the Guaridan published the results of a months-long investigation which identified Nazzaro but also found that he has long been suspected by some of being a Russian spy:
Richard Tobin, a Base member, is awaiting trial in New Jersey over allegations that he coordinated the September vandalism of synagogues in Michigan and Wisconsin. In a December custody hearing, the prosecuting assistant US attorney cited Tobin’s self-professed belief that “Norman Spear” was a Russian spy… Meanwhile, “Norman Spear” appears to have had no extended history in the neo-Nazi movement before emerging as leader of the Base. According to an internally placed source, the only people within the movement who vouched for “Spear” were connected to the Northwest Front (NWF)… Law enforcement sources have indicated on background that Nazzaro is believed by some agencies to be working for the Russian government.
At first glance, the idea that this dirtbag is a Russian agent or spy seemed a little far-fetched to me but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. Remember, Putin’s GRU stooges have been murdering and attempting to murder people on UK soil for several years. Also remember that back in 2016 Russia organized partisan events online designed sow discord by playing into existing divides in the US political landscape. The most well know of these was a Black Lives Matter-style rally in New York City that involved at least 5,000 people.
If you’re already willing to murder people on foreign soil and organize people around racial issues is it really that much of a stretch to imagine Putin might try to combine the two? That’s sort of what this group appears to be doing. This guy living in Russia is recruiting Americans to carry out attacks which are designed to exacerbate divides that already exist. I don’t think that’s so far-fetched at all. In fact, I think Putin would like the idea a lot.


hotair--2020-01-24--ABC/WaPo: Trump climbs to highest job approval rating of his presidency amid impeachment trial

It ’ s not impeachment , or rather a backlash to impeachment , that ’ s causing this .
But I think it ’ s safe to say that impeachment isn ’ t slowing him down either .
Impeachment is just … there .
Not really good for him , not really bad .
It ’ s just sort of what ’ s on TV this week .
The baseline number here is underwhelming .
However… President Trump ’ s approval rating has climbed to match the highest of his presidency , boosted by majority approval of his economic stewardship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the Senate should remove him from office , according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll .
The Post-ABC poll finds 44 percent of Americans approve of Trump ’ s overall job performance and 51 percent disapprove .
While views of Trump remain negative , Trump ’ s approval rating is significantly improved from his 38 percent mark in late October .
A 44/51 split as the *high-water mark* of one ’ s presidency is dismal but that ’ s the number among all American adults .
When you look instead at registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more likely to actually turn out in an election , it creeps up to 47/50 .
Among independent adults he ’ s at 47/48 , up nine points since October and right on the cusp of net positive territory .
That ’ s a pretty respectable base of support in a hyperpartisan age from which to launch a reelection campaign .
How ’ s he doing it ?
You know how : Among registered voters his approval on handling the economy stands at 58/36 .
That ’ s a big number for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Trump , about whom opinion is normally insanely polarized .
Even some Trump-hating Dems and indies can ’ t deny him credit .
The economy also happens to be the issue , of course , that perennially scores at the top of voters ’ list of priorities when they go to vote in presidential elections .
It ’ ll be hard to bet against him in a tight race if this is how he ’ s rating in November .
It ’ s not just ABC/WaPo that finds Americans ’ satisfaction with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : That +40 net on economic confidence is the biggest number since the final few months of the Clinton administration .
Dubya never touched it .
Obama , saddled with the Great Recession when he took office , never quite got there .
Not coincidentally , with economic satisfaction skyrocketing , satisfaction with the state of the country is skyrocketing too : That ’ s the biggest number since 2005 .
This result is a bit more partisan than the others : It ’ s Republicans who are driving the trend , notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. up 14 points in a month compared to just a two-point increase among Democrats .
Maybe impeachment is causing righties to rally around Trump .
Or maybe Republicans are just more willing to express their enthusiasm about the economy than Democrats are , knowing how Trump stands to benefit politically .
Today ’ s big number hasn ’ t quite pushed him to his highest approval ever in the RCP poll of polls but he ’ s within striking distance of that .
His best-ever rating was 45.9 percent , which came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today he ’ s at 44.8 percent ; a few weeks ago he touched 45.2 , his best since February 2017 .
It ’ s certainly possible that acquittal by the Senate will send him over 46 percent .
It ’ s reeeeally difficult to imagine an incumbent with blockbuster jobs numbers not getting the benefit of the doubt from swing voters on Election Day , no matter how many dopey tweets he sends between now and then .
But he ’ s going to make it interesting , God love him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC/WaPo finds a clear majority in support of impeachment , 52/45 , and narrow opposition to removal at 47/49 .
( Registered voters oppose removal more strongly , 45/51 . )
Fully 66 percent of Americans want new witnesses called during the trial .
That is to say , as ecstatic as everyone is about the job market , his conduct towards Ukraine was sufficiently crappy that most people are *still* glad that the House went ahead and nuked him .
That ’ s a perfect microcosm of the choice in November : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to get Americans to accept four more years of whatever the Trump circus might bring ?
Is it good enough already ?
It ’ s close !

It’s not impeachment, or rather a backlash to impeachment, that’s causing this. But I think it’s safe to say that impeachment isn’t slowing him down either.
Impeachment is just … there. Not really good for him, not really bad. It’s just sort of what’s on TV this week.
The baseline number here is underwhelming. However…
President Trump’s approval rating has climbed to match the highest of his presidency, boosted by majority approval of his economic stewardship even as Americans remain deeply divided on whether the Senate should remove him from office, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. The Post-ABC poll finds 44 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s overall job performance and 51 percent disapprove. While views of Trump remain negative, Trump’s approval rating is significantly improved from his 38 percent mark in late October.
A 44/51 split as the *high-water mark* of one’s presidency is dismal but that’s the number among all American adults. When you look instead at registered voters, the sort of people who are more likely to actually turn out in an election, it creeps up to 47/50. Among independent adults he’s at 47/48, up nine points since October and right on the cusp of net positive territory. That’s a pretty respectable base of support in a hyperpartisan age from which to launch a reelection campaign.
How’s he doing it? You know how:
Among registered voters his approval on handling the economy stands at 58/36. That’s a big number for any president but yuuuge for a figure like Trump, about whom opinion is normally insanely polarized. Even some Trump-hating Dems and indies can’t deny him credit. The economy also happens to be the issue, of course, that perennially scores at the top of voters’ list of priorities when they go to vote in presidential elections. It’ll be hard to bet against him in a tight race if this is how he’s rating in November.
It’s not just ABC/WaPo that finds Americans’ satisfaction with the economy peaking. New from Gallup:
That +40 net on economic confidence is the biggest number since the final few months of the Clinton administration. Dubya never touched it. Obama, saddled with the Great Recession when he took office, never quite got there. Not coincidentally, with economic satisfaction skyrocketing, satisfaction with the state of the country is skyrocketing too:
That’s the biggest number since 2005. This result is a bit more partisan than the others: It’s Republicans who are driving the trend, notes Gallup, with GOP satisfaction with the U.S. up 14 points in a month compared to just a two-point increase among Democrats. Maybe impeachment is causing righties to rally around Trump. Or maybe Republicans are just more willing to express their enthusiasm about the economy than Democrats are, knowing how Trump stands to benefit politically.
Today’s big number hasn’t quite pushed him to his highest approval ever in the RCP poll of polls but he’s within striking distance of that. His best-ever rating was 45.9 percent, which came just two weeks after he was inaugurated. Today he’s at 44.8 percent; a few weeks ago he touched 45.2, his best since February 2017. It’s certainly possible that acquittal by the Senate will send him over 46 percent. It’s reeeeally difficult to imagine an incumbent with blockbuster jobs numbers not getting the benefit of the doubt from swing voters on Election Day, no matter how many dopey tweets he sends between now and then.
But he’s going to make it interesting, God love him. Despite all the economic celebration, ABC/WaPo finds a clear majority in support of impeachment, 52/45, and narrow opposition to removal at 47/49. (Registered voters oppose removal more strongly, 45/51.) Fully 66 percent of Americans want new witnesses called during the trial. That is to say, as ecstatic as everyone is about the job market, his conduct towards Ukraine was sufficiently crappy that most people are *still* glad that the House went ahead and nuked him. That’s a perfect microcosm of the choice in November: How good does the economy need to be to get Americans to accept four more years of whatever the Trump circus might bring? Is it good enough already? It’s close!


hotair--2020-01-24--Libyan involved in the Benghazi attack gets 19 years

Mustafa al-Imam , a 47-year-old Libyan , has been sentenced to 19 years in prison for his role in the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans : Mustafa al-Imam , 47 , was sentenced to 236 months after being convicted by a jury in June on charges of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists and maliciously destroying and injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy , the Justice Department said .
But al-Imam was not convicted of other counts , which included allegations of killing a person while attacking a federal facility .
A DOJ press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the attack : Al-Imam arrived at the Mission shortly after the attack began , accompanying Ahmed Abu Khatallah , the leader of an extremist militia named Ubaydah bin Jarrah and one of the planners of the attack .
During the attack on the Mission , al-Imam maintained contact with Khatallah in a series of cellphone calls , including an 18-minute phone call that took place during the height of the attack .
Members of Ubaydah bin Jarrah , as well as other extremist groups , were caught on surveillance video attacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel withdrew from the Mission , al-Imam , Khatallah , several UBJ members , and other extremists entered the Mission ’ s office and removed sensitive information , including maps and other documents related to the location of the CIA ’ s Annex in Benghazi .
Following the attack at the Mission , in the early hours of Sept. 12 , 2012 , the violence continued at the CIA Annex , first with gunfire and then with a precision mortar attack .
While defending the Annex , Mr. Woods , Mr. Doherty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA security specialist Mark Tiegen were hit by a precision mortar attack , leading to the deaths of Mr. Woods and Mr. Doherty .
Special Agent Ubben and Mr. Tiegen were seriously wounded but survived .
Al-Imam was captured during a US special forces raid of Libya in 2017 .
He was charged with “ conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists and maliciously destroying and injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy ” and was found guilty on June 13 , 2019 .
Announcing the sentence , Assistant Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not rested in our efforts to bring to justice those involved in the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi , which led to the death of four courageous Americans – Tyrone Woods , Sean Smith , Glen Doherty , and Ambassador Christopher Stevens – and we never will.
” Ahmed Abu Khatallah , the man with whom Al-Imam was on the phone during the attack , was captured on an earlier raid in 2014 .
He was charged and in 2017 was found guilty of planning and carrying out the attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most serious charges against him , that his actions caused the deaths of the four Americans .
He was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2018 .

Mustafa al-Imam, a 47-year-old Libyan, has been sentenced to 19 years in prison for his role in the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans:
Mustafa al-Imam, 47, was sentenced to 236 months after being convicted by a jury in June on charges of conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists and maliciously destroying and injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy, the Justice Department said. But al-Imam was not convicted of other counts, which included allegations of killing a person while attacking a federal facility.
A DOJ press released published yesterday described Al-Imam’s role in the attack:
Al-Imam arrived at the Mission shortly after the attack began, accompanying Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the leader of an extremist militia named Ubaydah bin Jarrah and one of the planners of the attack. During the attack on the Mission, al-Imam maintained contact with Khatallah in a series of cellphone calls, including an 18-minute phone call that took place during the height of the attack. Members of Ubaydah bin Jarrah, as well as other extremist groups, were caught on surveillance video attacking the Mission. After the American security personnel withdrew from the Mission, al-Imam, Khatallah, several UBJ members, and other extremists entered the Mission’s office and removed sensitive information, including maps and other documents related to the location of the CIA’s Annex in Benghazi. Following the attack at the Mission, in the early hours of Sept. 12, 2012, the violence continued at the CIA Annex, first with gunfire and then with a precision mortar attack. While defending the Annex, Mr. Woods, Mr. Doherty, DSS Special Agent David Ubben, and CIA security specialist Mark Tiegen were hit by a precision mortar attack, leading to the deaths of Mr. Woods and Mr. Doherty. Special Agent Ubben and Mr. Tiegen were seriously wounded but survived.
Al-Imam was captured during a US special forces raid of Libya in 2017. He was charged with “conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists and maliciously destroying and injuring a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy” and was found guilty on June 13, 2019.
Announcing the sentence, Assistant Attorney General John Demers said, “We have not rested in our efforts to bring to justice those involved in the terrorist attacks on our facilities in Benghazi, which led to the death of four courageous Americans – Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens – and we never will.”
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the man with whom Al-Imam was on the phone during the attack, was captured on an earlier raid in 2014. He was charged and in 2017 was found guilty of planning and carrying out the attack. However, he was acquitted of the most serious charges against him, that his actions caused the deaths of the four Americans. He was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2018.


hotair--2020-01-24--Warren: No, I'm not saying "tough luck" to people who've already paid off their student loans

Dude , she ’ s totally saying “ tough luck ” to people who ’ ve already paid off their student loans .
The occasion for this question was the incident John wrote about yesterday , a confrontation Warren had at one of her recent events with a dad who wanted to know whether he ’ d be reimbursed for working his ass off to make sure his daughter could pay for college without student debt .
Do I get a check under your very generous loan-forgiveness plan , he asked her ?
“ Of course not , ” Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As if her logic for who should and shouldn ’ t be bailed out were so evident that he should feel silly for having asked .
CBS interviewed her this morning and put the question to her again .
Isn ’ t she telling students and parents who behaved responsibly in minimizing their education debt that they ’ re S.O.L.
?
Not at all , argued Warren , unconvincingly .
“ We build a future going forward by making it better , ” she says at one point .
“ By that same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Not started Social Security because we didn ’ t start it last week for you , or last month for you ?
” But that ’ s not analogous to what she ’ s proposing .
It ’ d be one thing if her plan were purely prospective .
We ’ re going to leave debt alone , she might say , but going forward education at state universities will be completely free , entirely taxpayer-funded .
( And in fact that is part of her proposal for higher education . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally would find that tolerable , I think , not only because she ’ s right that all prospective social programs have to start somewhere but because his daughter would still be better off than her peers thanks to his hard work .
They ’ d still owe and she ’ d be debt-free .
She would have narrowly missed the era of free state school but it ’ s unavoidable with any new entitlement that some people , through the sheer quirk of time and age , will miss the cut-off .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t prospective .
It ’ s retrospective .
She ’ s not absolving future students , and only future students , of the burden of student loans .
She ’ s offering to indemnify certain people for their past decisions .
And if some will be indemnified , the question naturally arises why all shouldn ’ t be indemnified .
Imagine a student who opted for a state school instead of an Ivy because she didn ’ t want to cope with debt into her 30s , suddenly forced to compete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Ivy credential but are now just as debt-free as she is thanks to President Warren ’ s largesse .
Imagine the dad who worked hard hours to cover his daughter ’ s tuition to spare her from debt , putting off home repairs , vacations , a new car , and what have you to do so , discovering that that effort was essentially wasted .
He could have been much less responsible as a parent and simply voted socialist and then waited to be bailed out .
Instead he worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a gross moral hazard .
And the resentment caused by the capricious selection of winners and losers under this policy will be ferocious .
I ’ ll say this for Warren , though .
It ’ s strange to me how she ’ s ended up as the focal point for resentment towards progressives who support student-loan bailouts when her plan is actually *more* responsible than Bernie ’ s .
Warren ’ s plan comes with a cap : You can have $ 50,000 of your student debt indemnified but any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s no cap on Sanders ’ s plan .
If you go to Harvard and end up $ 150,000 in the hole for your pomo literature degree or whatever , you ’ re just as debt-free as the loser who scrimped and saved and made hard choices to minimize his or her debt exposure .
( The biggest beneficiaries of the plan would be the elite with postgrad educations , not the working man Sanders is allegedly fighting for . )
That ’ s the sort of equality Bernie has in @ @

Dude, she’s totally saying “tough luck” to people who’ve already paid off their student loans.
The occasion for this question was the incident John wrote about yesterday, a confrontation Warren had at one of her recent events with a dad who wanted to know whether he’d be reimbursed for working his ass off to make sure his daughter could pay for college without student debt. Do I get a check under your very generous loan-forgiveness plan, he asked her? “Of course not,” Warren replied.
“Of course not.” As if her logic for who should and shouldn’t be bailed out were so evident that he should feel silly for having asked.
CBS interviewed her this morning and put the question to her again. Isn’t she telling students and parents who behaved responsibly in minimizing their education debt that they’re S.O.L.? Not at all, argued Warren, unconvincingly.
Last night, a father who saved for his daughter’s college education approached @SenWarren and challenged her proposed student loan forgiveness plan.@TonyDokoupil asks the senator for her response: pic.twitter.com/jLUXPqChC6 — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 24, 2020
“We build a future going forward by making it better,” she says at one point. “By that same logic, what would we have done? Not started Social Security because we didn’t start it last week for you, or last month for you?”
But that’s not analogous to what she’s proposing. It’d be one thing if her plan were purely prospective. We’re going to leave debt alone, she might say, but going forward education at state universities will be completely free, entirely taxpayer-funded. (And in fact that is part of her proposal for higher education.) The dad who confronted her at her rally would find that tolerable, I think, not only because she’s right that all prospective social programs have to start somewhere but because his daughter would still be better off than her peers thanks to his hard work. They’d still owe and she’d be debt-free. She would have narrowly missed the era of free state school but it’s unavoidable with any new entitlement that some people, through the sheer quirk of time and age, will miss the cut-off.
What Warren’s proposing with debt isn’t prospective. It’s retrospective. She’s not absolving future students, and only future students, of the burden of student loans. She’s offering to indemnify certain people for their past decisions. And if some will be indemnified, the question naturally arises why all shouldn’t be indemnified. Imagine a student who opted for a state school instead of an Ivy because she didn’t want to cope with debt into her 30s, suddenly forced to compete for jobs with peers who did lunge for the Ivy credential but are now just as debt-free as she is thanks to President Warren’s largesse. Imagine the dad who worked hard hours to cover his daughter’s tuition to spare her from debt, putting off home repairs, vacations, a new car, and what have you to do so, discovering that that effort was essentially wasted. He could have been much less responsible as a parent and simply voted socialist and then waited to be bailed out. Instead he worked hard. Like a chump.
It’s a gross moral hazard. And the resentment caused by the capricious selection of winners and losers under this policy will be ferocious.
I’ll say this for Warren, though. It’s strange to me how she’s ended up as the focal point for resentment towards progressives who support student-loan bailouts when her plan is actually *more* responsible than Bernie’s. Warren’s plan comes with a cap: You can have $50,000 of your student debt indemnified but any amount beyond that is your responsibility. There’s no cap on Sanders’s plan. If you go to Harvard and end up $150,000 in the hole for your pomo literature degree or whatever, you’re just as debt-free as the loser who scrimped and saved and made hard choices to minimize his or her debt exposure. (The biggest beneficiaries of the plan would be the elite with postgrad educations, not the working man Sanders is allegedly fighting for.) That’s the sort of equality Bernie has in mind.


hotair--2020-01-24--Democrats worry: Will the party be able to unify over any candidate?

The NY Times published a piece today based on interviews with more than 50 Democratic voters across the country .
A common theme is that the Democratic Party is now made up of two sub-parties that don ’ t really get along .
For instance , a lot of Sanders ’ supporters are absolutely not willing to settle for Joe Biden .
A new CNN survey showed that about as many Democrats under 50 would be upset or dissatisfied with Mr. Biden as the nominee as they would be enthusiastic… Interviews with Sanders supporters at his events in New Hampshire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina revealed a group of progressive activists who were as dedicated to him as they were in 2016 — and who were uneasy about his rivals , especially Mr. Biden .
That was borne out in a new poll of New Hampshire primary voters this week from Suffolk University , which indicated that nearly a quarter of the Vermont senator ’ s supporters would not commit to backing the party ’ s nominee if it was not Mr. Sanders… “ I just couldn ’ t morally , ” Laura Satkowski said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make phone calls on behalf of Mr. Biden .
“ I don ’ t like his policies.
” … “ Hell no , ” Ms. McKay said about the prospect of backing Mr. Biden .
Reminded that North Carolina could be a pivotal state in the general election , she said : “ I don ’ t care .
My vote is not going to an establishment Democrat.
” On the other hand , a lot of Democrats still see Sanders as too far left and say voting for him is a line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ m more of a Republican and that ’ s just a little bit too far to the left for me , ” Ms. Birkett , a retiree .
She said that she ’ d like to support a Democrat this November because of her disdain for Mr. Trump but that Mr. Sanders would “ be a hard one.
” … Phil Richardson , a farmer who came to the Biden event in Fort Dodge with his wife , Christy , said he ’ d be happy to vote for Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry is that others in his community would find it harder to support somebody so liberal .
“ I ’ ve had some of my farmer friends tell me they could probably live with Biden but he couldn ’ t go for Bernie , ” he said .
This is really a rerun of the dynamic we saw in 2016 , with the far left rallying to Bernie and the center-left rallying behind Hillary .
But the Overton Window has shifted quite a bit in the past four years .
At this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuition , even a wealth tax are all solidly on the table for the left while the more centrist portion of the party hasn ’ t moved very much at all .
Far left leaders like AOC are even funding primary candidates to oust more moderate Democrats .
And if history is any guide , it ’ s going to get a lot uglier before it gets better .
Remember how Sanders supporters behaved at the Democratic National Convention ?
And the reaction when Hillary won the nomination ?
Several demonstrations pulsed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tuesday after the party formally nominated Hillary Clinton for president , attracting at least 1,000 people by nightfall as angered Bernie Sanders voters joined supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement for a wide-scale march .
Just before 10 p.m. , the crowd stirred outside the grounds of the Democratic National Convention .
A handful of protesters started a fire beside a security fence , feeding the flames with papers and placards .
Well , the gap between left and far left is even bigger this time around so it seems likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to smooth over whichever way this goes .
And that ’ s obviously a big problem because it would only take a small portion of supporters for Biden or Bernie to decide to stay home to make it much more difficult for the party to mount a real challenge to Trump .
The left is clearly already aware of this problem , which has cropped up in the increasingly bitter contest between Sanders and Warren , but it ’ s still early .
The really nasty part of this , where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is yet to come .

The NY Times published a piece today based on interviews with more than 50 Democratic voters across the country. A common theme is that the Democratic Party is now made up of two sub-parties that don’t really get along. For instance, a lot of Sanders’ supporters are absolutely not willing to settle for Joe Biden.
A new CNN survey showed that about as many Democrats under 50 would be upset or dissatisfied with Mr. Biden as the nominee as they would be enthusiastic… Interviews with Sanders supporters at his events in New Hampshire and at the King Day gathering in South Carolina revealed a group of progressive activists who were as dedicated to him as they were in 2016 — and who were uneasy about his rivals, especially Mr. Biden. That was borne out in a new poll of New Hampshire primary voters this week from Suffolk University, which indicated that nearly a quarter of the Vermont senator’s supporters would not commit to backing the party’s nominee if it was not Mr. Sanders… “I just couldn’t morally,” Laura Satkowski said, explaining why she would not canvass or make phone calls on behalf of Mr. Biden. “I don’t like his policies.”… “Hell no,” Ms. McKay said about the prospect of backing Mr. Biden. Reminded that North Carolina could be a pivotal state in the general election, she said: “I don’t care. My vote is not going to an establishment Democrat.”
On the other hand, a lot of Democrats still see Sanders as too far left and say voting for him is a line they will not cross:
“No, I’m more of a Republican and that’s just a little bit too far to the left for me,” Ms. Birkett, a retiree. She said that she’d like to support a Democrat this November because of her disdain for Mr. Trump but that Mr. Sanders would “be a hard one.”… Phil Richardson, a farmer who came to the Biden event in Fort Dodge with his wife, Christy, said he’d be happy to vote for Mr. Sanders. But Mr. Richardson said his worry is that others in his community would find it harder to support somebody so liberal. “I’ve had some of my farmer friends tell me they could probably live with Biden but he couldn’t go for Bernie,” he said.
This is really a rerun of the dynamic we saw in 2016, with the far left rallying to Bernie and the center-left rallying behind Hillary. But the Overton Window has shifted quite a bit in the past four years. At this point, Medicare for All, free college tuition, even a wealth tax are all solidly on the table for the left while the more centrist portion of the party hasn’t moved very much at all. Far left leaders like AOC are even funding primary candidates to oust more moderate Democrats.
And if history is any guide, it’s going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. Remember how Sanders supporters behaved at the Democratic National Convention?
Pro-Bernie Sanders delegates disrupted the California delegation breakfast as the Democratic National Convention kicked off on Monday, chanting “Lock her up!” and “Count our votes!” during speeches.
The chanting reached its peak when California Secretary of State Alex Padilla spoke. At the mention of names such as Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, Sanders supporters erupted in boos, quickly drowning out Padilla’s words.
And the reaction when Hillary won the nomination?
Several demonstrations pulsed through the Democrats’ convention host city here on Tuesday after the party formally nominated Hillary Clinton for president, attracting at least 1,000 people by nightfall as angered Bernie Sanders voters joined supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement for a wide-scale march. Just before 10 p.m., the crowd stirred outside the grounds of the Democratic National Convention. A handful of protesters started a fire beside a security fence, feeding the flames with papers and placards.
Well, the gap between left and far left is even bigger this time around so it seems likely the anger will also be greater and harder to smooth over whichever way this goes. And that’s obviously a big problem because it would only take a small portion of supporters for Biden or Bernie to decide to stay home to make it much more difficult for the party to mount a real challenge to Trump.
The left is clearly already aware of this problem, which has cropped up in the increasingly bitter contest between Sanders and Warren, but it’s still early. The really nasty part of this, where the left and far left finally face off, is yet to come.


hotair--2020-01-24--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: March for Life, market strife, Daleiden case, court statuses,

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: March for Life, market strife, Daleiden case, court statuses, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Relevant Radio correspondent Matt Beardsley from the March for Life • Bishop Andrew Cozzens on his own life story about abortion and faith • Abby Johnson on the March for Life and the Love Line Project • Peter Grandich on why we ’ re coming to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his lifetime — and what you should know • Trump administration comes down hard on California over forced abortion payments for health insurance • And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look @ @ @ @ @ @

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
Relevant Radio correspondent Matt Beardsley from the March for Life
Bishop Andrew Cozzens on his own life story about abortion and faith
David Daleiden case update from Peter Breen
Minnesota AG not enforcing MN laws on abortion?
Abby Johnson on the March for Life and the Love Line Project
Peter Grandich on why we’re coming to the end of the last bull market in his lifetime — and what you should know
Trump administration comes down hard on California over forced abortion payments for health insurance
And more to come … stay tuned!
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-01-24--Graham: If Trump can't investigate Burisma, the Senate will

Graham: If Trump can't investigate Burisma, the Senate will -- but let's not subpoena Hunter Biden now

Old and busted : If you call John Bolton , we ’ ll call Hunter Biden .
New hotness : We ’ re calling Hunter Biden no matter what .
“ I am going to look at this , ” Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham says about Burisma and the Bidens , “ if nobody else does .
And that doesn ’ t make me a Russian agent.
” No , but it might make Graham a poor deal-maker : “ I think if a Republican had done this , there would be no debate that we need to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham noted of the Bidens ’ Ukraine scandal .
“ If you didn ’ t know your son was doing this , how closely were you looking at corruption ?
” “ What Trump is frustrated with including me is nobody in your business spent 15 minutes telling us what Hunter Biden did and if it is good foreign policy , ” Graham sounded off .
“ The president believes there is a double standard , ” the senator went on .
“ I think the president believes he went through holy Hell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What he wants to do is get to the truth .
Can you imagine if a Republican had done this ?
You need to ask yourself the question .
The media as an institution , would you not have people on the ground wanting to know what his son did when he contacted the State Department ?
” The points are well taken on media bias , but there ’ s still the issue of leverage in the trial to consider as well .
Hunter Biden has been the counterweight to demands for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as Mick Mulvaney ’ s .
If Democrats don ’ t want Hunter Biden under oath discussing Burisma , then ( theoretically , anyway ) they might back off demands for fresh witnesses .
Perhaps Graham has just grown frustrated with Adam Schiff ’ s dismissal of Burisma as a Trumpian conspiracy theory and wants to emphasize that it ’ s a legitimate area of inquiry , but this pledge surrenders whatever leverage might still attain to the threat to subpoena Biden fils in this trial .
If Graham ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go full tilt after Bolton ?
And in another twist , Graham later said that he doesn ’ t want Hunter Biden subpoenaed as part of the Senate impeachment trial : Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” Graham ’ s opposition essentially kills the threat that Republicans have wielded in recent weeks that if Democrats win a motion to hear from additional witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , they will retaliate by subpoenaing the Bidens .
Graham really must dislike leverage , eh ?
He appears to be making a distinction between using Burisma as a cynical counterweight to the demand for witnesses and conducting a legitimate probe of the Bidens and corruption .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far as it goes , but it ignores the point that Ted Cruz has been making since Wednesday , which is that establishing reasonable suspicion of corruption in Biden ’ s ties to Burisma would be one positive defense of Trump ’ s call to Zelensky , among others .
Earlier in the morning , Cruz continued that line of argument with Hugh Hewitt , saying that — despite Schiff ’ s dismissive remarks — the Trump administration had a valid predicate for looking into the Bidens and Burisma .
And as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s argument actually opens the door to exploring the Burisma question for use in the trial as a positive defense of Donald Trump : TC : Absolutely , yes .
You know , sadly enough , the footnote you cite , I ’ m familiar with .
I ’ m familiar with that Politico article .
I ’ ve read that Politico article that came out that detailed at great length the multiple efforts that Ukraine did to interfere in the 2016 election to put , to weigh in on behalf of Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in the sort of conduct that Russia did… TC : …which means they didn ’ t have bot farms .
They weren ’ t hacking electronically .
But they had multiple players throughout their government that were vocally aggressively advocating for Hillary Clinton and attacking Donald Trump in a way that is extremely unusual .
And it is perfectly legitimate for a president , for a president to press for an investigation as to foreign countries and why they ’ re interfering in our elections , which is what the President did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma , the most important question in this entire trial , and the reason why at the end of the trial the President is going to be acquitted , is can a president investigate corruption ?
And the answer is obviously yes .
And in fact , if there ’ s serious evidence of corruption , the President not only has an ability to investigate , a responsibility to do so .
When it comes to Burisma , Burisma is the largest natural gas company in Ukraine .
It was owned and controlled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing this .
It was corrupt through and through , and Burisma had on its board Hunter Biden , the son of Joe Biden .
It was paying him a million dollars a year .
And Joe Biden was the Obama administration ’ s point person for Ukraine policy .
And he vigorously advocated .
He pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was investigating and targeting Burisma and the oligarch who had made billions .
And he did all of this while his son was making a million bucks a year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not , I don ’ t know .
But it ’ s at least , it ’ s enormous evidence to justify investigating , to make whether it ’ s corrupt , and that ’ s what President Trump asked the Ukrainians to do , and that was within his authority and responsibility to do .
HH : Now our friend , Jonah Goldberg , says Hugh , don ’ t , and he would say Senator Cruz , don ’ t overlook he brought up Crowdstrike .
Crowdstrike is a discredited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory is discredited , but that does not disable the President from throwing out whatever he wants to throw out provided that there is a predicate for Ukrainian corruption .
It will be disproven , eventually , by others that Crowdstrike is not the way to go , but Burisma is legitimate .
Do you think that there is any honesty on the other side to recognize the presidential power with this predicate ?
TC : So there isn ’ t , but I also think the House managers made a serious tactical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequential , because what they ’ ve done is they ’ ve opened the door to Burisma .
They ’ ve opened the door to Hunter Biden testifying .
And the reason for that is they have built their whole case on the proposition that they argued , they argued at length yesterday that there is zero basis for any reason to investigate Burisma , that it is completely fake and phony and bogus and without merit .
That ’ s their argument , that the only possible reason to investigate Burisma is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply not the case .
And we were talking a minute ago about the podcast that I ’ ve launched , Verdict with Ted Cruz .
Last night , the entire show , we did a half hour show where the entire topic was Burisma .
And I walked through in real detail here is all of the evidence of Burisma corruption that would justify any president saying we need to investigate .
I walked through the timeline and the facts .
And so let me encourage your listeners to go and subscribe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , give it five-star ratings .
You know , so it ’ s a little crazy , Hugh .
We launched it three days ago .
It is already one of the top ten podcasts in the world .
All of this might be true , but … does it make sense for Senate Republicans to take this up now , or especially after an acquittal ?
After all , Hunter Biden isn ’ t exactly a national threat .
Despite Graham ’ s attempts to separate it from the impeachment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take it up in the Judiciary Committee afterward .
Republicans can certainly argue the Biden-Burisma angle during the election — Trump will undoubtedly make it one of the big narratives if Biden wins the nomination — but further Senate action will end up dragging out the impeachment narrative , too .
Cruz is making a smarter argument in sticking to the defense of the predicate rather than pledging to do a deep dive independently .
That ’ s better as a threat than as a reality , especially if Burisma really does turn @ @ @ @ @ @

Old and busted: If you call John Bolton, we’ll call Hunter Biden. New hotness: We’re calling Hunter Biden no matter what. “I am going to look at this,” Senate Judiciary chair Lindsey Graham says about Burisma and the Bidens, “if nobody else does. And that doesn’t make me a Russian agent.”
No, but it might make Graham a poor deal-maker:
“I think if a Republican had done this, there would be no debate that we need to look at how did this happen,” Graham noted of the Bidens’ Ukraine scandal. “If you didn’t know your son was doing this, how closely were you looking at corruption?” “What Trump is frustrated with including me is nobody in your business spent 15 minutes telling us what Hunter Biden did and if it is good foreign policy,” Graham sounded off. “The president believes there is a double standard,” the senator went on. “I think the president believes he went through holy Hell and I believe the same thing. What he wants to do is get to the truth. Can you imagine if a Republican had done this? You need to ask yourself the question. The media as an institution, would you not have people on the ground wanting to know what his son did when he contacted the State Department?”
The points are well taken on media bias, but there’s still the issue of leverage in the trial to consider as well. Hunter Biden has been the counterweight to demands for John Bolton’s testimony, as well as Mick Mulvaney’s. If Democrats don’t want Hunter Biden under oath discussing Burisma, then (theoretically, anyway) they might back off demands for fresh witnesses. Perhaps Graham has just grown frustrated with Adam Schiff’s dismissal of Burisma as a Trumpian conspiracy theory and wants to emphasize that it’s a legitimate area of inquiry, but this pledge surrenders whatever leverage might still attain to the threat to subpoena Biden fils in this trial. If Graham’s going to subpoena him anyway later, why not go full tilt after Bolton?
And in another twist, Graham later said that he doesn’t want Hunter Biden subpoenaed as part of the Senate impeachment trial:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump’s impeachment trial. If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Graham said “I vote against it.” Graham’s opposition essentially kills the threat that Republicans have wielded in recent weeks that if Democrats win a motion to hear from additional witnesses such as former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, they will retaliate by subpoenaing the Bidens.
Graham really must dislike leverage, eh? He appears to be making a distinction between using Burisma as a cynical counterweight to the demand for witnesses and conducting a legitimate probe of the Bidens and corruption. That’s a fair point, as far as it goes, but it ignores the point that Ted Cruz has been making since Wednesday, which is that establishing reasonable suspicion of corruption in Biden’s ties to Burisma would be one positive defense of Trump’s call to Zelensky, among others.
Earlier in the morning, Cruz continued that line of argument with Hugh Hewitt, saying that — despite Schiff’s dismissive remarks — the Trump administration had a valid predicate for looking into the Bidens and Burisma. And as he has argued since Wednesday, Schiff’s argument actually opens the door to exploring the Burisma question for use in the trial as a positive defense of Donald Trump:
TC: Absolutely, yes. You know, sadly enough, the footnote you cite, I’m familiar with. I’m familiar with that Politico article. I’ve read that Politico article that came out that detailed at great length the multiple efforts that Ukraine did to interfere in the 2016 election to put, to weigh in on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Now they didn’t engage in the sort of conduct that Russia did… HH: Agree. TC: …which means they didn’t have bot farms. They weren’t hacking electronically. But they had multiple players throughout their government that were vocally aggressively advocating for Hillary Clinton and attacking Donald Trump in a way that is extremely unusual. And it is perfectly legitimate for a president, for a president to press for an investigation as to foreign countries and why they’re interfering in our elections, which is what the President did. And then when it comes to Burisma, the most important question in this entire trial, and the reason why at the end of the trial the President is going to be acquitted, is can a president investigate corruption? And the answer is obviously yes. And in fact, if there’s serious evidence of corruption, the President not only has an ability to investigate, a responsibility to do so. When it comes to Burisma, Burisma is the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. It was owned and controlled by a Ukrainian oligarch who made billions doing this. It was corrupt through and through, and Burisma had on its board Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden. It was paying him a million dollars a year. And Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person for Ukraine policy. And he vigorously advocated. He pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was investigating and targeting Burisma and the oligarch who had made billions. And he did all of this while his son was making a million bucks a year. Now whether that is in fact corrupt or not, I don’t know. But it’s at least, it’s enormous evidence to justify investigating, to make whether it’s corrupt, and that’s what President Trump asked the Ukrainians to do, and that was within his authority and responsibility to do. HH: Now our friend, Jonah Goldberg, says Hugh, don’t, and he would say Senator Cruz, don’t overlook he brought up Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike is a discredited conspiracy theory. I believe the Crowdstrike theory is discredited, but that does not disable the President from throwing out whatever he wants to throw out provided that there is a predicate for Ukrainian corruption. It will be disproven, eventually, by others that Crowdstrike is not the way to go, but Burisma is legitimate. Do you think that there is any honesty on the other side to recognize the presidential power with this predicate? TC: So there isn’t, but I also think the House managers made a serious tactical mistake. I think yesterday was very consequential, because what they’ve done is they’ve opened the door to Burisma. They’ve opened the door to Hunter Biden testifying. And the reason for that is they have built their whole case on the proposition that they argued, they argued at length yesterday that there is zero basis for any reason to investigate Burisma, that it is completely fake and phony and bogus and without merit. That’s their argument, that the only possible reason to investigate Burisma is illegitimate political motives. That’s simply not the case. And we were talking a minute ago about the podcast that I’ve launched, Verdict with Ted Cruz. Last night, the entire show, we did a half hour show where the entire topic was Burisma. And I walked through in real detail here is all of the evidence of Burisma corruption that would justify any president saying we need to investigate. I walked through the timeline and the facts. And so let me encourage your listeners to go and subscribe to Verdict with Ted Cruz, sign up, give it five-star ratings. You know, so it’s a little crazy, Hugh. We launched it three days ago. It is already one of the top ten podcasts in the world.
All of this might be true, but … does it make sense for Senate Republicans to take this up now, or especially after an acquittal? After all, Hunter Biden isn’t exactly a national threat. Despite Graham’s attempts to separate it from the impeachment, it will look more like revenge to take it up in the Judiciary Committee afterward. Republicans can certainly argue the Biden-Burisma angle during the election — Trump will undoubtedly make it one of the big narratives if Biden wins the nomination — but further Senate action will end up dragging out the impeachment narrative, too.
Cruz is making a smarter argument in sticking to the defense of the predicate rather than pledging to do a deep dive independently. That’s better as a threat than as a reality, especially if Burisma really does turn out to be a nothingburger.