hotair--2020-01-17--Acting ICE Director blames New York's sanctuary policy for murder of 92-year-old woman

At a press conference this morning , Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence blamed New York ’ s sanctuary city policy for the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman named Maria Fuertes .
“ Make no mistake .
It is this city ’ s sanctuary policies that is the sole reason this criminal was allowed to roam the streets freely and end an innocent woman ’ s life , ” Albence said .
Later he added , “ One simple phone call and Maria Fuertes could be alive today.
” Here ’ s how the NY Times reported Fuertes ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while taking what neighbors described as one of her regular strolls , Ms. Fuertes was attacked just steps from her home by a man who approached her from behind and knocked her to the ground , the police said .
Ms. Fuertes was found lying in the street and later pronounced dead .
Investigators are now seeking to determine whether she was sexually assaulted , the police said at a news conference on Friday .
A suspect , Reeaz Khan , 21 , also a resident of South Richmond Hill , fled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with murder and sex abuse , authorities said .
Fuertes was the neighborhood cat lady who would collect cans and bottles in a shopping cart and used the money , in part , to feed her 10 cats .
Reeaz Khan is in the US illegally and had been arrested last November for an assault on his own father with a broken coffee cup .
After his arrest , ICE issued a detainer asking the city to notify them before Khan was released .
Instead Khan was released shortly after his araignment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the murder of Maria Fuertes .
After ICE published a press release blaming her death on the city ’ s sanctuary policy , the city denied that it had ever received a detainer for Khan : The New York City Police Department disputed the claim on Tuesday , saying that it “ did not receive an ICE detainer in regard to this individual ” after he had been arrested on Nov. 27 , said Sgt .
Mary Frances O ’ Donnell , a department spokeswoman .
On Wednesday , ICE released a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the detainer , which was dated Nov. 27 .
In other words , the city lied .
Acting Director Albence pointed out at today ’ s press conference that the denial by the city was especially odd because New York brags on one of its websites about not responding to the detainers they do receive .
“ That ’ s why it ’ s so disingenuous when they came out in this instant case that they never received an ICE detainer .
What ’ s the difference ?
They said themselves they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year.
” Again , they did receive a detainer in this case , contrary to the city ’ s denial , but Albence is right that , given the city ’ s sanctuary policy it wouldn ’ t matter whether they had or not .
“ If you ’ re going to have a sanctuary city policy and you know it ’ s going to result in people going back into the street and committing more crimes , at least own it .
At least stand up and say that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t sit there and try to pass the blame onto somebody else .
It ’ s disgusting , ” Albence said .

At a press conference this morning, Acting ICE Director Matthew Albence blamed New York’s sanctuary city policy for the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman named Maria Fuertes. “Make no mistake. It is this city’s sanctuary policies that is the sole reason this criminal was allowed to roam the streets freely and end an innocent woman’s life,” Albence said. Later he added, “One simple phone call and Maria Fuertes could be alive today.” Here’s how the NY Times reported Fuertes’ death last week:
On Monday evening, while taking what neighbors described as one of her regular strolls, Ms. Fuertes was attacked just steps from her home by a man who approached her from behind and knocked her to the ground, the police said. Ms. Fuertes was found lying in the street and later pronounced dead. Investigators are now seeking to determine whether she was sexually assaulted, the police said at a news conference on Friday. A suspect, Reeaz Khan, 21, also a resident of South Richmond Hill, fled the scene and was later arrested and charged with murder and sex abuse, authorities said.
Fuertes was the neighborhood cat lady who would collect cans and bottles in a shopping cart and used the money, in part, to feed her 10 cats. Reeaz Khan is in the US illegally and had been arrested last November for an assault on his own father with a broken coffee cup. After his arrest, ICE issued a detainer asking the city to notify them before Khan was released. Instead Khan was released shortly after his araignment and two months later he was arrested for the murder of Maria Fuertes. After ICE published a press release blaming her death on the city’s sanctuary policy, the city denied that it had ever received a detainer for Khan:
The New York City Police Department disputed the claim on Tuesday, saying that it “did not receive an ICE detainer in regard to this individual” after he had been arrested on Nov. 27, said Sgt. Mary Frances O’Donnell, a department spokeswoman. On Wednesday, ICE released a copy of the fax transmission form appended to the detainer, which was dated Nov. 27.
In other words, the city lied. Acting Director Albence pointed out at today’s press conference that the denial by the city was especially odd because New York brags on one of its websites about not responding to the detainers they do receive. “That’s why it’s so disingenuous when they came out in this instant case that they never received an ICE detainer. What’s the difference? They said themselves they didn’t honor a single one last year.”
Again, they did receive a detainer in this case, contrary to the city’s denial, but Albence is right that, given the city’s sanctuary policy it wouldn’t matter whether they had or not. “If you’re going to have a sanctuary city policy and you know it’s going to result in people going back into the street and committing more crimes, at least own it. At least stand up and say that’s our policy. Own it. Don’t sit there and try to pass the blame onto somebody else. It’s disgusting,” Albence said.
Here’s the full press conference:


hotair--2020-01-17--Biden: Putin, Kim Jung-un, and Trump don't want me to be president

Joe Biden was busy fundraising in Houston Thursday the old-fashioned way -by attending two small , private fundraisers .
One was held in River Oaks , home of the city ’ s millionaires and billionaires , and the other was in a suburban community with a mostly African-American crowd .
He delivered a different message during the two gatherings .
Among the rich and powerful of Houston in the River Oaks home of a successful attorney during his first stop , Biden emphasized that he ’ s spending time in Texas because he wants to help turn Texas back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ ve been spending a fair amount of time in Texas.
” “ We , you all , and I hope I can be helpful can win back the state of Texas , the legislature and senator.
” Among those in the crowd of about 130 donors and supporters were Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg , former Houston Mayor Bill White , Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee , and Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo .
His remarks lasted about 30 minutes .
Perhaps Joe Pro Quo should concentrate on his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political landscape later .
He touted his 40 plus years as a lawmaker with an emphasis on foreign policy .
He told the River Oaks donors that he has spoken to “ every single world leader in the last 45 years.
” Biden has a historically poor track record on foreign policy .
Over the years , I ’ ve come to support the exact opposite of whatever Joe Biden recommends because he is usually always on the wrong side of an issue .
Biden went on to lump together Putin , Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world leaders who do not want Biden to win the 2020 election .
The former vice-president predicted that if Trump wins re-election , NATO will end within Trump ’ s second term .
As I said , Biden is usually always wrong about foreign policy , and the world in general .
President Trump has , in fact , successfully pressured NATO members to pay their dues and he seems to have a good working relationship with the secretary-general of NATO , Jens Stoltenberg .
But , hey , he got to imply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just like Putin and Little Rocketman .
Biden even implied Trump is mentally unstable , using the drone attack that killed Gen. Soleimani when he said , “ He still has another 9 or 10 months , God knows what can happen.
” Biden also fretted about Trump ’ s decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani earlier this month , saying the two nations are now at risk of a full-blown conflict .
“ We ’ re at the brink of a war with Iran .
I ’ ve said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump is , the more the walls close in on him , the more erratic he ’ s going to become , ” he said .
“ And I predicted it .
… Folks , we got to turn this around quickly .
He still has another nine or 10 months , God knows what can happen.
” Biden played the wounded father card when he pointed a finger at President Trump for the heat his son Hunter is feeling .
But , never mind him and his family , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will be needed in a post-Trump world .
“ The next president is going to have to be able to not only be a fighter , but a healer , ” Biden said .
“ They say I don ’ t know much about this Republican party , but look , they ’ ve gone after my only surviving son with lies , they ’ ve gone after me in ways that I don ’ t think anybody ’ s seen in a long , long time , and I understand them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my family .
It ’ s about you .
It ’ s about the American people .
It ’ s about understanding we got to move on .
We have to heal the country.
” Biden ’ s message was a little different during the fundraiser in Spring .
He was all about calling Trump a racist .
You may remember that Biden referenced the Charlottesville protest between Nazis , white supremacists , and local residents as the reason he felt compelled to run for president .
The twisting of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been hashed over but the left , including Biden , use the protest as an example of Trump ’ s alleged racism .
So , Biden brought it up during the second fundraiser .
Biden was all about foreign policy , experienced leadership , and describing Trump as an unstable world leader for the River Oaks crowd .
For the African-American audience in Spring , he focused on racism and inequality .
He is a seasoned politician , you know .
He knows his audiences .
The former vice president mingled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second fundraiser in Spring .
Mayor Sylvester Turner was in attendance .
Biden addressed racism and inequality in front of a largely African American group of supporters .
“ This is a man [ Trump ] who talks about African Americans with such disrespect it ’ s disgusting , ” Biden said .
“ But we ’ re at an inflection point , we ’ re at a place where the American people have been awakened.
” The former Vice President told supporters this is an inflection point in American history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it only hides and then came along 2017 and this President of the United States when asked the night that young woman was killed , he said I think there were fine people on both sides , folks hate doesn ’ t go away it just hides , ” said Biden .
“ When it ’ s given oxygen it comes out , and nobody knows it more than this community.
” I would argue that Biden ’ s words about Trump are “ disgusting ” .
Biden says American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was during Obama ’ s administration that the Black Lives Matter movement rose up .
The Obama-Biden administration did not make strides in healing racial divides in our country .
And , as far as rising up goes , it was during the Obama administration that the Tea Party movement was formed and held huge nationwide rallies to protest Obamacare , among other fiscal issues .
During the Trump administration , African-Americans are experiencing the lowest unemployment rates ever and are reaping the benefits of a strong economy , as all other Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portray himself as the great white healer but his rhetoric betrays him .

Joe Biden was busy fundraising in Houston Thursday the old-fashioned way -by attending two small, private fundraisers. One was held in River Oaks, home of the city’s millionaires and billionaires, and the other was in a suburban community with a mostly African-American crowd. He delivered a different message during the two gatherings.
Among the rich and powerful of Houston in the River Oaks home of a successful attorney during his first stop, Biden emphasized that he’s spending time in Texas because he wants to help turn Texas back into a blue state, or something. “I’ve been spending a fair amount of time in Texas.” “We, you all, and I hope I can be helpful can win back the state of Texas, the legislature and senator.” Among those in the crowd of about 130 donors and supporters were Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg, former Houston Mayor Bill White, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo. His remarks lasted about 30 minutes.
Perhaps Joe Pro Quo should concentrate on his own primary race and work on Texas’ political landscape later.
He touted his 40 plus years as a lawmaker with an emphasis on foreign policy. He told the River Oaks donors that he has spoken to “every single world leader in the last 45 years.”
“This election requires somebody who on day 1 can stand behind the podium on Jan. 21, 2021 and command the respect of the world,” Biden said. “I’ve met every single world leader in the last 45 years. I know them by their first names and they know me.”
Biden has a historically poor track record on foreign policy. Over the years, I’ve come to support the exact opposite of whatever Joe Biden recommends because he is usually always on the wrong side of an issue. Biden went on to lump together Putin, Kim Jung-un, and President Trump as three world leaders who do not want Biden to win the 2020 election.
Joe Biden adds: "I find myself the object of affection of three really interesting guys." — Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) January 17, 2020
The former vice-president predicted that if Trump wins re-election, NATO will end within Trump’s second term. As I said, Biden is usually always wrong about foreign policy, and the world in general. President Trump has, in fact, successfully pressured NATO members to pay their dues and he seems to have a good working relationship with the secretary-general of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg. But, hey, he got to imply that Trump is a bad actor, just like Putin and Little Rocketman.
Wow. In Houston, former VP Joe Biden warns that if Democrats don't take the White House, he predicts "NATO will end in the next four years." — Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) January 17, 2020
Biden even implied Trump is mentally unstable, using the drone attack that killed Gen. Soleimani when he said, “He still has another 9 or 10 months, God knows what can happen.”
Biden also fretted about Trump’s decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani earlier this month, saying the two nations are now at risk of a full-blown conflict. “We’re at the brink of a war with Iran. I’ve said this before. What worries me most about Trump is, the more the walls close in on him, the more erratic he’s going to become,” he said. “And I predicted it. … Folks, we got to turn this around quickly. He still has another nine or 10 months, God knows what can happen.”
In Houston, former VP Joe Biden says as the walls close in on Trump, the more erratic he's going to become. "He still has another 9 or 10 months, God knows what can happen." — Jeremy Wallace (@JeremySWallace) January 17, 2020
Biden played the wounded father card when he pointed a finger at President Trump for the heat his son Hunter is feeling. But, never mind him and his family, it’s all about America and the healing that will be needed in a post-Trump world.
“The next president is going to have to be able to not only be a fighter, but a healer,” Biden said. “They say I don’t know much about this Republican party, but look, they’ve gone after my only surviving son with lies, they’ve gone after me in ways that I don’t think anybody’s seen in a long, long time, and I understand them. But it’s not about my family. It’s about you. It’s about the American people. It’s about understanding we got to move on. We have to heal the country.”
Biden’s message was a little different during the fundraiser in Spring. He was all about calling Trump a racist. You may remember that Biden referenced the Charlottesville protest between Nazis, white supremacists, and local residents as the reason he felt compelled to run for president. The twisting of Trump’s words at the time of that event have been hashed over but the left, including Biden, use the protest as an example of Trump’s alleged racism. So, Biden brought it up during the second fundraiser.
Biden was all about foreign policy, experienced leadership, and describing Trump as an unstable world leader for the River Oaks crowd. For the African-American audience in Spring, he focused on racism and inequality. He is a seasoned politician, you know. He knows his audiences.
The former vice president mingled with supporters and snapped selfies before heading to a second fundraiser in Spring. Mayor Sylvester Turner was in attendance. Biden addressed racism and inequality in front of a largely African American group of supporters. “This is a man [Trump] who talks about African Americans with such disrespect it’s disgusting,” Biden said. “But we’re at an inflection point, we’re at a place where the American people have been awakened.” The former Vice President told supporters this is an inflection point in American history. “I thought you could defeat hate, but it only hides and then came along 2017 and this President of the United States when asked the night that young woman was killed, he said I think there were fine people on both sides, folks hate doesn’t go away it just hides,” said Biden. “When it’s given oxygen it comes out, and nobody knows it more than this community.”
I would argue that Biden’s words about Trump are “disgusting”. Biden says American people “have been awakened” but it was during Obama’s administration that the Black Lives Matter movement rose up. The Obama-Biden administration did not make strides in healing racial divides in our country. And, as far as rising up goes, it was during the Obama administration that the Tea Party movement was formed and held huge nationwide rallies to protest Obamacare, among other fiscal issues. During the Trump administration, African-Americans are experiencing the lowest unemployment rates ever and are reaping the benefits of a strong economy, as all other Americans are doing. Biden may want to portray himself as the great white healer but his rhetoric betrays him.


hotair--2020-01-17--Dream team? Trump adds Starr, Dershowitz, and Ray to his Senate impeachment defense

I ’ m reminded of Nicol Williamson ’ s line as Merlin in Excalibur : “ A dream to some … a nightmare to others !
” Donald Trump ’ s attorneys added three high-profile attorneys to their impeachment bench , including one member of the original O.J .
Simpson Dream Team .
The addition of Alan Dershowitz and former special prosecutors Ken Starr and Robert Ray adds celebrity power to Trump ’ s defense in the Senate trial , but also plenty of baggage — including connections to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal : President Trump plans on adding former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz to his legal team for his trial by the Senate , a person briefed on the plan said Friday .
Mr. Starr , whose investigation into President Bill Clinton ’ s sexual relationships led to his impeachment , will be joined by Robert Ray , who succeeded Mr. Starr as independent counsel and wrote the final report on Mr. Clinton , the person said .
Rounding out the team will be Mr. Dershowitz , a Harvard Law School professor who became famous as a defense counsel for high-profile defendants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House counsel , Pat Cipollone , and Mr. Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Jay Sekulow , will lead the legal team .
As CNN ’ s Dana Bash notes , one of the main points of commonality between the three is that they ’ re all on television quite a bit , especially Dershowitz .
Both he and Starr make a lot of Fox News appearances , while Ray gets around a little less often but on a wider range of platforms .
That was perhaps the only reason , as Axios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s magnificent on TV.
” That will be important in a Senate trial that will be televised , and in which senators will be restrained from making the president ’ s case outside of the opening round .
However , both Dershowitz and Starr come with some unpleasant baggage .
Starr ran the special prosecutor investigation that resulted in Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment and drew fire at the time for his salacious report on the Monica Lewinsky affair .
Lewinsky herself offered a reaction on Twitter : Of more import @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties of both men to Jeffrey Epstein .
Starr only did some legal work for Epstein , which is of course what attorneys do , but Dershowitz socialized with Epstein and has been accused of participating in sexual activities that may or may not have involved underage girls .
Dershowitz vehemently denies any such participation , but now faces a defamation action for the manner in which he denied Virginia Roberts Giuffre ’ s claim .
Axios ’ Jonathan Swan hears that White House officials had hoped to talk Trump out of adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandal : Even Robert Ray has his issues , having been accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend fourteen years ago — and having to surrender to police at that time after being charged .
That ’ s not a hanging-out-on-Pedophile-Island kind of baggage , but it ’ s not exactly a nothingburger in the # MeToo era either .
What does the White House and Trump gain from taking on this baggage ?
All three men have brilliant legal minds , for one thing .
Starr and Ray are fairly well tied to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different — a brilliant legal mind from the Left defending Trump .
Although that brand might be watered down by now from Dershowitz ’ constant Fox News appearances criticizing Democrats , he ’ s still a dyed-blue Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and likely will vote for Joe Biden the next time out .
So why did Dersh join the team ?
Dershowitz will no doubt make an effective argument , but one has to wonder whether they asked Jonathan Turley first .
Turley , also a man of the Left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House Judiciary hearing on impeachment , and then blasted his ideological allies for attacking him for just telling the truth .
Perhaps Turley ’ s more gentle manner didn ’ t fit what Trump wanted for his defense , or maybe Turley just didn ’ t want to get involved .
Dershowitz will bring fire and brimstone to his presentation , and that will ensure its entertainment value .
Finally , one has to wonder what Ken Starr will address in his arguments to the Senate .
Presumably it won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsensical nature of the article on obstruction .
Fifteen months ago , Starr sounded closer to the Democrats on that issue : “ If I ’ m on his criminal defense team , I would be very concerned , ” Starr said in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO ’ s Off Message podcast .
“ I don ’ t know what President Trump knows , but there have been a number of guilty pleas .
Some of those guilty pleas go to false statements , so I would just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Starr says he ’ d advise this even while he believes that Trump has a duty to answer investigators ’ questions under oath , just as Clinton did 20 years ago .
“ He is the president of the United States , and I think that carries with it an obligation to cooperate with duly-authorized federal investigations , ” Starr said .
“ You ’ re not above the law .
You think you ’ ve got a timeout based upon your service as president .
We respect you , you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very important job , ” Starr said .
“ But there ’ s no timeout .
You have to respond when you ’ re summoned to the bar of justice .
That ’ s the way I respond to all this .
You have to be a rule of law person if you ’ re going to occupy a position of trust.
” Ahem .
That pretty much fits the predicate of the basis for that second article , and it wouldn ’ t surprise me in the least if the House managers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — pull out that quote during their presentation .
Starr will have to argue that Trump might have been morally obligated to comply with a fair investigation , but that the House failed to engage fairly to litigate the points cited in obstruction .
Still gon na be awkward , though .
In case no one recalls the scene from Excalibur , take a look at the dream sequence .
It ’ s not even nearly the best scene from this classic take on the Arthurian cycle , so be sure to watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again …

I’m reminded of Nicol Williamson’s line as Merlin in Excalibur: “A dream to some … a nightmare to others!” Donald Trump’s attorneys added three high-profile attorneys to their impeachment bench, including one member of the original O.J. Simpson Dream Team. The addition of Alan Dershowitz and former special prosecutors Ken Starr and Robert Ray adds celebrity power to Trump’s defense in the Senate trial, but also plenty of baggage — including connections to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal:
President Trump plans on adding former independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr and the defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz to his legal team for his trial by the Senate, a person briefed on the plan said Friday. Mr. Starr, whose investigation into President Bill Clinton’s sexual relationships led to his impeachment, will be joined by Robert Ray, who succeeded Mr. Starr as independent counsel and wrote the final report on Mr. Clinton, the person said. Rounding out the team will be Mr. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor who became famous as a defense counsel for high-profile defendants like O.J. Simpson. The White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, will lead the legal team.
As CNN’s Dana Bash notes, one of the main points of commonality between the three is that they’re all on television quite a bit, especially Dershowitz. Both he and Starr make a lot of Fox News appearances, while Ray gets around a little less often but on a wider range of platforms. That was perhaps the only reason, as Axios reports that Trump wanted Dershowitz because “he’s magnificent on TV.” That will be important in a Senate trial that will be televised, and in which senators will be restrained from making the president’s case outside of the opening round.
However, both Dershowitz and Starr come with some unpleasant baggage. Starr ran the special prosecutor investigation that resulted in Bill Clinton’s impeachment and drew fire at the time for his salacious report on the Monica Lewinsky affair. Lewinsky herself offered a reaction on Twitter:
this is definitely an “are you fucking kidding me?” kinda day. — Monica Lewinsky (she/her) (@MonicaLewinsky) January 17, 2020
Of more import in a public-relations sense will be the ties of both men to Jeffrey Epstein. Starr only did some legal work for Epstein, which is of course what attorneys do, but Dershowitz socialized with Epstein and has been accused of participating in sexual activities that may or may not have involved underage girls. Dershowitz vehemently denies any such participation, but now faces a defamation action for the manner in which he denied Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s claim. Axios’ Jonathan Swan hears that White House officials had hoped to talk Trump out of adding Dershowitz to the team because of that scandal:
Several White House officials told me they were hoping Trump wouldn’t pick Alan Dershowitz to play a role in the Senate trial. They said it was an unforced error given the team was already strong and he has close, publicly documented ties to Jeffrey Epstein which could become a distraction.
Even Robert Ray has his issues, having been accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend fourteen years ago — and having to surrender to police at that time after being charged. That’s not a hanging-out-on-Pedophile-Island kind of baggage, but it’s not exactly a nothingburger in the #MeToo era either.
What does the White House and Trump gain from taking on this baggage? All three men have brilliant legal minds, for one thing. Starr and Ray are fairly well tied to the establishment Right, but Dershowitz offers something different — a brilliant legal mind from the Left defending Trump. Although that brand might be watered down by now from Dershowitz’ constant Fox News appearances criticizing Democrats, he’s still a dyed-blue Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton and likely will vote for Joe Biden the next time out. So why did Dersh join the team?
.@AlanDersh just shared the following statement with me from the legal team about him joining the President's impeachment team: pic.twitter.com/TlSqnuX09g — Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) January 17, 2020
Dershowitz will no doubt make an effective argument, but one has to wonder whether they asked Jonathan Turley first. Turley, also a man of the Left, made a similar argument very effectively at the House Judiciary hearing on impeachment, and then blasted his ideological allies for attacking him for just telling the truth. Perhaps Turley’s more gentle manner didn’t fit what Trump wanted for his defense, or maybe Turley just didn’t want to get involved. Dershowitz will bring fire and brimstone to his presentation, and that will ensure its entertainment value.
Finally, one has to wonder what Ken Starr will address in his arguments to the Senate. Presumably it won’t be Turley’s point on the nonsensical nature of the article on obstruction. Fifteen months ago, Starr sounded closer to the Democrats on that issue:
“If I’m on his criminal defense team, I would be very concerned,” Starr said in an interview for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Off Message podcast. “I don’t know what President Trump knows, but there have been a number of guilty pleas. Some of those guilty pleas go to false statements, so I would just be cautious” before answering questions from Mueller. Starr says he’d advise this even while he believes that Trump has a duty to answer investigators’ questions under oath, just as Clinton did 20 years ago. “He is the president of the United States, and I think that carries with it an obligation to cooperate with duly-authorized federal investigations,” Starr said. “You’re not above the law. You think you’ve got a timeout based upon your service as president. We respect you, you are occupying the presidency, you have a very important job,” Starr said. “But there’s no timeout. You have to respond when you’re summoned to the bar of justice. That’s the way I respond to all this. You have to be a rule of law person if you’re going to occupy a position of trust.”
Ahem. That pretty much fits the predicate of the basis for that second article, and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the House managers — maybe Adam Schiff or Jerrold Nadler — pull out that quote during their presentation. Starr will have to argue that Trump might have been morally obligated to comply with a fair investigation, but that the House failed to engage fairly to litigate the points cited in obstruction. Still gonna be awkward, though.
In case no one recalls the scene from Excalibur, take a look at the dream sequence. It’s not even nearly the best scene from this classic take on the Arthurian cycle, so be sure to watch it again. And again. And again …


hotair--2020-01-17--Dershowitz: Please don't call me a full-fledged member of Trump's defense team

You ’ ve got to be kidding , Dersh .
He ’ s trying to spin his participation in Trump ’ s defense as some sort of quasi-academic exercise more so than advocacy on behalf of a particular client .
It ’ s not that he ’ s for Trump , you see , it ’ s that he ’ s against the idea that a president can be impeached for exercising power which he ’ s constitutionally authorized to exercise .
( He ’ s dead wrong about that , but whatever . )
Trump ’ s own lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , could and would make that point on the president ’ s behalf at trial , though .
And Dershowitz could continue to make it himself in TV appearances and op-eds , as he ’ s done for months .
Instead he ’ s agreed to join the defense .
Except that he ’ s not joining-joining it , he wants us to understand .
Some on Twitter think his reluctance to fully embrace Trump here is related to the Epstein allegations against him , as if it ’ s some sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president knowing the sort of media heat his participation will bring on Trump .
If he ’ s not really participating in the defense then it ’ s not quite fair to say that Trump hired a guy who represented Epstein and has been accused of abuse by one of Epstein ’ s victims , or so the argument goes .
I don ’ t think that ’ s what this is about , though .
Dershowitz said on The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM ’ s POTUS Channel , that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president before the Senate as Trump goes on trial next week .
“ I think it overstates it to say I ’ m a member of the Trump team .
I was asked to present the constitutional argument that I would have presented had Hillary Clinton been elected and had she been impeached , ” Dershowitz said .
“ I was asked to present my constitutional argument against impeachment , ” he continued .
“ I will be there for one hour , basically , presenting my argument .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the defense team in any realistic sense of that term.
” Dershowitz isn ’ t disassociating himself from Trump in order to avoid tainting Trump with a link to Epstein ( way too late for that ) , he ’ s doing it because he ’ s 81 and knows that his legacy will suffer for his Trump legal apologetics over the past three years .
It ’ s liberal academics , historians , and lawyers who ’ ll have the strongest influence in defining that legacy once Dershowitz is gone .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ Trump chapter ” now and that they won ’ t be kind to him .
At the same time , the man loves the spotlight and probably couldn ’ t say no to a chance to address the entire country on television as a defense lawyer for the president of the United States at a once-in-a-lifetime ( well , twice-in-a-lifetime ) impeachment trial .
So he took the job and then immediately set about insisting to outraged lefties that he ’ s defending *the Constitution* here , not Trump .
Probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were shunning him before , imagine how they ’ ll feel watching him take Trump ’ s side with the president ’ s removal from office on the line .
Remember this op-ed from 2018 , after Dershowitz had already emerged as a frequent defender of Trump ’ s legal position ( s ) ?
I am a liberal Democrat in politics , but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution .
But that is not good enough for some of my old friends on Martha ’ s Vineyard .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what I have said about the Constitution might help Trump .
So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha ’ s Vineyard .
One of them , an academic at a distinguished university , has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited .
He and others have demanded “ trigger warnings ” so that they can be assured of having “ safe spaces ” in which they will not encounter me or my ideas .
Others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations that sponsor my talks .
That ’ s what he ’ s thinking about today .
Not pro-Trump , pro-Constitution .
Not part of Trump ’ s defense , just … sort of an expert witness , if you will .
Liberals can forgive him for representing a degenerate like O.J .
They can ’ t forgive him for going against The Cause .
He ’ s doing his best today to convince him that that ’ s not really what he ’ s doing , but it ’ s not gon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question in his post about Trump ’ s “ dream team ” earlier : Why Dershowitz ?
Why not , say , Jonathan Turley to make the case during the trial that a president can ’ t be impeached absent evidence of a crime ?
For Trump , I suspect , it came down to four familiar factors .
Dershowitz is : ( 1 ) famous , much more so than Turley ; ( 2 ) on Fox News regularly ; ( 3 ) “ loyal ” inasmuch as his views on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump ’ s side , however much he qualifies that by reminding people that he ’ s a liberal Democrat ; and ( 4 ) a Harvard prof by way of Yale Law School , the sort of elite credentials that our otherwise populist president reportedly so admired in Brett Kavanaugh .
Put that together and Dersh is hitting on all cylinders as the sort of lawyer who might catch the president ’ s eye .
It ’ s amusing , in fact , that Trump seems determined to carve out an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory at the trial when there ’ s news today that the GOP is hellbent on finishing it as quickly as possible .
The president doesn ’ t need Dershowitz ’ s argument to sway any votes in the Senate : His acquittal is assured either way , it ’ s unlikely to persuade any undecideds to the extent that there are any undecideds , and he and his team could save an hour of the trial by skipping it .
But he ’ s going to make time for it anyway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine the famous Alan Dershowitz arguing on his behalf .
Dersh is a celebrity !
He ’ s been a character in movies !
What could be sweeter than a TV trial in which he ’ s your lawyer ?
Sort of your lawyer , I mean .

You’ve got to be kidding, Dersh.
He’s trying to spin his participation in Trump’s defense as some sort of quasi-academic exercise more so than advocacy on behalf of a particular client. It’s not that he’s for Trump, you see, it’s that he’s against the idea that a president can be impeached for exercising power which he’s constitutionally authorized to exercise. (He’s dead wrong about that, but whatever.) Trump’s own lawyers, led by the able Pat Cipollone, could and would make that point on the president’s behalf at trial, though. And Dershowitz could continue to make it himself in TV appearances and op-eds, as he’s done for months.
Instead he’s agreed to join the defense. Except that he’s not joining-joining it, he wants us to understand.
Some on Twitter think his reluctance to fully embrace Trump here is related to the Epstein allegations against him, as if it’s some sort of damage control he’s doing for the president knowing the sort of media heat his participation will bring on Trump. If he’s not really participating in the defense then it’s not quite fair to say that Trump hired a guy who represented Epstein and has been accused of abuse by one of Epstein’s victims, or so the argument goes. I don’t think that’s what this is about, though.
Dershowitz said on The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM’s POTUS Channel, that he will just provide an hourlong constitutional defense of the president before the Senate as Trump goes on trial next week. “I think it overstates it to say I’m a member of the Trump team. I was asked to present the constitutional argument that I would have presented had Hillary Clinton been elected and had she been impeached,” Dershowitz said. “I was asked to present my constitutional argument against impeachment,” he continued. “I will be there for one hour, basically, presenting my argument. But I’m not a full-fledged member of the defense team in any realistic sense of that term.”
Dershowitz isn’t disassociating himself from Trump in order to avoid tainting Trump with a link to Epstein (way too late for that), he’s doing it because he’s 81 and knows that his legacy will suffer for his Trump legal apologetics over the past three years. It’s liberal academics, historians, and lawyers who’ll have the strongest influence in defining that legacy once Dershowitz is gone. He knows his biographies are going to have a “Trump chapter” now and that they won’t be kind to him. At the same time, the man loves the spotlight and probably couldn’t say no to a chance to address the entire country on television as a defense lawyer for the president of the United States at a once-in-a-lifetime (well, twice-in-a-lifetime) impeachment trial. So he took the job and then immediately set about insisting to outraged lefties that he’s defending *the Constitution* here, not Trump.
Probably not going to work. If they were shunning him before, imagine how they’ll feel watching him take Trump’s side with the president’s removal from office on the line. Remember this op-ed from 2018, after Dershowitz had already emerged as a frequent defender of Trump’s legal position(s)?
I am a liberal Democrat in politics, but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution. But that is not good enough for some of my old friends on Martha’s Vineyard. For them, it is enough that what I have said about the Constitution might help Trump. So they are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life on Martha’s Vineyard. One of them, an academic at a distinguished university, has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited. He and others have demanded “trigger warnings” so that they can be assured of having “safe spaces” in which they will not encounter me or my ideas. Others have said they will discontinue contributions to organizations that sponsor my talks.
That’s what he’s thinking about today. Not pro-Trump, pro-Constitution. Not part of Trump’s defense, just … sort of an expert witness, if you will. Liberals can forgive him for representing a degenerate like O.J. They can’t forgive him for going against The Cause. He’s doing his best today to convince him that that’s not really what he’s doing, but it’s not gonna work.
Yep. You show up and argue on someone’s behalf, you’re on their team. The kind of thing he might have thought of before the announcement. https://t.co/vCHoBzkLvp — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 17, 2020
Ed asked a good question in his post about Trump’s “dream team” earlier: Why Dershowitz? Why not, say, Jonathan Turley to make the case during the trial that a president can’t be impeached absent evidence of a crime? For Trump, I suspect, it came down to four familiar factors. Dershowitz is:
(1) famous, much more so than Turley;
(2) on Fox News regularly;
(3) “loyal” inasmuch as his views on the legal controversy du jour usually come down on Trump’s side, however much he qualifies that by reminding people that he’s a liberal Democrat; and
(4) a Harvard prof by way of Yale Law School, the sort of elite credentials that our otherwise populist president reportedly so admired in Brett Kavanaugh.
Put that together and Dersh is hitting on all cylinders as the sort of lawyer who might catch the president’s eye. It’s amusing, in fact, that Trump seems determined to carve out an hour for him to expound on constitutional theory at the trial when there’s news today that the GOP is hellbent on finishing it as quickly as possible. The president doesn’t need Dershowitz’s argument to sway any votes in the Senate: His acquittal is assured either way, it’s unlikely to persuade any undecideds to the extent that there are any undecideds, and he and his team could save an hour of the trial by skipping it. But he’s going to make time for it anyway, probably just because it tickles him to imagine the famous Alan Dershowitz arguing on his behalf. Dersh is a celebrity! He’s been a character in movies! What could be sweeter than a TV trial in which he’s your lawyer? Sort of your lawyer, I mean.


hotair--2020-01-17--More Martha McSally: Won't you please send me some money after I owned that liberal hack reporter?

I ’ ve changed my mind about this episode .
Until this moment I viewed it as a pitifully cynical attempt to convert right-wing grievances about the media ( particularly CNN ) into cash .
She clearly doesn ’ t have any real beef with reporter Manu Raju .
He was a target of opportunity because Trumpers in Arizona don ’ t much like her and aren ’ t giving money to her and if that doesn ’ t change soon we ’ re going to have two Democratic senators from Goldwater country .
And in both cases they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it happen .
She could singlehandedly turn Arizona blue .
She needed to give Trump fans a reason to donate to her so she manufactured that reason .
Simple as that .
Sad , as the president might say .
But then I watched this video and now I feel better about her “ liberal hack ” stunt .
She ’ s totally owning this grift .
How “ cynical ” can a moneymaking political ploy be if the pol behind it is all but wearing a “ LET ME GRIFT YOU ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the clip with a straight face , so transparent are her motives .
It ’ s downright wholesome .
We need more honesty like this in American politics .
She should take it to the next level and start setting fundraising goals tied to particular insults for particular reporters .
You want to see her call Jake Tapper an A-hole ?
Then she needs your help to raise $ 500,000 by next week .
Want her to call Jim Acosta a pussy ?
One million bucks by the end of the month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ million she ’ ll do it by crashing one of his live segments for CNN at the Capitol on the night of the State of the Union .
I ’ m surprised Trump didn ’ t think of this idea first , frankly .
He could do it with foreign leaders too .
“ Send me $ 1 million in an hour and I ’ ll tweet my best ‘ Kim Jong Un is a cuck ’ material.
” By the way , I didn ’ t realize it until I read this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more obsessed with the McSally/Raju exchange yesterday than I assumed .
It wasn ’ t just Wolf Blitzer and Cuomo grumbling about it .
It was … everyone , really .
Here you go .
Watch , and never forget : There ’ s nothing the media likes to talk about as much as the media .

I’ve changed my mind about this episode. Until this moment I viewed it as a pitifully cynical attempt to convert right-wing grievances about the media (particularly CNN) into cash. She clearly doesn’t have any real beef with reporter Manu Raju. He was a target of opportunity because Trumpers in Arizona don’t much like her and aren’t giving money to her and if that doesn’t change soon we’re going to have two Democratic senators from Goldwater country.
And in both cases they’ll have defeated Martha McSally to make it happen. She could singlehandedly turn Arizona blue.
She needed to give Trump fans a reason to donate to her so she manufactured that reason. Simple as that. Sad, as the president might say.
But then I watched this video and now I feel better about her “liberal hack” stunt. She’s totally owning this grift. How “cynical” can a moneymaking political ploy be if the pol behind it is all but wearing a “LET ME GRIFT YOU” t-shirt? She can barely get through the clip with a straight face, so transparent are her motives.
It’s downright wholesome. We need more honesty like this in American politics.
I’ve had enough of the media’s political smears and I’m not afraid to push back. If you have too, help me amplify my message and hold liberal media hacks accountable –> https://t.co/Qm2uLij1C9 pic.twitter.com/WNJZgu3wlz — Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSallyAZ) January 17, 2020
She should take it to the next level and start setting fundraising goals tied to particular insults for particular reporters. You want to see her call Jake Tapper an A-hole? Then she needs your help to raise $500,000 by next week.
Want her to call Jim Acosta a pussy? One million bucks by the end of the month.
If we make it to $2 million she’ll do it by crashing one of his live segments for CNN at the Capitol on the night of the State of the Union.
I’m surprised Trump didn’t think of this idea first, frankly. He could do it with foreign leaders too. “Send me $1 million in an hour and I’ll tweet my best ‘Kim Jong Un is a cuck’ material.”
By the way, I didn’t realize it until I read this post by Tiana Lowe but CNN was even more obsessed with the McSally/Raju exchange yesterday than I assumed. It wasn’t just Wolf Blitzer and Cuomo grumbling about it. It was … everyone, really. Here you go. Watch, and never forget: There’s nothing the media likes to talk about as much as the media.
Sen. Martha McSally called CNN's Manu Raju a "liberal hack" when he asked her about considering new evidence for President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. So @AndersonCooper is placing her on the #RidicuList https://t.co/Rnazk3swlJ pic.twitter.com/FgCW3L0CF5 — Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) January 17, 2020
Video: Talking again about McSally's "disgusting statement" to Manu Raju, CNN's Wolf Blitzer seems to be giving an indirect show of support for McSally opponent/Democrat Mark Kelly, ruling that this "won't" "score political points" in Arizona because they're "smarter than that" pic.twitter.com/OF7fm6j7zk — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 16, 2020
CNN's Chris Cuomo: Martha McSally acted like a "punk" and "did a disservice to herself" for calling a reporter a "liberal hack." This is from a guy who threatened to throw someone down a flight of stairs because he thinks "Fredo" is the n word for Italians. pic.twitter.com/NWM9F22x47 — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 17, 2020
.@SenMcSallyAZ calls CNN's @mkraju a "liberal hack" for simply doing his job. pic.twitter.com/ZkVfQmQmkG — CNN Early Start (@EarlyStart) January 17, 2020


hotair--2020-01-18--So they lied to us about the war in Afghanistan, eh?

The surprise announcement from the Taliban that we ’ re about to sign a peace deal with them is being slightly overshadowed this week .
While I ’ m sure plenty of people have been waiting for us to pull out of that quagmire , the release of a stack of Pentagon documents regarding the war will provide even more reason for concern .
Assuming this is all true ( and it certainly looks legitimate ) , the Pentagon and the rest of the government have been lying to us for years about how much of a “ success ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are we really all that surprised ?
( WaPo ) The special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction told Congress Wednesday that U.S. officials have routinely lied to the public during the 18-year war by exaggerating progress reports and inflating statistics to create a false appearance of success .
“ There ’ s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue .
.
.
mendacity and hubris , ” John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee .
“ The problem is there is a disincentive , really , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an incentive to almost require people to lie.
” As an example , Sopko said U.S. officials have lied in the past about the number of Afghan children enrolled in schools — a key marker of progress touted by the Obama administration — even though they “ knew the data was bad.
” So what else does the IG say they ’ ve been lying about ?
Increases in life expectancy for Afghanis , increased opportunities and freedoms for women , civilian casualty numbers and even the opinions of some of our own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( At least one General was on record as saying “ he didn ’ t know what we were doing in Afghanistan ” and that the war was “ likely unwinnable.
” ) Of course , our government has something of a history when it comes to honesty in reporting on our efforts in foreign wars .
Look no further back than Vietnam .
Many of the pictures painted by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations were quite rosy even after it had started to become obvious that we would never tame that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the conflict in Korea , sometimes being released even as Chinese backed forces were overrunning some of our outposts .
As my father always used to tell me , bad things happen in war .
But the government doesn ’ t always like to talk about it .
When talk of the ceasefire was seriously heating up at the end of last year , I wrote about the futility of remaining in Afghanistan and the need for us to be honest with ourselves and the rest of the world .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about our utter failure to transform that country into anything resembling a vibrant democracy and the home to a free people .
I ’ ll toss some props to Erick Erickson for his bleak but honest assessment of a war that has almost undeniably turned out to be a failure of each of our objectives beyond killing Osama bin Laden .
[ It ] turns out our military leaders do not know why we are in Afghanistan either .
The government continues to be corrupt .
In fact , corruption is systemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classes inside Afghanistan .
The American government failed at the core task of taking out the Taliban .
The American government further failed to establish a sound government capable of taking out the Taliban after we left .
We are now failing by propping up a kleptocracy that has no desire to change .
The situation already looked like a lost cause when the government was lying to us about how bad it was .
The truth only reinforces that impression .
The leadership in Afghanistan is corrupt , perhaps even more so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saddam Hussein .
And that applies to the government we helped establish as well as the Taliban .
Our allies in that country are riddled with people who are only awaiting the opportunity to take some of our troops out .
Even some of the ones we count as reliable friends chain young boys to their beds to use as sex slaves .
It ’ s time to go home , even knowing that the American-backed government will almost immediately collapse , the Taliban will go back on all of their promises and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s always been .
The sad truth is , we didn ’ t wind up changing Afghanistan .
But for nearly twenty years now , Afghanistan surely ended up changing us .

The surprise announcement from the Taliban that we’re about to sign a peace deal with them is being slightly overshadowed this week. While I’m sure plenty of people have been waiting for us to pull out of that quagmire, the release of a stack of Pentagon documents regarding the war will provide even more reason for concern. Assuming this is all true (and it certainly looks legitimate), the Pentagon and the rest of the government have been lying to us for years about how much of a “success” the war has been. And honestly… are we really all that surprised? (WaPo)
The special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction told Congress Wednesday that U.S. officials have routinely lied to the public during the 18-year war by exaggerating progress reports and inflating statistics to create a false appearance of success. “There’s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue . . . mendacity and hubris,” John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “The problem is there is a disincentive, really, to tell the truth. We have created an incentive to almost require people to lie.” As an example, Sopko said U.S. officials have lied in the past about the number of Afghan children enrolled in schools — a key marker of progress touted by the Obama administration — even though they “knew the data was bad.”
So what else does the IG say they’ve been lying about? Increases in life expectancy for Afghanis, increased opportunities and freedoms for women, civilian casualty numbers and even the opinions of some of our own generals on the progress being made. (At least one General was on record as saying “he didn’t know what we were doing in Afghanistan” and that the war was “likely unwinnable.”)
Of course, our government has something of a history when it comes to honesty in reporting on our efforts in foreign wars. Look no further back than Vietnam. Many of the pictures painted by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations were quite rosy even after it had started to become obvious that we would never tame that country. There were equally optimistic messages about the conflict in Korea, sometimes being released even as Chinese backed forces were overrunning some of our outposts. As my father always used to tell me, bad things happen in war. But the government doesn’t always like to talk about it.
When talk of the ceasefire was seriously heating up at the end of last year, I wrote about the futility of remaining in Afghanistan and the need for us to be honest with ourselves and the rest of the world. Not only honest about our plans to withdraw but about our utter failure to transform that country into anything resembling a vibrant democracy and the home to a free people.
I’ll toss some props to Erick Erickson for his bleak but honest assessment of a war that has almost undeniably turned out to be a failure of each of our objectives beyond killing Osama bin Laden.
[It] turns out our military leaders do not know why we are in Afghanistan either. The government continues to be corrupt. In fact, corruption is systemic and endemic to the various tribes and political classes inside Afghanistan. The American government failed at the core task of taking out the Taliban. The American government further failed to establish a sound government capable of taking out the Taliban after we left. We are now failing by propping up a kleptocracy that has no desire to change.
The situation already looked like a lost cause when the government was lying to us about how bad it was. The truth only reinforces that impression. The leadership in Afghanistan is corrupt, perhaps even more so than the local government in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. And that applies to the government we helped establish as well as the Taliban. Our allies in that country are riddled with people who are only awaiting the opportunity to take some of our troops out. Even some of the ones we count as reliable friends chain young boys to their beds to use as sex slaves.
It’s time to go home, even knowing that the American-backed government will almost immediately collapse, the Taliban will go back on all of their promises and the country will return to how it’s always been. The sad truth is, we didn’t wind up changing Afghanistan. But for nearly twenty years now, Afghanistan surely ended up changing us.


hotair--2020-01-18--Wine cave hangover: Warren supporter trolls Buttigieg during rally in NH

The wine cave fundraiser is coming back to haunt Pete Buttigieg .
In New Hampshire on Friday , a former summer fellow for Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign participated in a singalong with a group of others .
Unfortunately for Mayor Pete , it happened during his campaign rally in Concord .
That ’ s right – singing protesters .
I suppose that singing is more pleasant than screaming obscenities or rude statements while disrupting a candidate ’ s political rally .
Buttigieg was looking out into the crowd and sees right in the middle of them ( and what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signs reading “ Pete takes money from fossil fuel billionaires ” .
He begins to address the protesters by saying , “ I see some inaccurate information going on up here.
” Saying he wanted to “ take care of it real quick , ” he thinks that telling the crowd that he signed the fossil fuels pledge will sway the protesters .
He should have known better than that .
While his supporters clap , the protesters burst into song .
“ I pledge not to take contributions over $ 200 from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executives , lobbyists , and PACs and instead prioritize the health of our families , climate , and democracy over fossil fuel industry profits.
” Buttigieg tries again to divert attention from the sign-holding , singing protesters .
He thanks them for coming and says he can ’ t quite understand what they are singing .
He tries a message of party unity .
He asks if they are all willing to come together to solve the problems facing our nation .
He asks if Democrats will turn on one another or unite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we have already entered the turning on one another phase of the Democrat primary .
That ship sailed during the Democrat debate where Elizabeth Warren tried to skewer Buttigieg for the high-dollar fundraiser in the wine cave .
Like most things with Warren , though , that attack backfired when Warren ’ s own pricey fundraisers were brought to light , some involving wine .
It turns out that a summer fellow for Warren ’ s campaign , Allison Frisella , posted a tweet claiming credit for the disruption .
She pointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various organizations that were included .
I guess responses on Twitter came quickly because right away she was separating herself from Warren ’ s current campaign .
She said she wasn ’ t protesting on behalf of the campaign , that the protesters supported various candidates .
Buttigieg supporters countered with campaign contributions Warren has received .
We all know how this game goes , right ?
Some responses to her tweet questioned which other campaigns the groups would be interrupting .
Some said the protest had Warren written all over it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top of her Twitter feed in which she describes herself as a college student , a volunteer on-campus for Warren and all views are her own .
In other words , please don ’ t blame Elizabeth for my protest .
The fossil fuel billionaire that is mentioned is Craig Hall , the chairman of a fossil fuel investment company .
Buttigieg is slipping in the polls .
He made it to the top of the polls in Iowa last month but now is in third place behind Biden and Sanders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fourth place , behind Sanders , Biden , and Warren .
The polls remain in flux , though it is notable that Biden rises and falls yet manages to rise to the top again , despite all of his baggage and flubs .

The wine cave fundraiser is coming back to haunt Pete Buttigieg. In New Hampshire on Friday, a former summer fellow for Elizabeth Warren’s campaign participated in a singalong with a group of others. Unfortunately for Mayor Pete, it happened during his campaign rally in Concord. That’s right – singing protesters.
I suppose that singing is more pleasant than screaming obscenities or rude statements while disrupting a candidate’s political rally. Buttigieg was looking out into the crowd and sees right in the middle of them (and what looks like upfront toward the stage) signs reading “Pete takes money from fossil fuel billionaires”. He begins to address the protesters by saying, “I see some inaccurate information going on up here.” Saying he wanted to “take care of it real quick,” he thinks that telling the crowd that he signed the fossil fuels pledge will sway the protesters. He should have known better than that. While his supporters clap, the protesters burst into song.
Here’s the fossil fuels pledge:
“I pledge not to take contributions over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, and PACs and instead prioritize the health of our families, climate, and democracy over fossil fuel industry profits.”
Buttigieg tries again to divert attention from the sign-holding, singing protesters. He thanks them for coming and says he can’t quite understand what they are singing. He tries a message of party unity. He asks if they are all willing to come together to solve the problems facing our nation. He asks if Democrats will turn on one another or unite. Apparently Buttigieg doesn’t realize that we have already entered the turning on one another phase of the Democrat primary. That ship sailed during the Democrat debate where Elizabeth Warren tried to skewer Buttigieg for the high-dollar fundraiser in the wine cave. Like most things with Warren, though, that attack backfired when Warren’s own pricey fundraisers were brought to light, some involving wine.
It turns out that a summer fellow for Warren’s campaign, Allison Frisella, posted a tweet claiming credit for the disruption. She pointed out that 37 people participated and names various organizations that were included.
Today 37 of us from @RightsNH ,@NHYouthMovement , @350action , & @CPDAction disrupted Pete Buttigieg in Concord. Pete has taken money from Craig Hall, the chairman of a fossil fuel investment firm. We cannot trust Pete to stand for climate justice when he takes fossil fuel money. pic.twitter.com/WK7KpE67m4 — Alison Frisella (@alison_frisella) January 17, 2020
I guess responses on Twitter came quickly because right away she was separating herself from Warren’s current campaign. She said she wasn’t protesting on behalf of the campaign, that the protesters supported various candidates.
Look y’all, this is not on behalf of team Warren. There were plenty of us who personally support a variety of candidates present today. I’m aloud to work for more than one org. I am not a staff member of Team Warren anymore, though still an avid supporter. — Alison Frisella (@alison_frisella) January 17, 2020
Note how I said I was with @RightsNH @NHYouthMovement @350action and @CPDAction ? That’s because those were the orgs I was working with today. NOT on behalf of Team Warren. If you happen to support Pete, that doesn’t mean you speak for the whole campaign. The same is true for me. — Alison Frisella (@alison_frisella) January 17, 2020
Buttigieg supporters countered with campaign contributions Warren has received. We all know how this game goes, right? Some responses to her tweet questioned which other campaigns the groups would be interrupting. Some said the protest had Warren written all over it.
Now there is a pinned tweet at the top of her Twitter feed in which she describes herself as a college student, a volunteer on-campus for Warren and all views are her own. In other words, please don’t blame Elizabeth for my protest.
The fossil fuel billionaire that is mentioned is Craig Hall, the chairman of a fossil fuel investment company.
Buttigieg is slipping in the polls. He made it to the top of the polls in Iowa last month but now is in third place behind Biden and Sanders. In New Hampshire, he is in fourth place, behind Sanders, Biden, and Warren. The polls remain in flux, though it is notable that Biden rises and falls yet manages to rise to the top again, despite all of his baggage and flubs.


hotair--2020-01-18--We have reached the inevitable "body language analysis" stage of the Bernie/Warren dispute

A social-media spasm among Berniebros triggered by this idiotic clip is already well underway as you ’ re reading this , rest assured .
The best part is the provenance .
This “ analysis ” is the sort of thing most lefties would tell you they ’ d expect to see on a slow-news-day episode of “ Fox & Friends , ” aimed at antagonizing progressives by pitting them against each other .
But it ’ s not Fox News that aired this , is it ?
“ Strategically speaking , it ’ s the most idiotic thing I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic strategist to the Hill when asked about the Bernie/Warren sexism uproar .
“ There is only one winner out of this battle : It ’ s Joe Biden.
” Right .
So why is the left ’ s cable news network of choice escalating the dispute instead of trying to paper it over ?
I don ’ t know whether to applaud Joy Reid or to laugh at her for being willing to kick the hornet ’ s nest , and for the lamest conceivable “ analysis.
” This Intercept story asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we that it was Team Warren that leaked the details of her conversation with Bernie in 2018 about a woman ’ s chances of defeating Trump ?
Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run , Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists , according to sources with knowledge of it .
At the dinner , Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders , and in the course of the discussion , she relayed that Sanders had warned that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat Trump in 2020 .
Different reporters recalled the comments differently , a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump , while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman , not that it would work .
( The Intercept was not at the dinner .
Most politicians hold informal , off-record dinners or meetings with journalists , though it ’ s not something Sanders is known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings leak , but it ’ s rare . )
From there , the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream , circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print .
On Monday , it finally did , with CNN ’ s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “ two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter , and two people familiar with the meeting ” — Sanders had told Warren , according to CNN ’ s paraphrasing , that “ he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” That sounds like contemporaneous corroboration of Warren ’ s account of the convo with Bernie — or partial corroboration , I guess .
Evidently even the reporters can ’ t agree on whether she claimed Sanders flatly insisted a woman couldn ’ t win or not .
Either way , asks the Intercept , isn ’ t it possible that some of the reporters who were at that off-the-record dinner with Warren leaked the details last week to CNN of what was allegedly said between her and Bernie during their 2018 chat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If reporters were going to spill it , they would have spilled it long ago .
The timing suggests that it was a last-ditch shot by Team Warren to undermine Sanders ’ s progressive cred in the home stretch to Iowa .
And it ’ s far too coincidental that the story appeared just 48 hours after Politico reported that Bernie volunteers were questioning Warren ’ s electability in chats with voters , with Warren claiming she felt “ trashed ” when she found out .
The leak of their private conversation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to punish Sanders for that and warn him that she ’ s willing to play rough if he doesn ’ t get his people in line .
Although the Intercept ’ s theory does have one thing going for it .
It would explain why Team Warren thought , seemingly insanely , that leaking the conversation would help them more with non-Bernie voters than it would harm them with Berniebros whose support they ’ ll need if she ends up as the nominee .
Answer : They didn ’ t think that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place !
Except they did .
C ’ mon .
In lieu of an exit question , check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s analysis of how the Democratic candidates ’ support changed after this week ’ s debate , an event at which the convo between Bernie and Warren was discussed .
The share of Dem voters who said they ’ d consider voting for Warren rose by nearly three and a half points .
The share who said the same of Sanders rose by just two-tenths of a point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by nearly three and a half points .
Bernie ’ s favorable dropped slightly — and his unfavorable rating increased nearly three full points .
Hmmmm .
Maybe the Warren leakers knew what they were doing after all .

A social-media spasm among Berniebros triggered by this idiotic clip is already well underway as you’re reading this, rest assured.
The best part is the provenance. This “analysis” is the sort of thing most lefties would tell you they’d expect to see on a slow-news-day episode of “Fox & Friends,” aimed at antagonizing progressives by pitting them against each other.
But it’s not Fox News that aired this, is it?
JFC MSNBC’s Joy Reid invited on a body language expert to say “Bernie is lying” about the Warren spat pic.twitter.com/yhqchYFHk8 — Ibrahim (@Ibrahimpols) January 18, 2020
“Strategically speaking, it’s the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen,” said one Democratic strategist to the Hill when asked about the Bernie/Warren sexism uproar. “There is only one winner out of this battle: It’s Joe Biden.”
Right. So why is the left’s cable news network of choice escalating the dispute instead of trying to paper it over? I don’t know whether to applaud Joy Reid or to laugh at her for being willing to kick the hornet’s nest, and for the lamest conceivable “analysis.”
This Intercept story asks an interesting question. How sure are we that it was Team Warren that leaked the details of her conversation with Bernie in 2018 about a woman’s chances of defeating Trump?
Not long after meeting with Sanders at the end of 2018 to discuss her impending presidential run, Warren hosted an off-the-record dinner with a number of journalists, according to sources with knowledge of it. At the dinner, Warren was asked about her meeting with Sanders, and in the course of the discussion, she relayed that Sanders had warned that he didn’t believe a woman could beat Trump in 2020. Different reporters recalled the comments differently, a mirror image of the dispute between Warren and Sanders over exactly what Sanders said — with Warren saying that Sanders argued a woman couldn’t beat Trump, while Sanders said that he only said Trump would weaponize misogyny against a woman, not that it would work. (The Intercept was not at the dinner. Most politicians hold informal, off-record dinners or meetings with journalists, though it’s not something Sanders is known to do. Occasionally details from those meetings leak, but it’s rare.) From there, the piece of news entered the journalistic bloodstream, circulating among reporters as gossip but not finding its way into print. On Monday, it finally did, with CNN’s M.J. Lee reporting that according to four sources — described as “two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting” — Sanders had told Warren, according to CNN’s paraphrasing, that “he did not believe a woman could win.”
That sounds like contemporaneous corroboration of Warren’s account of the convo with Bernie — or partial corroboration, I guess. Evidently even the reporters can’t agree on whether she claimed Sanders flatly insisted a woman couldn’t win or not. Either way, asks the Intercept, isn’t it possible that some of the reporters who were at that off-the-record dinner with Warren leaked the details last week to CNN of what was allegedly said between her and Bernie during their 2018 chat?
I’m thinking no. If reporters were going to spill it, they would have spilled it long ago. The timing suggests that it was a last-ditch shot by Team Warren to undermine Sanders’s progressive cred in the home stretch to Iowa. And it’s far too coincidental that the story appeared just 48 hours after Politico reported that Bernie volunteers were questioning Warren’s electability in chats with voters, with Warren claiming she felt “trashed” when she found out. The leak of their private conversation was almost certainly a revenge op by Warren to punish Sanders for that and warn him that she’s willing to play rough if he doesn’t get his people in line.
Although the Intercept’s theory does have one thing going for it. It would explain why Team Warren thought, seemingly insanely, that leaking the conversation would help them more with non-Bernie voters than it would harm them with Berniebros whose support they’ll need if she ends up as the nominee. Answer: They didn’t think that. They didn’t leak the conversation in the first place!
Except they did. C’mon.
In lieu of an exit question, check out FiveThirtyEight’s analysis of how the Democratic candidates’ support changed after this week’s debate, an event at which the convo between Bernie and Warren was discussed. The share of Dem voters who said they’d consider voting for Warren rose by nearly three and a half points. The share who said the same of Sanders rose by just two-tenths of a point. Warren’s favorable rating also rose by nearly three and a half points. Bernie’s favorable dropped slightly — and his unfavorable rating increased nearly three full points. Hmmmm. Maybe the Warren leakers knew what they were doing after all.


hotair--2020-01-18--Fifth Circuit to inmate: Don't hand us no lines and keep your faers to faerself

Do prisons and courts owe inmates — or anyone else — the use of their preferred pronouns ?
Thanks to a strange appeal to the Fifth Circuit this week , the answer is no , at least in Louisiana , Mississippi , and Texas — maybe .
Norman Varner is in the middle of a 15-year sentence for possession of child pornography , but he now wishes to be known as Katherine Nicole Jett and identifies as female .
A lower court had ruled against his effort to get his name changed on his committal to prison , and Varner/Jett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demand that the courts and prisons refer to Varner/Jett by his now-preferred pronouns .
The Fifth Circuit overturned the original ruling on the name change , deciding that the court didn ’ t have the authority to even entertain the motion in the first place .
On a 2-1 decision , Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan went at more length to make clear that the normal application of English pronouns would be sufficient for courts and other government officials , although they can individually choose on pronouns for themselves .
Not only has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compelling use might indicate bias — and besides , the question then opens up a “ three-dimensional galaxy ” of uncertainty in compelled speech ( via PJ Media ’ s Tyler O ’ Neil ) : While conceding that “ biological [ ly ] ” he is male , Varner argues female pronouns are nonetheless required to prevent “ discriminat [ ion ] ” based on his female “ gender identity.
” But Varner identifies no federal statute or rule requiring courts or other parties to judicial proceedings to use pronouns according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Congress knows precisely how to legislate with respect to gender identity discrimination , because it has done so in specific statutes .
… But Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex , rather than according to their subjective gender identity .
Second , if a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants , it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality .
Federal judges should always seek to promote confidence that they will dispense evenhanded justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Code of Conduct for United States Judges ( requiring judges to “ act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary ” ) .
At its core , this judicial impartiality is “ the lack of bias for or against either party to the proceeding , ” which “ assures equal application of the law.
” Repub .
Party of Minn. v. White , 536 U.S. 765 , 775–76 ( 1992 ) ( cleaned up ) ; see also , e.g.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 672 ( 5th Cir .
2008 ) ( explaining that defendants ’ “ right to a fair trial ” is in part “ fulfilled by a judicial officer who impartially presides over the trial ” ) ( citing Bracy v. Gramley , 520 U.S. 899 , 904–05 ( 1997 ) ) .
Increasingly , federal courts today are asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity .
See , e.g.
, Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch .
Dist.
, 897 F.3d 518 ( 3d Cir .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 139 S. Ct. 2636 ( 2019 ) ( evaluating school district policy allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity instead of their sex ) ; Adams by & through Kasper v. Sch .
Bd .
of St. Johns Cty.
, Fla. , 318 F. Supp .
3d 1293 , 1296 ( M.D .
Fla. 2018 ) ( stating that “ what this case is about ” is “ whether Drew Adams is a boy ” ) .
In cases like these , a court may have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request to be addressed with pronouns matching his “ deeply felt , inherent sense of [ his ] gender.
” Edmo v. Corizon , Inc. , 935 F.3d 757 , 768 ( 9th Cir .
2019 ) ( cleaned up ) .
Yet in doing so , the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant ’ s underlying legal position .
See , e.g.
, United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez , 547 F.2d 291 , 297 ( 5th Cir .
1977 ) ( observing that a trial judge “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of strict impartiality , ” including by “ exhibit [ ing ] neutrality in his language ” ) .
Even this appearance of bias , whether real or not , should be avoided .
Third , ordering use of a litigant ’ s preferred pronouns may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear .
It oversimplifies matters to say that gender dysphoric people merely prefer pronouns opposite from their birth sex— “ her ” instead of “ his , ” or “ his ” instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dysphoric person ’ s “ [ e ] xperienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes.
” DSM-5 , at 453 ; see also , e.g.
, Dylan Vade , Expanding Gender and Expanding the Law : Toward a Social and Legal Conceptualization of Gender that Is More Inclusive of Transgender People , 11 Mich. J .
Gender & L. 253 , 261 ( 2005 ) ( positing that gender is not binary but rather a three-dimensional “ galaxy ” ) .
Given that , one university has created this widely-circulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Where would this all end ?
, the majority wondered .
In contempt demands that would grind the legal process to a halt for no good purpose , they concluded : If a court orders one litigant referred to as “ her ” ( instead of “ him ” ) , then the court can hardly refuse when the next litigant moves to be referred to as “ xemself ” ( instead of “ himself ” ) .
Deploying such neologisms could hinder communication among the parties and the court .
And presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disobeyed , would be enforceable through its contempt power .
… When local governments have sought to enforce pronoun usage , they have had to make refined distinctions based on matters such as the types of allowable pronouns and the intent of the “ misgendering ” offender .
See Clark , 132 Harv .
L. Rev .
at 958–59 ( discussing New York City regulation prohibiting “ intentional or repeated refusal ” to use pronouns including “ them/them/theirs or ze/hir ” after person has “ made clear ” his preferred pronouns ) .4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking .
Note , however , that this does not prevent courts or government officials from choosing on their own to use someone ’ s preferred pronouns .
Duncan writes up front that the courts also lack the authority to compel the use of biologically appropriate pronouns either , and that some courts have done so — “ purely as a courtesy to parties ” before them .
However , ‘ [ n ] one has adopted the practice as a matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , “ and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice.
” The majority opinion in this appeal would not compel use in either direction ; it establishes , rather , that people can choose for themselves which pronouns to use .
That seems to be an eminently reasonable and rational conclusion , yes ?
Not to fellow jurist Judge James L. Dennis , who blasts the decision not to use the inmate ’ s preferred pronouns .
Dennis writes in his dissent that this request was nowhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that Varner/Jett was merely requesting the courtesy that the majority referenced in this one instance only : The majority concludes that , based on Varner ’ s two-sentence , pro-se motion , Varner seeks , “ at a minimum , to require the district court and the government to refer to Varner with female instead of male pronouns.
” But Varner ’ s request is not so broad .
The terms “ district court ” and “ government ” are not mentioned in Varner ’ s motion .
The motion was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Motion to Use Female Pronouns When Addressing Appellant.
” Varner ’ s use of the term “ appellant ” to describe herself leads to the conclusion that her request is confined to the terms used by this court in this proceeding .
In my view , Varner is simply requesting that this court , in this proceeding , refer to Varner using her preferred gender pronouns .
Not only is this the most faithful interpretation of her motion given the language she uses , it is also the narrowest .
… Ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is none by misinterpreting Varner ’ s motion as requesting “ at a minimum , to require the district court and the government to refer to Varner with female instead of male pronouns , ” when she in fact simply requests that this court address her using female pronouns while deciding her appeal .
The majority then issues an advisory opinion on the way it would answer the hypothetical questions that only it has raised .
Such an advisory opinion is inappropriate , unnecessary , and beyond the purview of federal courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his “ emphatic [ ] ” dissent , the court took a molehill and built it into a precedential mountain .
Dennis also disputes whether this is precedential at all , calling it “ dictum and not binding precedent.
” Did the other two jurists overreact to a polite request ?
Perhaps that ’ s best answered by the fact that Varner/Jett put the polite request into the form of a legal motion accompanying his appeal .
That might have been intended as a polite request , but motions are usually demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is it unreasonable for jurists to rule on motions — rulings which might indeed carry precedential weight — on the basis of law rather than courtesy ?
Could this request have been made more informally by Varner/Jett ’ s attorney , or through a personal letter from the petitioner to the court ?
In a way , this validates the majority ’ s concern over bias if pronoun use was to be compelled .
The petitioner in this case has no factual basis to claim that equal justice can not be reached without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ except to say that he would “ feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity.
” Feelings do not trump objective facts , however , nor do they trump statutes .
To react to every such motion by recasting all pronoun use in a case to the feelings of the moment would be to create chaos .
Some courts might be willing to put up with that , but Duncan gets it correct by saying that they have no obligation to do so — only an obligation to deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the identities before them in court .

Do prisons and courts owe inmates — or anyone else — the use of their preferred pronouns? Thanks to a strange appeal to the Fifth Circuit this week, the answer is no, at least in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — maybe. Norman Varner is in the middle of a 15-year sentence for possession of child pornography, but he now wishes to be known as Katherine Nicole Jett and identifies as female. A lower court had ruled against his effort to get his name changed on his committal to prison, and Varner/Jett had appealed — and added a motion to demand that the courts and prisons refer to Varner/Jett by his now-preferred pronouns.
The Fifth Circuit overturned the original ruling on the name change, deciding that the court didn’t have the authority to even entertain the motion in the first place. On a 2-1 decision, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan went at more length to make clear that the normal application of English pronouns would be sufficient for courts and other government officials, although they can individually choose on pronouns for themselves. Not only has Congress not passed any such statutory requirement, compelling use might indicate bias — and besides, the question then opens up a “three-dimensional galaxy” of uncertainty in compelled speech (via PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil):
While conceding that “biological[ly]” he is male, Varner argues female pronouns are nonetheless required to prevent “discriminat[ion]” based on his female “gender identity.” But Varner identifies no federal statute or rule requiring courts or other parties to judicial proceedings to use pronouns according to a litigant’s gender identity. Congress knows precisely how to legislate with respect to gender identity discrimination, because it has done so in specific statutes. … But Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity. Second, if a court were to compel the use of particular pronouns at the invitation of litigants, it could raise delicate questions about judicial impartiality. Federal judges should always seek to promote confidence that they will dispense evenhanded justice. See Canon 2(A), Code of Conduct for United States Judges (requiring judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”). At its core, this judicial impartiality is “the lack of bias for or against either party to the proceeding,” which “assures equal application of the law.” Repub. Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 775–76 (1992) (cleaned up); see also, e.g., Bunton v. Quarterman, 524 F.3d 664, 672 (5th Cir. 2008) (explaining that defendants’ “right to a fair trial” is in part “fulfilled by a judicial officer who impartially presides over the trial”) (citing Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904–05 (1997)). Increasingly, federal courts today are asked to decide cases that turn on hotly-debated issues of sex and gender identity. See, e.g., Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518 (3d Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2636 (2019) (evaluating school district policy allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding to their gender identity instead of their sex); Adams by & through Kasper v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cty., Fla., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1296 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (stating that “what this case is about” is “whether Drew Adams is a boy”). In cases like these, a court may have the most benign motives in honoring a party’s request to be addressed with pronouns matching his “deeply felt, inherent sense of [his] gender.” Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 935 F.3d 757, 768 (9th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Yet in doing so, the court may unintentionally convey its tacit approval of the litigant’s underlying legal position. See, e.g., United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez, 547 F.2d 291, 297 (5th Cir. 1977) (observing that a trial judge “must make every effort to preserve the appearance of strict impartiality,” including by “exhibit[ing] neutrality in his language”). Even this appearance of bias, whether real or not, should be avoided. Third, ordering use of a litigant’s preferred pronouns may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear. It oversimplifies matters to say that gender dysphoric people merely prefer pronouns opposite from their birth sex—“her” instead of “his,” or “his” instead of “her.” In reality, a dysphoric person’s “[e]xperienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes.” DSM-5, at 453; see also, e.g., Dylan Vade, Expanding Gender and Expanding the Law: Toward a Social and Legal Conceptualization of Gender that Is More Inclusive of Transgender People, 11 Mich. J. Gender & L. 253, 261 (2005) (positing that gender is not binary but rather a three-dimensional “galaxy”). Given that, one university has created this widely-circulated pronoun usage guide for gender-dysphoric persons:
Where would this all end?, the majority wondered. In contempt demands that would grind the legal process to a halt for no good purpose, they concluded:
If a court orders one litigant referred to as “her” (instead of “him”),
then the court can hardly refuse when the next litigant moves to be referred to as “xemself” (instead of “himself”). Deploying such neologisms could hinder communication among the parties and the court. And presumably the court’s order, if disobeyed, would be enforceable through its contempt power. … When local governments have sought to enforce pronoun usage, they have had to make refined distinctions based on matters such as the types of allowable pronouns and the intent of the “misgendering” offender. See Clark, 132 Harv. L. Rev. at 958–59 (discussing New York City regulation prohibiting “intentional or repeated refusal” to use pronouns including “them/them/theirs or ze/hir” after person has “made clear” his preferred pronouns).4 Courts would have to do the same. We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.
Note, however, that this does not prevent courts or government officials from choosing on their own to use someone’s preferred pronouns. Duncan writes up front that the courts also lack the authority to compel the use of biologically appropriate pronouns either, and that some courts have done so — “purely as a courtesy to parties” before them. However, ‘[n]one has adopted the practice as a matter of binding precedent,” Duncan points out, “and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice.” The majority opinion in this appeal would not compel use in either direction; it establishes, rather, that people can choose for themselves which pronouns to use.
That seems to be an eminently reasonable and rational conclusion, yes? Not to fellow jurist Judge James L. Dennis, who blasts the decision not to use the inmate’s preferred pronouns. Dennis writes in his dissent that this request was nowhere near as broad as the majority interprets, and that Varner/Jett was merely requesting the courtesy that the majority referenced in this one instance only:
The majority concludes that, based on Varner’s two-sentence, pro-se motion, Varner seeks, “at a minimum, to require the district court and the government to refer to Varner with female instead of male pronouns.” But Varner’s request is not so broad. The terms “district court” and “government” are not mentioned in Varner’s motion. The motion was filed in this court and is titled “Motion to Use Female Pronouns When Addressing Appellant.” Varner’s use of the term “appellant” to describe herself leads to the conclusion that her request is confined to the terms used by this court in this proceeding. In my view, Varner is simply requesting that this court, in this proceeding, refer to Varner using her preferred gender pronouns. Not only is this the most faithful interpretation of her motion given the language she uses, it is also the narrowest. … Ultimately, the majority creates a controversy where there is none by misinterpreting Varner’s motion as requesting “at a minimum, to require the district court and the government to refer to Varner with female instead of male pronouns,” when she in fact simply requests that this court address her using female pronouns while deciding her appeal. The majority then issues an advisory opinion on the way it would answer the hypothetical questions that only it has raised. Such an advisory opinion is inappropriate, unnecessary, and beyond the purview of federal courts.
In other words, Dennis concludes in his “emphatic[]” dissent, the court took a molehill and built it into a precedential mountain. Dennis also disputes whether this is precedential at all, calling it “dictum and not binding precedent.” Did the other two jurists overreact to a polite request? Perhaps that’s best answered by the fact that Varner/Jett put the polite request into the form of a legal motion accompanying his appeal. That might have been intended as a polite request, but motions are usually demands for judgment based on the law. Is it unreasonable for jurists to rule on motions — rulings which might indeed carry precedential weight — on the basis of law rather than courtesy? Could this request have been made more informally by Varner/Jett’s attorney, or through a personal letter from the petitioner to the court?
In a way, this validates the majority’s concern over bias if pronoun use was to be compelled. The petitioner in this case has no factual basis to claim that equal justice cannot be reached without the use of his preferred pronouns, except to say that he would “feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity.” Feelings do not trump objective facts, however, nor do they trump statutes. To react to every such motion by recasting all pronoun use in a case to the feelings of the moment would be to create chaos. Some courts might be willing to put up with that, but Duncan gets it correct by saying that they have no obligation to do so — only an obligation to deliver equal justice and application of law regardless of the identities before them in court.