hotair--2020-01-27--Epstein prosecutor: Prince Andrew has provided "zero cooperation" even after FBI request

And we all have zero surprise over it .
Buckingham Palace insisted that Prince Andrew would cooperate with an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ’ s sex-trafficking of underage girls .
In fact , Prince Andrew himself declared his willingness to cooperate with investigators : Prince Andrew , following a disastrous TV interview over his ties to Mr. Epstein , said in a statement late last year that he was willing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their investigations into the disgraced financier and his associates .
“ Of course , I am willing to help any appropriate law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required , ” his statement said .
Guess what ?
The FBI decided it was “ required.
” To no one ’ s great shock , the royal has clammed up in response to their inquiry : A U.S. prosecutor overseeing the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation said Monday that Britain ’ s Prince Andrew has been uncooperative in the inquiry so far .
Speaking at a news conference outside Epstein ’ s New York mansion , U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman , the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan , said prosecutors and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers and asked to interview him .
“ To date , Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation , ” Berman said .
That ’ s a rather strong statement coming from the Department of Justice .
Normally , they decline to comment on ongoing investigations , preferring to perform their tasks quietly to prevent … well , what happened in the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump investigations .
In this case , everyone already knows about the Epstein probe , but publicly singling out particular witnesses and potential targets still presents a risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going public , it ’ s not because the FBI ’ s playing phone tag with Prince Andrew .
The FBI must have gotten seriously stonewalled for it to hit this pitch .
Contrast that with the relative radio silence on a figure closer to Epstein in his trafficking ring .
What has the FBI heard from Ghislaine Maxwell ?
The DoJ ’ s been very quiet about their interest in her , and yet the Daily Mail reports on new developments with Maxwell — and those also involve Andrew Windsor : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew she visited him at Buckingham Palace up to four times a day , an ex-cop claims .
The British socialite , accused of being a fixer for depraved paedophile Jeffrey Epstein , also allegedly enjoyed intimate picnics with Andrew in the grounds – in view of the Queen ’ s bedroom window .
The revelations by former Met cop Paul Page , who was a protection officer for Andrew from 1998 to 2004 , come as the prince faces further scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein .
Page says that the palace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even at that time , prior to Epstein ’ s first arrest : Mr Page said : “ The first occasion I had cause to meet Ghislaine was when the privy purse phoned down and said , ‘ We ’ ve got a guest coming for Andrew but the name is not to be entered in the book ’ .
That was about 2001 .
“ She turned up in a chauffeur-driven Range Rover and we let her in .
Half an hour after that me and my colleague walked through the garden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he was having a picnic with her by the summer house , opposite the Queen ’ s bedroom window .
One of my colleagues saw her come in and out the Palace four times in one day.
” What in the world would that have been about ?
It sounds as though Maxwell had something else going with Andrew more than an organizing effort for Epstein Airways .
If that ’ s true , then it would be a weird echo of Maxwell ’ s relationship with Epstein himself , allegedly acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clearly the royal family thought it was strange enough to cover up , even 16 years ago .
No doubt the FBI would like to know more about those meetings and others , which is why Andrew has become uncooperative enough for the DoJ to go public with it .
Thanks to a series of pratfalls by the Windsors , including especially Andrew ’ s attempt to get past the Epstein scandal with a television interview in November , the British public might be getting fed up with the royals .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway , in what ’ s clearly a bid for public pressure to force Andrew into fulfilling his promise to cooperate .

And we all have zero surprise over it. Buckingham Palace insisted that Prince Andrew would cooperate with an FBI investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s sex-trafficking of underage girls. In fact, Prince Andrew himself declared his willingness to cooperate with investigators:
Prince Andrew, following a disastrous TV interview over his ties to Mr. Epstein, said in a statement late last year that he was willing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their investigations into the disgraced financier and his associates. “Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required,” his statement said.
Guess what? The FBI decided it was “required.” To no one’s great shock, the royal has clammed up in response to their inquiry:
A U.S. prosecutor overseeing the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation said Monday that Britain’s Prince Andrew has been uncooperative in the inquiry so far. Speaking at a news conference outside Epstein’s New York mansion, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, said prosecutors and the FBI had contacted Prince Andrew’s lawyers and asked to interview him. “To date, Prince Andrew has provided zero cooperation,” Berman said.
That’s a rather strong statement coming from the Department of Justice. Normally, they decline to comment on ongoing investigations, preferring to perform their tasks quietly to prevent … well, what happened in the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump investigations. In this case, everyone already knows about the Epstein probe, but publicly singling out particular witnesses and potential targets still presents a risk for the DoJ. If Berman’s going public, it’s not because the FBI’s playing phone tag with Prince Andrew. The FBI must have gotten seriously stonewalled for it to hit this pitch.
Contrast that with the relative radio silence on a figure closer to Epstein in his trafficking ring. What has the FBI heard from Ghislaine Maxwell? The DoJ’s been very quiet about their interest in her, and yet the Daily Mail reports on new developments with Maxwell — and those also involve Andrew Windsor:
Ghislaine Maxwell was so close to Prince Andrew she visited him at Buckingham Palace up to four times a day, an ex-cop claims. The British socialite, accused of being a fixer for depraved paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, also allegedly enjoyed intimate picnics with Andrew in the grounds – in view of the Queen’s bedroom window. The revelations by former Met cop Paul Page, who was a protection officer for Andrew from 1998 to 2004, come as the prince faces further scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein.
Page says that the palace took steps to keep the meetings quiet even at that time, prior to Epstein’s first arrest:
Mr Page said: “The first occasion I had cause to meet Ghislaine was when the privy purse phoned down and said, ‘We’ve got a guest coming for Andrew but the name is not to be entered in the book’. That was about 2001. “She turned up in a chauffeur-driven Range Rover and we let her in. Half an hour after that me and my colleague walked through the garden to go back to the police lodge and he was having a picnic with her by the summer house, opposite the Queen’s bedroom window. One of my colleagues saw her come in and out the Palace four times in one day.”
What in the world would that have been about? It sounds as though Maxwell had something else going with Andrew more than an organizing effort for Epstein Airways. If that’s true, then it would be a weird echo of Maxwell’s relationship with Epstein himself, allegedly acting as both a devoted girlfriend and procurer.
Clearly the royal family thought it was strange enough to cover up, even 16 years ago. No doubt the FBI would like to know more about those meetings and others, which is why Andrew has become uncooperative enough for the DoJ to go public with it. Thanks to a series of pratfalls by the Windsors, including especially Andrew’s attempt to get past the Epstein scandal with a television interview in November, the British public might be getting fed up with the royals. That seems to be what Berman thinks, anyway, in what’s clearly a bid for public pressure to force Andrew into fulfilling his promise to cooperate.


hotair--2020-01-27--GOP Sen. Mike Braun: I think Trump will learn his lesson from this impeachment

The famous call between Trump and Zelensky that turbo-charged the impeachment probe happened less than 24 hours after Bob Mueller ’ s testimony before Congress , the de facto end of the Russiagate investigation .
POTUS had just spent two years being accused of coordinating with a foreign government to interfere in the 2016 campaign on his behalf .
And his immediate instinct once it was over was to nudge Ukraine ’ s president about investigating the Bidens and the CrowdStrike server ahead of the 2020 race .
He ’ s already encouraged China to investigate the Bidens , remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank of cameras .
After the Ukraine stuff had already blown up in the press .
No lessons will be learned , apart from him being a lot more careful going forward about how many people are allowed to listen in on his calls with foreign leaders .
Watch , then read on .
A few points in no particular order : 1 .
The House can ’ t impeach him again , certainly not for the rest of this term .
Any accusation this summer or fall that he ’ s chatting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state somewhere will be waved off on grounds that Democrats had their chance already and it ’ s way too close to an election to impeach .
Let the people decide .
Trump has carte blanche , effectively , once this is over .
2 .
There ’ s little evidence that impeachment has hurt him politically .
His job approval is at an all-time high in some polls and is nearing an all-time high in the RCP average , all thanks to the roaring economy .
Voters don ’ t appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
Support for removing him is a 50/50 issue , but so are practically all issues in the Trump era .
In battleground states he ’ s either narrowly ahead of the Democratic top tier or narrowly behind but well within striking distance .
He ’ s paid no penalty for the Ukraine business apart from the stigma of impeachment , and that stigma can ’ t be re-inflicted .
3 .
Senate Republicans will never agree to remove him , especially with an election impending .
He could collude with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fifth Avenue and he wouldn ’ t lose a single vote .
Despite all the hubbub today over last night ’ s Bolton revelation , no one on either side believes the needle has moved away from easy acquittal by the Senate .
That ’ s the real significance of the Bolton news — not that it leaves the verdict in doubt but that it exposes how immune the verdict is from a more damning set of facts , assuming those facts can be proved .
The takeaway will be that Trump can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t dare cross him .
4 .
He insists that he hasn ’ t done anything wrong .
Despite numerous witnesses testifying before the House that they believed there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine involving military aid in return for dirt on the Bidens , plus the revelation that Bolton allegedly heard the same thing from the president himself , Trump claims there was no deal .
If his say-so necessarily outweighs any evidence against him then he can ’ t be held accountable .
So why wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Braun is claiming that Trump *did* do something wrong but that it ’ s not an impeachable offense ( is he ? )
, then he ’ s just confirming for future reference that he believes pressuring foreign leaders for dirt on a presidential opponent doesn ’ t count as a “ high crime or misdemeanor.
” So why wouldn ’ t Trump try it again ?
Absent some sort of meaningful negative reinforcement , he has no incentive not to .
What is that reinforcement ?
Are swing voters who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him because it was okay to do this once but not twice ?
Braun doesn ’ t really believe Trump will be chastened by this process .
He ’ s saying that because he ’ s seen the polls showing that a majority of the public thinks Trump behaved inappropriately and doesn ’ t want the unanimous ( or nearly unanimous ) support for POTUS among Senate GOPers to come off as indifference to that reality .
Even though it is .
Gon na leave you with this .

You serious, bro?
The famous call between Trump and Zelensky that turbo-charged the impeachment probe happened less than 24 hours after Bob Mueller’s testimony before Congress, the de facto end of the Russiagate investigation. POTUS had just spent two years being accused of coordinating with a foreign government to interfere in the 2016 campaign on his behalf. And his immediate instinct once it was over was to nudge Ukraine’s president about investigating the Bidens and the CrowdStrike server ahead of the 2020 race.
He’s already encouraged China to investigate the Bidens, remember. Publicly, in front of a bank of cameras. After the Ukraine stuff had already blown up in the press. No lessons will be learned, apart from him being a lot more careful going forward about how many people are allowed to listen in on his calls with foreign leaders. Watch, then read on.
TODAY: @SenatorBraun says the impeachment trial "ought to be instructive" to President Trump's future behavior. #MTP #IfItsSunday Senator Mike Braun: President Trump "was taken to the carpet" pic.twitter.com/bi2HMjEQaY — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 26, 2020
A few points in no particular order:
1. The House can’t impeach him again, certainly not for the rest of this term. Any accusation this summer or fall that he’s chatting about the Bidens with a different head of state somewhere will be waved off on grounds that Democrats had their chance already and it’s way too close to an election to impeach. Let the people decide. Trump has carte blanche, effectively, once this is over.
2. There’s little evidence that impeachment has hurt him politically. His job approval is at an all-time high in some polls and is nearing an all-time high in the RCP average, all thanks to the roaring economy. Voters don’t appear to be paying close attention to the trial. Support for removing him is a 50/50 issue, but so are practically all issues in the Trump era. In battleground states he’s either narrowly ahead of the Democratic top tier or narrowly behind but well within striking distance. He’s paid no penalty for the Ukraine business apart from the stigma of impeachment, and that stigma can’t be re-inflicted.
3. Senate Republicans will never agree to remove him, especially with an election impending. He could collude with a foreign government to investigate the Bidens on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn’t lose a single vote. Despite all the hubbub today over last night’s Bolton revelation, no one on either side believes the needle has moved away from easy acquittal by the Senate. That’s the real significance of the Bolton news — not that it leaves the verdict in doubt but that it exposes how immune the verdict is from a more damning set of facts, assuming those facts can be proved. The takeaway will be that Trump can do whatever he likes and Republicans won’t dare cross him.
4. He insists that he hasn’t done anything wrong. Despite numerous witnesses testifying before the House that they believed there was a quid pro quo with Ukraine involving military aid in return for dirt on the Bidens, plus the revelation that Bolton allegedly heard the same thing from the president himself, Trump claims there was no deal. If his say-so necessarily outweighs any evidence against him then he can’t be held accountable. So why wouldn’t he try this again? And if Mike Braun is claiming that Trump *did* do something wrong but that it’s not an impeachable offense (is he?), then he’s just confirming for future reference that he believes pressuring foreign leaders for dirt on a presidential opponent doesn’t count as a “high crime or misdemeanor.”
So why wouldn’t Trump try it again? Absent some sort of meaningful negative reinforcement, he has no incentive not to. What is that reinforcement? Are swing voters who are sticking with him now going to ditch him because it was okay to do this once but not twice?
Braun doesn’t really believe Trump will be chastened by this process. He’s saying that because he’s seen the polls showing that a majority of the public thinks Trump behaved inappropriately and doesn’t want the unanimous (or nearly unanimous) support for POTUS among Senate GOPers to come off as indifference to that reality. Even though it is.
Gonna leave you with this.


hotair--2020-01-27--Democrats wary of blowback from angry Bernie Bros, which often turns 'sexist, racist and vile'

I could swear I just wrote about vile leftists shouting at their perceived opponents .
Today the NY Times has a write-up on the Bernie Bros. who have been attacking and in some cases making threats ( both online and off ) against people who fail to support their candidate .
Democrats who have been on the receiving end say these attacks often turn ugly in ways that don ’ t seem to fit with the self-proclaimed progressive view of the people making them .
Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feminist writers said they had received death threats .
A state party chairwoman changed her phone number .
A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter… “ Politics is a contact sport , ” said Bakari Sellers , a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary .
“ But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online .
You might have to put your phone down .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it could be sexist , racist and vile.
” In recent days , he said , one man sent a profanity-filled private message on Instagram , calling Mr .
Sellers , who is black , an “ Uncle Tom ” and wishing him brain cancer… For some perceived Sanders critics , there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives .
The contents were unremarkable : news articles about the political perils of centrism .
The message seemed clear : We know where you live… While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonwhite voters are stronger than many rivals ’ , female and nonwhite Sanders critics say they continue to face disproportionate harassment from ostensibly progressive forces .
“ People talk about white dudes getting radicalized on the right , ” said Imani Gandy , a senior legal analyst for Rewire.News behind a popular Twitter account , @ AngryBlackLady .
“ I feel like white dudes in Brooklyn are being radicalized too.
” All of this behavior has left a lot of Democrats feeling nervous about where the campaign is headed .
The attacks from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more moderate rivals—Kamala Harris , Elizabeth Warren , Joe Biden—rather than at Republicans .
That could make the next few months very dicey to navigate without a protracted battle within the party .
Officially , Sanders is against this sort of thing , telling supporters last year , “ I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.
” But his supporters and even his staffers don ’ t seem to have received the message .
RoseAnn DeMoro was the leader of the California Nurse ’ s Association which pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 .
DeMoro ’ s group was so aggressive that the entire Democratic caucus in the state assembly wrote a letter demanding that she stop harassing lawmakers .
“ We have become alarmed and disheartened by bullying tactics , threats of violence , and death threats by a few who disagree with the decision of Speaker Anthony Rendon to postpone the advancement of SB 562 , ” the Democrats wrote .
Despite reports that Speaker Rendon was getting death threats , DeMoro brushed off the complaints : Again , this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is who has been discussed as a possible cabinet pick in a future Sanders administration .
And really is it so shocking that a guy who has been calling for a socialist revolution for decades attracts cranks who want to stir things up by any means necessary ?
Indeed , some of Sanders ’ campaign organizers seem eager to return to the examples of previous socialist revolutions :

I could swear I just wrote about vile leftists shouting at their perceived opponents. Today the NY Times has a write-up on the Bernie Bros. who have been attacking and in some cases making threats (both online and off) against people who fail to support their candidate. Democrats who have been on the receiving end say these attacks often turn ugly in ways that don’t seem to fit with the self-proclaimed progressive view of the people making them.
Some progressive activists who declined to back Mr. Sanders have begun traveling with private security after incurring online harassment. Several well-known feminist writers said they had received death threats. A state party chairwoman changed her phone number. A Portland lawyer saw her business rating tumble on an online review site after tussling with Sanders supporters on Twitter… “Politics is a contact sport,” said Bakari Sellers, a former South Carolina State legislator who supported Ms. Harris in the Democratic primary. “But you have to be very cognizant when you say anything critical of Bernie online. You might have to put your phone down. There’s going to be a blowback, and it could be sexist, racist and vile.” In recent days, he said, one man sent a profanity-filled private message on Instagram, calling Mr. Sellers, who is black, an “Uncle Tom” and wishing him brain cancer… For some perceived Sanders critics, there has been mail sent to home addresses — or the home addresses of relatives. The contents were unremarkable: news articles about the political perils of centrism. The message seemed clear: We know where you live… While Mr. Sanders’s poll numbers with nonwhite voters are stronger than many rivals’, female and nonwhite Sanders critics say they continue to face disproportionate harassment from ostensibly progressive forces. “People talk about white dudes getting radicalized on the right,” said Imani Gandy, a senior legal analyst for Rewire.News behind a popular Twitter account, @AngryBlackLady. “I feel like white dudes in Brooklyn are being radicalized too.”
All of this behavior has left a lot of Democrats feeling nervous about where the campaign is headed. The attacks from Sanders die-hards are often lobbed against his more moderate rivals—Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden—rather than at Republicans. That could make the next few months very dicey to navigate without a protracted battle within the party.
Officially, Sanders is against this sort of thing, telling supporters last year, “I condemn bullying and harassment of any kind and in any space.” But his supporters and even his staffers don’t seem to have received the message.
“You can’t control these folks,” RoseAnn DeMoro, a vocal Sanders supporter and former leader of National Nurses United, said of his online base. “I should say, ‘us folks.’”
RoseAnn DeMoro was the leader of the California Nurse’s Association which pushed for Medicare for All in California back in 2017. DeMoro’s group was so aggressive that the entire Democratic caucus in the state assembly wrote a letter demanding that she stop harassing lawmakers. “We have become alarmed and disheartened by bullying tactics, threats of violence, and death threats by a few who disagree with the decision of Speaker Anthony Rendon to postpone the advancement of SB 562,” the Democrats wrote. Despite reports that Speaker Rendon was getting death threats, DeMoro brushed off the complaints:
#Dems are telling activists trying to fight for lives that speaking up to Dems is "Bullying".. "Shut Up & Sit Down".. Nope #SinglePayer https://t.co/OUzQUhvKEs — RoseAnn DeMoro (@RoseAnnDeMoro) July 2, 2017
Again, this isn’t some fringe Sanders supporter, this is who has been discussed as a possible cabinet pick in a future Sanders administration. And really is it so shocking that a guy who has been calling for a socialist revolution for decades attracts cranks who want to stir things up by any means necessary? Indeed, some of Sanders’ campaign organizers seem eager to return to the examples of previous socialist revolutions:


hotair--2020-01-27--Did Buttigieg tell a pro-life Democrat that the party has no room for her?

Fact check : Yes , but as nicely as possible .
In a Fox News town hall last night , Pete Buttigieg fielded a question from Kristen Day , executive director of Democrats for Life of America , about the Democrats ’ hostility to pro-life voters .
This does not come out of left field ( pardon the pun ) , as Day herself explains in her question and follow-up .
The party ’ s platform language makes it clear that abortion should be legal to the moment of birth and with federal funding , leaving very little room for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mayor Pete does a very good job of dodging the platform question at first , focusing instead on a “ let ’ s respectfully agree to disagree ” approach .
Unfortunately for Buttigieg , Chris Wallace doesn ’ t let him off the hook : Wallace then asked Day if she was satisfied with the answer Buttigieg gave .
She said she was not .
“ He didn ’ t answer the second part of my question , and the second part was : The Democratic platform contains language that basically says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months , the government should pay for it , ' ” Day said .
“ In 1996 and several years after that there was language in the Democratic platform that said ‘ we understand that people have very differing views on this issue but we are a big tent party that includes everybody and therefore we welcome you — people like me — into the party so we can work on issues that we agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I support the position of my party — that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone , and I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy there are very few restrictions and late in pregnancy there are very few exceptions.
” “ And so I may have my views , but I can not imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better , medically or morally , because it ’ s being dictated by any government official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg ’ s first answer was nearly identical to that 1996 platform language .
Buttigieg went out of his way to respectfully acknowledge the sincerity of Day ’ s position and the significance of their disagreement before almost literally reciting the “ work on issues that we agree on ” conclusion .
Had Buttigieg just suggested that the DNC consider introducing that language back into the platform , Day might have been satisfied with the answer .
Instead , Buttigieg essentially contradicted himself in double-talk and left the distinct impression that he also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any room in the party for pro-life voters .
Why , when polling shows the vast majority of Americans — and a plurality of Democrats — favor restrictions of some kind on abortion ?
Day herself has an answer to that question : “ We ’ ve had enough , ” said Kristen Day , executive director of Democrats for Life of America , said to CNA after Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg told her at an Iowa townhall event on Sunday that he would forego the support of pro-life voters to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pro-abortion presidential candidates “ are so afraid of the abortion lobby , and even making any inroads to Democrats for Life , pro-life Democrats , they ’ re afraid that they ’ re going to lose all their money and support , ” Day said .
Pro-life Democrats throughout the country are frustrated over the party leadership ’ s increasingly staunch support of abortion , she told CNA .
“ We need pro-life Democrats all over the country to go to these [ presidential ] candidates and ask the question , do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because if not , we won ’ t vote for you , ” Day said .
Well , Day did that rather effectively last night , and got a fairly clear if not outright explicit answer .
The Democratic Party has no interest in a diversity of viewpoints on abortion and want to represent only the 25 % of Americans who support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth .
Vote accordingly .

Fact check: Yes, but as nicely as possible. In a Fox News town hall last night, Pete Buttigieg fielded a question from Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, about the Democrats’ hostility to pro-life voters. This does not come out of left field (pardon the pun), as Day herself explains in her question and follow-up. The party’s platform language makes it clear that abortion should be legal to the moment of birth and with federal funding, leaving very little room for anyone who might even favor any restrictions.
Mayor Pete does a very good job of dodging the platform question at first, focusing instead on a “let’s respectfully agree to disagree” approach. Unfortunately for Buttigieg, Chris Wallace doesn’t let him off the hook:
Wallace then asked Day if she was satisfied with the answer Buttigieg gave. She said she was not. “He didn’t answer the second part of my question, and the second part was: The Democratic platform contains language that basically says, ‘we don’t belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months, the government should pay for it,'” Day said. “In 1996 and several years after that there was language in the Democratic platform that said ‘we understand that people have very differing views on this issue but we are a big tent party that includes everybody and therefore we welcome you — people like me — into the party so we can work on issues that we agree on.'” Buttigieg countered: “I support the position of my party — that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone, and I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy there are very few restrictions and late in pregnancy there are very few exceptions.” “And so I may have my views, but I cannot imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better, medically or morally, because it’s being dictated by any government official,” he said.
Note that Buttigieg’s first answer was nearly identical to that 1996 platform language. Buttigieg went out of his way to respectfully acknowledge the sincerity of Day’s position and the significance of their disagreement before almost literally reciting the “work on issues that we agree on” conclusion. Had Buttigieg just suggested that the DNC consider introducing that language back into the platform, Day might have been satisfied with the answer.
Instead, Buttigieg essentially contradicted himself in double-talk and left the distinct impression that he also doesn’t think there’s any room in the party for pro-life voters. Why, when polling shows the vast majority of Americans — and a plurality of Democrats — favor restrictions of some kind on abortion? Day herself has an answer to that question:
“We’ve had enough,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, said to CNA after Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg told her at an Iowa townhall event on Sunday that he would forego the support of pro-life voters to maintain his absolute support for legal abortion. Pro-abortion presidential candidates “are so afraid of the abortion lobby, and even making any inroads to Democrats for Life, pro-life Democrats, they’re afraid that they’re going to lose all their money and support,” Day said. Pro-life Democrats throughout the country are frustrated over the party leadership’s increasingly staunch support of abortion, she told CNA. “We need pro-life Democrats all over the country to go to these [presidential] candidates and ask the question, do you want pro-life Democrats in the party? Because if not, we won’t vote for you,” Day said.
Well, Day did that rather effectively last night, and got a fairly clear if not outright explicit answer. The Democratic Party has no interest in a diversity of viewpoints on abortion and want to represent only the 25% of Americans who support abortion on demand up to the moment of birth. Vote accordingly.


hotair--2020-01-27--Supreme Court clears way for 'public charge' rule

In a 5-4 ruling issued today , the Supreme Court will allow the Trump administrations ’ public charge rule to take effect .
The ruling ends a nationwide injunction put in place by a federal judge last year : Soon after its final version was published last summer , the “ public charge ” rule was blocked in court , with one federal judge calling it “ repugnant to the American dream.
” However , in recent weeks , circuit courts lifted three of the four nationwide injunctions against it , leaving only an order by a federal judge in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to set aside the remaining nationwide injunction — a request that has now been granted .
U.S. immigration officials will now be able to implement the new restrictions in every part of the country other than Illinois , where the rule is still blocked under a statewide injunction .
As for what the rule will do once impletemented , it allows US authorities to consider a broader spectrum of public assistance programs when determining whether legal immigrants seeking a green card are self-sufficient : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk of being defined a “ public charge ” if they took cash welfare — known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , or Supplemental Security Income — or federal help paying for long-term care .
( Immigrants must be in the country legally for five years before being eligible for TANF or SSI . )
And that “ public charge ” designation could undermine their applications for permanent residence .
The new rule would expand the list to include some health insurance , food and housing programs .
Specifically , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a federal-state health plan for low-income people…Using food stamps , Section 8 rental assistance and federal housing vouchers would also count against applicants .
Why have a public charge rule at all if things like food stamps and section 8 housing don ’ t count ?
But opponents of the charge rule argue that it is unconstitutional .
Marielena Hincapie , executive director of the National Immigration Law Center , said Friday , “ These legal violations are part of the Trump administration ’ s playbook which we are so familiar with .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Northern District of California to block the administration from implementing this racially motivated rule and strike it down as unlawful and unconstitutional.
” Activists are also concerned that legal immigrants who are entitled to use these programs will drop out anyway , worried that using the programs will eventually be held against them : DHS estimates that 2.5 percent of eligible immigrants would drop out of public benefits programs because of this change — which would tally about $ 1.5 billion worth of federal money per year .
But others expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chilling effects will be vastly greater than the individuals directly affected , ” Greenberg said .
“ There ’ s considerable reason to believe that [ the White House estimate ] may be a significant understatement.
” For now it appears this has been settled in the administration ’ s favor , but like most issues related to immigration , it will continue to be a hot-button issue .
I think it ’ s a safe bet that this change to the public charge rule would quickly be reversed if a Democratic nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @

In a 5-4 ruling issued today, the Supreme Court will allow the Trump administrations’ public charge rule to take effect. The ruling ends a nationwide injunction put in place by a federal judge last year:
Soon after its final version was published last summer, the “public charge” rule was blocked in court, with one federal judge calling it “repugnant to the American dream.” However, in recent weeks, circuit courts lifted three of the four nationwide injunctions against it, leaving only an order by a federal judge in New York standing. Earlier in January, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to set aside the remaining nationwide injunction — a request that has now been granted. U.S. immigration officials will now be able to implement the new restrictions in every part of the country other than Illinois, where the rule is still blocked under a statewide injunction.
As for what the rule will do once impletemented, it allows US authorities to consider a broader spectrum of public assistance programs when determining whether legal immigrants seeking a green card are self-sufficient:
In the past, people have been at risk of being defined a “public charge” if they took cash welfare — known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Supplemental Security Income — or federal help paying for long-term care. (Immigrants must be in the country legally for five years before being eligible for TANF or SSI.) And that “public charge” designation could undermine their applications for permanent residence. The new rule would expand the list to include some health insurance, food and housing programs. Specifically, it would penalize green-card applicants for using Medicaid, a federal-state health plan for low-income people…Using food stamps, Section 8 rental assistance and federal housing vouchers would also count against applicants.
Why have a public charge rule at all if things like food stamps and section 8 housing don’t count? But opponents of the charge rule argue that it is unconstitutional.
Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said Friday, “These legal violations are part of the Trump administration’s playbook which we are so familiar with. Today we … ask the federal court in the Northern District of California to block the administration from implementing this racially motivated rule and strike it down as unlawful and unconstitutional.”
Activists are also concerned that legal immigrants who are entitled to use these programs will drop out anyway, worried that using the programs will eventually be held against them:
DHS estimates that 2.5 percent of eligible immigrants would drop out of public benefits programs because of this change — which would tally about $1.5 billion worth of federal money per year. But others expect a much larger impact. “The chilling effects will be vastly greater than the individuals directly affected,” Greenberg said. “There’s considerable reason to believe that [the White House estimate] may be a significant understatement.”
For now it appears this has been settled in the administration’s favor, but like most issues related to immigration, it will continue to be a hot-button issue. I think it’s a safe bet that this change to the public charge rule would quickly be reversed if a Democratic nominee were to win the 2020 election.


hotair--2020-01-27--NY Times writer is fed up with Iowa going first

Observing the comings and goings in both Iowa and New Hampshire this month , New York Times columnist David Leonhardt is clearly fed up .
The system is rigged , broken and ( obviously ) … racist .
With all that in mind , the author vented his frustrations at the Gray Lady , declaring once and for all that Iowa should never go first again .
Let ’ s let him explain his reasoning .
Right now , I ’ m as obsessed as anyone with the early-state polls .
Yet I also want to use this moment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is — and to make a plea : The 2020 cycle should be the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit at the country ’ s expense .
The strongest part of the case for change , of course , is the racial aspect of the current calendar .
Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country ’ s whitest states .
About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American .
Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white , compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly like the America of 1870 .
Julián Castro , the former presidential candidate , was right when he called out the Democratic Party ’ s hypocritical support for the status quo .
“ Iowa and New Hampshire are wonderful states with wonderful people , ” Castro said .
But Democrats can ’ t “ complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color , and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color.
” In addition to both Iowa and New Hampshire being “ too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , male author ) , Leonhardt also complains that neither of them is home to a city with more than 250,000 people .
On top of that , both states boast disproportionately high numbers of retired people and fewer under the age of 40 than the national average .
In other words , Iowa and New Hampshire are magnets for old , white people… precisely who we don ’ t need picking the Democratic Party ’ s nominee .
Let me first say that at least in terms of the final conclusion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ ve been railing against this unpleasant “ tradition ” for as long as I ’ ve been interested in politics .
Letting these two small states go first and determine who gets the much-coveted “ momentum ” going into Super Tuesday distorts the process and gives far too much power to certain special interests , such as Iowa ’ s ethanol lobby .
The honor of going first needs to be spread around and I ’ ve long been in favor of an entirely revamped system , such as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order every four years .
But with that said , Leonhardt ’ s specific complaints are rather odd , to say the least .
For evidence of the racism inherent in the system , the author points to the fact that both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are out of the race and this is blamed on their inability to gain traction in the first two states to vote .
To bolster this argument , he notes that both of those candidates of color “ were doing as well as Amy Klobuchar in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s a true statement to be sure , but doing as well as Amy Klobuchar back then was akin to saying that you ’ re doing as well as Joe Walsh is in the GOP primary .
Klobuchar only recently cracked double digits in her first polls and she did so because she didn ’ t quit .
Kamala Harris had her own surge for a while nationally , but she never got into the top tier in California… her home state .
And her campaign was famously in a constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the candidate changing her answers on key issues like a leaf fluttering in the breeze .
As for Booker , he never climbed in the polls significantly , even in the more “ diverse ” states containing large cities .
He wasn ’ t offering anything that the voters couldn ’ t already get from Sanders and Warren .
He just wasn ’ t a particularly exciting speaker or candidate .
Finally , as we peel away all of the clutter and get to what Leonhardt is obviously saying here , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people he ’ s talking about .
Republicans and conservatives don ’ t get to vote in the Democrats ’ primaries and caucuses and they ’ re not being polled on the question .
If you think there are too many racists controlling the fate of the nomination process , those are racist Democrats you ’ re talking about .
But even that argument doesn ’ t hold much water .
South Carolina is also one of the earliest states to vote , is far more diverse and controls more delegates than either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wire to wire so far they have supported Joe Biden , who still has double the support of his nearest competitor , particularly among black voters .
And most of those not backing Biden back Bernie Sanders , so the two oldest , whitest , male Democrats imaginable are running the table .
So even if we let South Carolina go first , it ’ s not looking as if the results would be markedly different and both Harris and Booker probably wouldn ’ t still be in the race at this point @ @

Observing the comings and goings in both Iowa and New Hampshire this month, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt is clearly fed up. The system is rigged, broken and (obviously)… racist. With all that in mind, the author vented his frustrations at the Gray Lady, declaring once and for all that Iowa should never go first again. Let’s let him explain his reasoning.
Right now, I’m as obsessed as anyone with the early-state polls. Yet I also want to use this moment to point out how bizarre the current system is — and to make a plea: The 2020 cycle should be the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit at the country’s expense. The strongest part of the case for change, of course, is the racial aspect of the current calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American. Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white, compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole. Demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870. Julián Castro, the former presidential candidate, was right when he called out the Democratic Party’s hypocritical support for the status quo. “Iowa and New Hampshire are wonderful states with wonderful people,” Castro said. But Democrats can’t “complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color, and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color.”
In addition to both Iowa and New Hampshire being “too white” (according to the white, male author), Leonhardt also complains that neither of them is home to a city with more than 250,000 people. On top of that, both states boast disproportionately high numbers of retired people and fewer under the age of 40 than the national average.
In other words, Iowa and New Hampshire are magnets for old, white people… precisely who we don’t need picking the Democratic Party’s nominee.
Let me first say that at least in terms of the final conclusion, Leonhardt is preaching to the choir here. I’ve been railing against this unpleasant “tradition” for as long as I’ve been interested in politics. Letting these two small states go first and determine who gets the much-coveted “momentum” going into Super Tuesday distorts the process and gives far too much power to certain special interests, such as Iowa’s ethanol lobby. The honor of going first needs to be spread around and I’ve long been in favor of an entirely revamped system, such as a series of regional primaries that rotate in order every four years.
But with that said, Leonhardt’s specific complaints are rather odd, to say the least. For evidence of the racism inherent in the system, the author points to the fact that both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are out of the race and this is blamed on their inability to gain traction in the first two states to vote. To bolster this argument, he notes that both of those candidates of color “were doing as well as Amy Klobuchar in early polls of more diverse states.” That’s a true statement to be sure, but doing as well as Amy Klobuchar back then was akin to saying that you’re doing as well as Joe Walsh is in the GOP primary. Klobuchar only recently cracked double digits in her first polls and she did so because she didn’t quit.
Kamala Harris had her own surge for a while nationally, but she never got into the top tier in California… her home state. And her campaign was famously in a constant state of upheaval, with staffers fighting and the candidate changing her answers on key issues like a leaf fluttering in the breeze. As for Booker, he never climbed in the polls significantly, even in the more “diverse” states containing large cities. He wasn’t offering anything that the voters couldn’t already get from Sanders and Warren. He just wasn’t a particularly exciting speaker or candidate.
Finally, as we peel away all of the clutter and get to what Leonhardt is obviously saying here, the author should keep in mind precisely which people he’s talking about. Republicans and conservatives don’t get to vote in the Democrats’ primaries and caucuses and they’re not being polled on the question. If you think there are too many racists controlling the fate of the nomination process, those are racist Democrats you’re talking about.
But even that argument doesn’t hold much water. South Carolina is also one of the earliest states to vote, is far more diverse and controls more delegates than either Iowa or New Hampshire. And from wire to wire so far they have supported Joe Biden, who still has double the support of his nearest competitor, particularly among black voters. And most of those not backing Biden back Bernie Sanders, so the two oldest, whitest, male Democrats imaginable are running the table. So even if we let South Carolina go first, it’s not looking as if the results would be markedly different and both Harris and Booker probably wouldn’t still be in the race at this point anyway.


hotair--2020-01-27--Lindsey Graham: I want to see the Bolton manuscript and I might support a subpoena to get it

This is the last guy who I thought would bend on witnesses in light of last night ’ s Bolton bombshell , especially when less ardent Trump apologists like John Barrasso and John Thune are out in front of the media this morning stammering , “ W-w-what ’ s the big deal ?
” Graham is reportedly pissed .
And not ( just ) at Bolton : Haberman reported this morning that some Senate Republicans feel “ blindsided ” by the Times ’ s scoop , although it ’ s unclear which part of it blindsided them .
The National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s manuscript to make sure that it doesn ’ t reveal classified information , claims that no one else in the White House has reviewed it .
Does Graham think Trump and his lawyers should have been allowed to ?
Or that , at a minimum , they should have been informed by the NSC what Bolton was alleging about Ukraine so that they could shape their defense accordingly , staying away from the “ no quid pro quo ” stuff ?
Why should the NSC feel obliged to do that ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ *really , truly doubted that there was a quid pro quo* and has now been confronted with claims to the contrary by a person he respects , fellow superhawk John Bolton ?
C ’ mon .
There ’ s no way he sincerely doubted that there was a quid pro quo .
Anyway , Lindsey ’ s pissed — enough so that he ’ s momentarily undecided on calling witnesses after spending the past six weeks arguing tirelessly that none should be called .
This quote caught my eye too : He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He might end up banished with fellow Trump sycophant Matt Gaetz to the Island of Misfit Toys for having had the nerve to cross POTUS one time in a big spot .
Note Haberman ’ s point about the coming GOP argument that Bolton can ’ t be called , no matter how relevant his testimony might be , because the House didn ’ t call him first .
The House could try to call him right now , of course — and some Democrats there apparently want to do so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mother Jones , by … Adam Schiff ?
With the prospect of Bolton appearing as a witness in the trial unresolved—it ’ s still possible he might not be called—several House Democrats on Monday initiated talks within their caucus about taking the dramatic step of subpoenaing him or once again requesting that he testify before a House committee , according to multiple Democratic sources .
Bolton would , under oath , presumably say that Trump informed him at the time that he was leaning on Zelensky by withholding the $ 391 million in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war against Russia .
But , according to these same sources , Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , the chair of the House intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager , is not in favor of this , believing that Senate Republicans might somehow use such a move as an argument against calling Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial .
“ The onus is clearly on the Senate to call a relevant and willing witness before they vote , ” says a Democratic aide working on the impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of calling Bolton to testify in the House note they are sensitive to this , but they say they still intend to raise the matter within the Democratic caucus .
They point out that a Bolton appearance in the House—or his refusal to testify—could put pressure on Senate Republicans to call him as a witness in the Senate trial .
I think Schiff ’ s correct as a strategic matter .
At a moment when Senate Republicans are under such intense pressure to call Bolton that even Lindsey Graham has begun to waver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put the ball back in their own court by trying to call Bolton there .
Bolton might not even agree to testify without a court fight in that chamber ; the ensuing delay caused by the subpoena would give the Senate an excuse to proceed towards acquittal with the caveat that if the House wants to impeach Trump again later after they hear from Bolton there ’ s nothing stopping them .
( The House will not , in fact , impeach Trump a second time and both parties understand that . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ give GOP attack dogs like Jim Jordan , Doug Collins , and Gaetz a chance to tear into him on TV .
Dems are better off letting him testify via deposition in a more staid setting like the Senate , with low-key Pat Cipollone asking the questions .
Besides , they can always subpoena Bolton themselves after the trial for a House committee hearing if they want to put on a show with him as the star witness .
A question for you that seemed unlikely 24 hours ago : How many votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and possibly Alexander might the GOP get to call witnesses now ?
It seems unlikely that they ’ d get 51 exactly since no one wants to be known as the vote that tipped the balance , knowing how peeved Trump fans would be .
Those voting for witnesses want to be able to hide in a crowd .
Could Gardner decide to vote for witnesses too ?
Sasse ?
Mike Lee ?
Here ’ s a brief trip down memory lane with Graham , from an interview with Axios in October .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said here when he read the Bolton news last night .

This is the last guy who I thought would bend on witnesses in light of last night’s Bolton bombshell, especially when less ardent Trump apologists like John Barrasso and John Thune are out in front of the media this morning stammering, “W-w-what’s the big deal?”
Graham is reportedly pissed. And not (just) at Bolton:
Among those unhappy: McConnell and Graham. But White House told senate that it is planning to push ahead and say this isn’t impeachable and it’s on the House for not subooenaing Bolton > https://t.co/DddnT9e1yw — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) January 27, 2020
Haberman reported this morning that some Senate Republicans feel “blindsided” by the Times’s scoop, although it’s unclear which part of it blindsided them. The National Security Council, which is reviewing Bolton’s manuscript to make sure that it doesn’t reveal classified information, claims that no one else in the White House has reviewed it. Does Graham think Trump and his lawyers should have been allowed to? Or that, at a minimum, they should have been informed by the NSC what Bolton was alleging about Ukraine so that they could shape their defense accordingly, staying away from the “no quid pro quo” stuff? Why should the NSC feel obliged to do that?
Or does Graham feel blindsided because he *really, truly doubted that there was a quid pro quo* and has now been confronted with claims to the contrary by a person he respects, fellow superhawk John Bolton?
C’mon. There’s no way he sincerely doubted that there was a quid pro quo.
Anyway, Lindsey’s pissed — enough so that he’s momentarily undecided on calling witnesses after spending the past six weeks arguing tirelessly that none should be called.
.@LindseyGrahamSC suggests he wants the WH to give the Senate the BOLTON manuscript so he can decide if Bolton needs to testify: “I want to see the manuscript… or have somebody tell us what’s in the manuscript… apparently the White House has it. You can ask for it.” — Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) January 27, 2020
Graham wants to see Bolton’s manuscript. “What we have to do here is evaluate the manuscript and see if it's a reason to add to the record.” Asked if he would support a subpoena to get it, he said, “I want to know what's in the manuscript, yeah. I think that’s important.” — Haley Byrd Wilt (@byrdinator) January 27, 2020
Sen. Lindsey Graham tells our team he’ll decide on Thursday (expected to be after the Q&A period) if there’s a need to introduce new witnesses and evidence into the Senate trial. Graham sounding less bullish than before. — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 27, 2020
Sen. Graham just now: "If the Senate needs to secure testimony from John Bolton, then I will say so if I think that’s necessary for fairness, but I also have said for weeks, if we call one witness, we’re gonna call witnesses requested by the President, and we’ll cross" — Ariana Pekary (@arianapekary) January 27, 2020
This quote caught my eye too:
Graham, asked if he trusts Bolton, retorted: “I don’t know if I trust anybody right now.” https://t.co/l6jnoPJZlE — Catie Edmondson (@CatieEdmondson) January 27, 2020
He’d better be careful with his tone. He might end up banished with fellow Trump sycophant Matt Gaetz to the Island of Misfit Toys for having had the nerve to cross POTUS one time in a big spot.
Note Haberman’s point about the coming GOP argument that Bolton can’t be called, no matter how relevant his testimony might be, because the House didn’t call him first. The House could try to call him right now, of course — and some Democrats there apparently want to do so. They’re being opposed, says Mother Jones, by … Adam Schiff?
With the prospect of Bolton appearing as a witness in the trial unresolved—it’s still possible he might not be called—several House Democrats on Monday initiated talks within their caucus about taking the dramatic step of subpoenaing him or once again requesting that he testify before a House committee, according to multiple Democratic sources. Bolton would, under oath, presumably say that Trump informed him at the time that he was leaning on Zelensky by withholding the $391 million in military assistance Ukraine needed for its ongoing war against Russia. But, according to these same sources, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chair of the House intelligence committee and the lead House impeachment manager, is not in favor of this, believing that Senate Republicans might somehow use such a move as an argument against calling Bolton as a witness in the impeachment trial. “The onus is clearly on the Senate to call a relevant and willing witness before they vote,” says a Democratic aide working on the impeachment trial. Several House Democrats raising the idea of calling Bolton to testify in the House note they are sensitive to this, but they say they still intend to raise the matter within the Democratic caucus. They point out that a Bolton appearance in the House—or his refusal to testify—could put pressure on Senate Republicans to call him as a witness in the Senate trial.
I think Schiff’s correct as a strategic matter. At a moment when Senate Republicans are under such intense pressure to call Bolton that even Lindsey Graham has begun to waver, House Dems would be nutty to put the ball back in their own court by trying to call Bolton there. Bolton might not even agree to testify without a court fight in that chamber; the ensuing delay caused by the subpoena would give the Senate an excuse to proceed towards acquittal with the caveat that if the House wants to impeach Trump again later after they hear from Bolton there’s nothing stopping them. (The House will not, in fact, impeach Trump a second time and both parties understand that.) Calling Bolton in the House would also give GOP attack dogs like Jim Jordan, Doug Collins, and Gaetz a chance to tear into him on TV. Dems are better off letting him testify via deposition in a more staid setting like the Senate, with low-key Pat Cipollone asking the questions.
Besides, they can always subpoena Bolton themselves after the trial for a House committee hearing if they want to put on a show with him as the star witness.
A question for you that seemed unlikely 24 hours ago: How many votes *besides* Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and possibly Alexander might the GOP get to call witnesses now? It seems unlikely that they’d get 51 exactly since no one wants to be known as the vote that tipped the balance, knowing how peeved Trump fans would be. Those voting for witnesses want to be able to hide in a crowd. Could Gardner decide to vote for witnesses too? Sasse? Mike Lee?
Here’s a brief trip down memory lane with Graham, from an interview with Axios in October. I wonder if he remembered what he said here when he read the Bolton news last night.


hotair--2020-01-27--Mexican rally against cartel violence met with shouts from President Obrador's supporters

There was a different kind of caravan marching through Mexico this week .
The Caravan for Truth , Justice , and Peace began in the south of Mexico and marched for four days toward the capital in hopes of meeting with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador .
The purpose of the march was to bring attention to the violence experienced by many Mexicans at the hands of drug cartels .
Left-wing President Obrador came into office just over a year ago promising a new approach to gang violence , but his “ hugs not bullets ” focus on root causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there were more than 35,000 murders in Mexico , the highest level ever recorded .
This march was a response to that and a demand for more focus on solving some of these crimes and arresting those responsible .
Members of a Mormon community with dual Mexican-US citizenship played a public role in the march .
Last year , a caravan of vehicles belonging to the group was ambushed on the road , apparently by drug cartels who thought it belonged to a rival cartel .
Three women and six children were killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family encouraged participants in the peace march to remove one shoe to symbolically remember a 10-year old survivor of the attack who walked six miles to find help with only one shoe .
Mexico ’ s president declined to meet with the marchers when they reached Mexico City .
As you ’ ll see in this Al Jazeera clip , he said he didn ’ t want to make a “ show ” of responding to them .
The marchers decided to settle for leaving a letter for Obrador at the National Palace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confronted by a large group of his supporters who yelled at the marchers to “ Get out !
” Some of the president ’ s supporters were chanting “ It ’ s an honor to be with Obrador ” : As Jazz wrote earlier today , progressives in this country are outraged that President Obrador has been doing a pretty good job as Trump ’ s border wall by blocking the arrival of new Central American caravans at Mexico ’ s southern border .
Meanwhile , leftists in Mexico are defending Obrador against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the sky high crime rate in their own country .
It really takes some nerve to get in the faces of people whose family members were murdered and tell them they ’ re lucky to have the great leadership they do .
Obrador is making an effort at the border because Trump has threatened tariffs if he doesn ’ t .
But the problem of violent crime in Mexico is not a new one .
Mexicans knew about Obrador ’ s “ hugs not bullets ” approach and still voted for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back against the cartels only creates a cycle of violence .
But it turns out that surrendering to the cartels only emboldens them .
One cartels recently forced police to surrender El Chapo ’ s son after he was arrested and then assassinated one of the policemen involved in his arrest in broad daylight .
If the hope was that the cartels would suddenly beat their swords into plowshares once the government backed off , it isn ’ t working out so far .
Obrador ’ s approach to cartel violence has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters are willing to tell victims of the violence to shut up and ‘ get out ’ no matter how bad it gets .

There was a different kind of caravan marching through Mexico this week. The Caravan for Truth, Justice, and Peace began in the south of Mexico and marched for four days toward the capital in hopes of meeting with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. The purpose of the march was to bring attention to the violence experienced by many Mexicans at the hands of drug cartels.
Left-wing President Obrador came into office just over a year ago promising a new approach to gang violence, but his “hugs not bullets” focus on root causes has been a disaster. Last year there were more than 35,000 murders in Mexico, the highest level ever recorded. This march was a response to that and a demand for more focus on solving some of these crimes and arresting those responsible.
Members of a Mormon community with dual Mexican-US citizenship played a public role in the march. Last year, a caravan of vehicles belonging to the group was ambushed on the road, apparently by drug cartels who thought it belonged to a rival cartel. Three women and six children were killed in the attack. Members of the family encouraged participants in the peace march to remove one shoe to symbolically remember a 10-year old survivor of the attack who walked six miles to find help with only one shoe.
Mexico’s president declined to meet with the marchers when they reached Mexico City. As you’ll see in this Al Jazeera clip, he said he didn’t want to make a “show” of responding to them.
This is our report from the march for peace. After hearing these horrific stories from pretty vulnerable people, it just makes it even more inexplicable how dozens of AMLO supporters could have later shouted against them in Mexico City zocalo.#CaminataPorLaPaz #AMLO pic.twitter.com/8NF42gr5QE — John Holman (@johnholman100) January 27, 2020
The marchers decided to settle for leaving a letter for Obrador at the National Palace but when they got there they were confronted by a large group of his supporters who yelled at the marchers to “Get out!”
Llegando al Zócalo la #CaminataPorLaPaz nos recibe un grupo pro #Amlo gritando "fuera Sicilia" .
Me parte el corazón ver a los que antes caminábamos juntos por la justicia y la paz, hoy divididos y polarizados. pic.twitter.com/a7NIPZHR5Q — Paola Zavala Saeb (@PaolaSaeb) January 26, 2020
Some of the president’s supporters were chanting “It’s an honor to be with Obrador”:
En confrontación con la #CaminataPorLaPaz acudieron al Zócalo seguidores de AMLO gritando: “Obrador”, “es un honor estar con Obrador”, “chayoteros” y “vendepatrias”,
¿Tanta es la polarización que hoy ya no provoca cohesión y solidaridad indiscutible?
pic.twitter.com/CPvphtQ1KE — Carlos Ponce (@CarlosPonceMart) January 27, 2020
As Jazz wrote earlier today, progressives in this country are outraged that President Obrador has been doing a pretty good job as Trump’s border wall by blocking the arrival of new Central American caravans at Mexico’s southern border. Meanwhile, leftists in Mexico are defending Obrador against marchers who want to see a decrease in the sky high crime rate in their own country. It really takes some nerve to get in the faces of people whose family members were murdered and tell them they’re lucky to have the great leadership they do.
Obrador is making an effort at the border because Trump has threatened tariffs if he doesn’t. But the problem of violent crime in Mexico is not a new one. Mexicans knew about Obrador’s “hugs not bullets” approach and still voted for him. Apparently the theory is that fighting back against the cartels only creates a cycle of violence. But it turns out that surrendering to the cartels only emboldens them. One cartels recently forced police to surrender El Chapo’s son after he was arrested and then assassinated one of the policemen involved in his arrest in broad daylight. If the hope was that the cartels would suddenly beat their swords into plowshares once the government backed off, it isn’t working out so far.
Obrador’s approach to cartel violence has been a spectacular failure. But apparently his supporters are willing to tell victims of the violence to shut up and ‘get out’ no matter how bad it gets.


hotair--2020-01-27--Mexican President is "acting like Trump's border wall"

As John discussed last week , the most recent caravan of migrants attempting to pass from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States was met with a most unexpected and disappointing welcome .
Their initial efforts to cross a bridge were totally blocked .
Then , when a large number of them tried to wade across the river , they were met with teargas and armed troops who stopped them again .
Some accepted invitations to apply for asylum and remain in southern Mexico , but most were loaded onto buses and shipped back to their countries of origin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with some declaring that Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ( better known as AMLO ) is taking the place of “ Trump ’ s border wall ” and shutting down the caravan corridor .
But AMLO doesn ’ t show any signs of relenting at this point .
( The Independent ) Mexican National Guard troops this week blocked a caravan of migrants seeking to breach the country ’ s border with Guatemala – firing tear gas while dressed in full riot gear .
Now critics say the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s southern border with Guatemala .
Hundreds of those detained were put on planes and buses back to Honduras , where the majority began their journey .
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had campaigned on a pledge to welcome migrants , but his government ’ s actions have shifted over the past year .
Some of these same critics have taken to the pages of Mexico ’ s newspapers to accuse AMLO of “ caving ” to pressure from the Trump administration , including threats of tariffs on imported Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have created “ a de facto wall ” on Mexico ’ s southern border .
I don ’ t want to have to be the one to point this out , but Mexico was always supposed to be guarding their own borders .
Having a “ de facto wall ” isn ’ t as good as an actual wall , but the National Guard is obviously doing a massively better job of shutting down this corridor than they used to .
Pining for a return to the times when thousands of Central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border and all the way up through the country is self-defeating because that was not normal .
That ’ s not how things are supposed to work .
Also , AMLO is not going back on his campaign pledge to welcome migrants .
He ’ s still welcoming the ones who attempt to emigrate to Mexico legally .
What he ’ s rejecting is the massive amount of illegal immigration that was the status quo under his predecessors .
The fact that he ’ s obviously doing this because of the new trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his approval of the new Remain in Mexico policy are just details .
Mexico is benefitting from all of this nearly as much as the United States .
They have a new trade deal that generates revenue and provides jobs as Mexican exports increase .
This actually provides more opportunities for refugees from Honduras and Guatemala to find good jobs and start new lives in Mexico .
Meanwhile , arrests of illegal aliens at our southern border continues to drop .
Tourism across the border for legal travelers continues to benefit both nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually complaining about is that the laws are being enforced .
And the stronger the Mexican government is and the more opportunities exist for its citizens , the weaker the position of the drug cartels becomes .
This could be the beginning of a much more promising era for Mexico , both domestically and in terms of their relationship with the United States .
Perhaps these people should stop complaining and work on being part of the solution instead of part of the problem .

As John discussed last week, the most recent caravan of migrants attempting to pass from Guatemala through Mexico to the United States was met with a most unexpected and disappointing welcome. Their initial efforts to cross a bridge were totally blocked. Then, when a large number of them tried to wade across the river, they were met with teargas and armed troops who stopped them again. Some accepted invitations to apply for asylum and remain in southern Mexico, but most were loaded onto buses and shipped back to their countries of origin.
This has immigration activists up in arms, with some declaring that Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (better known as AMLO) is taking the place of “Trump’s border wall” and shutting down the caravan corridor. But AMLO doesn’t show any signs of relenting at this point. (The Independent)
Mexican National Guard troops this week blocked a caravan of migrants seeking to breach the country’s border with Guatemala – firing tear gas while dressed in full riot gear. Now critics say the government’s actions have created virtual border wall on the country’s southern border with Guatemala. Hundreds of those detained were put on planes and buses back to Honduras, where the majority began their journey. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador had campaigned on a pledge to welcome migrants, but his government’s actions have shifted over the past year.
Some of these same critics have taken to the pages of Mexico’s newspapers to accuse AMLO of “caving” to pressure from the Trump administration, including threats of tariffs on imported Mexican goods. His actions, they say, have created “a de facto wall” on Mexico’s southern border.
I don’t want to have to be the one to point this out, but Mexico was always supposed to be guarding their own borders. Having a “de facto wall” isn’t as good as an actual wall, but the National Guard is obviously doing a massively better job of shutting down this corridor than they used to. Pining for a return to the times when thousands of Central American migrants could blithely stroll across the border and all the way up through the country is self-defeating because that was not normal. That’s not how things are supposed to work.
Also, AMLO is not going back on his campaign pledge to welcome migrants. He’s still welcoming the ones who attempt to emigrate to Mexico legally. What he’s rejecting is the massive amount of illegal immigration that was the status quo under his predecessors. The fact that he’s obviously doing this because of the new trade deal he arranged with President Trump and his approval of the new Remain in Mexico policy are just details.
Mexico is benefitting from all of this nearly as much as the United States. They have a new trade deal that generates revenue and provides jobs as Mexican exports increase. This actually provides more opportunities for refugees from Honduras and Guatemala to find good jobs and start new lives in Mexico. Meanwhile, arrests of illegal aliens at our southern border continues to drop. Tourism across the border for legal travelers continues to benefit both nations.
What AMLO’s critics are actually complaining about is that the laws are being enforced. And the stronger the Mexican government is and the more opportunities exist for its citizens, the weaker the position of the drug cartels becomes. This could be the beginning of a much more promising era for Mexico, both domestically and in terms of their relationship with the United States. Perhaps these people should stop complaining and work on being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.


hotair--2020-01-27--Schiff to Senate: How can you search for the truth without calling Bolton?

That ’ s actually a pretty good question — one that Adam Schiff should answer for himself .
Just imagine where we ’ d be if Adam Schiff had done his job properly and subpoenaed John Bolton in the first place .
At the very least , we ’ d have gotten a sneak peak at the Stache ’ s memoirs .
First , though , Schiff has to get past the irony in this argument .
“ I don ’ t know how you can explain , ” he tells Alisyn Camerota , “ that you wanted a search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and say that you don ’ t want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment ” : Ahem .
Doesn ’ t that also apply to Schiff ’ s own House investigation ?
Why didn ’ t Schiff pursue a subpoena then , if that is the measure of whether the process was a “ search for the truth ” ?
Bolton suggested publicly that he had information germane to the probe but said a court would need to litigate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interested in issuing an impeachment before Christmas than hearing from “ a witness who had a direct conversation , ” and dropped the effort to get testimony from Bolton .
House Democrats complain that it would have taken years to litigate that , but that ’ s not true — and any lack of expedition would have been their fault anyway .
Democrats tried to retain deniability on impeachment all through the process by refusing to vote explicitly to authorize the process .
Had they done so , federal courts would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege , they likely would have broadened the House ’ s reach over executive branch documentation as well .
Even without that , federal courts would still have treated the matter with considerable urgency .
Schiff wanted to manufacture an obstruction charge rather than conduct “ a search for the truth.
” Besides , that court fight will still have to take place .
Regardless of what Bolton wrote in his memoirs , executive privilege still applies to advisory conversations on policy .
Any subpoena for Bolton ’ s testimony and/or notes will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few months , a point that Mitch McConnell is no doubt emphasizing with his caucus at the moment .
Do they want to drag this out until the summer when the ultimate outcome is all but assured ?
At this point , they may not have much choice .
Get ready for a Supreme Court ruling this summer , with or without a John Roberts recusal .

That’s actually a pretty good question — one that Adam Schiff should answer for himself. Just imagine where we’d be if Adam Schiff had done his job properly and subpoenaed John Bolton in the first place. At the very least, we’d have gotten a sneak peak at the Stache’s memoirs.
First, though, Schiff has to get past the irony in this argument. “I don’t know how you can explain,” he tells Alisyn Camerota, “that you wanted a search for the truth in this trial, and say that you don’t want to hear from a witness who had a direct conversation about the central allegation in the articles of impeachment”:
The New York Times report on John Bolton's draft book manuscript "completely blasts another hole in the President's defense," says @RepAdamSchiff. "…Let's put John Bolton to the test… The question is, are the senators willing to her the truth."https://t.co/7oHdnZlN6C pic.twitter.com/PjXdaboEll — New Day (@NewDay) January 27, 2020
Ahem. Doesn’t that also apply to Schiff’s own House investigation? Why didn’t Schiff pursue a subpoena then, if that is the measure of whether the process was a “search for the truth”? Bolton suggested publicly that he had information germane to the probe but said a court would need to litigate the issues of executive privilege. Schiff was more interested in issuing an impeachment before Christmas than hearing from “a witness who had a direct conversation,” and dropped the effort to get testimony from Bolton.
House Democrats complain that it would have taken years to litigate that, but that’s not true — and any lack of expedition would have been their fault anyway. Democrats tried to retain deniability on impeachment all through the process by refusing to vote explicitly to authorize the process. Had they done so, federal courts would have not just expedited the challenges over executive privilege, they likely would have broadened the House’s reach over executive branch documentation as well. Even without that, federal courts would still have treated the matter with considerable urgency. Schiff wanted to manufacture an obstruction charge rather than conduct “a search for the truth.”
Besides, that court fight will still have to take place. Regardless of what Bolton wrote in his memoirs, executive privilege still applies to advisory conversations on policy. Any subpoena for Bolton’s testimony and/or notes will kick-start a legal fight that could last a few months, a point that Mitch McConnell is no doubt emphasizing with his caucus at the moment. Do they want to drag this out until the summer when the ultimate outcome is all but assured?
At this point, they may not have much choice. Get ready for a Supreme Court ruling this summer, with or without a John Roberts recusal.


hotair--2020-01-27--Romney: It's increasingly likely Senate Republicans will agree to call witnesses after the new Bolto

Romney: It's increasingly likely Senate Republicans will agree to call witnesses after the new Bolton revelation

It ’ s not clear from this short clip whether he ’ s guessing how Collins , Murkowski , and the rest will feel about last night ’ s news or whether he ’ s actually spoken to anyone about it .
But a Politico reporter claims Romney said he has chatted about it with others .
And Susan Collins told Yahoo News on her way into work this morning that she ’ s been working with Murkowski , Romney , and Lamar Alexander on the witness issue .
Hmmmm .
Watch , then read on : Senate Republicans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that unhappiness known to the White House .
The National Security Council has been reviewing Bolton ’ s manuscript for classified material for nearly a month , according to Bolton ’ s lawyer .
Did Trump and his lawyers have no inkling that it allegedly claims the president told Bolton personally that “ he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine ” ?
By Monday morning , several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House trying to determine who at the administration knew about Mr. Bolton ’ s manuscript , which aides there have had for several weeks , and what was in it .
They told the White House they felt blindsided , according to people briefed on the calls who insisted on anonymity to describe private discussions .
One reason for their ire is that Mr. Bolton ’ s account flies in the face of the rationale the president ’ s lawyers have offered the Senate for his actions , and which many Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his conduct .
Why the hell would Team Trump go on insisting there was no quid pro quo if they knew that ( a ) Bolton ’ s book is going to allege that Trump himself said there was and ( b ) Bolton has already said publicly that he ’ s willing to testify if subpoenaed ?
Either the NSC quarantined the manuscript tightly ( until yesterday ’ s leak , of course ) and Trump ’ s lawyers have themselves been blindsided or Trump thought maybe Bolton and the entire book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — could be bottled up somehow , presumably on grounds of executive privilege , until after the election .
Or , a third possibility : Since the Times never quotes directly from the book itself , maybe their source has misrepresented what Bolton actually said .
That seems unlikely , though , after you read the statement from Bolton ’ s lawyer , which claims that it ’ s “ clear ” from the NYT story that the NSC ’ s review process has been “ corrupted and that information has been disclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reviewing the manuscript.
” That reads to me like he ’ s saying the Times story is true .
At no point in the statement does he suggest that it ’ s false , not even in a “ we will neither confirm nor deny the allegation ” way .
There ’ s a way we can find out .
Subpoena time !
Two interesting tweets from this morning to give you a taste of how this is playing even among Trump ’ s more stalwart defenders in the Senate : At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back on but without Graham ’ s participation .
Lindsey has been adamant all month that he didn ’ t want to call any witnesses , believing that it ’ s bad for the country to let impeachment drag on ( even though the general consensus on both sides is that the public isn ’ t paying much attention ) .
His tweet above now sounds more resigned to the fact that they will be , and that witness reciprocity will be enforced .
But that could get hairy : “ If [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say Mick [ Mulvaney ] or [ Mike ] Pompeo , then calls for them will intensify , ” said one Republican to aide to Axios .
I don ’ t think either Mulvaney or Pompeo would roll over on Trump , even under oath — their careers would be over — but it ’ s a momentous risk for Senate Republicans .
They ’ ll vote “ not guilty ” no matter what , even if they have to retreat to the position that yes , fine , what Trump did was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll leave voters on both sides furious .
What ’ s a Susan Collins to do ?
I don ’ t think she has a choice now : Byron York , normally a Trump-friendly reporter , also sounds resigned this morning .
Now that the Times has dropped a bombshell about what Bolton ’ s prepared to say , notes York , there ’ s really no choice but to follow up .
I ’ m sure Murkowski agrees .
Does Alexander ?
Stay tuned .
A mystery in the meantime : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manuscript leak ?
Bolton ’ s lawyer has accused someone on the NSC of doing it , with his spokesman claiming that “ The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else .
Period.
” That ’ s not true , though , according to the Times .
“ Mr .
Bolton ’ s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump ’ s impeachment trial , the third in American history , was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night .
The NSC , meanwhile , insists that no one in the White House outside the Council itself has reviewed the Bolton manuscript , which helps explain why Trump ’ s lawyers might press ahead with the “ no quid pro quo ” defense but doesn ’ t quite explain how the New York Times got wind of Bolton ’ s Ukraine claims before the president himself did .
Although , as some on Twitter have noted , the fact that Pat Cipollone hasn ’ t “ reviewed ” the manuscript doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contents of the Ukraine chapter were made known to him informally .
You can choose your own adventure on whom to blame for the leak .
If you want to blame Bolton you can call him another James Comey , a disgruntled aide laundering damaging claims about Trump to a gullible press , possibly via accomplices .
( Whether you could make that analogy convincing is a separate question . )
If you want to blame the NSC you can call this a “ deep state ” conspiracy , a reminder that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president at the highest levels , even inside the White House itself .
Or you could take the path of least resistance , insisting that it doesn ’ t matter who leaked it or what Bolton has to say because the House declined to try to make him testify and therefore the Senate doesn ’ t need to hear his allegations .
That would be a hard argument to make at this point , as Romney , Collins , Graham , and York have all demonstrated this morning , but it might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hellbent on wrapping up this process without witnesses .
Something to think about as this plays out : What do Senate Republicans gain at this point by continuing to block Bolton ?
If they call him , there ’ s a fair chance that his testimony won ’ t be as damning as the Times story suggested it would be .
If it is damning then , like York says , it ’ s better that it come out now rather than later .
Under oath , Bolton would have to face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justification for acquittal could and would be shaped to sidestep Bolton ’ s claims .
( “ Bad but not impeachable ” would be the justification of last resort . )
Whereas if he ’ s blocked from testifying , the book will come out anyway and Bolton may never face a challenging interview about it .
If what he and the book have to say about Ukraine is damning for Trump then the trial will look like a cover-up in hindsight , hurting vulnerable senators like Collins .
That “ cover-up ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day too .
House Democrats may subpoena Bolton anyway at some point and win a court fight to make him testify , possibly in the last few weeks before the presidential vote .
( At least he ’ d face some hostile questioning in that case . )
There ’ s no way to keep the genie in the bottle .
Either now or later , it ’ s coming out .
Exit question : Who else might be implicated by Bolton if he testifies ?
Don ’ t overlook the following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lost amid the chatter about what Trump allegedly told Bolton .
“ Mr .
Bolton also described other key moments in the pressure campaign , including Mr. Pompeo ’ s private acknowledgment to him last spring that Mr. Giuliani ’ s claims about Ms. Yovanovitch had no basis and that Mr. Giuliani may have wanted her removed because she might have been targeting his clients who had dealings in Ukraine as she sought to fight corruption .
”

It’s not clear from this short clip whether he’s guessing how Collins, Murkowski, and the rest will feel about last night’s news or whether he’s actually spoken to anyone about it. But a Politico reporter claims Romney said he has chatted about it with others. And Susan Collins told Yahoo News on her way into work this morning that she’s been working with Murkowski, Romney, and Lamar Alexander on the witness issue. Hmmmm. Watch, then read on:
Romney: "Increasingly like" other Senate Republicans will want to hear from John Bolton pic.twitter.com/N0nWH8QCHH — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 27, 2020
CNN is hearing whispers too:
This just in from @mkraju: "Several GOP sources said tonight that the NYT report about John Bolton’s draft book manuscript adds new uncertainty to this week’s crucial vote to determine whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses and documents." — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 27, 2020
Senate Republicans are unhappy about the Times scoop and have made that unhappiness known to the White House. The National Security Council has been reviewing Bolton’s manuscript for classified material for nearly a month, according to Bolton’s lawyer. Did Trump and his lawyers have no inkling that it allegedly claims the president told Bolton personally that “he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related to Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine”?
By Monday morning, several Republican senators had angrily called the White House trying to determine who at the administration knew about Mr. Bolton’s manuscript, which aides there have had for several weeks, and what was in it. They told the White House they felt blindsided, according to people briefed on the calls who insisted on anonymity to describe private discussions. One reason for their ire is that Mr. Bolton’s account flies in the face of the rationale the president’s lawyers have offered the Senate for his actions, and which many Republicans have latched onto themselves as a defense of his conduct.
Why the hell would Team Trump go on insisting there was no quid pro quo if they knew that (a) Bolton’s book is going to allege that Trump himself said there was and (b) Bolton has already said publicly that he’s willing to testify if subpoenaed? Either the NSC quarantined the manuscript tightly (until yesterday’s leak, of course) and Trump’s lawyers have themselves been blindsided or Trump thought maybe Bolton and the entire book — or at least the Ukraine parts — could be bottled up somehow, presumably on grounds of executive privilege, until after the election.
Or, a third possibility: Since the Times never quotes directly from the book itself, maybe their source has misrepresented what Bolton actually said. That seems unlikely, though, after you read the statement from Bolton’s lawyer, which claims that it’s “clear” from the NYT story that the NSC’s review process has been “corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those properly involved in reviewing the manuscript.” That reads to me like he’s saying the Times story is true. At no point in the statement does he suggest that it’s false, not even in a “we will neither confirm nor deny the allegation” way.
There’s a way we can find out. Subpoena time!
Two interesting tweets from this morning to give you a taste of how this is playing even among Trump’s more stalwart defenders in the Senate:
If there is a desire and decision by the Senate to call Democratic witnesses, then at a minimum the Senate should allow President @realDonaldTrump to call all relevant witnesses he has requested. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 27, 2020
Republican Senators Graham, Braun, Barrasso, Lankford and Lee have cancelled an impeachment press conference they were due to hold ahead of today’s trial session. — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 27, 2020
At last check, that press conference is back on but without Graham’s participation. Lindsey has been adamant all month that he didn’t want to call any witnesses, believing that it’s bad for the country to let impeachment drag on (even though the general consensus on both sides is that the public isn’t paying much attention). His tweet above now sounds more resigned to the fact that they will be, and that witness reciprocity will be enforced. But that could get hairy: “If [Bolton] says stuff that implicates, say Mick [Mulvaney] or [Mike] Pompeo, then calls for them will intensify,” said one Republican to aide to Axios. I don’t think either Mulvaney or Pompeo would roll over on Trump, even under oath — their careers would be over — but it’s a momentous risk for Senate Republicans. They’ll vote “not guilty” no matter what, even if they have to retreat to the position that yes, fine, what Trump did was bad but not impeachable, but that’ll leave voters on both sides furious. What’s a Susan Collins to do?
I don’t think she has a choice now:
My statement on Bolton developments. pic.twitter.com/3M59J7suts — Sen. Susan Collins (@SenatorCollins) January 27, 2020
Byron York, normally a Trump-friendly reporter, also sounds resigned this morning. Now that the Times has dropped a bombshell about what Bolton’s prepared to say, notes York, there’s really no choice but to follow up. I’m sure Murkowski agrees. Does Alexander?
Much talk about WH claims of privilege if Bolton testifies. But Bolton has already changed the game. He has put down his account on paper. That written account has circulated. Cat is out of the bag. Public needs to see it now. — Byron York (@ByronYork) January 27, 2020
Plus, if Bolton testifies, Senate will need to see his book first. Will have to measure his testimony against book. So it all has to come out. At this point, sooner is better. — Byron York (@ByronYork) January 27, 2020
Stay tuned. A mystery in the meantime: How exactly did the contents of the manuscript leak? Bolton’s lawyer has accused someone on the NSC of doing it, with his spokesman claiming that “The ambassador has not passed the draft manuscript to anyone else. Period.” That’s not true, though, according to the Times. “Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates,” the paper reported last night. The NSC, meanwhile, insists that no one in the White House outside the Council itself has reviewed the Bolton manuscript, which helps explain why Trump’s lawyers might press ahead with the “no quid pro quo” defense but doesn’t quite explain how the New York Times got wind of Bolton’s Ukraine claims before the president himself did.
Although, as some on Twitter have noted, the fact that Pat Cipollone hasn’t “reviewed” the manuscript doesn’t exclude the possibility that the contents of the Ukraine chapter were made known to him informally.
You can choose your own adventure on whom to blame for the leak. If you want to blame Bolton you can call him another James Comey, a disgruntled aide laundering damaging claims about Trump to a gullible press, possibly via accomplices. (Whether you could make that analogy convincing is a separate question.) If you want to blame the NSC you can call this a “deep state” conspiracy, a reminder that people inside the administration are working against the president at the highest levels, even inside the White House itself. Or you could take the path of least resistance, insisting that it doesn’t matter who leaked it or what Bolton has to say because the House declined to try to make him testify and therefore the Senate doesn’t need to hear his allegations. That would be a hard argument to make at this point, as Romney, Collins, Graham, and York have all demonstrated this morning, but it might be the only argument left for Republicans who are hellbent on wrapping up this process without witnesses.
Something to think about as this plays out: What do Senate Republicans gain at this point by continuing to block Bolton? If they call him, there’s a fair chance that his testimony won’t be as damning as the Times story suggested it would be. If it is damning then, like York says, it’s better that it come out now rather than later. Under oath, Bolton would have to face cross-examination; plus, the eventual Republican justification for acquittal could and would be shaped to sidestep Bolton’s claims. (“Bad but not impeachable” would be the justification of last resort.) Whereas if he’s blocked from testifying, the book will come out anyway and Bolton may never face a challenging interview about it. If what he and the book have to say about Ukraine is damning for Trump then the trial will look like a cover-up in hindsight, hurting vulnerable senators like Collins. That “cover-up” perception may be held against Trump on Election Day too. House Democrats may subpoena Bolton anyway at some point and win a court fight to make him testify, possibly in the last few weeks before the presidential vote. (At least he’d face some hostile questioning in that case.) There’s no way to keep the genie in the bottle. Either now or later, it’s coming out.
Exit question: Who else might be implicated by Bolton if he testifies? Don’t overlook the following passage from last night’s story, lost amid the chatter about what Trump allegedly told Bolton. “Mr. Bolton also described other key moments in the pressure campaign, including Mr. Pompeo’s private acknowledgment to him last spring that Mr. Giuliani’s claims about Ms. Yovanovitch had no basis and that Mr. Giuliani may have wanted her removed because she might have been targeting his clients who had dealings in Ukraine as she sought to fight corruption.”