hotair--2020-01-27--Singer owns the libs with her Trump-inspired gown at the Grammys

A singer/songwriter known for her enthusiastic support of President Trump often shows her support with fashion .
Joy Villa is known for causing a stir on the red carpet before the Hollywood award shows .
She did not disappoint fans at the Grammy Awards last night .
The 62nd Annual Grammy Award Show was held at the Staples Center and aired on CBS .
During the Red Carpet portion of the night , a prelude to the award show that is also televised , celebrities show off their attire .
Joy Villa flaunts her support of Trump and conservative politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It has come to be expected from her by the photographers covering the event .
Villa walked the red carpet and stopped for photographs .
She started out with a long white coat trimmed in blue with white stars over her evening gown .
Then , as she progressed down the red carpet , she ditched the coat and revealed a red , white , and blue gown .
Her message was loud and clear – “ Trump 2020 ” was spelled out in white letters on the front of her red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show the back of the dress , the message “ Impeached and Re-Elected ” .
No , there is nothing subtle with her , which drives the liberals nuts .
That ’ s the point .
In a crowd who despises everything about conservatives and conservative politics , Villa pokes a finger in their eyes and smiles .
A little bit of “ Impeach him ” can be heard from the crowd watching her but mostly the photographers were scrambling to get a good shot .
Some were coaching her so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gown has the phrase “ Trump 2020 ” in white crystal lettering running down the front of the bodice and the words “ Impeached and Re-Elected ” on the back .
Both the gown and Villa ’ s white coat with cape sleeves , crafted of surplus white mesh sports fabric that a company donated to designers in Portland , according to the musician , were custom-made by Desi Allinger of Desi Designs , as was her red ostrich feather hair accessory .
Allinger tells The Hollywood Reporter : “ The collar of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a neckline on a dress by Alexander McQueen , and the coat is inspired by our first lady [ Melania Trump ] — I just picture her in this .
So yeah , USA !
” In past appearances on red carpets , Villa has worn dresses with themes that included “ Make America Great Again ” in 2017 and “ Build the Wall ” in 2019 .
In 2018 she wore a pro-life message .
She partners with ViralPAC , an organization that funds conservative artists to support Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like , well , Miss America when she wears her political statements .
“ I feel like Miss America in this ; it ’ s all couture , ” Villa told THR before the awards show , adding , “ He ’ s going to be the first president in history to be impeached and re-elected.
” She described impeachment as “ a total sham , ” explaining that the process was “ confusing most Americans.
” Asked whether she had shared her fashion plans with Trump in advance of the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be surprised .
I just told Ivanka and the White House that I ’ m going to wear something to be supportive .
I don ’ t let anyone know the message beforehand.
” Created and sent to her by a fan , Villa ’ s glittery black handbag is embellished with a beaded red , white and blue Republican elephant motif , while her Uplift by Lily pumps are decorated with a patriotic stars and stripes flag pattern .
The award show ’ s venue – the Staples Center – made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ceremony , given the tragic deaths of Kobe Bryant , his daughter , and seven others earlier in the day .
Singer Alicia Keys was the host and noted that the evening was devoted to Bryant in “ the house that Kobe Bryant built.
” She took an opportunity at the opening of the show to do a song in tribute to those lost in the helicopter crash and added a zinger to President Trump .
Because , of course .
Tonight , we must unite in spite of all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like so crazy I don ’ t even watch TV .
Commander in chief impeached .
Ya ’ ll get out .
Let ’ s bring Cardi B in .
Cause music changes the world , just like Beethoven said .
Old dude in a wig but I still give him some cred .
There ’ s just too many lies , too much hate , too much spin , it ’ s when good people do nothing that the bad guys win .
They can ’ t help themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on tragedy .

A singer/songwriter known for her enthusiastic support of President Trump often shows her support with fashion. Joy Villa is known for causing a stir on the red carpet before the Hollywood award shows. She did not disappoint fans at the Grammy Awards last night.
The 62nd Annual Grammy Award Show was held at the Staples Center and aired on CBS. During the Red Carpet portion of the night, a prelude to the award show that is also televised, celebrities show off their attire. Joy Villa flaunts her support of Trump and conservative politics by wearing gowns with a pro-Trump message. It has come to be expected from her by the photographers covering the event.
Villa walked the red carpet and stopped for photographs. She started out with a long white coat trimmed in blue with white stars over her evening gown. Then, as she progressed down the red carpet, she ditched the coat and revealed a red, white, and blue gown. Her message was loud and clear – “Trump 2020” was spelled out in white letters on the front of her red sequined gown. As she turned around to show the back of the dress, the message “Impeached and Re-Elected”. No, there is nothing subtle with her, which drives the liberals nuts. That’s the point. In a crowd who despises everything about conservatives and conservative politics, Villa pokes a finger in their eyes and smiles.
A little bit of “Impeach him” can be heard from the crowd watching her but mostly the photographers were scrambling to get a good shot. Some were coaching her so that the gown received full exposure.
The gown has the phrase “Trump 2020” in white crystal lettering running down the front of the bodice and the words “Impeached and Re-Elected” on the back. Both the gown and Villa’s white coat with cape sleeves, crafted of surplus white mesh sports fabric that a company donated to designers in Portland, according to the musician, were custom-made by Desi Allinger of Desi Designs, as was her red ostrich feather hair accessory. Allinger tells The Hollywood Reporter: “The collar of Joy’s latex dress was inspired by a neckline on a dress by Alexander McQueen, and the coat is inspired by our first lady [Melania Trump] — I just picture her in this. So yeah, USA!”
In past appearances on red carpets, Villa has worn dresses with themes that included “Make America Great Again” in 2017 and “Build the Wall” in 2019. In 2018 she wore a pro-life message. She partners with ViralPAC, an organization that funds conservative artists to support Trump’s re-election in 2020.
Villa likes to feel like, well, Miss America when she wears her political statements.
“I feel like Miss America in this; it’s all couture,” Villa told THR before the awards show, adding, “He’s going to be the first president in history to be impeached and re-elected.” She described impeachment as “a total sham,” explaining that the process was “confusing most Americans.” Asked whether she had shared her fashion plans with Trump in advance of the show, she said, “He’ll be surprised. I just told Ivanka and the White House that I’m going to wear something to be supportive. I don’t let anyone know the message beforehand.” Created and sent to her by a fan, Villa’s glittery black handbag is embellished with a beaded red, white and blue Republican elephant motif, while her Uplift by Lily pumps are decorated with a patriotic stars and stripes flag pattern.
The award show’s venue – the Staples Center – made for some bittersweetness noted during the opening of the ceremony, given the tragic deaths of Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven others earlier in the day. Singer Alicia Keys was the host and noted that the evening was devoted to Bryant in “the house that Kobe Bryant built.” She took an opportunity at the opening of the show to do a song in tribute to those lost in the helicopter crash and added a zinger to President Trump. Because, of course.
Tonight, we must unite in spite of all the news that we’re seeing. It’s like so crazy I don’t even watch TV. Commander in chief impeached. Ya’ll get out. Let’s bring Cardi B in. Cause music changes the world, just like Beethoven said. Old dude in a wig but I still give him some cred. There’s just too many lies, too much hate, too much spin, it’s when good people do nothing that the bad guys win.
They can’t help themselves, even when they are trying to focus on tragedy.
HOLLYWOOD CONSERVATIVE POWER! Brought to you by myself and my collaborators @viral_pac and #AmericaAgainstHollywood! pic.twitter.com/I9DvhnEhNc — Joy Villa (@Joy_Villa) January 27, 2020
The House That Kobe Built 💛💜 pic.twitter.com/3Nfw4iymYv — STAPLES Center (@STAPLESCenter) January 27, 2020


hotair--2020-01-27--Trump blasts Bolton: He's trying to sell a book

Did John Bolton spill the beans in his unreleased memoir on a quid pro quo in Ukraine-Gate ?
Or did someone leak a false claim in order to spike interest in Bolton ’ s book ?
Donald Trump had some midnight thoughts on the subject after both the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Bolton will claim Trump told him directly that he would withhold aid to Ukraine unless they investigated the Bidens : True enough , but does it mean that John Bolton is lying — assuming , of course , that his memoirs say what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
When James Mattis got cashiered by Donald Trump , his memoirs got a lot of attention only to disappoint some readers when Mattis refused to dish on the current president .
Bolton would be less likely to keep a military-style discipline over his discussions with the president , even apart from Ukraine-Gate , so his book would have sold like hot cakes in any case .
In fact , in any rational world , Ukraine would hardly be the most interesting topic in a Bolton memoir of this administration , but here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealings with North Korea and Iran , or even Russia directly , would be far more consequential than a hold on aid that eventually got released after a hold of a few weeks .
That remains part of Trump ’ s public defense , by the way : Another defense , at least via retweet , is a “ question the timing ” approach .
Trump sent this tweet out to his followers not long after the above response from him directly : The timing does seem unusually propitious for Democrats attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans to vote for subpoenas .
That might still be a coincidence , as Jonathan Swan reports that Bolton followed proper procedure in submitting the book three weeks ago to the National Security Council for a review of classified material .
It ’ s not known yet whether the leak came from the NSC or whether it came from the publisher ( or , for that matter , anyone else from Bolton himself to the bookbinder ) .
The identity of the leakers might give us an indication as to the motive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point that ’ s more of a secondary issue .
The primary issue is whether or not it ’ s true .
First , did Bolton really write that he has firsthand and direct knowledge of Trump demanding a quid pro quo to dig up dirt on his political rivals for nothing more than his own electoral interests ?
If it ’ s a Gordon Sondland-esque “ well , that ’ s what it looked like to me , ” it ’ s not going to be terribly useful .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton actually wrote , is it true ?
One might expect Trump ’ s legal team to shift its strategy if the answer to either question is yes .
So far , though , NPR says it ’ s full speed ahead on their current strategy : President Trump ’ s defense team on Monday will continue its arguments in the Senate impeachment trial .
The team is expected to maintain that the president was legally justified in freezing military assistance to Ukraine and that the case against Trump presented by Democrats does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense .
The arguments come a day after a report by The New York Times that Trump directly told his former national security adviser John Bolton that he would hold up aid to Ukraine until the country launched investigations into his political rivals .
… Trump ’ s legal team is also expected to take aim at the president ’ s potential political opponent , Joe Biden , and his son Hunter , making the case that Trump had good reason to want Ukrainian investigators to launch criminal probes into the activities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden was vice president , Hunter Biden took a position as board member of a gas company in Ukraine . )
The defense starts its session today at 1 pm ET .
If they have second thoughts about their approach in light of the Bolton memoir , we ’ ll see some shifting around today .
And we ’ ll also soon see whether centrists in the Senate Republican caucus will throw in with Chuck Schumer to reopen the House Democrats ’ investigation .

Did John Bolton spill the beans in his unreleased memoir on a quid pro quo in Ukraine-Gate? Or did someone leak a false claim in order to spike interest in Bolton’s book? Donald Trump had some midnight thoughts on the subject after both the New York Times and Washington Post reported that Bolton will claim Trump told him directly that he would withhold aid to Ukraine unless they investigated the Bidens:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672?s=20
True enough, but does it mean that John Bolton is lying — assuming, of course, that his memoirs say what the New York Times and Washington Post reported? When James Mattis got cashiered by Donald Trump, his memoirs got a lot of attention only to disappoint some readers when Mattis refused to dish on the current president. Bolton would be less likely to keep a military-style discipline over his discussions with the president, even apart from Ukraine-Gate, so his book would have sold like hot cakes in any case. In fact, in any rational world, Ukraine would hardly be the most interesting topic in a Bolton memoir of this administration, but here we are anyway. Trump’s dealings with North Korea and Iran, or even Russia directly, would be far more consequential than a hold on aid that eventually got released after a hold of a few weeks.
That remains part of Trump’s public defense, by the way:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663764971491329
Another defense, at least via retweet, is a “question the timing” approach. Trump sent this tweet out to his followers not long after the above response from him directly:
This “Bolton Bombshell” from The NY Times (hardly a reliable source on @POTUS @realDonaldTrump reporting) seems to have dropped at an orchestrated opportunity. Totally manufactured. #NextRevFNC pic.twitter.com/EJmPVHI23V — Joe Gooding 💯🇺🇸 (@joegooding) January 27, 2020
For good measure, Trump also retweeted Lou Dobb’s tweet calling Bolton a “Rejected Neocon”:
Rejected Neocon, Failing NYTimes, Deep State's Last Desperate Act After @POTUS Attorneys Destroy Radical Dems, Schiff and Pelosi Charges: NYTimes says Bolton Book Claims @realDonaldTrump Trump tied Ukraine Aid to Biden Probe https://t.co/NcH4HKRxb8 #MAGA #AmericaFirst — Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) January 27, 2020
The timing does seem unusually propitious for Democrats attempting to get enough leverage to force a few Senate Republicans to vote for subpoenas. That might still be a coincidence, as Jonathan Swan reports that Bolton followed proper procedure in submitting the book three weeks ago to the National Security Council for a review of classified material. It’s not known yet whether the leak came from the NSC or whether it came from the publisher (or, for that matter, anyone else from Bolton himself to the bookbinder). The identity of the leakers might give us an indication as to the motive and timing of this bombshell, but at this point that’s more of a secondary issue.
The primary issue is whether or not it’s true. First, did Bolton really write that he has firsthand and direct knowledge of Trump demanding a quid pro quo to dig up dirt on his political rivals for nothing more than his own electoral interests? If it’s a Gordon Sondland-esque “well, that’s what it looked like to me,” it’s not going to be terribly useful. And second, if that’s what Bolton actually wrote, is it true?
One might expect Trump’s legal team to shift its strategy if the answer to either question is yes. So far, though, NPR says it’s full speed ahead on their current strategy:
President Trump’s defense team on Monday will continue its arguments in the Senate impeachment trial. The team is expected to maintain that the president was legally justified in freezing military assistance to Ukraine and that the case against Trump presented by Democrats does not clear the bar of an impeachable offense. The arguments come a day after a report by The New York Times that Trump directly told his former national security adviser John Bolton that he would hold up aid to Ukraine until the country launched investigations into his political rivals. … Trump’s legal team is also expected to take aim at the president’s potential political opponent, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter, making the case that Trump had good reason to want Ukrainian investigators to launch criminal probes into the activities of the Bidens in Ukraine. (While Joe Biden was vice president, Hunter Biden took a position as board member of a gas company in Ukraine.)
The defense starts its session today at 1 pm ET. If they have second thoughts about their approach in light of the Bolton memoir, we’ll see some shifting around today. And we’ll also soon see whether centrists in the Senate Republican caucus will throw in with Chuck Schumer to reopen the House Democrats’ investigation.


hotair--2020-01-27--How outmatched are we by the tech that UFOs appear to demonstrate?

We are still waiting , perhaps futilely , for the government to release more information about US Navy encounters with UFOs ( or UAPs , as they prefer to say these days ) involving the Nimitz carrier battle group in 2005 and the Roosevelt carrier battle group in 2015 .
Despite the efforts of many journalists to get the Pentagon to provide more details , the military continues to put up what amounts to a cone of silence for the most part .
But while we wait , a number of scientists have been pouring over the little data available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That leaves many of us wondering just what these tic-tacs and other craft are truly capable of and whether or not such technology represents a threat to us .
This is the subject that my friend Micah Hanks tackled this weekend in an article at Mysterious Universe .
What Micah focuses on , in particular , is a section of an older interview with Cmdr .
David Fravor , the Nimitz pilot who attempted to engage the tic tac originally .
When you look at his descriptions in the context of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to wonder whether we ’ re really more like a group of Neanderthals watching a moon landing .
“ We were at least 40 miles away , and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point , ” Fravor told the New York Times in 2017 .
Although the unidentified object at no time displayed any offensive capabilities or other indications of hostile intent , the fact that it ( or rather , its operators ) had obvious knowledge of the Combat Air Patrol coordinates seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) That in addition to highly advanced maneuverability , the “ tic-tac ” also had the ability to decode the highly encrypted communications systems employed by the Strike Group at that time , or 2 ) The operators of the UAP technology may have somehow had foreknowledge or other means of access to this information .
As Micah goes on to point out , while there ’ s no reason to panic just yet , we can ’ t ( or at least shouldn ’ t ) write off the existence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own .
The implications of either scenario are significant , and may even be fundamental to understanding the nature of the technology in question .
The various accounts of this object and its capabilities , observed at close-range by Fravor and his company during the intercept , as well as on radar by Voorhis , Day , and others , indicates something that is well beyond the capabilities of any known technologies possessed today by the United States ; the same can be said of any other world superpower .
This should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no indication of overt offensive capabilities displayed by the object .
However , any object or aircraft with such highly advanced performance should not be ruled out as a concern .
Keep in mind that the part of the encounter Fravor was discussing in that excerpt took place after the “ close encounter ” between the tic-tac and his Super Hornet .
At the conclusion of their little dance , the craft shot back up in the air a great distance in virtually no time at all and then went tearing away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other aviation unit ’ s CAP point ( Combat Air Patrol coordinates ) more than 40 miles away in under a minute .
Possibly well under a minute , given the fact that it took the other pilots some amount of time to pick up the contact and report it .
Here ’ s where a couple of those questions about advanced technology and possible threats to national security come into play .
First , there ’ s the speed .
This thing went from a dead stop to showing up at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minute .
That means that it accelerated to a minimum of Mach 5 in the blink of an eye .
That ’ s not supposed to be possible .
But the other question is… how did it “ know ” where the other CAP point was ?
As you saw above , Fravor suggests two possible answers .
The first possibility he mentions ( that the creators of the craft can bust our best encryption systems ) , while disturbing , would require more proof I think .
There ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controls those vehicles has any hostile intentions or even any interest in us .
Could they crack our encryption ?
Probably , assuming they ’ ve figured out how to navigate the galaxy .
But would they bother ?
Unknown , but it strikes me as unlikely .
The second option is the more tantalizing one , if somewhat frightening .
Perhaps they don ’ t need to know what we ’ re talking about because they already know what ’ s going to happen before it does .
But how would that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory going around for a long time that the human brain essentially acts like a quantum computer .
We assemble information into linear timelines to avoid going mad , but time may not behave that way in reality .
Perhaps everything happens at once and we only perceive our timeline as we do to make sense of all the data .
If that ’ s the case , then perhaps other intelligent entities don ’ t view the universe that way .
They may see the past , the present and the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we swing back to the other part of the original question .
Thus far , the US hasn ’ t seen any indications of hostile intent out of these things .
But what if they do become hostile ?
What the heck are we supposed to do against a foe that can potentially see the end of the fight before it even starts ?
Disturbing to say the least .
Sleep tight , campers .

We are still waiting, perhaps futilely, for the government to release more information about US Navy encounters with UFOs (or UAPs, as they prefer to say these days) involving the Nimitz carrier battle group in 2005 and the Roosevelt carrier battle group in 2015. Despite the efforts of many journalists to get the Pentagon to provide more details, the military continues to put up what amounts to a cone of silence for the most part.
But while we wait, a number of scientists have been pouring over the little data available and marveling at the technology on display. That leaves many of us wondering just what these tic-tacs and other craft are truly capable of and whether or not such technology represents a threat to us. This is the subject that my friend Micah Hanks tackled this weekend in an article at Mysterious Universe. What Micah focuses on, in particular, is a section of an older interview with Cmdr. David Fravor, the Nimitz pilot who attempted to engage the tic tac originally. When you look at his descriptions in the context of this question about the technology on display, you have to wonder whether we’re really more like a group of Neanderthals watching a moon landing.
“We were at least 40 miles away, and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point,” Fravor told the New York Times in 2017. Although the unidentified object at no time displayed any offensive capabilities or other indications of hostile intent, the fact that it (or rather, its operators) had obvious knowledge of the Combat Air Patrol coordinates seems to indicate one of two possibilities: 1) That in addition to highly advanced maneuverability, the “tic-tac” also had the ability to decode the highly encrypted communications systems employed by the Strike Group at that time, or 2) The operators of the UAP technology may have somehow had foreknowledge or other means of access to this information.
As Micah goes on to point out, while there’s no reason to panic just yet, we can’t (or at least shouldn’t) write off the existence of technological capabilities so far in advance of our own.
The implications of either scenario are significant, and may even be fundamental to understanding the nature of the technology in question. The various accounts of this object and its capabilities, observed at close-range by Fravor and his company during the intercept, as well as on radar by Voorhis, Day, and others, indicates something that is well beyond the capabilities of any known technologies possessed today by the United States; the same can be said of any other world superpower. This should not necessarily be alarming, as there was no indication of overt offensive capabilities displayed by the object. However, any object or aircraft with such highly advanced performance should not be ruled out as a concern.
Keep in mind that the part of the encounter Fravor was discussing in that excerpt took place after the “close encounter” between the tic-tac and his Super Hornet. At the conclusion of their little dance, the craft shot back up in the air a great distance in virtually no time at all and then went tearing away, over the horizon, arriving at the other aviation unit’s CAP point (Combat Air Patrol coordinates) more than 40 miles away in under a minute. Possibly well under a minute, given the fact that it took the other pilots some amount of time to pick up the contact and report it.
Here’s where a couple of those questions about advanced technology and possible threats to national security come into play. First, there’s the speed. This thing went from a dead stop to showing up at the other CAP point in at most a minute. That means that it accelerated to a minimum of Mach 5 in the blink of an eye. That’s not supposed to be possible. But the other question is… how did it “know” where the other CAP point was?
As you saw above, Fravor suggests two possible answers. The first possibility he mentions (that the creators of the craft can bust our best encryption systems), while disturbing, would require more proof I think. There’s been virtually zero indication that who or whatever controls those vehicles has any hostile intentions or even any interest in us. Could they crack our encryption? Probably, assuming they’ve figured out how to navigate the galaxy. But would they bother? Unknown, but it strikes me as unlikely.
The second option is the more tantalizing one, if somewhat frightening. Perhaps they don’t need to know what we’re talking about because they already know what’s going to happen before it does. But how would that work?
There’s been a theory going around for a long time that the human brain essentially acts like a quantum computer. We assemble information into linear timelines to avoid going mad, but time may not behave that way in reality. Perhaps everything happens at once and we only perceive our timeline as we do to make sense of all the data. If that’s the case, then perhaps other intelligent entities don’t view the universe that way. They may see the past, the present and the future all in the same frame.
Now we swing back to the other part of the original question. Thus far, the US hasn’t seen any indications of hostile intent out of these things. But what if they do become hostile? What the heck are we supposed to do against a foe that can potentially see the end of the fight before it even starts? Disturbing to say the least. Sleep tight, campers.


hotair--2020-01-27--Poll: Nobody knows what the heck is going on in New Hampshire

I ’ m not here to shoot down Allahpundit ’ s analysis of the new early-state polling from yesterday , but I think there are still definite questions left to be answered .
We ’ re down to the wire in terms of who will take the first primary contest in the 2020 race and the newest NBC/Marist poll of the Granite State seems to make one thing clear .
Either the voters there change their minds more often than their socks or the pollsters simply don ’ t know what ’ s going on .
It ’ s generally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near the top of the heap , but the order keeps changing on a weekly , if not daily basis .
Let ’ s start with the topline of what this one turned up .
( NBC News ) Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , and former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg lead the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire , while the top four Democratic candidates all enjoy early advantages against President Donald Trump in hypothetical general-election matchups in the Granite State .
In the initial NBC News/Marist state poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets the support of 22 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire , with Buttigieg at 17 percent .
Former Vice President Joe Biden follows at 15 percent , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, at 13 percent and Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , at 10 percent .
At this point , I ’ d normally go digging through the crosstabs to see if there were any notable trends or weaknesses for any of the candidates , but these numbers are seeming less and less meaningful at this point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ got Bernie Sanders on top , barely outside the margin of error .
Buttigieg and Biden are nipping at his heels , with Warren continuing to look as if she ’ s out of the running for a first place finish .
The only shocker is that Amy Klobuchar has climbed up to double digits ( barely ) for what appears to be only the second time .
But in just the past two weeks , Monmouth has had Buttigieg leading , the Boston Herald had Biden well out in front , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically tied .
Just for another data point in favor of the pollsters being confused , during the exact same period that the Globe had Sanders and Biden at 16 and 15 respectively , the WBUR/MassINC poll had Sanders slaying Biden 29-24 with Buttigieg in second place at 17 .
I realize that polling can and will produce some outliers every once in a while , but in New Hampshire right now it looks as if any of these polls could wind up being outliers .
To be fair , things in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are fewer polls from nationally recognized firms to draw on there , but the ones we do have are also producing something of a muddled mess .
The latest NY Times/Siena poll has Sanders crushing Biden 25-17 ( with Buttigieg in second at 18 ) .
But only days earlier , the FRA/David Binder poll had Biden lapping the field at 24 with poor Bernie stuck back in fourth place at 14 .
Only the week before , Monmouth showed Biden similarly leading second-place Sanders 24-18 while the Des Moines Register flipped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 20 and Uncle Joe trailing in fourth place at 15 .
We all know that each poll has its own margin of error , but cumulatively , the swings in support for the four major candidates across all January polls are simply off the charts .
Looking at the maximum and minimum values in New Hampshire , Biden could be anywhere from 26 to 14 while Sanders might be at 29 or 16 , depending on who you ask .
Similarly , in Iowa , Biden is somewhere between 24 and 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is it any wonder that the Senators are so desperate to get away from the impeachment circus and back out on the trail in these two states ?
At the rate the numbers are shifting , we may wake up the day after Iowa and New Hampshire go to vote and find out that Klobuchar won both states .
Yeesh .

I’m not here to shoot down Allahpundit’s analysis of the new early-state polling from yesterday, but I think there are still definite questions left to be answered. We’re down to the wire in terms of who will take the first primary contest in the 2020 race and the newest NBC/Marist poll of the Granite State seems to make one thing clear. Either the voters there change their minds more often than their socks or the pollsters simply don’t know what’s going on. It’s generally the same four or possibly five names near the top of the heap, but the order keeps changing on a weekly, if not daily basis. Let’s start with the topline of what this one turned up. (NBC News)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg lead the Democratic presidential race in New Hampshire, while the top four Democratic candidates all enjoy early advantages against President Donald Trump in hypothetical general-election matchups in the Granite State. In the initial NBC News/Marist state poll of the 2020 presidential race, Sanders gets the support of 22 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg at 17 percent. Former Vice President Joe Biden follows at 15 percent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., at 13 percent and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., at 10 percent.
At this point, I’d normally go digging through the crosstabs to see if there were any notable trends or weaknesses for any of the candidates, but these numbers are seeming less and less meaningful at this point. As of today, they’ve got Bernie Sanders on top, barely outside the margin of error. Buttigieg and Biden are nipping at his heels, with Warren continuing to look as if she’s out of the running for a first place finish. The only shocker is that Amy Klobuchar has climbed up to double digits (barely) for what appears to be only the second time.
But in just the past two weeks, Monmouth has had Buttigieg leading, the Boston Herald had Biden well out in front, and the Boston Globe had Sanders and Biden basically tied.
Just for another data point in favor of the pollsters being confused, during the exact same period that the Globe had Sanders and Biden at 16 and 15 respectively, the WBUR/MassINC poll had Sanders slaying Biden 29-24 with Buttigieg in second place at 17. I realize that polling can and will produce some outliers every once in a while, but in New Hampshire right now it looks as if any of these polls could wind up being outliers.
To be fair, things in Iowa really aren’t much clearer. There are fewer polls from nationally recognized firms to draw on there, but the ones we do have are also producing something of a muddled mess. The latest NY Times/Siena poll has Sanders crushing Biden 25-17 (with Buttigieg in second at 18). But only days earlier, the FRA/David Binder poll had Biden lapping the field at 24 with poor Bernie stuck back in fourth place at 14. Only the week before, Monmouth showed Biden similarly leading second-place Sanders 24-18 while the Des Moines Register flipped the script with Bernie in the lead at 20 and Uncle Joe trailing in fourth place at 15.
We all know that each poll has its own margin of error, but cumulatively, the swings in support for the four major candidates across all January polls are simply off the charts. Looking at the maximum and minimum values in New Hampshire, Biden could be anywhere from 26 to 14 while Sanders might be at 29 or 16, depending on who you ask. Similarly, in Iowa, Biden is somewhere between 24 and 15 while Sanders might be 25 or 14.
Is it any wonder that the Senators are so desperate to get away from the impeachment circus and back out on the trail in these two states? At the rate the numbers are shifting, we may wake up the day after Iowa and New Hampshire go to vote and find out that Klobuchar won both states. Yeesh.


hotair--2020-01-27--Press Sec steps on a rake while defending Trump on Bolton book

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham is popping up a little more frequently these days , given the 24/7 coverage of all things impeachment on cable news channels .
She appeared on Fox and Friends Monday morning and addressed the upcoming book written by John Bolton .
She was asked about Bolton ’ s manuscript leaks coming from the Washington Post and New York Times .
She questioned the timing of the press reports and then tossed in the book ’ s publisher for garnishment .
The book is being published by Simon & Schuster , the same publishing house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think the timing of all of this is very , very suspect , ” she said , noting that it came right after the Trump defense team began its rebuttal Saturday at the Senate impeachment trial .
“ It ’ s very clear the president did nothing wrong .
Then suddenly , this manuscript has magically appeared in the hands of The New York Times , making very , very big claims .
This is … the same publisher that [ James ] Comey used , also .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preorder link popped up a couple hours after all of this hit , ” she added .
The problem with this criticism is that she had a good point raising a question about the timing of the leaks but then she overstepped .
There was no need to drag Comey ’ s anti-Trump book into the mix .
Simon and Schuster is a large publishing company with 35 different imprints .
The company publishes books that are across the political spectrum .
There are publishers that exclusively work with conservative writers – like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simon and Schuster publish books for a wide spectrum of authors .
I don ’ t think anyone will confuse Kurt Schlichter for a liberal .
As a matter of fact , Simon and Schuster even entered into a distribution agreement with Regnery in 2018 .
[ Full disclosure : Regnery is a subsidiary of Salem Media Group , as is Hot Air through Salem ’ s Townhall Media Group . ]
The point is this – the press secretary doesn ’ t need to overreach into standard partisan criticisms .
She can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the release of the leaks was timed to land in WaPo and the New York Times , both anti-Trump newspapers , to gin up angst from Republican senators who might vote against bringing in Bolton and others as witnesses in the Senate trial .
That is a completely reasonable argument .
The trial so far isn ’ t looked upon as going well for the Democrats by at least half of the country and Democrats are looking pretty desperate these days .
By including the Comey reference , Grisham opened herself up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s books have been published by Simon and Schuster .
Oops .
As Grisham noted , Simon & Schuster — which is putting out Bolton ’ s book — did indeed publish James Comey ’ s A Higher Loyalty in 2018 .
It has also published multiple titles from another central player in the impeachment drama .
Yes , according to his author page on the Simon & Schuster website , the president has written or co-written six books for the New York-based publishing powerhouse .
Though the page clearly has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touts Trump as “ the very definition of the American success story , ” and credits him with penning a “ business classic ” in The Art of the Deal — his 1987 bestseller ghostwritten by now-vocal critic Tony Schwartz .
Turnabout is fair play .
There really isn ’ t any reason to try to troll the publisher to criticize the leaks .
I don ’ t write this as a gotcha to Grisham .
I happen to think she does a good job and the more I see her on television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising to the occasion .
She has a tough job and it is made more difficult given that President Trump communicates directly with the people on social media so frequently himself .
A big part of the press secretary ’ s responsibilities , the daily White House press briefing , has all but been eliminated .
The White House press certainly doesn ’ t hold much respect for her .
In contrast to Monday morning ’ s interview , Grisham did well on a Fox show on Sunday .
She was interviewed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kurtz asked her about an accusation Rep. Adam Schiff made earlier on Meet the Press that Trump “ threatened ” him in a tweet .
Grisham did well in explaining that it was a political assessment that Schiff hasn ’ t “ paid the price yet ” on impeachment , not a personal threat .
She went on to say what many of us frequently say – Schiff is obsessed with President Trump .
During an interview on MediaBuzz the same day , Grisham said she had not spoken to the president about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff is “ obsessed ” with Trump .
“ I think [ Trump ] means [ Schiff ] hasn ’ t yet paid the price with the voters .
He hasn ’ t paid the price yet with the people of this country who see that he ’ s been lying and very obsessed and , quite frankly , it seems like he ’ s having a little bit of a mental issue when you sit on the floor for hours and hours and hours .
He is obsessed with this president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Schiff ’ s claim that Trump threatened him was “ ridiculous , ” adding , “ The fact that he said that was grandstanding.
” Now that is a good answer .
Schiff ’ s obsessed and he grandstands she says .
That ’ s something even Democrats if they were honest , would agree with about Schiff .
There is no ‘ gotcha ’ coming from either side of the aisle with those observations .
I won ’ t hold my breath for that admission from Democrats , though .

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham is popping up a little more frequently these days, given the 24/7 coverage of all things impeachment on cable news channels. She appeared on Fox and Friends Monday morning and addressed the upcoming book written by John Bolton.
She was asked about Bolton’s manuscript leaks coming from the Washington Post and New York Times. She questioned the timing of the press reports and then tossed in the book’s publisher for garnishment. The book is being published by Simon & Schuster, the same publishing house of James Comey’s book.
“I think the timing of all of this is very, very suspect,” she said, noting that it came right after the Trump defense team began its rebuttal Saturday at the Senate impeachment trial. “It’s very clear the president did nothing wrong. Then suddenly, this manuscript has magically appeared in the hands of The New York Times, making very, very big claims. This is … the same publisher that [James] Comey used, also. The fact that magically, again, the book ordering preorder link popped up a couple hours after all of this hit,” she added.
Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
The problem with this criticism is that she had a good point raising a question about the timing of the leaks but then she overstepped. There was no need to drag Comey’s anti-Trump book into the mix. Simon and Schuster is a large publishing company with 35 different imprints. The company publishes books that are across the political spectrum. There are publishers that exclusively work with conservative writers – like Regnery Publishing, for example – but Simon and Schuster publish books for a wide spectrum of authors. I don’t think anyone will confuse Kurt Schlichter for a liberal.
As a matter of fact, Simon and Schuster even entered into a distribution agreement with Regnery in 2018. [Full disclosure: Regnery is a subsidiary of Salem Media Group, as is Hot Air through Salem’s Townhall Media Group.]
Simon & Schuster, Inc., announced today that it has entered into a distribution agreement with Regnery Publishing, a leading publisher of conservative books. Under the agreement, beginning July 1, 2018, Simon & Schuster will handle distribution for Regnery titles in all markets and territories around the world. Regnery will continue to be responsible for sales of its titles in the United States, while Simon & Schuster will handle sales in Canada and export markets.
The point is this – the press secretary doesn’t need to overreach into standard partisan criticisms. She can make the case for the possibility that the release of the leaks was timed to land in WaPo and the New York Times, both anti-Trump newspapers, to gin up angst from Republican senators who might vote against bringing in Bolton and others as witnesses in the Senate trial. That is a completely reasonable argument. The trial so far isn’t looked upon as going well for the Democrats by at least half of the country and Democrats are looking pretty desperate these days.
By including the Comey reference, Grisham opened herself up for this criticism – some of President Trump’s books have been published by Simon and Schuster. Oops.
As Grisham noted, Simon & Schuster — which is putting out Bolton’s book — did indeed publish James Comey’s A Higher Loyalty in 2018. It has also published multiple titles from another central player in the impeachment drama. President Donald Trump. Yes, according to his author page on the Simon & Schuster website, the president has written or co-written six books for the New York-based publishing powerhouse. Though the page clearly has not been updated in a while, it touts Trump as “the very definition of the American success story,” and credits him with penning a “business classic” in The Art of the Deal — his 1987 bestseller ghostwritten by now-vocal critic Tony Schwartz.
Turnabout is fair play. There really isn’t any reason to try to troll the publisher to criticize the leaks.
I don’t write this as a gotcha to Grisham. I happen to think she does a good job and the more I see her on television, the more I think she is rising to the occasion. She has a tough job and it is made more difficult given that President Trump communicates directly with the people on social media so frequently himself. A big part of the press secretary’s responsibilities, the daily White House press briefing, has all but been eliminated. The White House press certainly doesn’t hold much respect for her.
In contrast to Monday morning’s interview, Grisham did well on a Fox show on Sunday. She was interviewed by Howie Kurtz on his MediaBuzz show. Kurtz asked her about an accusation Rep. Adam Schiff made earlier on Meet the Press that Trump “threatened” him in a tweet. Grisham did well in explaining that it was a political assessment that Schiff hasn’t “paid the price yet” on impeachment, not a personal threat. She went on to say what many of us frequently say – Schiff is obsessed with President Trump.
During an interview on MediaBuzz the same day, Grisham said she had not spoken to the president about his tweet but added that she believes Schiff is “obsessed” with Trump. “I think [Trump] means [Schiff] hasn’t yet paid the price with the voters. He hasn’t paid the price yet with the people of this country who see that he’s been lying and very obsessed and, quite frankly, it seems like he’s having a little bit of a mental issue when you sit on the floor for hours and hours and hours. He is obsessed with this president and trying to take him down.” Grisham said Schiff’s claim that Trump threatened him was “ridiculous,” adding, “The fact that he said that was grandstanding.”
Now that is a good answer. Schiff’s obsessed and he grandstands she says. That’s something even Democrats if they were honest, would agree with about Schiff. There is no ‘gotcha’ coming from either side of the aisle with those observations. I won’t hold my breath for that admission from Democrats, though.


hotair--2020-01-27--Hmmm: Pat Toomey reportedly pushing a one-for-one witness trade of Bolton for Hunter Biden

The terms of the trade aren ’ t surprising .
Bolton and Biden will obviously be the first two witnesses called , if witnesses are called .
What ’ s surprising is Toomey ’ s involvement .
He hasn ’ t been mentioned in any of the coverage of the witness conundrum Senate Republicans are facing .
It ’ s always Collins , Murkowski , and Romney , with Lamar Alexander maybe possibly conceivably a very reluctant 51st vote .
Alexander doesn ’ t want to be known as the man who made John Bolton ’ s testimony possible ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 52nd vote ( and a 53rd , 54th , 55th , etc ) to give him a little cover .
Is Toomey the 52nd ?
More importantly , is he willing to be the 51st if Alexander gets cold feet ?
Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a “ one-for-one ” deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point , particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called , according to the officials , who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations .
He has argued that such an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump , the officials said .
Toomey has spoken about his idea with Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) and others , the officials added… Separately , two Senate GOP aides , who requested anonymity to speak frankly , said Romney is in touch with Toomey and generally supportive of a witness deal that he believes is fair to the GOP but has not yet signed on to any specific plan .
The proposal also came up in private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP lunch , according to the officials and a Senate aide briefed on the meeting .
McConnell is reportedly cool to the idea , urging Republicans not to make any commitments until they formally take up the issue later this week .
That ’ s the prudent thing to do — play for time and hope that maybe Bolton will have a change of heart or say something discouraging about his testimony .
If he were to put out a statement accusing the Times of distorting what his manuscript said , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Senate Republicans to shrug and say , “ Guess we don ’ t need to hear from him after all.
” It makes sense to find Toomey trying to swing a deal on witnesses , meanwhile , since he ’ s a compromiser by nature .
His bipartisan bill with Joe Manchin to expand background checks has been the leading Senate proposal on that issue for years now .
He ’ s also facing reelection in Pennsylvania in 2022 , which could be difficult if Trump wins reelection this fall .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Toomey ’ s seat will obviously be a prime Democratic target , as he ’ s survived not one but two razor-thin Senate elections .
In 2010 he won by two points , buoyed by the Republican wave that year .
In 2016 he won by a point and a half , buoyed by Trump ’ s victory .
Whether he can win a race in PA when the political winds are blowing in on him rather than at his back is an open question .
So he ’ s hedging his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquittal in the end , but if he can show a little independence by brokering a Bolton-for-Biden deal — potentially pleasing to the bases of both sides — then why not do it ?
The wrinkle is what happens if either Bolton or Biden or both give testimony that implicates others to some greater or lesser degree .
I shouldn ’ t even say “ if ” ; unquestionably , each man will say something that the opposing party wants to explore by calling secondary witnesses .
How does the Toomey one-for-one deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are better than no witnesses , politically speaking , but if Bolton accuses a number of people in Trump ’ s inner circle , it ’ ll be hard for Collins and the rest to shrug at that point and say , “ Let ’ s skip ’ em and wrap this up.
” Maybe executive privilege would bail out the president in that case .
Mulvaney and Pompeo can ’ t be called , the White House would say , because they ’ re still on staff at the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough of a reason/pretext for Collins and the rest to shut down the witness phase and proceed to deliberations and acquittal .
One remaining longshot possibility : Bolton could be blocked from testifying somehow , possibly via a drawn-out court battle between the White House and the Senate over his subpoena ( although the optics of that would be bad at this point ) , and meanwhile he could voluntarily silence himself by not publishing his book as scheduled .
Fred Fleitz , who worked for Bolton at the White House , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that .
If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all , this should happen after the election , not in the spring of 2020 .
I don ’ t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served , especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country .
There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election .
Former Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June 2011 , published a devastating book titled “ Duty : Memoirs of a Secretary at War ” that detailed the incompetence of Vice President Joe Biden and the Obama National Security Council staff .
But because he did not want his internal knowledge of the workings of the Obama administration and his interactions with President Obama to affect the outcome of the 2012 presidential election , Gates did not publish his book until January 2014 .
Gates established a principled precedent on how senior advisers to presidents should write about their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long and distinguished record of government service , I believe it is vital that he follow this precedent .
I can understand thinking a former advisor should hold his tongue during an election year over policy disputes with the president he served out of respect for his former boss .
I ’ m less understanding of thinking he shouldn ’ t reveal incompetence by the administration , as that ’ s something voters should know before they vote .
I ’ m less understanding still of thinking he should hold back potentially incriminating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on trial in the Senate .
We don ’ t want advisors gratuitously kneecapping the commander-in-chief to sell a book but we also don ’ t want the electorate choosing presidents based on incomplete information about whether they did or didn ’ t try to swing a quid pro quo with a foreign government to damage the other party ’ s nominee .
If the DOJ had probable cause to believe that Trump or Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders was engaged in some sort of ongoing crime right now , does Fleitz think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it influence the vote this fall ?
It should influence the vote this fall , no ?
Here ’ s future Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows noting , perfectly accurately , that there ’ ll be political consequences for Republican senators if they vote against Trump on impeachment .
When Adam Schiff made that same point a few days ago , albeit by borrowing more colorful language , the GOP caucus claimed it was appalled .

The terms of the trade aren’t surprising. Bolton and Biden will obviously be the first two witnesses called, if witnesses are called.
What’s surprising is Toomey’s involvement. He hasn’t been mentioned in any of the coverage of the witness conundrum Senate Republicans are facing. It’s always Collins, Murkowski, and Romney, with Lamar Alexander maybe possibly conceivably a very reluctant 51st vote. Alexander doesn’t want to be known as the man who made John Bolton’s testimony possible; he’d like to have a 52nd vote (and a 53rd, 54th, 55th, etc) to give him a little cover.
Is Toomey the 52nd? More importantly, is he willing to be the 51st if Alexander gets cold feet?
Toomey has confided to GOP senators that proposing a “one-for-one” deal with Senate Democrats may be necessary at some point, particularly with pressure mounting for witnesses to be called, according to the officials, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. He has argued that such an arrangement could force Democrats to accept a Republican witness against their wishes or else risk having Republicans move ahead to acquit Trump, the officials said. Toomey has spoken about his idea with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and others, the officials added… Separately, two Senate GOP aides, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, said Romney is in touch with Toomey and generally supportive of a witness deal that he believes is fair to the GOP but has not yet signed on to any specific plan. The proposal also came up in private conversations at Monday’s closed Senate GOP lunch, according to the officials and a Senate aide briefed on the meeting.
McConnell is reportedly cool to the idea, urging Republicans not to make any commitments until they formally take up the issue later this week. That’s the prudent thing to do — play for time and hope that maybe Bolton will have a change of heart or say something discouraging about his testimony. If he were to put out a statement accusing the Times of distorting what his manuscript said, for instance, maybe that’s enough cover for Senate Republicans to shrug and say, “Guess we don’t need to hear from him after all.”
It makes sense to find Toomey trying to swing a deal on witnesses, meanwhile, since he’s a compromiser by nature. His bipartisan bill with Joe Manchin to expand background checks has been the leading Senate proposal on that issue for years now. He’s also facing reelection in Pennsylvania in 2022, which could be difficult if Trump wins reelection this fall. The out-party tends to perform well in midterms and Toomey’s seat will obviously be a prime Democratic target, as he’s survived not one but two razor-thin Senate elections. In 2010 he won by two points, buoyed by the Republican wave that year. In 2016 he won by a point and a half, buoyed by Trump’s victory. Whether he can win a race in PA when the political winds are blowing in on him rather than at his back is an open question.
So he’s hedging his bets. He’ll vote for acquittal in the end, but if he can show a little independence by brokering a Bolton-for-Biden deal — potentially pleasing to the bases of both sides — then why not do it?
The wrinkle is what happens if either Bolton or Biden or both give testimony that implicates others to some greater or lesser degree. I shouldn’t even say “if”; unquestionably, each man will say something that the opposing party wants to explore by calling secondary witnesses. How does the Toomey one-for-one deal work in that circumstance? Some witnesses are better than no witnesses, politically speaking, but if Bolton accuses a number of people in Trump’s inner circle, it’ll be hard for Collins and the rest to shrug at that point and say, “Let’s skip ’em and wrap this up.”
Maybe executive privilege would bail out the president in that case. Mulvaney and Pompeo can’t be called, the White House would say, because they’re still on staff at the White House, unlike Bolton. Possibly that’s enough of a reason/pretext for Collins and the rest to shut down the witness phase and proceed to deliberations and acquittal.
One remaining longshot possibility: Bolton could be blocked from testifying somehow, possibly via a drawn-out court battle between the White House and the Senate over his subpoena (although the optics of that would be bad at this point), and meanwhile he could voluntarily silence himself by not publishing his book as scheduled. Fred Fleitz, who worked for Bolton at the White House, has an op-ed out today urging him to do that.
If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who stepped down in June 2011, published a devastating book titled “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War” that detailed the incompetence of Vice President Joe Biden and the Obama National Security Council staff. But because he did not want his internal knowledge of the workings of the Obama administration and his interactions with President Obama to affect the outcome of the 2012 presidential election, Gates did not publish his book until January 2014. Gates established a principled precedent on how senior advisers to presidents should write about their experiences. Given Ambassador Bolton’s long and distinguished record of government service, I believe it is vital that he follow this precedent.
I can understand thinking a former advisor should hold his tongue during an election year over policy disputes with the president he served out of respect for his former boss. I’m less understanding of thinking he shouldn’t reveal incompetence by the administration, as that’s something voters should know before they vote. I’m less understanding still of thinking he should hold back potentially incriminating evidence about a president who’s on trial in the Senate. We don’t want advisors gratuitously kneecapping the commander-in-chief to sell a book but we also don’t want the electorate choosing presidents based on incomplete information about whether they did or didn’t try to swing a quid pro quo with a foreign government to damage the other party’s nominee. If the DOJ had probable cause to believe that Trump or Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders was engaged in some sort of ongoing crime right now, does Fleitz think that information should also be suppressed lest it influence the vote this fall?
It should influence the vote this fall, no?
Here’s future Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows noting, perfectly accurately, that there’ll be political consequences for Republican senators if they vote against Trump on impeachment. When Adam Schiff made that same point a few days ago, albeit by borrowing more colorful language, the GOP caucus claimed it was appalled.


hotair--2020-01-27--NYT columnists: Schiff should demand John Roberts issue the Bolton subpoena

This … would solve a number of thorny problems , if it actually worked .
According to Neal Katyal , Joshua Geltzer , and Mickey Edwards , Adam Schiff could bypass a Senate vote on witness subpoenas by demanding that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issue them .
As presider over the trial of Donald Trump , they argue , Roberts has the authority to issue the subpoenas apart from any vote by the Senate .
Which is true … kind of .
Right up to the point where the trio argue about “ rules ” : Yet Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they intend to uphold Mr. Trump ’ s unprecedented decision to block all of this material .
But turns out they don ’ t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does .
This isn ’ t a matter of Democrats needing four “ moderate ” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses , as the Trump lawyers have been claiming .
Rather , the impeachment rules , like all trial systems , put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chief justice .
Most critically , it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that .
This week , Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate , and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well .
The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time .
They specifically provide for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “ form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment , or of the party impeached , or of his counsel.
” All of this is accurate , as far as it goes .
Let ’ s mull over that potential for just a moment before I throw cold water all over this idea .
If Roberts has the authority to issue a subpoena , then responsibility for a vote dissipates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats , at least not in terms of the damage done to the standing of certain senators .
That would let the Republicans entirely off the hook , including those who have to face tough re-election campaigns in purple states like Susan Collins .
Schiff gets his witnesses , and then presumably Republicans get theirs when Trump ’ s legal team asks Roberts to subpoena Joe and Hunter Biden , the whistleblower , and maybe even Adam Schiff .
Right ?
Er , not so fast .
Katyal et al skip over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The catch comes in Paragraph 176 , from where the trio argue for Roberts ’ plenary power to issue subpoenas .
Emphasis mine : 176 VII .
The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber , and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment , and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for .
And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited to , questions of relevancy , materiality , and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions , which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate , unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon , in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate ; or he may at his option , in the first instance , submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate .
Upon all such questions the vote shall be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate .
Roberts is the Presiding Officer , in this case , who has plenary authority to rule on motions and subpoena requests … unless one member of the Senate objects to it .
If that happens — and you can bet your bottom dollar it will on any of these potential witnesses — it has to go to a vote .
The Presiding Officer in the Senate — a routine task fulfilled by most if not all members of the Senate at some point — does not get to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objection , ” a phrase often heard in parliamentary proceedings .
That ’ s because the Senate runs the Senate , even in an impeachment , not the federal judiciary .
The Chief Justice presides only to run the proceedings , acting in the same function and manner as the Senate ’ s presiding officer at any other time .
The authority to act still rests with the Senate , not the Chief Justice , as Paragraph 175 of the impeachment rules makes clear : 175 VI .
The Senate shall have power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to enforce obedience to its orders , mandates , writs , precepts , and judgments , to preserve order , and to punish in a summary way contempts of , and disobedience to , its authority , orders , mandates , writs , precepts , or judgments , and to make all lawful orders , rules , and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice .
And the Sergeant at Arms , under the direction of the Senate , may employ such aid and assistance as may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and carry into effect the lawful orders , mandates , writs , and precepts of the Senate .
It ’ s “ the Senate ” that has the power to compel witnesses , not the Chief Justice .
( Please hold your Exorcist jokes to the very end . )
The only way in which the Chief Justice can issue a subpoena without triggering a vote is if all 100 senators refrain from objecting .
The odds of that happening in any of these subpoena demands are higher than 100-1 against .
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players , the votes still matter .
At the moment , it looks as though Democrats might well get the necessary votes to issue some subpoenas while being able to block others , although that calculus might still change .
Regardless , there won ’ t be a shortcut around this process , no matter how much both sides might desire it..

This … would solve a number of thorny problems, if it actually worked. According to Neal Katyal, Joshua Geltzer, and Mickey Edwards, Adam Schiff could bypass a Senate vote on witness subpoenas by demanding that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issue them. As presider over the trial of Donald Trump, they argue, Roberts has the authority to issue the subpoenas apart from any vote by the Senate.
Which is true … kind of. Right up to the point where the trio argue about “rules”:
Yet Republican members of the Senate have signaled that they intend to uphold Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision to block all of this material. But turns out they don’t get to make that choice — Chief Justice John Roberts does. This isn’t a matter of Democrats needing four “moderate” Republicans to vote for subpoenas and witnesses, as the Trump lawyers have been claiming. Rather, the impeachment rules, like all trial systems, put a large thumb on the scale of issuing subpoenas and place that power within the authority of the judge, in this case the chief justice. Most critically, it would take a two-thirds vote — not a majority — of the Senate to overrule that. This week, Democrats can and should ask the chief justice to issue subpoenas on his authority so that key witnesses of relevance like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney appear in the Senate, and the Senate should subpoena all relevant documents as well. The Senate rules for impeachment date back to 1868 and have been in effect since that time. They specifically provide for the subpoenas of witnesses, going so far in Rule XXIV as to outline the specific language a subpoena must use — the “form of subpoena to be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.”
All of this is accurate, as far as it goes. Let’s mull over that potential for just a moment before I throw cold water all over this idea. If Roberts has the authority to issue a subpoena, then responsibility for a vote dissipates. Cui bono? It ain’t the Democrats, at least not in terms of the damage done to the standing of certain senators. That would let the Republicans entirely off the hook, including those who have to face tough re-election campaigns in purple states like Susan Collins. Schiff gets his witnesses, and then presumably Republicans get theirs when Trump’s legal team asks Roberts to subpoena Joe and Hunter Biden, the whistleblower, and maybe even Adam Schiff.
Right? Er, not so fast. Katyal et al skip over another part of the same rules. The catch comes in Paragraph 176, from where the trio argue for Roberts’ plenary power to issue subpoenas. Emphasis mine:
176 VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Roberts is the Presiding Officer, in this case, who has plenary authority to rule on motions and subpoena requests … unless one member of the Senate objects to it. If that happens — and you can bet your bottom dollar it will on any of these potential witnesses — it has to go to a vote. The Presiding Officer in the Senate — a routine task fulfilled by most if not all members of the Senate at some point — does not get to make plenary decisions unless they are “without objection,” a phrase often heard in parliamentary proceedings.
That’s because the Senate runs the Senate, even in an impeachment, not the federal judiciary. The Chief Justice presides only to run the proceedings, acting in the same function and manner as the Senate’s presiding officer at any other time. The authority to act still rests with the Senate, not the Chief Justice, as Paragraph 175 of the impeachment rules makes clear:
175 VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.
It’s “the Senate” that has the power to compel witnesses, not the Chief Justice. (Please hold your Exorcist jokes to the very end.) The only way in which the Chief Justice can issue a subpoena without triggering a vote is if all 100 senators refrain from objecting. The odds of that happening in any of these subpoena demands are higher than 100-1 against. Much higher.
Alas for fantasy impeachment trial players, the votes still matter. At the moment, it looks as though Democrats might well get the necessary votes to issue some subpoenas while being able to block others, although that calculus might still change. Regardless, there won’t be a shortcut around this process, no matter how much both sides might desire it..


hotair--2020-01-27--Report: Trump lawyers starting to consider which defense witnesses they'd call in exchange for Bolto

Report: Trump lawyers starting to consider which defense witnesses they'd call in exchange for Bolton

Twenty-four hours ago , it seemed highly likely that the eventual vote to call witnesses would fail 51/49 , with only Romney and Collins joining the Democrats .
Close but no cigar for Schumer .
No need for either side to have a witness list in that case .
Twenty-four hours later , things look different .
There ’ s no mystery whom Team Trump will want as its top pick under “ witness reciprocity ” if Bolton is subpoenaed .
There ’ s considerable mystery as to who its second pick would be .
And we really are suddenly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on each side might reasonably be called , now that we have reason to believe Bolton will accuse Trump directly of supporting a quid pro quo involving dirt on the Bidens .
A man willing to accuse Trump is also a man willing to accuse Mike Pompeo , Mick Mulvaney , and others if he has firsthand information about their complicity .
Last night ’ s Times story suggested that he did , claiming that Pompeo once told Bolton that Rudy Giuliani ’ s suspicions about Marie Yovanovitch were baseless .
If Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has another 24-hour feeding frenzy over it , what do Susan Collins and the rest do about calling Pompeo ?
The Collins crew really , really wants to limit this to a one-for-one trade of Bolton for Hunter Biden .
But whether the politics of the situation will allow them to do so depends largely on what Bolton says .
Gulp .
As the White House began Day 2 of its impeachment defense , lawyers were preparing for the possibility that senators would vote to call witnesses , and are looking at which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for testimony by John R. Bolton , the former national security adviser .
But members of the defense team also have told associates that they would fight Mr. Bolton ’ s testimony .
It is not clear whether they would try to fight the issuance of a subpoena , which would play out before Chief Justice John G. Roberts , or whether they would they try to get a restraining order , which the Justice Department has never done… Whether the White House will try to press for one of its edgier witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Mr. Bolton remains to be seen .
“ We ’ ll fight Bolton ’ s testimony ” is a useful scare tactic aimed at the Collins contingent , an attempt to convince them that they ’ re better off not calling witnesses at all .
Collins doesn ’ t want to end up in a proxy fight with Trump ’ s base .
The whole point of voting “ not guilty ” in the end here is to solidify Republican support for her this fall .
But Team Trump also has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block Bolton .
The more damning the leaks from his book to the media are , the more any attempt to stop him from testifying will look like a cover-up rather than some principled stand for executive privilege .
Collins and Murkowski aren ’ t going to feel great voting for acquittal either if Bolton is bottled up by the White House , knowing that his book is hanging over their heads and will drop just a month or so after the trial ends .
At various points of this process the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed off once the politics of the situation became too painful for them .
One example was the IG of the intelligence community finally releasing the whistleblower complaint to Congress after holding it back for awhile ; another may have been Trump himself releasing the military aid to Ukraine after Congress started squawking about the mysterious delay and rumors of a quid pro quo .
Team Trump may decide that the cleanest way out now is to let Republicans call Bolton , trust that there ’ s nothing he can say that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins , Murkowski , and Romney are sufficiently uncomfortable amid this mess that they won ’ t vote to call additional witnesses no matter who else Bolton might incriminate under oath .
Maybe there ’ s another way to bottle Bolton up : Let him talk , but make it secret .
Or subpoena the manuscript and announce , however unpersuasively , that there ’ s just not enough damning info in it to justify subpoenaing Bolton himself .
Again , though , the problem is that Bolton will talk to someone eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maddow ’ s studio tonight and say , “ Whaddaya wan na know ?
” There ’ s nothing the White House could do , provided he doesn ’ t reveal anything classified .
( And if the DOJ tried prosecuting him , that would be a ferocious court battle itself . )
There ’ s one more complicating factor for Republicans , although more so Republican pols than Trump ’ s lawyers .
Namely , Bolton isn ’ t as easily discredited as most of the other pertinent accusers in the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shady , he ’ s under federal indictment .
The various diplomats and bureaucrats who testified against Trump during the House hearings ?
They ’ re part of the official Washington “ swamp ” that hates the president and his foreign policy and wants to destroy him by any available means .
Gordon Sondland ?
Ah , well , he ’ s … he ’ s a Trump donor , granted .
But whatever .
No one knows who he is .
Just ignore him .
Bolton has his faults but he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figure among the careerist Washington natsec bureaucracy ( sorry , Tucker Carlson ) , and not a left-winger .
He was a respected figure among the Republican activist class until recently , a guy who spent years as a foreign-policy commentator on Fox News .
( Sorry again , Tucker . )
It was John Bolton who preached conservatism to Clarence Thomas when they were at Yale Law together decades ago .
Senate GOPers and righty media are trying to grapple with that today , with different people showing different levels of enthusiasm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Bolton into the round hole of “ traitor to the American right.
” Some are having a hard time… …and others , not so much : Rush went on to compare last night ’ s Bolton revelation to the eleventh-hour accusation by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearings .
Granted , both were surprise twists that disrupted the end of a process that otherwise appeared headed for a happy Republican outcome .
One thing about “ the Kavanaugh playbook , ” though , is that the Kavanaugh playbook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed .
Republicans haven ’ t paid any political price .
If anything , it ended up boosting Kavanaugh ’ s stature on the right as a martyr to Democratic dirty tricks .
And who the hell was his accuser , emerging out of nowhere to accuse him of something that didn ’ t comport with his known behavior then or now and wasn ’ t corroborated by anyone she knew at the time ?
It reeked of a hatchet job .
“ The Kavanaugh playbook , ” if it ’ s being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work here either .
There ’ s no scenario in which the trial doesn ’ t end in easy acquittal .
But Bolton isn ’ t some rando with obvious ideological motives coming out of the woodwork to accuse Trump of misconduct .
He ’ s his own former NSA , allegedly prepared to confirm that what all of those Democratic witnesses believed was happening with Ukraine actually was happening with Ukraine , according to Trump himself .
He doesn ’ t have a strong ideological motive , especially after Trump went and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe he ’ d lie because he ’ s a disgruntled employee , okay , but at the moment it looks like the main political beneficiary of that lie would be Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders , a man with zero in common with Bolton politically .
And if you want to believe he ’ d perjure himself simply to sell a few more books , okay to that too , I guess .
But there ’ d be plenty of sales if he took a hardcore pro-Trump line .
If he agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is perfectly innocent , he ’ d be a hero to the right and a mainstay once again on Fox .
There ’ d lots of ways to monetize that in righty media .
Apart from his book , I don ’ t know how many financial opportunities a guy despised by Democrats for decades as a warmonger will have on the left .
That doesn ’ t mean he ’ s not lying .
Just that “ the Kavanaugh playbook ” isn ’ t a winner and would be apt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s career more so than it would boost it .

Twenty-four hours ago, it seemed highly likely that the eventual vote to call witnesses would fail 51/49, with only Romney and Collins joining the Democrats. Close but no cigar for Schumer. No need for either side to have a witness list in that case.
Twenty-four hours later, things look different.
There’s no mystery whom Team Trump will want as its top pick under “witness reciprocity” if Bolton is subpoenaed. There’s considerable mystery as to who its second pick would be. And we really are suddenly at the point at which multiple witnesses on each side might reasonably be called, now that we have reason to believe Bolton will accuse Trump directly of supporting a quid pro quo involving dirt on the Bidens. A man willing to accuse Trump is also a man willing to accuse Mike Pompeo, Mick Mulvaney, and others if he has firsthand information about their complicity. Last night’s Times story suggested that he did, claiming that Pompeo once told Bolton that Rudy Giuliani’s suspicions about Marie Yovanovitch were baseless.
If Bolton testifies to that effect and the media has another 24-hour feeding frenzy over it, what do Susan Collins and the rest do about calling Pompeo? The Collins crew really, really wants to limit this to a one-for-one trade of Bolton for Hunter Biden. But whether the politics of the situation will allow them to do so depends largely on what Bolton says. Gulp.
As the White House began Day 2 of its impeachment defense, lawyers were preparing for the possibility that senators would vote to call witnesses, and are looking at which witnesses they might ask for in return for testimony by John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser. But members of the defense team also have told associates that they would fight Mr. Bolton’s testimony. It is not clear whether they would try to fight the issuance of a subpoena, which would play out before Chief Justice John G. Roberts, or whether they would they try to get a restraining order, which the Justice Department has never done… Whether the White House will try to press for one of its edgier witnesses, like Hunter Biden, in exchange for Mr. Bolton remains to be seen.
“We’ll fight Bolton’s testimony” is a useful scare tactic aimed at the Collins contingent, an attempt to convince them that they’re better off not calling witnesses at all. Collins doesn’t want to end up in a proxy fight with Trump’s base. The whole point of voting “not guilty” in the end here is to solidify Republican support for her this fall.
But Team Trump also has to think about the politics of trying to block Bolton. The more damning the leaks from his book to the media are, the more any attempt to stop him from testifying will look like a cover-up rather than some principled stand for executive privilege. Collins and Murkowski aren’t going to feel great voting for acquittal either if Bolton is bottled up by the White House, knowing that his book is hanging over their heads and will drop just a month or so after the trial ends. At various points of this process the administration has attempted to play hardball and then backed off once the politics of the situation became too painful for them. One example was the IG of the intelligence community finally releasing the whistleblower complaint to Congress after holding it back for awhile; another may have been Trump himself releasing the military aid to Ukraine after Congress started squawking about the mysterious delay and rumors of a quid pro quo. Team Trump may decide that the cleanest way out now is to let Republicans call Bolton, trust that there’s nothing he can say that will affect the verdict, and hope that Collins, Murkowski, and Romney are sufficiently uncomfortable amid this mess that they won’t vote to call additional witnesses no matter who else Bolton might incriminate under oath.
Maybe there’s another way to bottle Bolton up:
Multiple sources say Bolton’s story blindsided GOP senators and top officials at WH. All want more info. Some talk of Bolton testifying in classified setting. Some GOP senators may want to see manuscript. GOP officials note Bolton is selling books but he’s not Lev Parnas. — Jim Acosta (@Acosta) January 27, 2020
Let him talk, but make it secret. Or subpoena the manuscript and announce, however unpersuasively, that there’s just not enough damning info in it to justify subpoenaing Bolton himself. Again, though, the problem is that Bolton will talk to someone eventually. He could conceivably waltz into Rachel Maddow’s studio tonight and say, “Whaddaya wanna know?” There’s nothing the White House could do, provided he doesn’t reveal anything classified. (And if the DOJ tried prosecuting him, that would be a ferocious court battle itself.)
There’s one more complicating factor for Republicans, although more so Republican pols than Trump’s lawyers. Namely, Bolton isn’t as easily discredited as most of the other pertinent accusers in the case. Lev Parnas isn’t just shady, he’s under federal indictment. The various diplomats and bureaucrats who testified against Trump during the House hearings? They’re part of the official Washington “swamp” that hates the president and his foreign policy and wants to destroy him by any available means. Gordon Sondland? Ah, well, he’s … he’s a Trump donor, granted. But whatever. No one knows who he is. Just ignore him.
Bolton has his faults but he’s not shady, not a beloved figure among the careerist Washington natsec bureaucracy (sorry, Tucker Carlson), and not a left-winger. He was a respected figure among the Republican activist class until recently, a guy who spent years as a foreign-policy commentator on Fox News. (Sorry again, Tucker.) It was John Bolton who preached conservatism to Clarence Thomas when they were at Yale Law together decades ago. Senate GOPers and righty media are trying to grapple with that today, with different people showing different levels of enthusiasm about trying to fit a square peg like Bolton into the round hole of “traitor to the American right.” Some are having a hard time…
“He was fired from the job,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said when asked about Bolton’s credibility. “People change. It’s kind of interesting, when that happened to Jeff Sessions, he didn’t change.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said he wouldn’t “bet my house” on Bolton telling the truth. But their comments cut against Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who both said they consider Bolton credible. “My guess is John Bolton tells the truth,” Johnson said.
…and others, not so much:
Rush Limbaugh today: "I’ve had dinner with John Bolton a couple times. I’ve met him two or three times, and if this passage in the book is true, and this is actually what he’s intending, it’s not the John Bolton I thought I knew, this kind of disloyalty." — Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) January 27, 2020
Rush went on to compare last night’s Bolton revelation to the eleventh-hour accusation by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearings. Granted, both were surprise twists that disrupted the end of a process that otherwise appeared headed for a happy Republican outcome. One thing about “the Kavanaugh playbook,” though, is that the Kavanaugh playbook didn’t work. He got confirmed. Republicans haven’t paid any political price. If anything, it ended up boosting Kavanaugh’s stature on the right as a martyr to Democratic dirty tricks. And who the hell was his accuser, emerging out of nowhere to accuse him of something that didn’t comport with his known behavior then or now and wasn’t corroborated by anyone she knew at the time? It reeked of a hatchet job.
“The Kavanaugh playbook,” if it’s being used by Bolton, won’t work here either. There’s no scenario in which the trial doesn’t end in easy acquittal. But Bolton isn’t some rando with obvious ideological motives coming out of the woodwork to accuse Trump of misconduct. He’s his own former NSA, allegedly prepared to confirm that what all of those Democratic witnesses believed was happening with Ukraine actually was happening with Ukraine, according to Trump himself. He doesn’t have a strong ideological motive, especially after Trump went and eliminated Qassem Soleimani. If you want to believe he’d lie because he’s a disgruntled employee, okay, but at the moment it looks like the main political beneficiary of that lie would be Democratic frontrunner Bernie Sanders, a man with zero in common with Bolton politically. And if you want to believe he’d perjure himself simply to sell a few more books, okay to that too, I guess. But there’d be plenty of sales if he took a hardcore pro-Trump line. If he agreed to testify and told the Senate that Trump is perfectly innocent, he’d be a hero to the right and a mainstay once again on Fox. There’d lots of ways to monetize that in righty media. Apart from his book, I don’t know how many financial opportunities a guy despised by Democrats for decades as a warmonger will have on the left.
That doesn’t mean he’s not lying. Just that “the Kavanaugh playbook” isn’t a winner and would be apt to hurt what’s left of Bolton’s career more so than it would boost it.