hotair--2020-02-01--Author predicted how and where the WuFlu would emerge a decade ago

As Ed Morrissey predicted yesterday when major air carriers announced the cancellation of flights to China , the White House has geared up more actions to combat the spread of the WuFlu .
We ’ ve officially declared a public health emergency and Trump is implementing a travel ban to and from China starting tomorrow .
Exceptions will be made for diplomats and other American citizens , but they will need to undergo a two week quarantine upon arrival .
( Associated Press ) The United States on Friday declared a public health emergency and took drastic steps to significantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new virus that hit China and has spread to other nations .
President Donald Trump has signed an order that will temporarily bar foreign nationals , other than immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents , who have traveled in China within the last 14 days .
The new restrictions , which take effect at 5 p.m. EST on Sunday , were announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar , who is coordinating the U.S. response .
As I ’ ve written here previously , while these steps seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like it could still turn out to be too little and , more importantly , too late .
Everyone was slow out of the blocks and we ’ ve already seen more than a half dozen cases in the United States , with at least one of them being confirmed as being a case of person to person transmission to someone who hasn ’ t traveled to China .
Until we ’ ve seen zero more cases for the full two week incubation period of the virus , we won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the woods yet .
All of this could reasonably leave you wondering why nobody was able to predict this so we could be better prepared .
As it turns out , however , somebody did predict the WuFlu virus more than a decade ago with shockingly specific details .
In the original version of her book Pandemic , author Sonia Shah nailed almost every detail of the next widespread coronavirus outbreak , including where and how it would be most likely to happen .
The book is rather dense , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summary of her amazing abilities of prognostication , I ’ d suggest listening to this week ’ s episode of the Mysterious Universe podcast , where the hosts break it all down .
They also provide some of the most chilling worst-case scenarios , just in case you didn ’ t have enough to worry about already .
The first half of the book covers the history of cholera , describing how it evolved to become such a scourge .
The originally harmless virus had been around forever without any impact until human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regions around the Bay of Bengal in the late 1700s .
There , they introduced new plants to the environment and began eating a variety of different seafood .
Having this variety of wildlife and non-native plants stacked up on top of each other created the conditions for viruses to begin crossing from species to species , mutating as they went .
This eventually led to what we now know as cholera to make the jump to human beings , wiping out a decent chunk of the global population .
Back in 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ wet markets ” in China where she observed the staggering variety of wild , exotic animals mixed in together and being butchered and served up .
Unlike livestock raised on farms , the wild game always comes with viruses aplenty , but they usually don ’ t bother human beings .
Shah noted that the coronavirus has been around forever , but rarely gets out of hand .
But with all the strange animals and meats in the wet markets comingling , she foresaw a time when , much like cholera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jumping from species to species until something really nasty that was capable of making the leap to people emerged .
Enter WuFlu , now believed to have been spawned in those Chinese wet markets in the form of an evolved coronavirus .
Shah also noted that the death toll from such a pandemic wouldn ’ t be sufficient to wipe out the entire human population , but the plague would only be the beginning of our problems .
After a pandemic of that magnitude , the global economic recession that followed would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dollars in capital .
That ’ s not hard to believe .
Already this week we saw the markets contract , largely over concerns about reduced travel and trade as a result of the virus impacting business .
I realize I ’ ve said this before , but we need to be hammering this home to our elected leaders .
It ’ s still possible that we ’ ll get through this WuFlu outbreak without a full-blown pandemic crushing us .
But even if we do , we need to be better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrives ( and it ’ s going to happen sooner or later ) and be ready to move much more quickly and effectively .
We were too slow out of the gate this time and one of these days our luck will run out .

As Ed Morrissey predicted yesterday when major air carriers announced the cancellation of flights to China, the White House has geared up more actions to combat the spread of the WuFlu. We’ve officially declared a public health emergency and Trump is implementing a travel ban to and from China starting tomorrow. Exceptions will be made for diplomats and other American citizens, but they will need to undergo a two week quarantine upon arrival. (Associated Press)
The United States on Friday declared a public health emergency and took drastic steps to significantly restrict entry into the country because of a new virus that hit China and has spread to other nations. President Donald Trump has signed an order that will temporarily bar foreign nationals, other than immediate family of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, who have traveled in China within the last 14 days. The new restrictions, which take effect at 5 p.m. EST on Sunday, were announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, who is coordinating the U.S. response.
As I’ve written here previously, while these steps seem to be smart policy, it also feels like it could still turn out to be too little and, more importantly, too late. Everyone was slow out of the blocks and we’ve already seen more than a half dozen cases in the United States, with at least one of them being confirmed as being a case of person to person transmission to someone who hasn’t traveled to China. Until we’ve seen zero more cases for the full two week incubation period of the virus, we won’t know for sure if we’re out of the woods yet.
All of this could reasonably leave you wondering why nobody was able to predict this so we could be better prepared. As it turns out, however, somebody did predict the WuFlu virus more than a decade ago with shockingly specific details. In the original version of her book Pandemic, author Sonia Shah nailed almost every detail of the next widespread coronavirus outbreak, including where and how it would be most likely to happen.
The book is rather dense, so if you’d prefer an audio summary of her amazing abilities of prognostication, I’d suggest listening to this week’s episode of the Mysterious Universe podcast, where the hosts break it all down. They also provide some of the most chilling worst-case scenarios, just in case you didn’t have enough to worry about already.
The first half of the book covers the history of cholera, describing how it evolved to become such a scourge. The originally harmless virus had been around forever without any impact until human beings in India moved into the coastal regions around the Bay of Bengal in the late 1700s. There, they introduced new plants to the environment and began eating a variety of different seafood. Having this variety of wildlife and non-native plants stacked up on top of each other created the conditions for viruses to begin crossing from species to species, mutating as they went. This eventually led to what we now know as cholera to make the jump to human beings, wiping out a decent chunk of the global population.
Back in 2009, Sonia Shah visited one of the so-called “wet markets” in China where she observed the staggering variety of wild, exotic animals mixed in together and being butchered and served up. Unlike livestock raised on farms, the wild game always comes with viruses aplenty, but they usually don’t bother human beings. Shah noted that the coronavirus has been around forever, but rarely gets out of hand. But with all the strange animals and meats in the wet markets comingling, she foresaw a time when, much like cholera, those viruses would begin evolving and jumping from species to species until something really nasty that was capable of making the leap to people emerged. Enter WuFlu, now believed to have been spawned in those Chinese wet markets in the form of an evolved coronavirus.
Shah also noted that the death toll from such a pandemic wouldn’t be sufficient to wipe out the entire human population, but the plague would only be the beginning of our problems. After a pandemic of that magnitude, the global economic recession that followed would be a disaster, wiping out literally trillions of dollars in capital. That’s not hard to believe. Already this week we saw the markets contract, largely over concerns about reduced travel and trade as a result of the virus impacting business.
I realize I’ve said this before, but we need to be hammering this home to our elected leaders. It’s still possible that we’ll get through this WuFlu outbreak without a full-blown pandemic crushing us. But even if we do, we need to be better prepared for when the real Captain Trips arrives (and it’s going to happen sooner or later) and be ready to move much more quickly and effectively. We were too slow out of the gate this time and one of these days our luck will run out.


hotair--2020-02-01--Zuckerberg defends free expression: 'The list of things that you're not allowed to say socially keep

Zuckerberg defends free expression: 'The list of things that you're not allowed to say socially keeps on growing'

Yesterday , Mark Zuckerberg was the keynote speaker at an event called the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Utah .
I don ’ t want to overstate what he said but what I heard was a defiant rejection of demands from the woke left that he censor an ever-expanding list of content .
The appearance didn ’ t start off smoothly .
Zuckerberg came on stage and immediately made a mistake , telling he crowd he was in the midst of building a big data center in “ Eagle Rock.
” The director of the Summit immediately corrected him saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ Eagle Mountain.
” Oops !
To his credit , Zuckerberg made fun of himself saying , “ Awesome !
We ’ re off to a great start.
” Zuckerberg used the mistake to pivot to an answer about the new direction he wants Facebook to take .
“ Let ’ s be real here , I ’ m not like—communicating is not my best thing .
Right ?
I came out here , I ’ m planning for this , I ’ m excited about it and I messed up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seconds.
” He went on to say that for a long time , Facebook had done something similar .
For many years Facebook tried to be as vague as possible with an overall goal of not offending anyone too much .
But Zuckerberg said that over time he ’ s realized there are some things that he believes in and wants the company to reflect .
One of those is the importance of free expression .
“ In Georgetown last year I gave this speech around our principles around free expression , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know that ’ s just one of the areas that I really feel like is under attack right now .
Increasingly we ’ re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable .
It kind of feels like the list of things that you ’ re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing .
And I ’ m not really okay with that.
” Zuckerberg said there were things “ terrorism , child exploitation , incitement to violence ” that the company was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So we ’ re focusing a lot on that but at some point I just felt like , alright , we ’ ve got to stand up and say ‘ no , we ’ re going to stand for free expression ’ and yeah we ’ re going to take down the content that ’ s really harmful but the line needs to be held at some point .
“ I think it ’ s unfortunate that this is such a controversial thing .
You know , when I got started in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know , it wasn ’ t a thing that people were pushing back on that much.
” He ’ s absolutely correct that the pushback on free expression , mostly from the left , has become far more aggressive over the past five years or so with the rise of the social justice warriors and woke activists who see silencing their opponents online and in the real world as a goal .
Recently , a lot of that pressure has been spilling over onto Facebook .
Zuckerberg himself has recently become the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hillary Clinton and George Soros both suggested this month that Zuckerberg intends to hand the 2020 election to Trump .
Soros wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times Friday titled “ Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook.
” I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook ’ s chief executive , Mark Zuckerberg , realize that their interests are aligned — the president ’ s in winning elections , Mr. Zuckerberg ’ s in making money… The responsible approach is self-evident .
Facebook is a publisher not just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site… I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg .
They follow only one guiding principle : maximize profits irrespective of the consequences .
One way or another , they should not be left in control of Facebook .
No doubt Soros ( and Hillary ) would prefer an outspoken progressive were in control of the site .
Facebook responded to Soros ’ comments yesterday : So much of the news and information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens on Facebook these days that it really isn ’ t very surprising both parties want more control of what happens there .
But by all accounts the GOP is far ahead technologically and in terms of fundraising .
That leaves Democrats in the position of making personal accusations and trying to use those to leverage some kind of control or concessions .
I think that ’ s what we ’ re seeing from Soros and Clinton .
What Zuckerberg said today sounds a lot like a response to the progressive bullies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not going to play their game .
“ This is the new approach , and I think it ’ s going to piss off a lot of people , ” he said Friday , without specifying anyone in particular who would be pissed off .
He added , “ But frankly , the old approach was pissing off a lot of people too , so let ’ s try something different.
” I hope Zuckerberg can stick to his guns but I ’ m not sure he ’ s fully aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top voices like Soros and Clinton indicate someone is an enemy and deserves to be destroyed .
Let ’ s just say I hope Zuckerberg has a lot of personal security because I think he ’ s going to need it .

Yesterday, Mark Zuckerberg was the keynote speaker at an event called the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Utah. I don’t want to overstate what he said but what I heard was a defiant rejection of demands from the woke left that he censor an ever-expanding list of content.
The appearance didn’t start off smoothly. Zuckerberg came on stage and immediately made a mistake, telling he crowd he was in the midst of building a big data center in “Eagle Rock.” The director of the Summit immediately corrected him saying the new data center was being built in “Eagle Mountain.” Oops! To his credit, Zuckerberg made fun of himself saying, “Awesome! We’re off to a great start.”
Zuckerberg used the mistake to pivot to an answer about the new direction he wants Facebook to take. “Let’s be real here, I’m not like—communicating is not my best thing. Right? I came out here, I’m planning for this, I’m excited about it and I messed up the name of our data center within 30 seconds.” He went on to say that for a long time, Facebook had done something similar. For many years Facebook tried to be as vague as possible with an overall goal of not offending anyone too much. But Zuckerberg said that over time he’s realized there are some things that he believes in and wants the company to reflect. One of those is the importance of free expression.
“In Georgetown last year I gave this speech around our principles around free expression,” Zuckerberg said. He continued, “You know that’s just one of the areas that I really feel like is under attack right now. Increasingly we’re getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. It kind of feels like the list of things that you’re not allowed to say socially keeps on growing. And I’m not really okay with that.”
Zuckerberg said there were things “terrorism, child exploitation, incitement to violence” that the company was committed to keeping off the platform. “So we’re focusing a lot on that but at some point I just felt like, alright, we’ve got to stand up and say ‘no, we’re going to stand for free expression’ and yeah we’re going to take down the content that’s really harmful but the line needs to be held at some point.
“I think it’s unfortunate that this is such a controversial thing. You know, when I got started in 2004, it wasn’t. You know, it wasn’t a thing that people were pushing back on that much.”
He’s absolutely correct that the pushback on free expression, mostly from the left, has become far more aggressive over the past five years or so with the rise of the social justice warriors and woke activists who see silencing their opponents online and in the real world as a goal.
Recently, a lot of that pressure has been spilling over onto Facebook. Zuckerberg himself has recently become the focus of leading figures on the left. Hillary Clinton and George Soros both suggested this month that Zuckerberg intends to hand the 2020 election to Trump. Soros wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times Friday titled “Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook.”
I believe that Mr. Trump and Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, realize that their interests are aligned — the president’s in winning elections, Mr. Zuckerberg’s in making money… The responsible approach is self-evident. Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or “platform.” It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site… I repeat and reaffirm my accusation against Facebook under the leadership of Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg. They follow only one guiding principle: maximize profits irrespective of the consequences. One way or another, they should not be left in control of Facebook.
No doubt Soros (and Hillary) would prefer an outspoken progressive were in control of the site. Facebook responded to Soros’ comments yesterday:
“While we respect Mr. Soros’ right to voice his opinion, he’s wrong,” a Facebook spokesperson told Fox News via email. “The notion that we are aligned with any one political figure or party runs counter to our values and the facts. We continue making unprecedented investments to keep our platform safe, fight foreign interference in elections around the world, and combat misinformation.”
So much of the news and information that is shared in an election year happens on Facebook these days that it really isn’t very surprising both parties want more control of what happens there. But by all accounts the GOP is far ahead technologically and in terms of fundraising. That leaves Democrats in the position of making personal accusations and trying to use those to leverage some kind of control or concessions. I think that’s what we’re seeing from Soros and Clinton.
What Zuckerberg said today sounds a lot like a response to the progressive bullies. He’s letting them know he’s not going to play their game. “This is the new approach, and I think it’s going to piss off a lot of people,” he said Friday, without specifying anyone in particular who would be pissed off. He added, “But frankly, the old approach was pissing off a lot of people too, so let’s try something different.”
I hope Zuckerberg can stick to his guns but I’m not sure he’s fully aware how ugly the left can get once top voices like Soros and Clinton indicate someone is an enemy and deserves to be destroyed. Let’s just say I hope Zuckerberg has a lot of personal security because I think he’s going to need it.


hotair--2020-02-01--Abbas: Palestinians "cutting all relations" with Israel and US

So … that would be a no on the peace plan , we assume ?
At an Arab League meeting in Cairo earlier today , Mahmoud Abbas announced that the Palestinian Authority would be “ cutting all relations ” with both the Israel and the US over Donald Trump ’ s peace plan.. Abbas has made similar threats in the past , but this time might be different — perhaps even more than Abbas thinks : At a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo , Abbas reiterated his “ complete ” rejection of Trump ’ s peace plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state with borders drawn to meet Israeli security needs .
“ We ’ ve informed the Israeli side…that there will be no relations at all with them and the United States including security ties , ” Abbas told the one-day extraordinary session to discuss Trump ’ s plan .
Israeli officials had no immediate comment on his remarks .
Israel and the Palestinian Authority ’ s security forces have long cooperated in policing areas of the occupied West Bank that are under Palestinian control .
The PA also has intelligence cooperation agreements with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestinians began boycotting the Trump administration ’ s peace efforts in 2017 .
Abbas told the ministers that he ’ d been refusing to take Trump ’ s calls lest anyone believe any later claims that Abbas had been consulted .
That may not go down as well as Abbas thinks , either : On one level , Abbas has some reason for complaint .
Take a look at the map from the Trump plan , and see if you notice one key detail ( via Jeff Dunetz ) : Other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestinians get trapped within Israel .
They have no border with the outside world at all , not even with Jordan , their closest cultural connection .
Only three sovereign states in the world live entirely within the borders of another sovereign state , and two of them are in Italy — the Vatican and republic of San Marino .
The third is Lesotho within South Africa , which with it hasn ’ t waged war for domination or territory in the way the Palestinians and Israelis have .
The Trump plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with land near the Egyptian border in which Trump pledges to fund technological and manufacturing industries , but once again leaves a corridor locking the Palestinians within Israel and leaving them dependent on Israel for outside access .
The other complaint is just as obvious .
Previous administrations left the question of Jerusalem out of their peace plans , taking the position that the Israelis and Palestinians had to negotiate its status .
This time , Trump has settled it himself , with Israel getting Jerusalem and the Palestinians getting East Jerusalem for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Abbas would have gotten in any negotiation , but now it ’ s a diktat , and Abbas likely wouldn ’ t survive three days if he accepted it .
And everybody knows that , even as much as everybody knows Abbas would never have negotiated in good faith on any of this under any circumstances .
That brings us to his audience today .
Usually the Arab nations rush to line up behind the Palestinians when it comes to relations with Israel , but that ’ s changed — significantly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed this plan outright , none of them outright opposed it , either .
Instead , they urged the Palestinians to use it as the basis of real negotiations , so much so that Turkey ’ s Recep Erdogan accused them of treachery in doing so .
This is the clearest signal yet that the Sunni Arab nations in the region no longer view Israel as their biggest concern .
They may not be thrilled with their presence in the region , but they have much more grave issues with the rise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Palestinian Authority — and especially Hamas in Gaza — have been getting succor from Iran for many years now , and the Sunni nations are starting to realize that it ’ s part of an Iranian encirclement campaign that includes Syria , Lebanon , Oman , and Yemen .
If Abbas wants to play footsie with Tehran , then the Sunni states don ’ t need the headache of his cause any longer .
They ’ d rather quietly align with a powerful state that has every reason to oppose Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to extend it all the way into Jerusalem .
That ’ s why Abbas is likely to get a chillier reception this time at the Arab League , and why his threats to cut off relations will likely fall on deaf ears .
Meanwhile , Abbas might want to think twice about cutting off security ties .
We seem to be getting a lot more effective lately .
Or does Abbas think these are coincidences ?
Update : One other point on the map is the issue of water .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lack of access to water , as Israel has largely commanded the high ground throughout the West Bank , including in its settlements .
Without access to the Jordan River south of Galilee ( even as polluted as it is ) , the Palestinians will have no redress on water access .
It ’ s very interesting , in that context , that the other Arab nations aren ’ t raising many objections to this plan , at least not in public .
That ’ s a legitimate concern for the Palestinians @ @ @ @ @

So … that would be a no on the peace plan, we assume? At an Arab League meeting in Cairo earlier today, Mahmoud Abbas announced that the Palestinian Authority would be “cutting all relations” with both the Israel and the US over Donald Trump’s peace plan.. Abbas has made similar threats in the past, but this time might be different — perhaps even more than Abbas thinks:
At a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, Abbas reiterated his “complete” rejection of Trump’s peace plan, which calls for creating a demilitarized Palestinian state with borders drawn to meet Israeli security needs. “We’ve informed the Israeli side…that there will be no relations at all with them and the United States including security ties,” Abbas told the one-day extraordinary session to discuss Trump’s plan. Israeli officials had no immediate comment on his remarks. Israel and the Palestinian Authority’s security forces have long cooperated in policing areas of the occupied West Bank that are under Palestinian control. The PA also has intelligence cooperation agreements with the CIA, which continued even after the Palestinians began boycotting the Trump administration’s peace efforts in 2017.
Abbas told the ministers that he’d been refusing to take Trump’s calls lest anyone believe any later claims that Abbas had been consulted. That may not go down as well as Abbas thinks, either:
The Palestinian leader said he refused to take U.S. President Donald Trump’s phone calls and messages “because I know that he would use that to say he consulted us.” “I will never accept this solution,” Abbas said. “I will not have it recorded in my history that I have sold Jerusalem.”
On one level, Abbas has some reason for complaint. Take a look at the map from the Trump plan, and see if you notice one key detail (via Jeff Dunetz):
Other than the existing Gaza border with Egypt, the Palestinians get trapped within Israel. They have no border with the outside world at all, not even with Jordan, their closest cultural connection. Only three sovereign states in the world live entirely within the borders of another sovereign state, and two of them are in Italy — the Vatican and republic of San Marino. The third is Lesotho within South Africa, which with it hasn’t waged war for domination or territory in the way the Palestinians and Israelis have. The Trump plan replaces that land in the Jordan Valley with land near the Egyptian border in which Trump pledges to fund technological and manufacturing industries, but once again leaves a corridor locking the Palestinians within Israel and leaving them dependent on Israel for outside access.
The other complaint is just as obvious. Previous administrations left the question of Jerusalem out of their peace plans, taking the position that the Israelis and Palestinians had to negotiate its status. This time, Trump has settled it himself, with Israel getting Jerusalem and the Palestinians getting East Jerusalem for their capital. That was as good as Abbas would have gotten in any negotiation, but now it’s a diktat, and Abbas likely wouldn’t survive three days if he accepted it. And everybody knows that, even as much as everybody knows Abbas would never have negotiated in good faith on any of this under any circumstances.
That brings us to his audience today. Usually the Arab nations rush to line up behind the Palestinians when it comes to relations with Israel, but that’s changed — significantly. While few of the Sunni nations actually endorsed this plan outright, none of them outright opposed it, either. Instead, they urged the Palestinians to use it as the basis of real negotiations, so much so that Turkey’s Recep Erdogan accused them of treachery in doing so.
This is the clearest signal yet that the Sunni Arab nations in the region no longer view Israel as their biggest concern. They may not be thrilled with their presence in the region, but they have much more grave issues with the rise of Iran as a hegemonic power. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority — and especially Hamas in Gaza — have been getting succor from Iran for many years now, and the Sunni nations are starting to realize that it’s part of an Iranian encirclement campaign that includes Syria, Lebanon, Oman, and Yemen.
If Abbas wants to play footsie with Tehran, then the Sunni states don’t need the headache of his cause any longer. They’d rather quietly align with a powerful state that has every reason to oppose Iranian hegemony than an old terrorist who wants to extend it all the way into Jerusalem. That’s why Abbas is likely to get a chillier reception this time at the Arab League, and why his threats to cut off relations will likely fall on deaf ears.
Meanwhile, Abbas might want to think twice about cutting off security ties. We seem to be getting a lot more effective lately. Or does Abbas think these are coincidences?
If his death is confirmed, this would be significant – and the third in a series of significant decapitation strikes after al-Baghdadi/ISIS and Suleimani/Quds Force. https://t.co/hgAcVCJtWt — Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) February 1, 2020
Update: One other point on the map is the issue of water. One of the Palestinian’s biggest day-to-day complaints is a lack of access to water, as Israel has largely commanded the high ground throughout the West Bank, including in its settlements. Without access to the Jordan River south of Galilee (even as polluted as it is), the Palestinians will have no redress on water access. It’s very interesting, in that context, that the other Arab nations aren’t raising many objections to this plan, at least not in public. That’s a legitimate concern for the Palestinians in the West Bank.


hotair--2020-02-01--AMLO sees migrant caravans "waning"

AMLO sees migrant caravans "waning"

We haven ’ t been seeing nearly as many migrant caravan stories in the news this winter as compared to the same time one year ago .
And there ’ s a reason for that .
It ’ s because there haven ’ t been as many migrant caravans , and the ones that did manage to form up haven ’ t made it very far past Mexico ’ s southern border .
When asked to comment on this trend yesterday , Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ( AMLO ) predicted that there would almost certainly be more caravans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less frequent .
( Associated Press ) President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Friday that he expects more caravans of Central American migrants and asylum seekers to emerge , but he sees the phenomenon which became a political football in the United States in recent years as waning .
A week after armored National Guard troops and immigration agents broke up what was left of the most recent caravan in southern Mexico , loading men , women and children onto buses for likely deportation , López Obrador suggested that fewer will come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are organizing other caravans .
… Only each time they have fewer migrants , ” he said .
“ There is more and more information.
” We already saw how the last caravan fared at Mexico ’ s southern border with Guatemala .
When they arrived at a bridge , the National Guard turned them back .
When they attempted to wade across the river , the Guard once again confronted them , showing admirable restraint until some of the aliens attempted to rush their lines .
That ’ s when the riot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A relative few decided to apply for asylum there under Trump ’ s Remain in Mexico policy , but most were given plane or bus rides back to their home country .
AMLO seems to be correct about the caravans “ waning.
” The latest contingent to organize in Honduras had barely thirty people show up to join .
That ’ s a far cry from the thousands or even tens of thousands that banded together in 2017 through 2019 .
The reason for that is likely just as AMLO described it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ text above , he referred to the fact that there is “ more and more information.
” What he meant by that is the work being done in both Guatemala and Honduras to inform potential migrants that conditions have changed .
Previously , groups such as Pueblo Sin Fronteras in San Francisco have had activists on the ground in those countries , telling people that Mexico would allow them to pass through and advising them on how to try to claim asylum at the US border where they would be released to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being spread that such tales are fabrications .
People considering making the journey are learning that Mexico will be turning them away at the border or , at best , offering asylum to qualified applicants , but they will be moving to Mexico , not America .
And those who do somehow make it to the United States border will be awaiting their day in court on the Mexican side of the border , not freely roaming around and disappearing into America .
With the more tempting options taken off the table @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considering an illegal run for the American border are reconsidering .
AMLO really deserves a lot of credit for the decreased traffic we ’ ve been seeing on our southern border .
He has successfully implemented the Remain in Mexico policy worked out with Donald Trump and his National Guard has been getting the job done when groups of migrants make the attempt .
AMLO was elected on a far more liberal platform , but he ’ s been surprisingly strong on illegal immigration issues .
In return , he ’ s already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an improved relationship with the White House .
This should continue for as long as he sticks to these policies .

We haven’t been seeing nearly as many migrant caravan stories in the news this winter as compared to the same time one year ago. And there’s a reason for that. It’s because there haven’t been as many migrant caravans, and the ones that did manage to form up haven’t made it very far past Mexico’s southern border. When asked to comment on this trend yesterday, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) predicted that there would almost certainly be more caravans, but he sees them growing smaller and less frequent. (Associated Press)
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Friday that he expects more caravans of Central American migrants and asylum seekers to emerge, but he sees the phenomenon which became a political football in the United States in recent years as waning. A week after armored National Guard troops and immigration agents broke up what was left of the most recent caravan in southern Mexico, loading men, women and children onto buses for likely deportation, López Obrador suggested that fewer will come in future groups. “Surely they are organizing other caravans. … Only each time they have fewer migrants,” he said. “There is more and more information.”
We already saw how the last caravan fared at Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala. When they arrived at a bridge, the National Guard turned them back. When they attempted to wade across the river, the Guard once again confronted them, showing admirable restraint until some of the aliens attempted to rush their lines. That’s when the riot shields and tear gas came out. A relative few decided to apply for asylum there under Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy, but most were given plane or bus rides back to their home country.
AMLO seems to be correct about the caravans “waning.” The latest contingent to organize in Honduras had barely thirty people show up to join. That’s a far cry from the thousands or even tens of thousands that banded together in 2017 through 2019.
The reason for that is likely just as AMLO described it. In the last section of his quoted text above, he referred to the fact that there is “more and more information.” What he meant by that is the work being done in both Guatemala and Honduras to inform potential migrants that conditions have changed. Previously, groups such as Pueblo Sin Fronteras in San Francisco have had activists on the ground in those countries, telling people that Mexico would allow them to pass through and advising them on how to try to claim asylum at the US border where they would be released to the interior of America.
Now the word is being spread that such tales are fabrications. People considering making the journey are learning that Mexico will be turning them away at the border or, at best, offering asylum to qualified applicants, but they will be moving to Mexico, not America. And those who do somehow make it to the United States border will be awaiting their day in court on the Mexican side of the border, not freely roaming around and disappearing into America. With the more tempting options taken off the table, it appears that most who were considering an illegal run for the American border are reconsidering.
AMLO really deserves a lot of credit for the decreased traffic we’ve been seeing on our southern border. He has successfully implemented the Remain in Mexico policy worked out with Donald Trump and his National Guard has been getting the job done when groups of migrants make the attempt. AMLO was elected on a far more liberal platform, but he’s been surprisingly strong on illegal immigration issues. In return, he’s already been rewarded with more generous trade deals and an improved relationship with the White House. This should continue for as long as he sticks to these policies.


hotair--2020-02-01--DNC plotting against Sanders again to avoid brokered convention

This week ’ s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll brought some shocking and ( for some ) sobering news for Democrats .
For the first time this cycle , Bernie Sanders pulled into first place nationally , albeit by only one point ahead of Joe Biden .
And party leaders at the DNC have definitely been noticing this trend .
This has reportedly left some of them wondering just what the heck they can do to stop Bernie from winning the nomination , and at least a few of them have come up with a plan .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Just bring back the superdelegates when they vote on the rules at the convention .
( Politico ) A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention .
In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days , about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national convention .
Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members , members of Congress and other top party officials , who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested .
“ I do believe we should re-open the rules .
I hear it from others as well , ” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen , a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules .
The report is quick to note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussing this nuclear option is small… at least for now .
But if Bernie scores some early victories and begins opening up a serious lead , that could change .
Why ?
Because most of the folks at the DNC have seen this movie before and they don ’ t want to wind up with another Walter Mondale on their hands .
As one analyst recently observed , if you want to convince potentially undecided independent voters to get rid of a far right-wing populist president , you don ’ t do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as far left as possible and offering Americans a literal socialist who is promising to bankrupt the nation even faster than we ’ re doing it now is about the best matchup that Donald Trump could hope for in November .
But any plan involving bringing back the superdelegates is going to rip the scab off of some old and ugly wounds inside the party .
Bernie ’ s supporters and most of the far-left base haven ’ t forgotten how the DNC treated him in 2016 .
While Clinton eventually wound up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , the flood of superdelegates flocking to her from states Sanders carried made it look lopsided .
In New Hampshire , for example , each of Hillary ’ s superdelegates wiped out the votes of 10,000 Sanders supporters .
Those maneuvers , along with some questionable handling of Bernies DNC campaign funds and leaked debate questions created a rift in the party that still hasn ’ t fully healed to this day .
And if Tom Perez starts talking about superdelegates again when Sanders begins looking like a potential winner , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , none of this will matter at the convention if nobody can land a clean majority .
Absent some real momentum for one of them , it ’ s still possible that Biden could finish in the lead but Sanders and Warren could finish in second and third with enough delegates to keep Uncle Joe from winning on the first ballot .
( Or possibly even Sanders and Bloomberg , since the former NYC mayor managed to pull ahead of Buttigieg in that NBC/WSJ poll I linked at the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the revised rules now in place , the Superdelegates could all vote in the second round and hand the honors to Biden , saving the party from a Sanders nomination .
Expect the Bernie Bros to be out in force once word of this report finishes making the rounds .
And break out the popcorn .

This week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll brought some shocking and (for some) sobering news for Democrats. For the first time this cycle, Bernie Sanders pulled into first place nationally, albeit by only one point ahead of Joe Biden. And party leaders at the DNC have definitely been noticing this trend. This has reportedly left some of them wondering just what the heck they can do to stop Bernie from winning the nomination, and at least a few of them have come up with a plan. It’s both simple and radical at the same time. Just bring back the superdelegates when they vote on the rules at the convention. (Politico)
A small group of Democratic National Committee members has privately begun gauging support for a plan to potentially weaken Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign and head off a brokered convention. In conversations on the sidelines of a DNC executive committee meeting and in telephone calls and texts in recent days, about a half-dozen members have discussed the possibility of a policy reversal to ensure that so-called superdelegates can vote on the first ballot at the party’s national convention. Such a move would increase the influence of DNC members, members of Congress and other top party officials, who now must wait until the second ballot to have their say if the convention is contested. “I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well,” one DNC member said in a text message last week to William Owen, a DNC member from Tennessee who does not support re-opening the rules.
The report is quick to note that the number of DNC members seriously discussing this nuclear option is small… at least for now. But if Bernie scores some early victories and begins opening up a serious lead, that could change. Why? Because most of the folks at the DNC have seen this movie before and they don’t want to wind up with another Walter Mondale on their hands.
As one analyst recently observed, if you want to convince potentially undecided independent voters to get rid of a far right-wing populist president, you don’t do it with a far left-wing populist. Swerving as far left as possible and offering Americans a literal socialist who is promising to bankrupt the nation even faster than we’re doing it now is about the best matchup that Donald Trump could hope for in November.
But any plan involving bringing back the superdelegates is going to rip the scab off of some old and ugly wounds inside the party. Bernie’s supporters and most of the far-left base haven’t forgotten how the DNC treated him in 2016. While Clinton eventually wound up with enough earned delegates to win the nomination, the flood of superdelegates flocking to her from states Sanders carried made it look lopsided. In New Hampshire, for example, each of Hillary’s superdelegates wiped out the votes of 10,000 Sanders supporters.
Those maneuvers, along with some questionable handling of Bernies DNC campaign funds and leaked debate questions created a rift in the party that still hasn’t fully healed to this day. And if Tom Perez starts talking about superdelegates again when Sanders begins looking like a potential winner, the Democratic civil war will erupt in earnest.
Of course, none of this will matter at the convention if nobody can land a clean majority. Absent some real momentum for one of them, it’s still possible that Biden could finish in the lead but Sanders and Warren could finish in second and third with enough delegates to keep Uncle Joe from winning on the first ballot. (Or possibly even Sanders and Bloomberg, since the former NYC mayor managed to pull ahead of Buttigieg in that NBC/WSJ poll I linked at the top.) If that happens, even under the revised rules now in place, the Superdelegates could all vote in the second round and hand the honors to Biden, saving the party from a Sanders nomination.
Expect the Bernie Bros to be out in force once word of this report finishes making the rounds. And break out the popcorn.


hotair--2020-01-31--Is Romney going to vote to remove Trump?

Trumpers are going to read that headline and respond , “ YES , AND HE ALWAYS WAS , ” but I don ’ t think that ’ s true .
There ’ s too much for him to lose and too little to gain by casting a vote to remove that ’ s functionally meaningless to make this an easy call for him .
He has almost five full years left in the Senate and may well spend all five having to deal with an embittered Trump administration that won ’ t do him a single favor if he votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll piss off thousands upon thousands of Republican constituents back home , some of whom love Trump and others of whom think this is a moment to circle the partisan wagons irrespective of their feelings about the president .
He ’ ll be shredded in right-wing media for the rest of his life , accused not just of disloyalty but of petty jealousy and grudge-holding towards a guy who succeeded where Romney himself failed in 2012 .
He ’ ll alienate his Republican colleagues in the Senate , to the extent that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d “ gain ” is gift-wrapping a talking point for Democrats that the vote to remove was bipartisan .
He ’ d be the only Republican in either chamber who was willing to side with Pelosi , Schumer , and Schiff on the Ukraine matter .
He ’ d lose friends too .
Reporter Tim Alberta posted a depressing but illuminating thread on Twitter last night about the curious case of Lamar Alexander , a man who ’ s retiring from the Senate and thus seemingly has no political reason to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call witnesses .
Not true , said Alberta .
Politics extends far beyond the halls of Congress : It ’ s not like Romney would be a total pariah , particularly among his circle of establishment business-class Republicans , and of course he has a la-a-arge family that ’ ll love him no matter what .
Still , the fact remains that there are intangible costs , starting with social penalties , for crossing the party on a momentous vote in a hyperpartisan era .
He has every selfish reason to vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 50/50 at this point whether he does .
A week ago , before the NYT ’ s story about what ’ s in Bolton ’ s book dropped , I would have guessed 80/20 that he acquits .
The case for calling Bolton as a witness wasn ’ t as urgent at the time , which would have made it easier for Romney to get comfortable with the line Alexander took last night — yes , what Trump apparently did was inappropriate but it ’ s not a high crime or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s not even firsthand evidence that the president was involved !
But I think the game changed with the Times ’ s revelation that Trump allegedly told Bolton there was an “ aid for Democratic dirt ” deal with Ukraine , per Bolton ’ s manuscript .
And I think it probably changed more as Romney marinated in the sheer abject servility his colleagues are prepared to show on Trump ’ s behalf by not even deigning to hear Bolton out before rendering a verdict despite the allegation in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find the article now but I remember reading somewhere months ago on a different occasion how frustrated Romney was by the timidity of some Senate Republicans towards the president .
If that was true then his frustration must be off the charts after Alexander ’ s and Murkowski ’ s decision on witnesses .
Which means , putting all of that together , that he may be emboldened about the coming vote on acquittal or removal .
He might see it now not just as a vote on the merits but as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the party ’ s leadership is willing to call BS on squeezing a foreign government to damage your likely electoral opponent and say , “ Yeah , this was seriously wrong.
” This line from the Times ’ s story about him this morning jumped out at me : Mr. Romney said he was not one for dwelling or looking back .
“ You go back to my campaigns , ” he said .
“ I sort of watch how the president reacts to his opponents , and it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know what ?
He won and I didn ’ t .
On the other hand , he won and I didn ’ t but I would not have done what he ’ s done in order to win.
” It is not clear what exactly Mr. Romney is referring to here , nor does he elaborate except to repeat the last part : “ I would not have done some of the things he did.
” He might approach this verdict the same way .
Republicans will win , but clearly he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did — overlook John Bolton — in the name of victory .
I think he ’ d agree that one can come to the conclusion Alexander did , “ bad but not impeachable , ” in good faith based on the available evidence .
But few Republicans have even been willing to go as far as Alexander did and call what Trump did “ bad.
” Most are too frightened to cross even that small line , despite opting for acquittal in the end .
“ No one on the Republican side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denouncing what Trump did , given this set of facts ?
Shouldn ’ t someone ?
” I suspect that ’ s what Romney ’ s thinking .
I still think he ’ ll vote to acquit in the end , but I wouldn ’ t wager a dollar on it .
And if he votes to remove and that costs him his Senate seat , he ’ s probably fine with that .
I think he may have already quietly resolved not to seek a second Senate term in 2024 .
Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in this den of thieves , rubber-stamping judges and otherwise doing nothing constructive except praising the smell of the president ’ s farts ?
There are a million Republicans in Utah who ’ d be willing to take orders from a populist Trump knock-off in the White House in 2025 .
Let one of them have the seat .
Romney will find a way to enjoy retirement at age 77 with his adoring family and giant pile of money .
The one thing I still can ’ t figure out , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fencesitters — Manchin , Jones , and Sinema — will decide whether to acquit or remove in light of the fact that key evidence , Bolton ’ s testimony , has been withheld .
A jury in the justice system never has to deal with that problem ; they know only what ’ s before them in court .
They ’ d have no idea there was a witness out there willing and apparently able to incriminate the defendant who hasn ’ t been called to testify for whatever reason .
Romney et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they also know that Republicans are keeping Bolton out precisely because they fear he might have something material to say .
What should an undecided senator do with that information ?
Vote to acquit on the theory that they can ’ t know for sure what Bolton would have said , in which case they ’ d be rewarding Trump and the GOP for suppressing Bolton ’ s testimony ?
Or vote to remove on the theory that they refuse to let the GOP protect Trump by suppressing Bolton , even though they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton would have said anything accusatory ?
Can they vote “ present , ” maybe ?

Trumpers are going to read that headline and respond, “YES, AND HE ALWAYS WAS,” but I don’t think that’s true. There’s too much for him to lose and too little to gain by casting a vote to remove that’s functionally meaningless to make this an easy call for him. He has almost five full years left in the Senate and may well spend all five having to deal with an embittered Trump administration that won’t do him a single favor if he votes the wrong way here. He’ll piss off thousands upon thousands of Republican constituents back home, some of whom love Trump and others of whom think this is a moment to circle the partisan wagons irrespective of their feelings about the president. He’ll be shredded in right-wing media for the rest of his life, accused not just of disloyalty but of petty jealousy and grudge-holding towards a guy who succeeded where Romney himself failed in 2012. He’ll alienate his Republican colleagues in the Senate, to the extent that he hasn’t already.
All he’d “gain” is gift-wrapping a talking point for Democrats that the vote to remove was bipartisan. He’d be the only Republican in either chamber who was willing to side with Pelosi, Schumer, and Schiff on the Ukraine matter.
He’d lose friends too. Reporter Tim Alberta posted a depressing but illuminating thread on Twitter last night about the curious case of Lamar Alexander, a man who’s retiring from the Senate and thus seemingly has no political reason to do Trump a major favor by declining to call witnesses. Not true, said Alberta. Politics extends far beyond the halls of Congress:
A thought on Lamar Alexander: His retirement is less relevant than you might think. Trump’s grip on the GOP has implications far beyond elected office. Lamar is looking forward to a life after politics — and he knows it will be complicated by any break w/ Trump over impeachment. — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) January 31, 2020
And it’s not just about money. I’ve had numerous retiring Rs talk warily — sometimes fearfully — about the “cult” of Trump supporters back home. They worry about harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, estranged relationships, etc. — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) January 31, 2020
This is why, even while people were justifably angry that Paul Ryan didn’t speak out forcefully *while in office*, they should appreciate that be found his voice in retirement. (See: “American Carnage.”) It’s not easy to cross Trump the way he did. If it was, many more would. — Tim Alberta (@TimAlberta) January 31, 2020
It’s not like Romney would be a total pariah, particularly among his circle of establishment business-class Republicans, and of course he has a la-a-arge family that’ll love him no matter what. Still, the fact remains that there are intangible costs, starting with social penalties, for crossing the party on a momentous vote in a hyperpartisan era. He has every selfish reason to vote to acquit.
However.
I’d guess it’s 50/50 at this point whether he does. A week ago, before the NYT’s story about what’s in Bolton’s book dropped, I would have guessed 80/20 that he acquits. The case for calling Bolton as a witness wasn’t as urgent at the time, which would have made it easier for Romney to get comfortable with the line Alexander took last night — yes, what Trump apparently did was inappropriate but it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor. Bad, but not impeachable. There’s not even firsthand evidence that the president was involved!
But I think the game changed with the Times’s revelation that Trump allegedly told Bolton there was an “aid for Democratic dirt” deal with Ukraine, per Bolton’s manuscript. And I think it probably changed more as Romney marinated in the sheer abject servility his colleagues are prepared to show on Trump’s behalf by not even deigning to hear Bolton out before rendering a verdict despite the allegation in that Times story. I can’t find the article now but I remember reading somewhere months ago on a different occasion how frustrated Romney was by the timidity of some Senate Republicans towards the president. If that was true then his frustration must be off the charts after Alexander’s and Murkowski’s decision on witnesses.
Which means, putting all of that together, that he may be emboldened about the coming vote on acquittal or removal. He might see it now not just as a vote on the merits but as a test of whether anyone — anyone — in the party’s leadership is willing to call BS on squeezing a foreign government to damage your likely electoral opponent and say, “Yeah, this was seriously wrong.” This line from the Times’s story about him this morning jumped out at me:
Mr. Romney said he was not one for dwelling or looking back. “You go back to my campaigns,” he said. “I sort of watch how the president reacts to his opponents, and it’s not the way I did it. But you know what? He won and I didn’t. On the other hand, he won and I didn’t but I would not have done what he’s done in order to win.” It is not clear what exactly Mr. Romney is referring to here, nor does he elaborate except to repeat the last part: “I would not have done some of the things he did.”
He might approach this verdict the same way. Republicans will win, but clearly he’s not willing to do what they did — overlook John Bolton — in the name of victory. I think he’d agree that one can come to the conclusion Alexander did, “bad but not impeachable,” in good faith based on the available evidence. But few Republicans have even been willing to go as far as Alexander did and call what Trump did “bad.” Most are too frightened to cross even that small line, despite opting for acquittal in the end.
“No one on the Republican side is willing to cast a vote formally denouncing what Trump did, given this set of facts? Shouldn’t someone?” I suspect that’s what Romney’s thinking. I still think he’ll vote to acquit in the end, but I wouldn’t wager a dollar on it. And if he votes to remove and that costs him his Senate seat, he’s probably fine with that. I think he may have already quietly resolved not to seek a second Senate term in 2024. Why would he want to spend six more years in this den of thieves, rubber-stamping judges and otherwise doing nothing constructive except praising the smell of the president’s farts? There are a million Republicans in Utah who’d be willing to take orders from a populist Trump knock-off in the White House in 2025. Let one of them have the seat. Romney will find a way to enjoy retirement at age 77 with his adoring family and giant pile of money.
The one thing I still can’t figure out, though, is how Romney and the Dem fencesitters — Manchin, Jones, and Sinema — will decide whether to acquit or remove in light of the fact that key evidence, Bolton’s testimony, has been withheld. A jury in the justice system never has to deal with that problem; they know only what’s before them in court. They’d have no idea there was a witness out there willing and apparently able to incriminate the defendant who hasn’t been called to testify for whatever reason. Romney et al. do know that, and they also know that Republicans are keeping Bolton out precisely because they fear he might have something material to say. What should an undecided senator do with that information? Vote to acquit on the theory that they can’t know for sure what Bolton would have said, in which case they’d be rewarding Trump and the GOP for suppressing Bolton’s testimony? Or vote to remove on the theory that they refuse to let the GOP protect Trump by suppressing Bolton, even though they can’t know for sure that Bolton would have said anything accusatory? Can they vote “present,” maybe?
Update: Oh noes.


hotair--2020-02-03--Heckler removed from Trump Jr.'s Iowa press conference

Today Donald Trump Jr. , Eric Trump , Lara Trump , Kimberly Guilfoyle , and Brad Parscale held a press conference in Iowa .
About 10 minutes into the event , Don Jr. was interrupted by a heckler .
“ Ever since your father was elected president , more and more Jews are being gunned down every year , ” the heckler shouted .
“ Well , I don ’ t think anyone has done more for Israel and American Jews than Donald Trump , ” Trump Jr. replied as the heckler was escorted past the front of the small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the room by security , still shouting as he went : “ You are killing Jews !
All of you !
All of you in here are killing Jews !
” According to that tweet , he identified himself as Elon Glickman , a reporter with the Forward .
However , the editor of the Forward said Glickman did not work for them : If Not Now is a left-wing Jewish group which has a two-part 2020 platform it is promoting .
Part one is to “ push for an end to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Part two is to “ fight antisemitism and white nationalism.
” Glickman ’ s Twitter feed identifies him as an organizer for the group .
It also shows that he ’ s a Bernie Sanders supporter : The rise in anti-Semitic incidents is a worrisome trend but anyone blaming that on Trump hasn ’ t been keeping up with current events .
So far as we know , none of the dozens of anti-Semitic incidents in the New York area last year , including the deadly shooting at a Jewish deli in Jersey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New York , involved Trump supporters .
Many of the incidents seem to have been carried out by black Americans , not by white nationalists .
The full press conference is here .
Below is the section of the press conference where the heckler interrupts as seen from the back of the room :

Today Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and Brad Parscale held a press conference in Iowa. About 10 minutes into the event, Don Jr. was interrupted by a heckler.
“Ever since your father was elected president, more and more Jews are being gunned down every year,” the heckler shouted.
“Well, I don’t think anyone has done more for Israel and American Jews than Donald Trump,” Trump Jr. replied as the heckler was escorted past the front of the small stage. He was quickly removed from the room by security, still shouting as he went: “You are killing Jews! All of you! All of you in here are killing Jews!”
https://twitter.com/hunterw/status/1224453076578234368
According to that tweet, he identified himself as Elon Glickman, a reporter with the Forward. However, the editor of the Forward said Glickman did not work for them:
If Not Now is a left-wing Jewish group which has a two-part 2020 platform it is promoting. Part one is to “push for an end to the occupation” of Palestine by Israel. Part two is to “fight antisemitism and white nationalism.” Glickman’s Twitter feed identifies him as an organizer for the group. It also shows that he’s a Bernie Sanders supporter:
Where are the Bernie canvassers in Des Moines watching the super bowl?? Just finished canvassing and trying to hang with my fellow Berners! — Elon Glickman 🔥🌅 (@elonTglickman) February 2, 2020
The rise in anti-Semitic incidents is a worrisome trend but anyone blaming that on Trump hasn’t been keeping up with current events. So far as we know, none of the dozens of anti-Semitic incidents in the New York area last year, including the deadly shooting at a Jewish deli in Jersey City and the machete attack in Monsey, New York, involved Trump supporters. Many of the incidents seem to have been carried out by black Americans, not by white nationalists.
The full press conference is here. Below is the section of the press conference where the heckler interrupts as seen from the back of the room:


hotair--2020-02-03--Schiff's closing argument to Senate Republicans: "You are decent. He is not who you are"

I ’ m … reasonably sure he doesn ’ t believe this , especially since there are now enough Republicans on record that they intend to vote to acquit to ensure that the president isn ’ t removed .
But it ’ s clever of him to set up the Democrats ’ post-impeachment talking points this way .
The goal of the “ sham trial ” and “ cover-up !
” messaging that ’ s already rolling out is to accuse swing-state senators like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner of complicity in Trump ’ s behavior .
The more they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in theory the more they can leverage Trump ’ s personal unpopularity against them .
So here ’ s Schiff drawing a big bright-line distinction between Trump and Senate Republicans , seemingly contra the sentiment of his party ’ s voters , and promoting it on his own Twitter feed .
Truth and decency matter to you , he tells them .
You ’ re not the same as Trump .
…unless you vote to acquit , that is .
Schiff ’ s ready for the PR war .
The most amusing part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to emphasize the importance of a single vote .
A single man or woman of courage can make history , he warns them , amid a passage about the Founders and America ’ s essential decency .
“ Is there one among you who will say , ‘ Enough ’ ?
” There is in fact exactly one among them who might say “ enough , ” who ’ s likely susceptible to exactly this sort of pitch , and Schiff knows it .
He ’ s aiming this squarely at Romney .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ’ s GOP deliberations on calling witnesses , it might pay off for him .
But at this [ caucus ] lunch on Thursday , Sen. Mitt Romney ( Utah ) was getting visibly annoyed [ at the arguments against calling John Bolton ] .
If this is meant to persuade me , Romney told his colleagues , it ’ s not helpful , according to two officials with knowledge of the exchange .
The senator , a near-lone GOP voice in seeking witnesses for the trial , felt as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimony from Bolton was a “ no-brainer , ” he believed , according to an individual familiar with his thinking who , like others interviewed for this story , requested anonymity to speak frankly .
“ Here we have somebody who has obviously talked about this issue with the president who may have helpful information , ” the person said , summarizing Romney ’ s thinking .
“ So why wouldn ’ t we want to hear from him ?
” There ’ s really only one reason not to hear from him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great .
According to Vanity Fair , Trump ’ s planning revenge on both Bolton and Romney even though the latter hasn ’ t showed on his cards on removal yet : “ It ’ s payback time , ” a prominent Republican told me last week .
“ He has an enemies list that is growing by the day , ” another source said .
Names that came up in my conversations with Republicans included Adam Schiff , Jerry Nadler , Mitt Romney , and John Bolton .
“ Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who crossed him during impeachment.
” … “ Trump has been calling people and telling them to go after Bolton , ” a source briefed on the private conversations said .
The source added that Trump wants Bolton to be criminally investigated .
A person familiar with Trump ’ s thinking said Trump believes Bolton might have mishandled classified information .
According to a former official , the White House is planning to leak White House emails from Bolton that purportedly allege Bolton abused his position at the National Security Council .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussed releasing emails “ showing [ Bolton ] was doing pay-to-play , ” the official said .
A person close to Bolton dismissed the story .
“ John plays things straight , ” the person said .
I continue to believe Romney will find some reason to acquit , probably the idea that we ’ re too close to an election to trigger that degree of upheaval .
But I bet Schiff ’ s lecture here worked on him a bit .
Romney is the only way left for Democrats to salvage something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquit Trump is very likely to be bipartisan at this point but there ’ s a chance that the vote to remove will be too , which would let Pelosi and Schumer save a little face .
That chance is Mitt and that ’ s who Schiff is playing to here .
His speech was effectively for an audience of one .
This wasn ’ t the strongest bit from his closing argument , incidentally .
The key passage can be viewed between 7:30 and 12:00 of this clip when he says that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this out doesn ’ t cut it .
Simple reason , he says : If you leave him in office , Trump will try to cheat again before November to a 100 percent probability .
Right .
And Trump would regard anyone who didn ’ t try to maximize his advantage the same way as a chump and a sucker who doesn ’ t have what it takes to win .

I’m … reasonably sure he doesn’t believe this, especially since there are now enough Republicans on record that they intend to vote to acquit to ensure that the president isn’t removed. But it’s clever of him to set up the Democrats’ post-impeachment talking points this way. The goal of the “sham trial” and “cover-up!” messaging that’s already rolling out is to accuse swing-state senators like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner of complicity in Trump’s behavior. The more they can tie Republicans downballot to POTUS then in theory the more they can leverage Trump’s personal unpopularity against them. So here’s Schiff drawing a big bright-line distinction between Trump and Senate Republicans, seemingly contra the sentiment of his party’s voters, and promoting it on his own Twitter feed. Truth and decency matter to you, he tells them. You’re not the same as Trump.
…unless you vote to acquit, that is. Schiff’s ready for the PR war.
The most amusing part of his spiel is how he strains to emphasize the importance of a single vote. A single man or woman of courage can make history, he warns them, amid a passage about the Founders and America’s essential decency. “Is there one among you who will say, ‘Enough’?” There is in fact exactly one among them who might say “enough,” who’s likely susceptible to exactly this sort of pitch, and Schiff knows it. He’s aiming this squarely at Romney.
And judging by this WaPo report on last week’s GOP deliberations on calling witnesses, it might pay off for him.
But at this [caucus] lunch on Thursday, Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) was getting visibly annoyed [at the arguments against calling John Bolton]. If this is meant to persuade me, Romney told his colleagues, it’s not helpful, according to two officials with knowledge of the exchange. The senator, a near-lone GOP voice in seeking witnesses for the trial, felt as if other Republicans were singling him out… Receiving testimony from Bolton was a “no-brainer,” he believed, according to an individual familiar with his thinking who, like others interviewed for this story, requested anonymity to speak frankly. “Here we have somebody who has obviously talked about this issue with the president who may have helpful information,” the person said, summarizing Romney’s thinking. “So why wouldn’t we want to hear from him?”
There’s really only one reason not to hear from him, and that reason isn’t great. According to Vanity Fair, Trump’s planning revenge on both Bolton and Romney even though the latter hasn’t showed on his cards on removal yet:
“It’s payback time,” a prominent Republican told me last week. “He has an enemies list that is growing by the day,” another source said. Names that came up in my conversations with Republicans included Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Mitt Romney, and John Bolton. “Trump’s playbook is simple: go after people who crossed him during impeachment.”… “Trump has been calling people and telling them to go after Bolton,” a source briefed on the private conversations said. The source added that Trump wants Bolton to be criminally investigated. A person familiar with Trump’s thinking said Trump believes Bolton might have mishandled classified information. According to a former official, the White House is planning to leak White House emails from Bolton that purportedly allege Bolton abused his position at the National Security Council. The official said that West Wing officials have discussed releasing emails “showing [Bolton] was doing pay-to-play,” the official said. A person close to Bolton dismissed the story. “John plays things straight,” the person said.
I continue to believe Romney will find some reason to acquit, probably the idea that we’re too close to an election to trigger that degree of upheaval. But I bet Schiff’s lecture here worked on him a bit. Romney is the only way left for Democrats to salvage something from this process: The vote to acquit Trump is very likely to be bipartisan at this point but there’s a chance that the vote to remove will be too, which would let Pelosi and Schumer save a little face. That chance is Mitt and that’s who Schiff is playing to here. His speech was effectively for an audience of one.
This wasn’t the strongest bit from his closing argument, incidentally. The key passage can be viewed between 7:30 and 12:00 of this clip when he says that the idea of letting the voters sort this out doesn’t cut it. Simple reason, he says: If you leave him in office, Trump will try to cheat again before November to a 100 percent probability. Right. And Trump would regard anyone who didn’t try to maximize his advantage the same way as a chump and a sucker who doesn’t have what it takes to win.


hotair--2020-02-03--The new Not Normal: Counterprotest pro-life art hits New York City

The cultural push to paint abortion as unremarkable and routine health care took an artistic twist three weeks ago in New York City .
As the Daily Beast reported at the time , a art project called Abortion is Normal launched in the Big Apple , not far from the Margaret Sanger Center .
The “ intersectional approach ” aims to act as a “ reclamation of space ” in the body politic , according to its co-curator Jasmine Wahi : Those involved hope that the pieces will be bought , with the proceeds going to the super PAC Downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election efforts .
Despite the many iterations of “ Abortion Is ” sayings out there ( health care , moral ) , the use of the word “ normal ” got pushback from some on the left , who felt that the subject matter shouldn ’ t be taken lightly .
( Artnet called the title “ provocative.
” ) “ We wanted to look at abortion from a health-care procedure—any health-care procedure you do that is your choice to do should be considered normalized and not stigmatized , ” Wahi said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it , but tactically it ’ s rather foolish as well , as we shall soon see .
Wahi and her colleagues were having none of that talk , however , declaring that only the “ right wing ” was responsible for making abortion anathema : “ The fact that people were objecting to the name ‘ Abortion is Normal , ’ was kind of stunning for us , because women have been getting abortions for millennia , ” the artist Marilyn Minter said .
“ And it ’ s normal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the right wing has made abortion toxic.
” “ They coopted the language , ” Laurie Simmons said .
“ They ’ ve taken the language and used words like ‘ murder , ’ ‘ guilt , ’ and ‘ shame.
’ ” Go figure that a “ normal ” action that kills another human life would cause people to use precisely those words .
People have been doing a lot of things for millennia , but that doesn ’ t make them normal or right .
We have laws against most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them — like murder , theft , and assault , for instance .
Guilt and shame are natural consequences to such acts , and are not just words coming from the “ right wing ” but from women themselves who live to regret their abortions .
Increasingly , those also come from abortion-industry workers who finally leave places like Planned Parenthood , such as Abby Johnson .
Tactically , though , attempting to call abortion “ normal ” leaves the field wide open for rebuttals .
An anonymous group of activists responded on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pictures taken from the Philadelphia grand jury report on Kermit Gosnell under the banner “ Abortion is NOT normal.
” One of the activists contacted me with the information and some pictures of the artwork on the street .
Note : Some of the images below are graphic and disturbing : Early Friday morning , anonymous activists decorated the New York gallery hosting the “ Abortion is Normal ” art show with posters strongly refuting that sentiment .
The large posters pasted around the gallery show the image of a nearly full-term baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gosnell .
Text in the style of Barbara Kruger — an artist participating in the exhibit — reads : “ Abortion is NOT normal ” and “ This is now legal in New York.
” For the last month , the “ Abortion Is Normal ” exhibit was on display at two galleries in Manhattan and advertised as “ an urgent call-to-action exhibition to raise both awareness and funding in support of accessible , safe , and legal abortion.
” Artists ’ statement : “ None of the high-profile artists featured in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to depicting the reality of the act they profess to love so much , so we took it upon ourselves to do it for them .
You ’ re welcome.
” I ’ ll put the pictures in thumbnail mode .
Click on them to expand : Most likely , this is why some on the Left objected to the theme of the show , as well as its ( mostly ) soft-focus art .
The reality of abortion , and its newly unrestricted legality in New York until the moment of birth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , and for good reason .
It ’ s the same reason this counterprotest didn ’ t generate much coverage — because the reality of abortion is that it kills a unique human life .
That may be many things , but it ’ s not “ health care , ” and it ’ s NOT normal .

The cultural push to paint abortion as unremarkable and routine health care took an artistic twist three weeks ago in New York City. As the Daily Beast reported at the time, a art project called Abortion is Normal launched in the Big Apple, not far from the Margaret Sanger Center. The “intersectional approach” aims to act as a “reclamation of space” in the body politic, according to its co-curator Jasmine Wahi:
Those involved hope that the pieces will be bought, with the proceeds going to the super PAC Downtown for Democracy and Planned Parenthood’s 2020 election efforts. Despite the many iterations of “Abortion Is” sayings out there (health care, moral), the use of the word “normal” got pushback from some on the left, who felt that the subject matter shouldn’t be taken lightly. (Artnet called the title “provocative.”) “We wanted to look at abortion from a health-care procedure—any health-care procedure you do that is your choice to do should be considered normalized and not stigmatized,” Wahi said.
“Provocative” is one word for it, but tactically it’s rather foolish as well, as we shall soon see. Wahi and her colleagues were having none of that talk, however, declaring that only the “right wing” was responsible for making abortion anathema:
“The fact that people were objecting to the name ‘Abortion is Normal,’ was kind of stunning for us, because women have been getting abortions for millennia,” the artist Marilyn Minter said. “And it’s normal. It’s always been normal, but the right wing has made abortion toxic.” “They coopted the language,” Laurie Simmons said. “They’ve taken the language and used words like ‘murder,’ ‘guilt,’ and ‘shame.’”
Go figure that a “normal” action that kills another human life would cause people to use precisely those words. People have been doing a lot of things for millennia, but that doesn’t make them normal or right. We have laws against most of them, but people still do them — like murder, theft, and assault, for instance. Guilt and shame are natural consequences to such acts, and are not just words coming from the “right wing” but from women themselves who live to regret their abortions. Increasingly, those also come from abortion-industry workers who finally leave places like Planned Parenthood, such as Abby Johnson.
Tactically, though, attempting to call abortion “normal” leaves the field wide open for rebuttals. An anonymous group of activists responded on Friday to the art project, posting pictures taken from the Philadelphia grand jury report on Kermit Gosnell under the banner “Abortion is NOT normal.”One of the activists contacted me with the information and some pictures of the artwork on the street.
Note: Some of the images below are graphic and disturbing:
Early Friday morning, anonymous activists decorated the New York gallery hosting the “Abortion is Normal” art show with posters strongly refuting that sentiment. The large posters pasted around the gallery show the image of a nearly full-term baby girl aborted by convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. Text in the style of Barbara Kruger — an artist participating in the exhibit — reads: “Abortion is NOT normal” and “This is now legal in New York.” For the last month, the “Abortion Is Normal” exhibit was on display at two galleries in Manhattan and advertised as “an urgent call-to-action exhibition to raise both awareness and funding in support of accessible, safe, and legal abortion.” Artists’ statement: “None of the high-profile artists featured in “Abortion Is Normal” even came close to depicting the reality of the act they profess to love so much, so we took it upon ourselves to do it for them. You’re welcome.”
I’ll put the pictures in thumbnail mode. Click on them to expand:
Most likely, this is why some on the Left objected to the theme of the show, as well as its (mostly) soft-focus art. The reality of abortion, and its newly unrestricted legality in New York until the moment of birth, is never depicted in this art show, and for good reason. It’s the same reason this counterprotest didn’t generate much coverage — because the reality of abortion is that it kills a unique human life. That may be many things, but it’s not “health care,” and it’s NOT normal.


hotair--2020-02-03--"It was not a perfect call": C'mon, let's censure Trump, says Joe Manchin

Not for a moment do I think Senate Republicans will allow a vote on a censure resolution if they can prevent one , knowing the headache it ’ ll create for their own vulnerable incumbents .
What do you do with a censure resolution if you ’ re Susan Collins or Cory Gardner ?
The logical thing for a purple-state senator would be to vote yes and pair that with a vote for acquittal on the actual articles of impeachment , offering a little something to partisans on each side .
Yes , Democratic voters , what Trump did was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ re right that it ’ s not a high crime or misdemeanor .
But of course that won ’ t work in a hyperpartisan age .
Trump would go berserk at the show of “ disloyalty ” in supporting a censure resolution .
And Democrats would rage that censure is a meaningless fig leaf designed to give gutless Republicans political cover on their vote for acquittal .
Trying to please both sides in 2020 means alienating both sides .
So GOPers will block this , or will try to .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered it during the impeachment trial somehow ? )
But as I said earlier , it makes sense to me that Dems would want to force the issue in the press if only to make Republicans like Alexander and Murkowski have to answer uncomfortable questions about it .
“ You ’ ve said in interviews that what the president did was ‘ inappropriate.
’ So why then aren ’ t you willing to say that in a formal resolution ?
Do you fear that the president and his fans might put your heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you did ?
” Because they should fear that , you know .
I ’ d take Manchin ’ s interest in a censure resolution as a very bad sign if I were Schumer , though .
It ’ s a clue that he ’ s reluctant to vote for removal and is looking for a half-measure to try to satisfy West Virginia ’ s Democratic minority .
Even if Schumer could force a censure vote , by doing so he ’ d be giving Manchin a way out of having to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s *likely* to acquit Trump as-is , but if he has censure to fall back on as an alternative then an acquittal vote is assured .
In fact , although he claimed he ’ s still undecided , he did little to disguise how he intends to vote in his floor speech about this a few hours ago , as you ’ ll see below .
We must stand for the proposition that the president isn ’ t above the law , he intones … before declaring that removing Trump would be poisonous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no path to the 67 votes needed to make it happen in any case .
I wonder which way he ’ ll go .
He already has a draft censure resolution in the works : The legislation argues that Trump “ used the office of the president of the United States to attempt to compel a foreign nation to interfere with domestic political affairs for his own personal benefit ” and says Trump “ wrongfully enlisted his personal lawyer to investigate a domestic political rival by meddling in formal diplomatic relations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established National Security Strategy.
” It adds that “ Trump hindered the thorough investigation of related documents and prohibited Congress and the American people from hearing testimony by first-hand witnesses with direct knowledge of his conduct.
” That ’ d be a heavy lift for many Republicans .
They ’ d be okay with wrist-slapping Trump for Giuliani ’ s involvement in this , I think , but accusing him of squeezing Ukraine “ for his own personal benefit ” would blow up the “ fighting corruption ” narrative that the president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to .
And the bit about obstructing Congress might not fly because Trump ’ s claims of executive privilege remain untested in court .
One could argue that it ’ s for the legislature , not the judiciary , to decide when the legislature ’ s work has been obstructed .
But as a political matter , how can you get Republicans to censure the president for unlawfully blocking witnesses without a judge declaring it unlawful first ?
Manchin also claims in his speech that censure would attract a bipartisan majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasis on “ may.
” Romney would vote for it .
Collins probably would , aiming to appease Dems in Maine .
Would Murkowski and Alexander and Rob Portman or would they just tremble and yammer that “ the p-p-p-people should decide in November ” ?
Who are the four Republicans willing to walk the plank on even an empty gesture of disapproval of His Majesty ?

Not for a moment do I think Senate Republicans will allow a vote on a censure resolution if they can prevent one, knowing the headache it’ll create for their own vulnerable incumbents. What do you do with a censure resolution if you’re Susan Collins or Cory Gardner? The logical thing for a purple-state senator would be to vote yes and pair that with a vote for acquittal on the actual articles of impeachment, offering a little something to partisans on each side. Yes, Democratic voters, what Trump did was bad. But yes, Republican voters, you’re right that it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor.
But of course that won’t work in a hyperpartisan age. Trump would go berserk at the show of “disloyalty” in supporting a censure resolution. And Democrats would rage that censure is a meaningless fig leaf designed to give gutless Republicans political cover on their vote for acquittal. Trying to please both sides in 2020 means alienating both sides.
So GOPers will block this, or will try to. (Could they block it if Democrats offered it during the impeachment trial somehow?) But as I said earlier, it makes sense to me that Dems would want to force the issue in the press if only to make Republicans like Alexander and Murkowski have to answer uncomfortable questions about it. “You’ve said in interviews that what the president did was ‘inappropriate.’ So why then aren’t you willing to say that in a formal resolution? Do you fear that the president and his fans might put your heads on pikes, figuratively speaking, if you did?”
Because they should fear that, you know.
I’d take Manchin’s interest in a censure resolution as a very bad sign if I were Schumer, though. It’s a clue that he’s reluctant to vote for removal and is looking for a half-measure to try to satisfy West Virginia’s Democratic minority. Even if Schumer could force a censure vote, by doing so he’d be giving Manchin a way out of having to make a decision on removal. Manchin’s *likely* to acquit Trump as-is, but if he has censure to fall back on as an alternative then an acquittal vote is assured. In fact, although he claimed he’s still undecided, he did little to disguise how he intends to vote in his floor speech about this a few hours ago, as you’ll see below. We must stand for the proposition that the president isn’t above the law, he intones … before declaring that removing Trump would be poisonous to the country and that there’s no path to the 67 votes needed to make it happen in any case. I wonder which way he’ll go.
He already has a draft censure resolution in the works:
The legislation argues that Trump “used the office of the president of the United States to attempt to compel a foreign nation to interfere with domestic political affairs for his own personal benefit” and says Trump “wrongfully enlisted his personal lawyer to investigate a domestic political rival by meddling in formal diplomatic relations in a manner that is inconsistent with our established National Security Strategy.” It adds that “Trump hindered the thorough investigation of related documents and prohibited Congress and the American people from hearing testimony by first-hand witnesses with direct knowledge of his conduct.”
That’d be a heavy lift for many Republicans. They’d be okay with wrist-slapping Trump for Giuliani’s involvement in this, I think, but accusing him of squeezing Ukraine “for his own personal benefit” would blow up the “fighting corruption” narrative that the president has been eager for Senate Republicans to stick to. And the bit about obstructing Congress might not fly because Trump’s claims of executive privilege remain untested in court. One could argue that it’s for the legislature, not the judiciary, to decide when the legislature’s work has been obstructed. But as a political matter, how can you get Republicans to censure the president for unlawfully blocking witnesses without a judge declaring it unlawful first?
Manchin also claims in his speech that censure would attract a bipartisan majority of the chamber. That may be true — emphasis on “may.”
Sen. Joe Manchin proposes censure as an option for the Senate to take against Trump. Every Republican I spoke to summarily shot down that idea today. "Too late. It's too late," Sen. Roy Blunt said. — Sarah D. Wire (@sarahdwire) February 3, 2020
Romney would vote for it. Collins probably would, aiming to appease Dems in Maine. Would Murkowski and Alexander and Rob Portman or would they just tremble and yammer that “the p-p-p-people should decide in November”? Who are the four Republicans willing to walk the plank on even an empty gesture of disapproval of His Majesty?
Here’s Manchin pleading his case.


hotair--2020-02-03--Pew Research: Dems on Twitter are more liberal and more likely to support Warren, Sanders

Twitter is not the real world .
If you ’ ve spent any time on Twitter arguing about politics then you probably already know this .
But a new survey by Pew Research has confirmed that Democrats on Twitter are both further to the left and less interested in finding middle-ground with Republicans than Democrats who don ’ t use the platform .
A 56 % majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who use Twitter describe their political views as liberal or very liberal .
This share is substantially larger than the 41 % of non-Twitter Democrats who describe themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on and off Twitter extend beyond ideology .
About two-thirds of Democrats who do not use Twitter ( 65 % ) say it is more important for a Democratic candidate to seek common ground with Republicans , even if it means giving up some things Democrats want .
A smaller share of Twitter-using Democrats ( 54 % ) take this view ; 45 % prefer a candidate who will push hard for policies Democrats want , even if it makes it much harder to get some things done .
Naturally , this divide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Twitter progressives being far more likely to support Sanders or Warren : Democrats on Twitter are 11 points less likely to name Joe Biden as their first choice for the nomination than Democrats who are not on Twitter .
By contrast , candidates such as Elizabeth Warren ( +8 ) and Bernie Sanders ( +7 ) receive higher levels of support among Twitter-using Democrats than among those who are not Twitter users .
For Biden and Warren , differences in support between Twitter users and non-users hold even after accounting for factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology .
Here ’ s a chart put together by Pew to show the on vs. off Twitter comparison for leading candidates : As you can see , Bernie Sanders is getting overwhelming support on Twitter , especially from Dems who are not register to vote ( bottom row ) .
Meanwhile , Biden has a strong advantage over Sanders among Dems who are a ) not on Twitter and b ) registered to vote ( middle row ) .
The important point is that there are more Dems who are not on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month the Atlantic pointed to this same divide and proclaimed Twitter a progressive bubble , a place where Jeremy Corbyn was expected to win the UK election and where , even after his resounding loss , many on the left found it hard to accept .
The potential impact of this echo chamber on American politics seem obvious .
As Jonathan Chait has argued , a group of progressives on Twitter believe Bernie Sanders can win a general election by running hard left on every issue .
That ’ s true even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is setting the party up for disaster this November .
But recent polls have shown Sanders is surging in the real world .
We ’ ll have to wait just over a week to see if the results in Iowa and New Hampshire show as much strength for Sanders as his support online would suggest .

Twitter is not the real world. If you’ve spent any time on Twitter arguing about politics then you probably already know this. But a new survey by Pew Research has confirmed that Democrats on Twitter are both further to the left and less interested in finding middle-ground with Republicans than Democrats who don’t use the platform.
A 56% majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who use Twitter describe their political views as liberal or very liberal. This share is substantially larger than the 41% of non-Twitter Democrats who describe themselves in this way. Differences between Democrats on and off Twitter extend beyond ideology. About two-thirds of Democrats who do not use Twitter (65%) say it is more important for a Democratic candidate to seek common ground with Republicans, even if it means giving up some things Democrats want. A smaller share of Twitter-using Democrats (54%) take this view; 45% prefer a candidate who will push hard for policies Democrats want, even if it makes it much harder to get some things done.
Naturally, this divide winds up shaping who Democrats support, with Twitter progressives being far more likely to support Sanders or Warren:
Democrats on Twitter are 11 points less likely to name Joe Biden as their first choice for the nomination than Democrats who are not on Twitter. By contrast, candidates such as Elizabeth Warren (+8) and Bernie Sanders (+7) receive higher levels of support among Twitter-using Democrats than among those who are not Twitter users. For Biden and Warren, differences in support between Twitter users and non-users hold even after accounting for factors such as age, education and political ideology.
Here’s a chart put together by Pew to show the on vs. off Twitter comparison for leading candidates:
As you can see, Bernie Sanders is getting overwhelming support on Twitter, especially from Dems who are not register to vote (bottom row). Meanwhile, Biden has a strong advantage over Sanders among Dems who are a) not on Twitter and b) registered to vote (middle row). The important point is that there are more Dems who are not on Twitter as those who are.
Last month the Atlantic pointed to this same divide and proclaimed Twitter a progressive bubble, a place where Jeremy Corbyn was expected to win the UK election and where, even after his resounding loss, many on the left found it hard to accept. The potential impact of this echo chamber on American politics seem obvious. As Jonathan Chait has argued, a group of progressives on Twitter believe Bernie Sanders can win a general election by running hard left on every issue. That’s true even though some moderate Democrats are warning that Sanders is setting the party up for disaster this November.
But recent polls have shown Sanders is surging in the real world. We’ll have to wait just over a week to see if the results in Iowa and New Hampshire show as much strength for Sanders as his support online would suggest.