hotair--2020-01-23--Mexican National Guard stops caravan on the road north

The latest caravan of Honduran migrants has been turned back once again after crossing the river at another spot and walking several hours north .
Today ’ s crossing of the Mexican border began before it was light : Thursday ’ s movement was a resurgence of a migrant caravan that had been diminishing since its last concerted attempt to cross the border Monday was turned back by Mexican National Guardsmen posted along Suchiate river , which forms the border here .
The migrants awoke with a plan Thursday .
By 4:30 a.m. they had all packed their belongings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They would not cross where Mexican authorities were posted across the river .
They prayed for about an hour before leaving and then walked upriver on the Guatemala side in the dark to near another bridge that handles commercial traffic between the two countries .
There were no Mexican authorities on the opposite bank .
The migrants crossed the river and were allowed to walk six miles north at which point they were confronted by the Mexican National Guard .
The guardsmen paused and met with a spokeman for the caravan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in and either apply for legal status to remain in Mexico or accept a bus or plane ride home .
But the migrants want free passage through Mexico so they can enter the United States .
At that point the guardsmen continued their advance .
As you can see in this clip , the migrants did not back away but actually pushed forward and tried to break through the line .
This was a shoving match in the road .
After this the migrants were rounded up and put on buses : Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ escorted to the buses without resistance .
Women cradling small children or holding kids ’ hands wept as they walked toward the buses .
Others resisted and were subdued by guardsmen .
One man dragged by four guardsmen shouted “ they killed my brother , I don ’ t want to die , ” presumably in reference to the possibility of being returned to his country .
Again , Mexico has offered a chance to remain in the country for many of these migrants but they don ’ t want asylum or work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the past this type of crackdown on migrants passing through the country on their way to the US would be cause for a backlash in Mexico , but that doesn ’ t seem to be the case this time .
The AP reports that the latest caravan is getting plenty of media attention but most people have other things to worry about : The hundreds of Central American migrants walking north in southern Mexico have received steady media coverage in Mexico , but with sky high murders , a stagnant economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrés Manuel López Obrador ’ s aggressive efforts to stop them hasn ’ t stirred a widespread reaction… Coming from a country with a long history of emigration , Mexicans generally have a great deal of empathy for the Central American migrants passing through the country .
During the first caravans in 2018 , townspeople turned out along the caravan ’ s path to provide food and water .
But as more caravans came the attitude began to change , especially in places that had few resources to begin with .
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
Small groups of people were always passing on their way north .
People who lived along the train tracks the migrants walked on talk about providing a plate of food or assistance in an emergency .
But the caravans are different .
Thousands of people suddenly descend on a sleepy town and set up camp in the town square .
Even with all of the push back on caravans in Mexico the US is still seeing something like 1,000 illegal border crossings per day .
We saw last summer the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exceeds 3,000 per day .
Our system is simply not set up to handle that many people .

The latest caravan of Honduran migrants has been turned back once again after crossing the river at another spot and walking several hours north. Today’s crossing of the Mexican border began before it was light:
Thursday’s movement was a resurgence of a migrant caravan that had been diminishing since its last concerted attempt to cross the border Monday was turned back by Mexican National Guardsmen posted along Suchiate river, which forms the border here. The migrants awoke with a plan Thursday. By 4:30 a.m. they had all packed their belongings and were just awaiting the call to move. They would not cross where Mexican authorities were posted across the river. They prayed for about an hour before leaving and then walked upriver on the Guatemala side in the dark to near another bridge that handles commercial traffic between the two countries. There were no Mexican authorities on the opposite bank.
The migrants crossed the river and were allowed to walk six miles north at which point they were confronted by the Mexican National Guard. The guardsmen paused and met with a spokeman for the caravan. They recommended that the migrants turn themselves in and either apply for legal status to remain in Mexico or accept a bus or plane ride home. But the migrants want free passage through Mexico so they can enter the United States. At that point the guardsmen continued their advance. As you can see in this clip, the migrants did not back away but actually pushed forward and tried to break through the line. This was a shoving match in the road.
Decenas de agentes de la Guardia Nacional cercan a migrantes que se encontraban en un punto de la carretera entre Ciudad Hidalgo y Tapachula, en Chiapas. 📹 : @albertopradilla. https://t.co/nNCGqjEkdL pic.twitter.com/cuO2B1Kw2M — AnimalPolitico.com (@Pajaropolitico) January 23, 2020
After this the migrants were rounded up and put on buses:
Many of the people allowed themselves to be escorted to the buses without resistance. Women cradling small children or holding kids’ hands wept as they walked toward the buses. Others resisted and were subdued by guardsmen. One man dragged by four guardsmen shouted “they killed my brother, I don’t want to die,” presumably in reference to the possibility of being returned to his country.
Again, Mexico has offered a chance to remain in the country for many of these migrants but they don’t want asylum or work there, they want it here.
In the past this type of crackdown on migrants passing through the country on their way to the US would be cause for a backlash in Mexico, but that doesn’t seem to be the case this time. The AP reports that the latest caravan is getting plenty of media attention but most people have other things to worry about:
The hundreds of Central American migrants walking north in southern Mexico have received steady media coverage in Mexico, but with sky high murders, a stagnant economy and corruption topping the national agenda, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s aggressive efforts to stop them hasn’t stirred a widespread reaction… Coming from a country with a long history of emigration, Mexicans generally have a great deal of empathy for the Central American migrants passing through the country. During the first caravans in 2018, townspeople turned out along the caravan’s path to provide food and water. But as more caravans came the attitude began to change, especially in places that had few resources to begin with. For many Mexicans, migration had been a quiet reality. Small groups of people were always passing on their way north. People who lived along the train tracks the migrants walked on talk about providing a plate of food or assistance in an emergency. But the caravans are different. Thousands of people suddenly descend on a sleepy town and set up camp in the town square.
Even with all of the push back on caravans in Mexico the US is still seeing something like 1,000 illegal border crossings per day. We saw last summer the kind of chaos that occurs when that number exceeds 3,000 per day. Our system is simply not set up to handle that many people.


hotair--2020-01-23--Rand Paul: I estimate we have 45 Republicans ready to support a motion to dismiss

A leftover from yesterday that ’ s gotten a surprising amount of attention online .
I ’ m sure he ’ s right that 45 Republicans or thereabouts would support a motion to dismiss , or do whatever else Trump wants them to do .
But has that ever been in doubt ?
The trick isn ’ t convincing a large Republican minority in the Senate to support dismissal .
The trick is convincing the eight or so centrists holdouts that it ’ s in their political interest to support dismissal too .
How do you do that ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re all planning on voting for acquittal anyway and there ’ s little to be gained time-wise by supporting a motion to dismiss instead of a plain ol ’ verdict on the merits ?
If Collins and the other centrists want a quick trial , they don ’ t need to support dismissal of the articles of impeachment .
All they need to do is decline to call witnesses .
The whole thing will be over in two weeks .
Like I said a few days ago , the way the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never a good time to try to get the charges dismissed except right up front , before opening arguments .
The GOP declined to do that and so now they ’ re stuck hearing the arguments of both sides and then , almost certainly , enduring a 16-hour period for senators ’ questions .
Then Rand might realistically offer a motion to dismiss , at the moment that the Senate is considering whether to call witnesses .
But again , why would the centrists opt for dismissal at that point when they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the trial will be over in a few days anyway ?
All that would be left is closing arguments .
Just push on to the verdict and acquit Trump on the merits .
If instead you opt for dismissal , you hand the Democrats an easy talking point that Collins and the RINOs were so eager to participate in a cover up that they couldn ’ t bear to actually deliberate over the evidence .
Sham !
There *is* news here , though .
A few days ago Paul seemed disinclined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowing that the votes weren ’ t there .
Now , however , it sounds like he ’ s resolved to offer one .
Eventually .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) , a leading ally of President Trump , said Wednesday that 45 Republicans are ready to dismiss the charges against the president and he would keep pushing to rally a majority of GOP senators to end the impeachment trial .
“ There are 45 , with about five to eight wanting to hear a little more , ” Paul said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I still would like to dismiss it , but there aren ’ t the votes to do it just yet.
” … “ I will push it at some point , ” Paul said .
“ The more Adam Schiff speaks , the more we become unified.
” It ’ s easy to guess at least five who are reluctant : Collins , Murkowski , Romney , Lamar Alexander , and probably Cory Gardner .
Gardner might eventually support a motion to dismiss to ingratiate himself to Trump fans since he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I don ’ t know that any of the four ever would .
Especially since calling witnesses and dismissing the articles is effectively an either/or choice .
You ’ re not going to call John Bolton and Hunter Biden , hear their testimony , and then vote for dismissal .
You ’ d just proceed to a verdict at that point .
If there are four Republican votes to hear witnesses then the motion to dismiss is doomed .
And if there aren ’ t four Republican votes to hear witnesses then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway , fearing that they ’ d only antagonize swing voters more by doing that .
If they ’ re not going to hear from Bolton and Biden then they at least want the rest of the process to seem diligent , which means closing arguments and deliberations and verdict .
Not tossing the articles of impeachment in the trash .
All of which means that McConnell ’ s not going to be keen on letting Paul force this vote .
It ’ s one thing to compel the RINOs to take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be gained from it .
But when it amounts to nothing much more than MAGA virtue-signaling , giving the populists in the caucus a chance to show their eagerness to own the libs by dismissing the articles of impeachment outright , that ’ s a dumb risky vote .
The sort that might lead to fewer Republicans in the Senate next year from battleground states .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s an amusing bit of impeachment-themed trolling from Bill Kristol ’ s anti-Trump PAC .
They built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence ?
” concept too .

A leftover from yesterday that’s gotten a surprising amount of attention online. I’m sure he’s right that 45 Republicans or thereabouts would support a motion to dismiss, or do whatever else Trump wants them to do.
But has that ever been in doubt? The trick isn’t convincing a large Republican minority in the Senate to support dismissal. The trick is convincing the eight or so centrists holdouts that it’s in their political interest to support dismissal too. How do you do that?
In particular, how you do that when they’re all planning on voting for acquittal anyway and there’s little to be gained time-wise by supporting a motion to dismiss instead of a plain ol’ verdict on the merits? If Collins and the other centrists want a quick trial, they don’t need to support dismissal of the articles of impeachment. All they need to do is decline to call witnesses. The whole thing will be over in two weeks. Like I said a few days ago, the way the trial is organized there’s really never a good time to try to get the charges dismissed except right up front, before opening arguments. The GOP declined to do that and so now they’re stuck hearing the arguments of both sides and then, almost certainly, enduring a 16-hour period for senators’ questions. Then Rand might realistically offer a motion to dismiss, at the moment that the Senate is considering whether to call witnesses.
But again, why would the centrists opt for dismissal at that point when they could just decline to call anyone and know that the trial will be over in a few days anyway? All that would be left is closing arguments. Just push on to the verdict and acquit Trump on the merits. If instead you opt for dismissal, you hand the Democrats an easy talking point that Collins and the RINOs were so eager to participate in a cover up that they couldn’t bear to actually deliberate over the evidence. Sham!
There *is* news here, though. A few days ago Paul seemed disinclined to even offer a motion to dismiss, knowing that the votes weren’t there. Now, however, it sounds like he’s resolved to offer one. Eventually.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading ally of President Trump, said Wednesday that 45 Republicans are ready to dismiss the charges against the president and he would keep pushing to rally a majority of GOP senators to end the impeachment trial. “There are 45, with about five to eight wanting to hear a little more,” Paul said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I still would like to dismiss it, but there aren’t the votes to do it just yet.”… “I will push it at some point,” Paul said. “The more Adam Schiff speaks, the more we become unified.”
It’s easy to guess at least five who are reluctant: Collins, Murkowski, Romney, Lamar Alexander, and probably Cory Gardner. Gardner might eventually support a motion to dismiss to ingratiate himself to Trump fans since he’s worried about his base in Colorado but I don’t know that any of the four ever would. Especially since calling witnesses and dismissing the articles is effectively an either/or choice. You’re not going to call John Bolton and Hunter Biden, hear their testimony, and then vote for dismissal. You’d just proceed to a verdict at that point. If there are four Republican votes to hear witnesses then the motion to dismiss is doomed.
And if there aren’t four Republican votes to hear witnesses then the centrists will oppose dismissing the charges anyway, fearing that they’d only antagonize swing voters more by doing that. If they’re not going to hear from Bolton and Biden then they at least want the rest of the process to seem diligent, which means closing arguments and deliberations and verdict. Not tossing the articles of impeachment in the trash.
All of which means that McConnell’s not going to be keen on letting Paul force this vote. It’s one thing to compel the RINOs to take a risky vote when there’s something to be gained from it. But when it amounts to nothing much more than MAGA virtue-signaling, giving the populists in the caucus a chance to show their eagerness to own the libs by dismissing the articles of impeachment outright, that’s a dumb risky vote. The sort that might lead to fewer Republicans in the Senate next year from battleground states.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s an amusing bit of impeachment-themed trolling from Bill Kristol’s anti-Trump PAC. They built a tongue-in-cheek website around the “President Pence?” concept too.


hotair--2020-01-23--Justice Department concludes it lacked legal basis for surveillance of Carter Page

The fallout from the Inspector General ’ s report on the Carter Page FISA warrant continues .
The Wall Street Journal reports that last month the DOJ sent a letter to the court admitting it lacked sufficient probable cause to support two of the surveillance renewals on Page : The Justice Department now believes it should have discontinued its secret surveillance of one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page far earlier than it did , according to a new court filing unsealed Thursday… The Justice Department now appears to have concluded that there was “ insufficient predication to establish probable cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 .
In case you ’ ve forgotten the details , the FBI applied for a secret surveillance warrant on Carter Page in October 2016 .
Under the law , surveillance warrants have to be renewed every three months .
So the warrant on page was extended three times in January , April , and June of 2017 .
According to this report , the DOJ no longer believes the April and June extensions should have happened .
Here ’ s Page ’ s reaction via the Washington Post : Page said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America ’ s deeply damaged judicial system .
I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.
” … The department ’ s concession is validating for conservatives who had long criticized the surveillance of Page , and it is likely to fuel continued attacks on the Russia probe , which was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s order , the department concluded that its final two orders to surveil Page “ were not valid.
” It did not take a position on whether the first two orders were similarly flawed , according to the court ’ s order .
All of this stems from the DOJ Inspector General report released last month which identified 17 problems with the FBI ’ s warrant application to the FISA court .
The errors were significant enough that even the ACLU called them “ alarming from a civil liberties perspective.
” In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court issued a letter demanding that the FBI come up with a process to ensure similar errors didn ’ t happen again .
The FBI complied and produced a plan by the deadline and the FISA Court selected an outside reviewer to look at the FBI ’ s proposals .
David Kris , the person chosen by the court to handle the review , had formerly backed the warrants on Carter Page and even attacked Devin Nunes over the “ Nunes memo , ” leading some to suspect a whitewash was about to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review last week and concluded that the FBI ’ s proposals did not go far enough : Kris does not defend the FBI ’ s actions surveilling Page in his response , saying bluntly that nobody is disputing that “ basic , fundamental , and serious errors ” were found in the Page warrant requests .
Kris worries that Wray ’ s plan doesn ’ t really account for what procedures will be used with surveillance requests that intersect with political campaigns .
And while Kris does support the improvements that Wray has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go further .
He is calling for better communication between the FBI and Justice Department attorneys , which in this case partly contributed to the information gaps in the warrant applications .
Kris also suggests the possibility of having field agents , not just agents working at FBI headquarters , signing onto warrant applications or at least requiring them to attest to the court to the facts that are in the warrant application .
Field agents might be more likely to notice an important omission .
Kris also says the court should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on training participation rates and test scores .
The court could , in turn , prohibit FBI agents who haven ’ t successfully completed FISA warrant from signing on as declarants ; at the very least , the court would know to bring an extra level of skepticism .
Finally , there ’ s an even larger question that IG Horowitz is investigating right now .
Did the FBI submit similarly shoddy warrant applications to the FISA Court in other cases .
We ’ ll probably have to wait a few more months @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The fallout from the Inspector General’s report on the Carter Page FISA warrant continues. The Wall Street Journal reports that last month the DOJ sent a letter to the court admitting it lacked sufficient probable cause to support two of the surveillance renewals on Page:
The Justice Department now believes it should have discontinued its secret surveillance of one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page far earlier than it did, according to a new court filing unsealed Thursday… The Justice Department now appears to have concluded that there was “insufficient predication to establish probable cause” in the last two renewals in 2017.
In case you’ve forgotten the details, the FBI applied for a secret surveillance warrant on Carter Page in October 2016. Under the law, surveillance warrants have to be renewed every three months. So the warrant on page was extended three times in January, April, and June of 2017. According to this report, the DOJ no longer believes the April and June extensions should have happened. Here’s Page’s reaction via the Washington Post:
Page said in a statement: “Today’s unprecedented court filing represents another step on the road to recovery for America’s deeply damaged judicial system. I hope that this latest admission of guilt for these civil rights abuses by the Justice Department marks continued progress towards restoring justice and remedying these reputationally ruinous injuries.”… The department’s concession is validating for conservatives who had long criticized the surveillance of Page, and it is likely to fuel continued attacks on the Russia probe, which was eventually taken over by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. According to the court’s order, the department concluded that its final two orders to surveil Page “were not valid.” It did not take a position on whether the first two orders were similarly flawed, according to the court’s order.
All of this stems from the DOJ Inspector General report released last month which identified 17 problems with the FBI’s warrant application to the FISA court. The errors were significant enough that even the ACLU called them “alarming from a civil liberties perspective.”
In the wake of the report, the FISA Court issued a letter demanding that the FBI come up with a process to ensure similar errors didn’t happen again. The FBI complied and produced a plan by the deadline and the FISA Court selected an outside reviewer to look at the FBI’s proposals.
David Kris, the person chosen by the court to handle the review, had formerly backed the warrants on Carter Page and even attacked Devin Nunes over the “Nunes memo,” leading some to suspect a whitewash was about to take place. But Kris submitted his review last week and concluded that the FBI’s proposals did not go far enough:
Kris does not defend the FBI’s actions surveilling Page in his response, saying bluntly that nobody is disputing that “basic, fundamental, and serious errors” were found in the Page warrant requests. Kris worries that Wray’s plan doesn’t really account for what procedures will be used with surveillance requests that intersect with political campaigns. And while Kris does support the improvements that Wray has listed, he says the FBI needs to go further. He is calling for better communication between the FBI and Justice Department attorneys, which in this case partly contributed to the information gaps in the warrant applications. Kris also suggests the possibility of having field agents, not just agents working at FBI headquarters, signing onto warrant applications or at least requiring them to attest to the court to the facts that are in the warrant application. Field agents might be more likely to notice an important omission. Kris also says the court should require that the FBI regularly submit reports on training participation rates and test scores. The court could, in turn, prohibit FBI agents who haven’t successfully completed FISA warrant from signing on as declarants; at the very least, the court would know to bring an extra level of skepticism.
Finally, there’s an even larger question that IG Horowitz is investigating right now. Did the FBI submit similarly shoddy warrant applications to the FISA Court in other cases. We’ll probably have to wait a few more months for his answers to that question.


hotair--2020-01-23--"I was trying to get him off of me": Weinstein violently raped me, Sciorra tells jury

It ’ s too late to charge Harvey Weinstein with rape in Annabella Sciorra ’ s case , but it ’ s not too late for her testimony to paint him as a serial predator .
Sciorra testified in court today that the Hollywood megaproducer violently raped her , pinning her down while forcing himself upon her in Sciorra ’ s apartment 25 years ago .
Weinstein faces five counts of sexual assault in more recent incidents , but Sciorra ’ s testimony may be among the most damning : They met at a party in Los Angeles .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He was a young producer .
As they got to know each other over the next four years , there were , she said , some “ inappropriate ” gestures : a care package of popcorn and Valium , a box of chocolate penises .
Then , Annabella Sciorra said on the witness stand on Thursday , Harvey Weinstein raped her .
Fighting back tears , Ms. Sciorra testified in excruciating detail to a rapt courtroom about the night she says she was attacked .
After shoving his way into her Gramercy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Weinstein took her to a bedroom , forced her onto a bed and , as she sought to fight him off , sexually assaulted her .
“ I was trying to get him off me , ” a tearful Ms. Sciorra told the jury .
“ I was punching him , kicking him.
” But Mr. Weinstein held her down , she said , adding : “ He got on top of me and he raped me.
” Weinstein apparently thought he ’ d get a second shot at Sciorra , as she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door in Cannes wearing nothing but his underwear and carrying a bottle of baby oil .
Sciorra testified that she “ started pressing all the buttons for service and people came ” to get away .
Weinstein continued to ask Sciorra to “ breakfast meetings ” regardless , which she declined .
Shortly after the rape , Weinstein made it clear that Sciorra needed to keep her mouth shut about it , she testified : She said she confronted Weinstein at a restaurant two to six weeks later .
“ I tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I told him how I woke up and that I ’ d blacked out , and he said , ‘ That ’ s what all the nice Catholic girls say , ’ ” she said .
“ And then he leaned into me and said , ‘ This remains between you and I.
’ It was very menacing , his eyes were black , and I thought he was going to hit me right there .
It was threatening and I was afraid , ” she said .
The statute of limitations has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the prosecution fought to get Sciorra ’ s testimony in to establish his pattern of predation .
Weinstein ’ s legal team has fought tooth and nail to exclude it and any other mentions of predatory behavior , going so far yesterday as to demand a new jury after opening statements because the prosecution described Weinstein as a “ predatory monster.
” Judge James Burke denied the motion , and prosecutors wasted no time in establishing that point with Sciorra .
Prosecutors have Sciorra on the stand as an insurance policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not charged with a crime in connection with Sciorra ’ s allegation , because it ’ s too old to prosecute under the statute of limitations .
But the Manhattan District Attorney ’ s office is offering her testimony to bolster the “ predatory ” charges against Weinstein , which can increase prison time if he ’ s convicted .
New York law requires prosecutors to prove Weinstein assaulted more than one person to be defined as a predator ; Sciorra is an insurance witness in case the jury does not believe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the five charges against him .
It might not matter a whole lot if the jury doesn ’ t believe any of the charges brought against him , but it will be tough for a jury to disregard such testimony from someone unconnected to the current prosecution otherwise .
Even if they don ’ t , Weinstein ’ s troubles will be far from over .
Prosecutors in Los Angeles filed sexual assault charges earlier this month against Weinstein , and other cases might still be pending .
After that , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil actions .
And that might be when some of Big Harv ’ s enablers finally have to start answering some tough questions , too .

It’s too late to charge Harvey Weinstein with rape in Annabella Sciorra’s case, but it’s not too late for her testimony to paint him as a serial predator. Sciorra testified in court today that the Hollywood megaproducer violently raped her, pinning her down while forcing himself upon her in Sciorra’s apartment 25 years ago. Weinstein faces five counts of sexual assault in more recent incidents, but Sciorra’s testimony may be among the most damning:
They met at a party in Los Angeles. She was an up-and-coming actress at the time. He was a young producer. As they got to know each other over the next four years, there were, she said, some “inappropriate” gestures: a care package of popcorn and Valium, a box of chocolate penises. Then, Annabella Sciorra said on the witness stand on Thursday, Harvey Weinstein raped her. Fighting back tears, Ms. Sciorra testified in excruciating detail to a rapt courtroom about the night she says she was attacked. After shoving his way into her Gramercy Park apartment, she said, Mr. Weinstein took her to a bedroom, forced her onto a bed and, as she sought to fight him off, sexually assaulted her. “I was trying to get him off me,” a tearful Ms. Sciorra told the jury. “I was punching him, kicking him.” But Mr. Weinstein held her down, she said, adding: “He got on top of me and he raped me.”
Weinstein apparently thought he’d get a second shot at Sciorra, as she testified that he appeared at her hotel door in Cannes wearing nothing but his underwear and carrying a bottle of baby oil. Sciorra testified that she “started pressing all the buttons for service and people came” to get away. Weinstein continued to ask Sciorra to “breakfast meetings” regardless, which she declined.
Shortly after the rape, Weinstein made it clear that Sciorra needed to keep her mouth shut about it, she testified:
She said she confronted Weinstein at a restaurant two to six weeks later. “I tried to talk to him about what happened and I told him how I woke up and that I’d blacked out, and he said, ‘That’s what all the nice Catholic girls say,’ ” she said. “And then he leaned into me and said, ‘This remains between you and I.’ It was very menacing, his eyes were black, and I thought he was going to hit me right there. It was threatening and I was afraid,” she said.
The statute of limitations has run out on that allegation, unfortunately, but the prosecution fought to get Sciorra’s testimony in to establish his pattern of predation. Weinstein’s legal team has fought tooth and nail to exclude it and any other mentions of predatory behavior, going so far yesterday as to demand a new jury after opening statements because the prosecution described Weinstein as a “predatory monster.” Judge James Burke denied the motion, and prosecutors wasted no time in establishing that point with Sciorra.
Prosecutors have Sciorra on the stand as an insurance policy, USA Today explains:
Weinstein is not charged with a crime in connection with Sciorra’s allegation, because it’s too old to prosecute under the statute of limitations. But the Manhattan District Attorney’s office is offering her testimony to bolster the “predatory” charges against Weinstein, which can increase prison time if he’s convicted. New York law requires prosecutors to prove Weinstein assaulted more than one person to be defined as a predator; Sciorra is an insurance witness in case the jury does not believe the two women whose allegations are the basis of the five charges against him.
It might not matter a whole lot if the jury doesn’t believe any of the charges brought against him, but it will be tough for a jury to disregard such testimony from someone unconnected to the current prosecution otherwise. Even if they don’t, Weinstein’s troubles will be far from over. Prosecutors in Los Angeles filed sexual assault charges earlier this month against Weinstein, and other cases might still be pending.
After that, the efforts for justice will likely switch to civil actions. And that might be when some of Big Harv’s enablers finally have to start answering some tough questions, too.


hotair--2020-01-23--Lindsey Graham: I love Joe Biden and don't think he's corrupt but he's not above being looked at for

Lindsey Graham: I love Joe Biden and don't think he's corrupt but he's not above being looked at for Burisma

A scene from outside the Senate chamber shortly before the start of today ’ s impeachment session .
He ’ s right that the Bidens aren ’ t above being investigated , particularly given Burisma ’ s seemingly inexplicable interest in Hunter .
We ’ re five months into the Ukraine saga and no one on either side has yet been able to advance a theory by which Hunter Biden deserved to sit on Burisma ’ s board .
Even the most innocuous explanation , that Burisma wanted the Biden name attached to the company as a matter of pure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , is a form of petty corruption .
Hunter was trading on dad ’ s public office for personal gain , as so many ruling-class spawn do .
Two ironies to Graham making this impassioned plea to investigate the Bidens , though : 1 .
Graham himself doesn ’ t want to put Hunter on the stand .
He ’ s firmly in the “ no witnesses ” camp within the GOP caucus , claiming that the Democratic case is thin and that the country shouldn ’ t be put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process as wrenching as impeachment .
Even though , let ’ s be honest , it hasn ’ t been that wrenching .
The big complaint about the trial thus far isn ’ t that Americans are at each other ’ s throats about it , it ’ s that it ’ s dull and that they ’ ve largely tuned it out in the knowledge that the verdict is assured .
If anything , Graham ’ s anxiety about witnesses like John Bolton has to do with the fact that his testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of removal .
Better to just speed through it and move on .
2 .
Graham himself took a beating late last year by TrumpWorld for not being more interested in investigating the Bidens .
He ’ s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee .
He has the power to look into Burisma .
He held off , claiming that foreign affairs aren ’ t really a proper subject for Judiciary , but that was an unpersuasive argument for MAGA-ites who are counting on him to be a loyal crony for the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point where he agreed to review documents related to the Bidens and Burisma .
Now he ’ s here in front of reporters demanding that some authority somewhere give the Bidens ’ conduct towards Ukraine the same close scrutiny that it would have received if the Burisma matter had involved the Trumps — when it ’ s within his power to do so .
And within the broader Senate GOP ’ s power to do so , of course .
An obvious reply to Graham ’ s frustration that no one has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP controlled government for two years after all of these Biden-related alleged shenanigans towards Ukraine had already happened .
It wasn ’ t a secret that Hunter was on Burisma ’ s board .
Why didn ’ t Republican committees dig in ?
Why did interest peak only in 2019 , after Joe Biden entered the race ?
Fighting corruption and draining the swamp has to matter outside the narrow confines of a presidential election , right ?
By the way , via FiveThirtyEight , Republican voters are coming around to Graham ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be called at the trial .
Until recently GOP support for doing so had been surprisingly strong , with pluralities of Republicans in some polls saying they agreed with Democrats about hearing more evidence ( including evidence about the Bidens , of course ) .
But ever since Trump backed off his demands for a robust defense and swung around to the McConnell/Graham “ wrap it up quickly ” position , opinion has changed .
In late December , 65 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of Republicans supported bringing in new witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who want new witnesses has risen to 74 percent , while the share of Republicans who say the same has fallen to 41 percent .
Republican voters ’ swift change of heart on this issue could make it politically easier for Senate Republicans to vote against calling new witnesses , which remains one of the big open questions in the trial .
Moderate senators like Maine ’ s Susan Collins may still feel pressure to support bringing in new witnesses , but increasingly , rank-and-file Republicans seem to be just fine with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or testimony .
Two clips of Graham here for you , both from the same gaggle in the Capitol .
He ’ s pretty animated in the second .

A scene from outside the Senate chamber shortly before the start of today’s impeachment session. He’s right that the Bidens aren’t above being investigated, particularly given Burisma’s seemingly inexplicable interest in Hunter. We’re five months into the Ukraine saga and no one on either side has yet been able to advance a theory by which Hunter Biden deserved to sit on Burisma’s board.
Even the most innocuous explanation, that Burisma wanted the Biden name attached to the company as a matter of pure prestige rather than as a conduit to the White House, is a form of petty corruption. Hunter was trading on dad’s public office for personal gain, as so many ruling-class spawn do.
Two ironies to Graham making this impassioned plea to investigate the Bidens, though:
1. Graham himself doesn’t want to put Hunter on the stand. He’s firmly in the “no witnesses” camp within the GOP caucus, claiming that the Democratic case is thin and that the country shouldn’t be put through one extra unnecessary minute of a process as wrenching as impeachment. Even though, let’s be honest, it hasn’t been that wrenching. The big complaint about the trial thus far isn’t that Americans are at each other’s throats about it, it’s that it’s dull and that they’ve largely tuned it out in the knowledge that the verdict is assured. If anything, Graham’s anxiety about witnesses like John Bolton has to do with the fact that his testimony might unite Americans a bit in favor of removal. Better to just speed through it and move on.
2. Graham himself took a beating late last year by TrumpWorld for not being more interested in investigating the Bidens. He’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He has the power to look into Burisma. He held off, claiming that foreign affairs aren’t really a proper subject for Judiciary, but that was an unpersuasive argument for MAGA-ites who are counting on him to be a loyal crony for the president. Eventually his arm was twisted to the point where he agreed to review documents related to the Bidens and Burisma. Now he’s here in front of reporters demanding that some authority somewhere give the Bidens’ conduct towards Ukraine the same close scrutiny that it would have received if the Burisma matter had involved the Trumps — when it’s within his power to do so.
And within the broader Senate GOP’s power to do so, of course. An obvious reply to Graham’s frustration that no one has deemed Burisma worth investigating is that the GOP controlled government for two years after all of these Biden-related alleged shenanigans towards Ukraine had already happened. It wasn’t a secret that Hunter was on Burisma’s board. Why didn’t Republican committees dig in? Why did interest peak only in 2019, after Joe Biden entered the race?
Fighting corruption and draining the swamp has to matter outside the narrow confines of a presidential election, right?
By the way, via FiveThirtyEight, Republican voters are coming around to Graham’s position that witnesses shouldn’t be called at the trial. Until recently GOP support for doing so had been surprisingly strong, with pluralities of Republicans in some polls saying they agreed with Democrats about hearing more evidence (including evidence about the Bidens, of course). But ever since Trump backed off his demands for a robust defense and swung around to the McConnell/Graham “wrap it up quickly” position, opinion has changed.
In late December, 65 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of Republicans supported bringing in new witnesses. But now the share of Democrats who want new witnesses has risen to 74 percent, while the share of Republicans who say the same has fallen to 41 percent. Republican voters’ swift change of heart on this issue could make it politically easier for Senate Republicans to vote against calling new witnesses, which remains one of the big open questions in the trial. Moderate senators like Maine’s Susan Collins may still feel pressure to support bringing in new witnesses, but increasingly, rank-and-file Republicans seem to be just fine with a rapid trial that includes no new evidence or testimony.
Two clips of Graham here for you, both from the same gaggle in the Capitol. He’s pretty animated in the second.


hotair--2020-01-23--Father identifies a problem with Elizabeth Warren's plan for eliminating college tuition debt

A brief confrontation between Elizabeth Warren and the father of a daughter in college highlights a problem with Warren ’ s plan for canceling student debt .
Here ’ s how the conversation went : Father : My daughter ’ s getting out of school .
I ’ ve saved all my money , she doesn ’ t have any student loans .
Father : Am I going to get my money back ?
Father : So you ’ re going to pay for people who didn ’ t save any money and those of us who did the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course we did .
My buddy had fun , bought a car .
He went on vacations .
I saved my money .
He made more than I did .
I worked a double-shift , worked for extra money .
[ unclear but sounds like ‘ Did all this work since she ’ s ten ’ or possibly ‘ Daughter ’ s worked since she ’ s ten.
’ ] So you ’ re laughing .
Father : Yeah , that ’ s exactly what you ’ re doing .
We did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At that point Warren starts to reply but the father says , “ Nah , that ’ s alright ” and walks off .
The man makes a good point and frankly , it ’ s one I relate to on a personal level .
My oldest daughter is now in college .
My wife and I realized years ago , when she was only a few years old , that paying for college was going to be a challenge .
We set a financial goal for ourselves that would make it possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking out a lot of debt .
At the time , we had a 30-year mortgage with payments we could afford .
Instead of coasting , we took out a 15 year mortgage and , as rates continued to drop a 10 year mortgage just a couple years later .
As our salaries improved , we began paying extra money every month until we were paying substantially more than the actual payment .
The result of all of this was we were able to pay off our house .
In fact , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my daughter started college last year .
And that has made it possible for us to pay her tuition as we go rather than take out lots of debt .
I recognize that not everyone is in a position to do this even if they want to , but that doesn ’ t change the fact that plenty of people in our neighborhood and tax bracket didn ’ t make the same choices we made more than a decade ago .
And frankly , there are lots of things we could have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money we spent on the mortgage , but like the dad in this clip we made a lot of short-term sacrifices for the long term .
If Warren wins that will turn out to have been foolish because she has promised to grant families $ 50,000 of debt relief on day one of her tenure in office .
That ’ s a significant amount of money and a real incentive for people facing that debt to consider voting for her .
I ’ m sure a lot of my neighbors will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But for people like the father in the clip below , it turns out good planning and responsibility were poor choices .

A brief confrontation between Elizabeth Warren and the father of a daughter in college highlights a problem with Warren’s plan for canceling student debt. Here’s how the conversation went:
Father: My daughter’s getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money, she doesn’t have any student loans. Warren: [inaudible but the tone sounds supportive] Father: Am I going to get my money back? Warren: Of course not. Father: So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed? Warren: [inaudible-shaking her head no] Father: Of course we did. My buddy had fun, bought a car. He went on vacations. I saved my money. He made more than I did. I worked a double-shift, worked for extra money. [unclear but sounds like ‘Did all this work since she’s ten’ or possibly ‘Daughter’s worked since she’s ten.’] So you’re laughing. Warren: I’m not laughing. Father: Yeah, that’s exactly what you’re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.
At that point Warren starts to reply but the father says, “Nah, that’s alright” and walks off.
The man makes a good point and frankly, it’s one I relate to on a personal level. My oldest daughter is now in college. My wife and I realized years ago, when she was only a few years old, that paying for college was going to be a challenge. We set a financial goal for ourselves that would make it possible for her to go to school without taking out a lot of debt.
At the time, we had a 30-year mortgage with payments we could afford. Instead of coasting, we took out a 15 year mortgage and, as rates continued to drop a 10 year mortgage just a couple years later. As our salaries improved, we began paying extra money every month until we were paying substantially more than the actual payment.
The result of all of this was we were able to pay off our house. In fact, we paid it off exactly one month before my daughter started college last year. And that has made it possible for us to pay her tuition as we go rather than take out lots of debt.
I recognize that not everyone is in a position to do this even if they want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that plenty of people in our neighborhood and tax bracket didn’t make the same choices we made more than a decade ago. And frankly, there are lots of things we could have done over the past 10-12 years with all the money we spent on the mortgage, but like the dad in this clip we made a lot of short-term sacrifices for the long term.
If Warren wins that will turn out to have been foolish because she has promised to grant families $50,000 of debt relief on day one of her tenure in office. That’s a significant amount of money and a real incentive for people facing that debt to consider voting for her. I’m sure a lot of my neighbors will be dancing a jig if Warren wins. But for people like the father in the clip below, it turns out good planning and responsibility were poor choices.
https://twitter.com/JiveBunnyMuzik/status/1219698105622368257


hotair--2020-01-23--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Partisan prophecy, pro-life polling, donor-conception ethics,

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: Partisan prophecy, pro-life polling, donor-conception ethics, the March for Life, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Dr. Michael Coulter on the deeper issues behind impeachment – and George Washington ’ s prophetic valediction • Rev .
Clenard Childress joins us to discuss why he sees abortion as a black genocide • Katy Francisco on the burdens of the donor-conceived • Knights of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling in their partnership with Marist • Do you think you know the real Clarence Thomas ?
Get ready for an eye-opening documentary , Created Equal : Clarence Thomas in His Own Words .
We ’ ll speak to one of the people behind this new documentary about one of the most fascinating figures of our time .
• And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour .
We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-01-23--WaPo columnist: Who does Schiff think he's kidding on trial analogies?

Democrats see Adam Schiff ’ s presentation in the Senate , Politico reports , as “ their last , best shot ” to flip enough Senate Republicans to get them to finish their case for them .
It ’ s their last shot , most definitely , as they will have to take a seat for the defense rebuttal from Donald Trump ’ s legal team .
Whether or not it was a “ best shot ” remains to be seen , but it didn ’ t impress Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen , despite the lavish praise from some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , Politico sums up the presentment from House Democrats : Rep. Adam Schiff , the top prosecutor in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump , launched Wednesday what Democrats see as their last , best shot to convince a handful of Republican senators to join their push for witnesses and documents .
The House impeachment managers ’ opening arguments , which could stretch for up to three days , are as much a pitch to the American public as to the small but powerful group of Republicans — including Sens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — who could determine whether the Senate will hear from witnesses Democrats believe are central to their case .
… Schiff repeatedly emphasized aspects of the case that would be enhanced with testimony from key witnesses , including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton .
“ The complete story is within your power to request , ” Schiff said as senators looked on .
But he also insisted that the House ’ s case was already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncontested .
And here we have the basic contradiction of the House Democrats ’ case for more witnesses .
If it ’ s “ overwhelming ” as is , then there is no need for more witnesses .
If it ’ s “ uncontested , ” which it most certainly is not , then there ’ s no need for a trial .
Schiff likes to throw these words around as though uttering them out loud turns them from argument into fact , but that ’ s not how argument works , outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The problem for Schiff is that the House impeachment consists entirely of argument , and entirely lacks direct evidence and direct testimony .
That is why Democrats are so desperate to get a handful of Senate Republicans to do the work that Schiff and Jerrold Nadler refused to do , simply because the timing didn ’ t suit their tastes .
This is just one of the many ways in which Schiff ’ s pose as a trial prosecutor fails to work , and Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen laid out several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to analogize the House impeachment to a federal prosecution , Olsen rebuked Schiff ’ s “ disingenuous ” argument and proceeded to demolish it : Federal criminal trials are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure .
One might argue that the entire analogy falls at the outset , as the House Democrats ’ articles of impeachment do not claim that President Trump committed a crime .
But overlooking that minor point , the House ’ s procedure failed every test those rules establish .
The House ’ s articles have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only be brought if they are sanctioned by a neutral , disinterested party .
A prosecutor must persuade either a judge or a grand jury that there is probable cause a defendant committed a crime to initiate a case .
No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral , disinterested party .
Nor can a prosecutor obtain evidence under subpoena on their whim .
Anyone with a subpoena to provide testimony or written evidence can challenge that in court , as many recipients of such subpoenas in investigations supervised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert S. Mueller III did .
That is exactly what the president has tried to do in many instances with respect to subpoenas issued by committees controlled by House Democrats .
But Schiff and his colleagues not only chose not to permit the judicial process to play out with respect to those subpoenas ; they chose to call the president ’ s attempt to avail himself of his rights “ obstruction of Congress ” and an impeachable offense itself .
How Orwellian .
The list goes on .
A defendant can file a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation that she believes was illegally obtained .
That motion is heard by a disinterested party — a federal judge — and that judge ’ s opinion can be appealed to an appellate court before the trial ever begins .
Again , the House procedure denied the president that basic right by making the prosecutor , Schiff , the judge .
Olsen also rips Schiff for presenting two new elements to his case for calling them “ evidence.
” The Lev Parnas transcripts , Olsen notes , has already been publicly mischaracterized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it “ wildly misconstrued , ” all but eliminating their evidentiary value .
The GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act wouldn ’ t even be admissible in federal court for any reason , as it is a non-expert opinion on legal matters , which is not in GAO ’ s purview .
( One obvious corroboration of that fact is that they cited a violation of the ICA when in fact the money in question got spent within the budget year , which means no violation actually occurred at all . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the ICA is a civil issue , and the explicit remedy for a violation is within the statute — a lawsuit from the Comptroller General to release the funds .
It ’ s not a “ high crime or misdemeanor , ” and in fact it ’ s not even a crime at all .
If this is the Democrats ’ best hope for getting witnesses called , their desperation must be rising by the hour .
All Schiff and his fellow managers offered yesterday was speculation and hearsay without any specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate to provide them the missing pieces of their case .

Democrats see Adam Schiff’s presentation in the Senate, Politico reports, as “their last, best shot” to flip enough Senate Republicans to get them to finish their case for them. It’s their last shot, most definitely, as they will have to take a seat for the defense rebuttal from Donald Trump’s legal team. Whether or not it was a “best shot” remains to be seen, but it didn’t impress Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen, despite the lavish praise from some other quarters of the media.
First, however, Politico sums up the presentment from House Democrats:
Yesterday, Rep. Adam Schiff launched what Democrats see as their last, best shot to convince a handful of Republican senators to join their push for witnesses and documents https://t.co/7kR2r4v47c pic.twitter.com/6mrR3YhNHo — POLITICO (@politico) January 23, 2020
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top prosecutor in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, launched Wednesday what Democrats see as their last, best shot to convince a handful of Republican senators to join their push for witnesses and documents. The House impeachment managers’ opening arguments, which could stretch for up to three days, are as much a pitch to the American public as to the small but powerful group of Republicans — including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mitt Romney of Utah — who could determine whether the Senate will hear from witnesses Democrats believe are central to their case. … Schiff repeatedly emphasized aspects of the case that would be enhanced with testimony from key witnesses, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton. “The complete story is within your power to request,” Schiff said as senators looked on. But he also insisted that the House’s case was already “overwhelming” and in many ways uncontested.
And here we have the basic contradiction of the House Democrats’ case for more witnesses. If it’s “overwhelming” as is, then there is no need for more witnesses. If it’s “uncontested,” which it most certainly is not, then there’s no need for a trial. Schiff likes to throw these words around as though uttering them out loud turns them from argument into fact, but that’s not how argument works, outside of court and especially inside of court. The problem for Schiff is that the House impeachment consists entirely of argument, and entirely lacks direct evidence and direct testimony. That is why Democrats are so desperate to get a handful of Senate Republicans to do the work that Schiff and Jerrold Nadler refused to do, simply because the timing didn’t suit their tastes.
This is just one of the many ways in which Schiff’s pose as a trial prosecutor fails to work, and Washington Post columnist Henry Olsen laid out several more last night. After Schiff tried to analogize the House impeachment to a federal prosecution, Olsen rebuked Schiff’s “disingenuous” argument and proceeded to demolish it:
Federal criminal trials are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. One might argue that the entire analogy falls at the outset, as the House Democrats’ articles of impeachment do not claim that President Trump committed a crime. But overlooking that minor point, the House’s procedure failed every test those rules establish. The House’s articles have been analogized to an indictment, but indictments can only be brought if they are sanctioned by a neutral, disinterested party. A prosecutor must persuade either a judge or a grand jury that there is probable cause a defendant committed a crime to initiate a case. No serious person can call the House Democratic caucus a neutral, disinterested party. Nor can a prosecutor obtain evidence under subpoena on their whim. Anyone with a subpoena to provide testimony or written evidence can challenge that in court, as many recipients of such subpoenas in investigations supervised by the office of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III did. That is exactly what the president has tried to do in many instances with respect to subpoenas issued by committees controlled by House Democrats. But Schiff and his colleagues not only chose not to permit the judicial process to play out with respect to those subpoenas; they chose to call the president’s attempt to avail himself of his rights “obstruction of Congress” and an impeachable offense itself. How Orwellian. The list goes on. A defendant can file a motion to suppress any evidence obtained during an investigation that she believes was illegally obtained. That motion is heard by a disinterested party — a federal judge — and that judge’s opinion can be appealed to an appellate court before the trial ever begins. Again, the House procedure denied the president that basic right by making the prosecutor, Schiff, the judge.
Olsen also rips Schiff for presenting two new elements to his case for calling them “evidence.” The Lev Parnas transcripts, Olsen notes, has already been publicly mischaracterized by Schiff, or as Olsen puts it “wildly misconstrued,” all but eliminating their evidentiary value. The GAO report on the Impoundment Control Act wouldn’t even be admissible in federal court for any reason, as it is a non-expert opinion on legal matters, which is not in GAO’s purview. (One obvious corroboration of that fact is that they cited a violation of the ICA when in fact the money in question got spent within the budget year, which means no violation actually occurred at all.) Olsen doesn’t mention this, but the ICA is a civil issue, and the explicit remedy for a violation is within the statute — a lawsuit from the Comptroller General to release the funds. It’s not a “high crime or misdemeanor,” and in fact it’s not even a crime at all.
If this is the Democrats’ best hope for getting witnesses called, their desperation must be rising by the hour. All Schiff and his fellow managers offered yesterday was speculation and hearsay without any specific crime alleged, all the while begging the Senate to provide them the missing pieces of their case.


hotair--2020-01-23--Bernie Sanders in the 1970s: Having a job is a lot like slavery

A poll published just over a week ago by Vice found Sanders and Biden statistically tied among black voters .
Just two days ago , Biden was asked about the poll and denied that Sanders was leading him among any segment of black Americans .
“ Why is Senator Sanders leading you with black voters under the age of 35 ?
” Antonia Hylton , a reporter for Vice News , asked at a presidential forum hosted by her outlet on Monday .
“ He is not leading me , black voters , under the age of — look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am leading everybody , combined , with black voters , ” Mr. Biden responded , engaging in some of the hyperbole he often disavows .
Some audience members gathered at an events center here laughed .
Mr. Biden did not .
Today the Daily Beast published a story which seems aimed at rattling some of that support for Sanders .
The outlet obtained ( it doesn ’ t say how ) interviews of Sanders from the 1970s , back when he was leading a fringe socialist party called the Liberty Union Party .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation of Vermont workers to slaves : “ Basically , today , Vermont workers remain slaves in many , many ways , ” Sanders said in another interview in 1977 , in which he compared the burgeoning service industry in the nearly all-white state to the enslavement of black Americans at the nation ’ s founding .
“ The problem comes when we end up with an entire state of people trained to wait on other people.
” … In the first interview , published in October 1976 when Sanders was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor , the future senator responded to the announced sale of the century-old Vermont Marble Company to a Swiss conglomerate by calling for worker control of businesses , calling it “ absolutely absurd ” that the family that owned Vermont Marble could have “ the unilateral right ” to sell the company without the approval of its employees .
“ We believe ultimately that companies like Vermont Marble should be owned by the workers themselves and that workers—not a handful of owners—should be determining policy , ” Sanders said .
“ If a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about who owns the company he works for and that major changes can take place without his knowledge and consent , how far have we really advanced from the days of slavery , when black people were sold to different owners without their consent ?
” As the Daily Beast points out , Vermont at the time was 99 percent white .
There are some pretty obvious differences between having a job and slavery , starting with a fact that employees at Vermont Marble could choose to quit and either work somewhere else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company .
But there is actually quite a long history of this sort of criticism of “ wage slavery ” from the far left .
What Sanders was saying about it at the time seems consistent with his other socialist views in the 1970s .
Last year , CNN published a review of Sanders ’ public statements from this same time period and found he was also a fan of nationalizing major industries : During this time , Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry , public ownership of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug companies and of the major means of production such as factories and capital , as well as other proposals such as a 100 % income tax on the highest income earners in America .
Sanders also rejected political violence and criticized the anti-democratic nature of communist states such as the Soviet Union .
“ I favor the public ownership of utilities , banks and major industries , ” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976 .
This is one of the ongoing criticisms of Sanders from some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery ( at least his 1970s take ) seems to be based on his socialists views about the ownership of capital and class divisions .
He sees it as part of a continuum .
But that downplays or even ignores racism as a key distinction between slavery and work .
Given the widespread focus on identity politics on the left today , that obviously doesn ’ t play very well .
I ’ m not at all confident this will get much play in the media but even if it does , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way he has about his past socialist views , i.e .
hey , that was a long time ago .
Still , I do wonder if this was a leak from a rival campaign looking to lay some groundwork for more awkward conversations about his past views .

A poll published just over a week ago by Vice found Sanders and Biden statistically tied among black voters. Just two days ago, Biden was asked about the poll and denied that Sanders was leading him among any segment of black Americans.
“Why is Senator Sanders leading you with black voters under the age of 35?” Antonia Hylton, a reporter for Vice News, asked at a presidential forum hosted by her outlet on Monday. “He is not leading me, black voters, under the age of — look, just all I know is, I am leading everybody, combined, with black voters,” Mr. Biden responded, engaging in some of the hyperbole he often disavows. Some audience members gathered at an events center here laughed. Mr. Biden did not.
Today the Daily Beast published a story which seems aimed at rattling some of that support for Sanders. The outlet obtained (it doesn’t say how) interviews of Sanders from the 1970s, back when he was leading a fringe socialist party called the Liberty Union Party. In those interviews, Sanders repeatedly compared the situation of Vermont workers to slaves:
“Basically, today, Vermont workers remain slaves in many, many ways,” Sanders said in another interview in 1977, in which he compared the burgeoning service industry in the nearly all-white state to the enslavement of black Americans at the nation’s founding. “The problem comes when we end up with an entire state of people trained to wait on other people.”… In the first interview, published in October 1976 when Sanders was the Liberty Union Party’s nominee for governor, the future senator responded to the announced sale of the century-old Vermont Marble Company to a Swiss conglomerate by calling for worker control of businesses, calling it “absolutely absurd” that the family that owned Vermont Marble could have “the unilateral right” to sell the company without the approval of its employees. “We believe ultimately that companies like Vermont Marble should be owned by the workers themselves and that workers—not a handful of owners—should be determining policy,” Sanders said. “If a worker at Vermont Marble has no say about who owns the company he works for and that major changes can take place without his knowledge and consent, how far have we really advanced from the days of slavery, when black people were sold to different owners without their consent?”
As the Daily Beast points out, Vermont at the time was 99 percent white.
There are some pretty obvious differences between having a job and slavery, starting with a fact that employees at Vermont Marble could choose to quit and either work somewhere else or try to launch their own rival company. But there is actually quite a long history of this sort of criticism of “wage slavery” from the far left. What Sanders was saying about it at the time seems consistent with his other socialist views in the 1970s. Last year, CNN published a review of Sanders’ public statements from this same time period and found he was also a fan of nationalizing major industries:
During this time, Sanders and Liberty Union argued for nationalization of the energy industry, public ownership of banks, telephone, electric, and drug companies and of the major means of production such as factories and capital, as well as other proposals such as a 100% income tax on the highest income earners in America. Sanders also rejected political violence and criticized the anti-democratic nature of communist states such as the Soviet Union. “I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.
This is one of the ongoing criticisms of Sanders from some on the left. His take on slavery (at least his 1970s take) seems to be based on his socialists views about the ownership of capital and class divisions. He sees it as part of a continuum. But that downplays or even ignores racism as a key distinction between slavery and work. Given the widespread focus on identity politics on the left today, that obviously doesn’t play very well.
I’m not at all confident this will get much play in the media but even if it does, Sanders will sidestep questions about it the same way he has about his past socialist views, i.e. hey, that was a long time ago. Still, I do wonder if this was a leak from a rival campaign looking to lay some groundwork for more awkward conversations about his past views.


hotair--2020-01-23--Don't own any rental properties in Oakland and get out if you can

The latest progressive initiative to “ destigmatize ” criminal behavior in Oakland , California should be of concern to everyone , but particularly landlords who rent out residential property .
The City Council there has unanimously passed a measure banning the ability of landlords to perform criminal background checks on applicants .
This measure certainly sounds like one that ’ s full of good intentions ( if you listen to the activists supporting it ) but ignores many serious realities .
( CBS San Francisco ) Following a unanimous vote by the city council Tuesday night , Oakland has now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban criminal background checks on potential renters .
“ Indescribable emotions and feelings , ” said John Jones III of Oakland , who got out of prison in 2012 and struggled to find a place to live in Oakland despite his well-paying job as an aviation mechanic .
Jones said he ’ s among the many who left prison only to end up on the streets , contributing to Oakland ’ s homeless crisis .
That ’ s why he ’ s been lobbying hard for the Oakland City Council to pass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landlords will no longer be allowed to turn down potential renters because of criminal convictions .
This is yet another progressive “ reform ” measure taking place in Oakland under the leadership of Mayor Libby Schaaf .
You may remember her as the mayor who came to national attention after she decided to engage in some gang signaling and warn all of the illegal aliens in her city of an upcoming ICE raid .
As so often happens in these types of reforms , proponents and their willing media enablers find the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” being addressed and flaunt them as the poster child for reform .
In this case , they selected community activist John Jones III .
He ’ s someone who did time in prison and was initially unable to find either a job or an apartment upon being released .
It clearly seems that Jones has indeed turned his life around over the past eight years which is much to his credit .
But it ’ s also worth noting that he was involved with the gangs in the area , was convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child of a father who was in the Black Panthers and a mother who was a member of Farrakhan ’ s Nation of Islam .
Ask yourself this .
If you were a property owner reviewing applicants for an apartment , would someone fresh out on parole be your first choice as a new tenant if someone with less criminal enterprise in their background was available ?
If the next applicant you interview has a background in domestic violence or arson , how comfortable will you be about handing over the keys ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct should be geared toward the hope of rehabilitation and minimizing recidivism , but there are social costs to such behavior that linger on after you ’ re released .
Some sex offenders remain on “ lists ” for their entire lives .
If you ’ re guilty of embezzlement you shouldn ’ t expect to get a job as an accountant right after you get out of prison .
And private property owners deserve the ability to seek out the best possible applicants for rentals with the highest probability of paying their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage or engaging in illegal activities on their property .
Whether that sounds “ fair ” to you or not depends on your personal perspective , I ’ m sure .
This is all very similar to the “ Ban the Box ” initiative that ’ s been making the rounds for the past few years .
( Mr. Jones from the story above is also active in Ban the Box . )
That program seeks to forbid employers from asking about job applicants ’ criminal background information .
But what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better chance at landing a job also puts private sector employers in a very tenuous situation .
If you wind up hiring a convicted sex offender without knowing it and they go on to assault someone at your place of business , you ’ ll probably wind up in court for being negligent .
( Not to mention that a person under your roof was assaulted . )
It ’ s an imperfect system in an imperfect world and these unofficial rules of the road no doubt make life more difficult for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the consequences of our actions and decisions .
Passing the burden off onto the shoulders of landlords and employers is just as unfair to people who have managed to obey the law over the course of their lives .

The latest progressive initiative to “destigmatize” criminal behavior in Oakland, California should be of concern to everyone, but particularly landlords who rent out residential property. The City Council there has unanimously passed a measure banning the ability of landlords to perform criminal background checks on applicants. This measure certainly sounds like one that’s full of good intentions (if you listen to the activists supporting it) but ignores many serious realities. (CBS San Francisco)
Following a unanimous vote by the city council Tuesday night, Oakland has now become the first city in California to ban criminal background checks on potential renters. “Indescribable emotions and feelings,” said John Jones III of Oakland, who got out of prison in 2012 and struggled to find a place to live in Oakland despite his well-paying job as an aviation mechanic. Jones said he’s among the many who left prison only to end up on the streets, contributing to Oakland’s homeless crisis. That’s why he’s been lobbying hard for the Oakland City Council to pass the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, which says landlords will no longer be allowed to turn down potential renters because of criminal convictions.
This is yet another progressive “reform” measure taking place in Oakland under the leadership of Mayor Libby Schaaf. You may remember her as the mayor who came to national attention after she decided to engage in some gang signaling and warn all of the illegal aliens in her city of an upcoming ICE raid.
As so often happens in these types of reforms, proponents and their willing media enablers find the most sympathetic example possible of the “problem” being addressed and flaunt them as the poster child for reform. In this case, they selected community activist John Jones III. He’s someone who did time in prison and was initially unable to find either a job or an apartment upon being released.
It clearly seems that Jones has indeed turned his life around over the past eight years which is much to his credit. But it’s also worth noting that he was involved with the gangs in the area, was convicted of dealing drugs, and was the child of a father who was in the Black Panthers and a mother who was a member of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
Ask yourself this. If you were a property owner reviewing applicants for an apartment, would someone fresh out on parole be your first choice as a new tenant if someone with less criminal enterprise in their background was available? If the next applicant you interview has a background in domestic violence or arson, how comfortable will you be about handing over the keys?
The fact is that incarceration for criminal conduct should be geared toward the hope of rehabilitation and minimizing recidivism, but there are social costs to such behavior that linger on after you’re released. Some sex offenders remain on “lists” for their entire lives. If you’re guilty of embezzlement you shouldn’t expect to get a job as an accountant right after you get out of prison.
And private property owners deserve the ability to seek out the best possible applicants for rentals with the highest probability of paying their rent on time and not causing any damage or engaging in illegal activities on their property. Whether that sounds “fair” to you or not depends on your personal perspective, I’m sure. This is all very similar to the “Ban the Box” initiative that’s been making the rounds for the past few years. (Mr. Jones from the story above is also active in Ban the Box.)
That program seeks to forbid employers from asking about job applicants’ criminal background information. But what’s intended as a way to give ex-convicts a better chance at landing a job also puts private sector employers in a very tenuous situation. If you wind up hiring a convicted sex offender without knowing it and they go on to assault someone at your place of business, you’ll probably wind up in court for being negligent. (Not to mention that a person under your roof was assaulted.)
It’s an imperfect system in an imperfect world and these unofficial rules of the road no doubt make life more difficult for ex-convicts. But we all bear responsibility for the consequences of our actions and decisions. Passing the burden off onto the shoulders of landlords and employers is just as unfair to people who have managed to obey the law over the course of their lives.


hotair--2020-01-23--Murkowski: "Very offended" over Nadler's "cover-up" accusation

The first rule of jury tampering is — well , it ’ s don ’ t , but the second rule is to tamper to make them sympathetic to your case .
Yesterday , Jerrold Nadler accused Senate Republicans of taking part in a “ cover up ” in remarks that eventually drew a rebuke from presiding Chief Justice John Roberts .
Rather than inspire moderates within the caucus , however , Nadler ’ s comments drew fire from one of the votes Democrats think might be within their reach — Lisa Murkowski , who was still steaming over Nadler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t just one of the potential swing votes , she might be the swingiest among them .
Still a Republican , Murkowski likely still resents that she had to run as write-in after the party threw her under the bus in her 2011 primary election .
She voted against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh , too , and refused ( along with Susan Collins ) to come along on Trump ’ s ObamaCare repeal plan , setting it up for failure with the late John McCain ’ s opposing vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could get , Murkowski ’ s was the most promising .
Was being the operative word , perhaps .
Republicans quickly pointed out that attacking the jury before getting more than a few words into the opening of the case was not the brightest strategy in the world .
USA Today presents it as a case of — what else ?
— Republicans pouncing : Republicans quickly jumped on the admonishment , arguing Nadler attacked the jury and it would not bode well for Democrats who will have to convince at least four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be subpoenaed as part of the trial .
“ They managed to alienate senators , attack their own jury , ” said Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo .
“ If the point was to try to convince people , I think they ’ re off to a terrible start.
” He added that house managers have “ a lot of work to do , to try to win back over senators.
” Politico also covered the GOP reaction a little more straightforwardly , calling the caucus “ livid ” over Nadler ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( via Power Line ) : “ If the Democrats are smart , they won ’ t put Jerry Nadler on the field again , ” said Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) .
“ He was so out of line .
It ’ s offensive accusing us of a cover-up.
” “ To my Democratic colleagues , you can say what you want about me , but I ’ m covering up nothing , ” added Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , a close Trump ally .
“ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats also worried publicly about it , with Sen. Ben Cardin ( D-MD ) trying to play it off as both sides overstepping decorum .
Only one side needs votes from the other party , however , and that fact did not escape their notice .
Perhaps this was just a coincidence , but after the session yesterday , Adam Schiff refused to allow reporters to ask any questions of Nadler .
CNN ’ s Manu Raju tried to ask Nadler about his eruption as Nadler was present at the presser , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let this slide , but then again , she might not when it comes to voting on whether to subpoena further witnesses .
Perhaps she will have seen and heard enough at that point to bring this circus to an end .
And even if she hasn ’ t seen and heard enough , it ’ s likely that Susan Collins , Mitt Romney , and Cory Gardner will have .

The first rule of jury tampering is — well, it’s don’t, but the second rule is to tamper to make them sympathetic to your case. Yesterday, Jerrold Nadler accused Senate Republicans of taking part in a “cover up” in remarks that eventually drew a rebuke from presiding Chief Justice John Roberts. Rather than inspire moderates within the caucus, however, Nadler’s comments drew fire from one of the votes Democrats think might be within their reach — Lisa Murkowski, who was still steaming over Nadler’s insult hours later:
“I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended,” swing-vote Lisa Murkowski said tonight of Nadler’s presentation last night and his accusation of a GOP coverup — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 23, 2020
Murkowski isn’t just one of the potential swing votes, she might be the swingiest among them. Still a Republican, Murkowski likely still resents that she had to run as write-in after the party threw her under the bus in her 2011 primary election. She voted against the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, too, and refused (along with Susan Collins) to come along on Trump’s ObamaCare repeal plan, setting it up for failure with the late John McCain’s opposing vote. Of all the Senate GOP votes Democrats could get, Murkowski’s was the most promising.
Was being the operative word, perhaps. Republicans quickly pointed out that attacking the jury before getting more than a few words into the opening of the case was not the brightest strategy in the world. USA Today presents it as a case of — what else? — Republicans pouncing:
Republicans quickly jumped on the admonishment, arguing Nadler attacked the jury and it would not bode well for Democrats who will have to convince at least four Republicans that additional witnesses and documents should be subpoenaed as part of the trial. “They managed to alienate senators, attack their own jury,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “If the point was to try to convince people, I think they’re off to a terrible start.” He added that house managers have “a lot of work to do, to try to win back over senators.”
Politico also covered the GOP reaction a little more straightforwardly, calling the caucus “livid” over Nadler’s comment. Lindsey Graham was especially outraged (via Power Line):
“If the Democrats are smart, they won’t put Jerry Nadler on the field again,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). “He was so out of line. It’s offensive accusing us of a cover-up.” “To my Democratic colleagues, you can say what you want about me, but I’m covering up nothing,” added Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close Trump ally. “I’m exposing your hatred of the president.”
Democrats also worried publicly about it, with Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) trying to play it off as both sides overstepping decorum. Only one side needs votes from the other party, however, and that fact did not escape their notice. Perhaps this was just a coincidence, but after the session yesterday, Adam Schiff refused to allow reporters to ask any questions of Nadler. CNN’s Manu Raju tried to ask Nadler about his eruption as Nadler was present at the presser, but Schiff shut him down:
Murkowski might let this slide, but then again, she might not when it comes to voting on whether to subpoena further witnesses. Perhaps she will have seen and heard enough at that point to bring this circus to an end. And even if she hasn’t seen and heard enough, it’s likely that Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Cory Gardner will have.


hotair--2020-01-23--MSNBC panel to senators taking breaks at the trial: Do your damned jobs

Via the Federalist , I ’ m torn .
On the one hand , Chris Hayes ’ s populist argument in the clip is appealing .
If average Americans can be forced to sit attentively through a trial while on jury duty , our rulers should bear the same burden .
On the other hand , allowances must be made in a gerontocracy , buddy .
If we ’ re going to elect octogenarians to Congress — and we do , routinely — then we can ’ t complain when sleepy time interferes with their duties .
Although I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the oldest senators who have been most prone to taking breaks so far during the trial or the ideologues of all ages on each side whose minds were made up about the Ukraine matter the day the first stories about it appeared in the news .
Either way , there ’ s no denying that the Senate ’ s rules about attendance are being bent , if not broken : The agony of the senator-jurors had begun to show the night before , with widespread but more subtle struggles to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snacking , yawning and alleged napping could be seen throughout the cramped chamber… Within the first hour , Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia could be seen at his desk in the back row , leaning on his right arm with a hand covering his eyes .
He stayed that way for around 20 minutes , then shifted to rest his chin in the same hand , eyes closed , for about five more minutes .
Despite the late-night votes , Warner ’ s day had started as scheduled at a 10 a.m. Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military veteran speaking on the impact of Trump ’ s holdup of military aid to Ukraine , had trouble holding the Senate ’ s attention .
Some senators left their seats and headed to cloakrooms , stood in the back or openly yawned as he spoke .
At one point during his address , more than 10 senators ’ seats were empty .
Dianne Feinstein , age 86 , decided to call it a night at 8:45 p.m. , about an hour before House Democrats wrapped up their presentation .
I doubt Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Why would they , when some of them are destined to knock off early too ?
Even senators in attendance are restless : As the sun set over the Capitol and staffers started to sort of dinner plans for a scheduled 6:30 p.m. half-time recess , the mood did indeed grow restless on the floor .
Some seized on projected videos and slides as an excuse to leave their desks and move closer .
Others wandered ; at one point , Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey stood hunched over his desk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the rear of the chamber in seats typically occupied by staff .
It wasn ’ t just Democrats showing signs of weariness as the only the first day of opening statements came to a close .
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana at one point crossed his arms and paced at the rear of the GOP side .
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah leaned all the way back in his chair and stared at the Senate ’ s ceiling .
At one point , half of the entire back row of Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretch their legs .
“ Impeachment fatigue , ” Time magazine calls it .
And it ’ s not just a problem within the Senate : Feinstein leaving early is a bad look for Dems but if in fact it ’ s mostly Republicans who are ducking out then that seems like a good talking point for both sides .
Democrats can cite it as proof that the GOP isn ’ t taking the trial seriously and thus the eventual acquittal is illegitimate .
And Republicans can cite it as evidence of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ ve heard it all before , they ’ ve got nothing .
Why dignify it ?
” Everyone wins !
Except Susan Collins , I guess .
The more Republicans disengage from the proceedings , the harder she ’ ll have to strain to show voters that she ’ s taking it seriously even if they aren ’ t .
Which , I suppose , makes it that much more inevitable that she ’ ll vote to call witnesses .
Two clips here , one of the MSNBC panel and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchor John Berman delivering a similar lecture this morning .
“ I guess it ’ s not like the future of the Republic is at stake , ” says Berman .
“ Oh , wait , it is !
” Is it ?

Via the Federalist, I’m torn. On the one hand, Chris Hayes’s populist argument in the clip is appealing. If average Americans can be forced to sit attentively through a trial while on jury duty, our rulers should bear the same burden.
On the other hand, allowances must be made in a gerontocracy, buddy. If we’re going to elect octogenarians to Congress — and we do, routinely — then we can’t complain when sleepy time interferes with their duties.
Although I’d be curious to know if it’s the oldest senators who have been most prone to taking breaks so far during the trial or the ideologues of all ages on each side whose minds were made up about the Ukraine matter the day the first stories about it appeared in the news.
Either way, there’s no denying that the Senate’s rules about attendance are being bent, if not broken:
The agony of the senator-jurors had begun to show the night before, with widespread but more subtle struggles to pay attention to opening arguments. Gum-chewing, snacking, yawning and alleged napping could be seen throughout the cramped chamber… Within the first hour, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia could be seen at his desk in the back row, leaning on his right arm with a hand covering his eyes. He stayed that way for around 20 minutes, then shifted to rest his chin in the same hand, eyes closed, for about five more minutes. Despite the late-night votes, Warner’s day had started as scheduled at a 10 a.m. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Crow, a military veteran speaking on the impact of Trump’s holdup of military aid to Ukraine, had trouble holding the Senate’s attention. Some senators left their seats and headed to cloakrooms, stood in the back or openly yawned as he spoke. At one point during his address, more than 10 senators’ seats were empty.
Dianne Feinstein, age 86, decided to call it a night at 8:45 p.m., about an hour before House Democrats wrapped up their presentation. I doubt Republicans will even move to have her disqualified. Why would they, when some of them are destined to knock off early too?
Even senators in attendance are restless:
As the sun set over the Capitol and staffers started to sort of dinner plans for a scheduled 6:30 p.m. half-time recess, the mood did indeed grow restless on the floor. Some seized on projected videos and slides as an excuse to leave their desks and move closer. Others wandered; at one point, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey stood hunched over his desk chair and then took leave and sat in the rear of the chamber in seats typically occupied by staff. It wasn’t just Democrats showing signs of weariness as the only the first day of opening statements came to a close. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana at one point crossed his arms and paced at the rear of the GOP side. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah leaned all the way back in his chair and stared at the Senate’s ceiling. At one point, half of the entire back row of Senate Republicans was standing behind their chairs just to stretch their legs.
“Impeachment fatigue,” Time magazine calls it. And it’s not just a problem within the Senate:
Primetime numbers from last night on impeachment are really telling in terms of American apathy/fatigue/frustration of the whole process as we move to the Senate: Total average viewers from 8:00-11:00pm: Fox News – 3.51 million; MSNBC – 2.53 million; CNN – 1.51 million. — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) January 22, 2020
Feinstein leaving early is a bad look for Dems but if in fact it’s mostly Republicans who are ducking out then that seems like a good talking point for both sides. Democrats can cite it as proof that the GOP isn’t taking the trial seriously and thus the eventual acquittal is illegitimate. And Republicans can cite it as evidence of their contempt for the case against Trump. “We’ve heard it all before, they’ve got nothing. Why dignify it?” Everyone wins!
Except Susan Collins, I guess. The more Republicans disengage from the proceedings, the harder she’ll have to strain to show voters that she’s taking it seriously even if they aren’t. Which, I suppose, makes it that much more inevitable that she’ll vote to call witnesses.
Two clips here, one of the MSNBC panel and the other via Julio Rosas of CNN anchor John Berman delivering a similar lecture this morning. “I guess it’s not like the future of the Republic is at stake,” says Berman. “Oh, wait, it is!” Is it?