hotair--2020-01-16--Iran protests spread to second city as IRGC tries to crack down

Just how serious a threat to the Iranian regime are these street protests ?
They have not abated since the regime finally admitted lying about the shootdown of Ukraine International Flight 752 .
Time Magazine reports today that the tenacity of the outrage represents a serious threat to the mullahs , although they still take the protests over the death of Qassem Soleimani at face value : Days earlier , millions of Iranians had gathered in grief and rage after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 3 .
But the feeling shifted when it seemed Tehran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crash .
“ We are not citizens .
We never were , ” one of Iran ’ s most popular actors , Taraneh Alidoosti , wrote to her nearly 6 million Instagram followers on Jan. 12 .
“ We are captives.
” That night , police reportedly fired live ammunition at protesters in Tehran , injuring several .
( The police deny firing the shots . )
The period of national unity that followed Soleimani ’ s death marked a rare moment of reprieve for Iran ’ s leadership , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antiregime demonstrations since the 1979 revolution .
Sparked by a domestic gas-price hike amid crippling U.S. sanctions , that unrest prompted a nationwide Internet blackout during which security forces killed more than 300 demonstrators , according to Amnesty International .
As the U.S. sanctions bite , lower-income Iranians in traditionally pro-regime areas have joined protests normally populated by the middle classes and students .
But after the crash , critical voices emerged from even less likely quarters .
Resigning from the state broadcaster , a journalist asked viewers to forgive her for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The editor in chief of the right-wing Tasnim news agency also blamed “ officials who misled the media , ” tweeting , “ We are all ashamed before the people.
” With President Trump warning that the “ world is watching , ” Iran ’ s next steps will be under the spotlight both at home and abroad .
The question of just how much actual grief over Soleimani ’ s demise is still an open one .
Iranian ex-pat Parnaz Foroutan scolded the American media over its mindless embrace of Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations .
Foroutan argued that the Iranian people knew Soleimani as an enforcer and mass murderer .
In fact , the Iranians had seen nearly ten times as many people killed in the streets a few months ago than died in the plane shoot-down : What has not been widely said is that this revered hero was the same man who oversaw the deaths of at least 1,500 Iranians protesting the regime just this fall , when it blacked out the internet and its security forces opened fire on the millions who took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be under Soleimani ’ s orders , given his role in suppressing dissent .
I haven ’ t heard anyone refer to Soleimani ’ s statement , which I heard broadcast on my Los Angeles radio station only weeks ago , that he was ready to kill millions more of his own countrymen in order to protect the regime .
That citation of casualties is important in the context of this story from Voice of America .
The protests have expanded to a second major city , and the message from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest specifically references Soleimani ’ s body count : Students in Iran have protested against their Islamist rulers for a fifth day , with dozens staging a sit-in at a central university as police surrounded other universities in Tehran to block more rallies at those sites .
Photos obtained by VOA appeared to show at least 100 students staging Wednesday ’ s sit-in next to a campus restaurant at Isfahan University of Technology in the central city of Isfahan .
The protest seemed to be a silent one , with many of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces with black “ X ” marks to symbolize their voices being silenced .
Signs held up by the demonstrators indicated that their grievances were directed toward the Iranian government , which has faced daily protests since its Saturday admission that Iranian forces shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane mistaken for an enemy threat as it departed Tehran for Kyiv Jan. 8 .
… Several students at the Isfahan sit-in held a sign saying “ 1,500 + 176 ” , referencing the number of people the U.S. government has accused Iran of killing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November , plus the number of people killed in the crash of the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737 jet .
Suddenly it doesn ’ t seem so incongruous that the Iranians are out in the streets , does it ?
The death of Soleimani has re-engineered the calculus in Iran , and now the outcome for everyone is much less predictable , including for Trump .
Taking out Soleimani was a very large gamble , as I write in my column today at The Week , and not just in the region : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump won over the right-leaning populists in the GOP by explicitly rejecting the interventionist “ neo-conservatism ” of the Bush administrations .
He ran against the liberal-democracy interventionism of the Clinton and Obama administrations .
Trump not only promised to stop starting new wars , especially in the Middle East , he pledged to end the wars in which we found ourselves .
… If the Iranians decide to provoke a wider war with Trump , which is still a very significant risk even after the mild pinprick missile retaliation last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would suffice as a rallying cry .
Tehran has insisted its thirst for vengeance has not yet been slaked , although clearly it has other problems at hand at the moment .
An outright war in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf would not play to Trump ’ s benefit , even if the Iranians were to explicitly launch it now .
It ’ s also possible that the street protests might convince the Iranians to negotiate a face-saving way out of U.S. sanctions .
The European partners to the Iran deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution process in claiming that Iran had stopped complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) negotiated with the Obama administration .
That would eventually free the U.K. , Germany , and France to apply their own sanctions on Iran and further destabilize the regime .
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on Trump to lead a new round of negotiations .
This kind of foreign-policy success could succeed in improving Trump ’ s electoral chances in November , especially if such an agreement could pave the way to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iraq .
However , this would require dominoes to fall in a very specific pattern , and in a significantly short period of time .
Otherwise , Iran and the U.S. are more likely to exchange retaliatory actions , at perhaps a lower level , leading to more worries of extending the American quagmire in the region , especially among Trump ’ s non-interventionist base .
At the moment , the bet seems to be paying off as the Iranians seem more worried about their own survival than Trump ’ s political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an open question , and the protesters in the streets might be a canary in that coal mine .

Just how serious a threat to the Iranian regime are these street protests? They have not abated since the regime finally admitted lying about the shootdown of Ukraine International Flight 752. Time Magazine reports today that the tenacity of the outrage represents a serious threat to the mullahs, although they still take the protests over the death of Qassem Soleimani at face value:
Days earlier, millions of Iranians had gathered in grief and rage after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani on Jan. 3. But the feeling shifted when it seemed Tehran was trying to cover up its role in the crash. “We are not citizens. We never were,” one of Iran’s most popular actors, Taraneh Alidoosti, wrote to her nearly 6 million Instagram followers on Jan. 12. “We are captives.” That night, police reportedly fired live ammunition at protesters in Tehran, injuring several. (The police deny firing the shots.) The period of national unity that followed Soleimani’s death marked a rare moment of reprieve for Iran’s leadership, which was rocked in November by the largest antiregime demonstrations since the 1979 revolution. Sparked by a domestic gas-price hike amid crippling U.S. sanctions, that unrest prompted a nationwide Internet blackout during which security forces killed more than 300 demonstrators, according to Amnesty International. As the U.S. sanctions bite, lower-income Iranians in traditionally pro-regime areas have joined protests normally populated by the middle classes and students. But after the crash, critical voices emerged from even less likely quarters. Resigning from the state broadcaster, a journalist asked viewers to forgive her for “the 13 years I told you lies.” The editor in chief of the right-wing Tasnim news agency also blamed “officials who misled the media,” tweeting, “We are all ashamed before the people.” With President Trump warning that the “world is watching,” Iran’s next steps will be under the spotlight both at home and abroad.
The question of just how much actual grief over Soleimani’s demise is still an open one. Iranian ex-pat Parnaz Foroutan scolded the American media over its mindless embrace of Iranian propaganda in the coverage of the funeral demonstrations. Foroutan argued that the Iranian people knew Soleimani as an enforcer and mass murderer. In fact, the Iranians had seen nearly ten times as many people killed in the streets a few months ago than died in the plane shoot-down:
What has not been widely said is that this revered hero was the same man who oversaw the deaths of at least 1,500 Iranians protesting the regime just this fall, when it blacked out the internet and its security forces opened fire on the millions who took to the streets — a response understood to be under Soleimani’s orders, given his role in suppressing dissent. I haven’t heard anyone refer to Soleimani’s statement, which I heard broadcast on my Los Angeles radio station only weeks ago, that he was ready to kill millions more of his own countrymen in order to protect the regime.
That citation of casualties is important in the context of this story from Voice of America. The protests have expanded to a second major city, and the message from the students (and others) at the protest specifically references Soleimani’s body count:
Students in Iran have protested against their Islamist rulers for a fifth day, with dozens staging a sit-in at a central university as police surrounded other universities in Tehran to block more rallies at those sites. Photos obtained by VOA appeared to show at least 100 students staging Wednesday’s sit-in next to a campus restaurant at Isfahan University of Technology in the central city of Isfahan. The protest seemed to be a silent one, with many of those gathered wearing surgical white masks over their faces with black “X” marks to symbolize their voices being silenced. Signs held up by the demonstrators indicated that their grievances were directed toward the Iranian government, which has faced daily protests since its Saturday admission that Iranian forces shot down a Ukrainian passenger plane mistaken for an enemy threat as it departed Tehran for Kyiv Jan. 8. … Several students at the Isfahan sit-in held a sign saying “1,500 + 176”, referencing the number of people the U.S. government has accused Iran of killing in a crackdown on nationwide protests last November, plus the number of people killed in the crash of the Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737 jet.
Suddenly it doesn’t seem so incongruous that the Iranians are out in the streets, does it? The death of Soleimani has re-engineered the calculus in Iran, and now the outcome for everyone is much less predictable, including for Trump. Taking out Soleimani was a very large gamble, as I write in my column today at The Week, and not just in the region:
What makes this gamble particularly remarkable is that Trump won over the right-leaning populists in the GOP by explicitly rejecting the interventionist “neo-conservatism” of the Bush administrations. He ran against the liberal-democracy interventionism of the Clinton and Obama administrations. Trump not only promised to stop starting new wars, especially in the Middle East, he pledged to end the wars in which we found ourselves. … If the Iranians decide to provoke a wider war with Trump, which is still a very significant risk even after the mild pinprick missile retaliation last week, the U.S. as its Great Satan would suffice as a rallying cry. Tehran has insisted its thirst for vengeance has not yet been slaked, although clearly it has other problems at hand at the moment. An outright war in the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf would not play to Trump’s benefit, even if the Iranians were to explicitly launch it now. It’s also possible that the street protests might convince the Iranians to negotiate a face-saving way out of U.S. sanctions. The European partners to the Iran deal moved on Tuesday to start the dispute resolution process in claiming that Iran had stopped complying with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated with the Obama administration. That would eventually free the U.K., Germany, and France to apply their own sanctions on Iran and further destabilize the regime. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on Trump to lead a new round of negotiations. This kind of foreign-policy success could succeed in improving Trump’s electoral chances in November, especially if such an agreement could pave the way to an end of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, this would require dominoes to fall in a very specific pattern, and in a significantly short period of time. Otherwise, Iran and the U.S. are more likely to exchange retaliatory actions, at perhaps a lower level, leading to more worries of extending the American quagmire in the region, especially among Trump’s non-interventionist base.
At the moment, the bet seems to be paying off as the Iranians seem more worried about their own survival than Trump’s political success. How long that lasts is an open question, and the protesters in the streets might be a canary in that coal mine.


hotair--2020-01-16--Hoo boy: DOJ looking at James Comey for possibly having leaked classified information

You realize we ’ re never going to be rid of this guy , right ?
The wormhole that opened in the fabric of time and space in 2016 sucked us all into an alternate dimension in which , among many other weird and frightening things , James B. Comey is a permanent recurring character .
We just need to accept it .
Sounds from this new NYT story like his next cameo appearance might be as a federal prisoner .
Probably Michael Avenatti ’ s cellmate , if I had to guess , because that ’ s just how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall that Comey has already been investigated twice before for leaking , each time in the context of feeding his memos about conversations with Trump to journalists via a friend .
The first probe , a criminal investigation by the DOJ , resulted in no charges .
The second , by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz , lambasted Comey for violating FBI policy — but also didn ’ t create criminal jeopardy .
Maybe third time ’ s the charm .
The Times reports that the U.S. Attorney in D.C. is looking at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go over the head of Loretta Lynch on the Hillary Emailgate probe because he feared that Lynch wasn ’ t impartial — or at least wouldn ’ t be perceived that way by the public .
The reason for his concern was a strange document purporting to show Debbie Wasserman Schultz , then the head of the DNC , emailing a lefty operative to say that Lynch had told her she ’ d make sure Hillary wasn ’ t prosecuted .
When Comey saw that he flipped , expecting that if Lynch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would leak and the decision not to prosecute her would look utterly corrupt .
Wasserman Schultz denied writing the email .
Both she and the guy to whom it was supposedly addressed say they ’ ve never communicated .
To this day , notes the Times , it ’ s an “ open question ” if the document is real .
So how ’ d Comey get hold of it ?
Per the Times , it was given to the FBI by Dutch intelligence , who lifted it off of … Russian computers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have been a bit of Russian disinformation concocted with an eye to leaking it publicly if/when the DOJ announced that Clinton wouldn ’ t be charged , in order to sow suspicion of that decision .
From Comey ’ s perspective it may not have mattered if the document was real or not : Whether Lynch really was corrupt or was about to be smeared as corrupt by the Kremlin , he had to get her out of the process so that the investigation didn ’ t end up looking crooked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Clinton probe himself , to make clear that it was his conclusion not to prosecute rather than Lynch ’ s .
Both the NYT and WaPo wrote about Comey ’ s thinking on this in early 2017 , right around the time he was fired by Trump .
Which brings us to today ’ s story .
How , exactly , did the media find out about that strange document at the time ?
Hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials obtained the document and provided it to the F.B.I.
, and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it were highly classified secrets , the people said… Prosecutors are also looking at whether [ Comey pal Daniel ] Richman might have played a role in providing the information to reporters about the Russia document and how it figured into Mr. Comey ’ s rationale about the news conference , according to the people familiar with the investigation .
Mr. Comey hired Mr. Richman at one point to consult for the F.B.I .
about encryption and other complex legal issues , and investigators have expressed interest in how he operated .
Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article in The Times that revealed the document ’ s existence .
Richman is the same friend who told the media the contents of Comey ’ s memo about his chats with Trump .
Did he also relay the contents of this classified document to them on Comey ’ s behalf ?
Did Comey himself comment off the record on what the document said ?
Clearly someone privy to his thinking and the substance of the document was in touch with reporters , wanting to help them understand in the spring of 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the Emailgate probe in the irregular way that he did .
He was under scrutiny at the time for his unorthodox approach to that case ( both in explaining his rationale for not charging Clinton and his fateful decision to reopen the probe right before the election ) and for the seriousness of the FBI ’ s interest in the Steele dossier .
Maybe he decided he needed to defend himself , even if that meant sharing a little classified info with reporters .
The entire Comey story from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tonight has been him straining to reassure Americans that they can trust the integrity of the system and ending up taking increasingly wacky measures that undermined that trust at every turn .
Would it be so surprising at this point if a casual leak of classified info to show that he meant well was part of that approach ?
Comey defenders will have a field day attacking this story regardless .
It ’ s unusual for leak investigations to focus on leaks that happened years ago , the Times notes , since it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track down the original source of the leak .
The U.S. Attorney always has pressing new business to handle too , in which case why revisit the Comey episode now ?
Comey allies will doubtless claim that this is a Bill Barr operation ( via the D.C. office ) to exact revenge on Comey on Trump ’ s behalf .
In fact , maybe the “ investigation ” isn ’ t a real-deal investigation at all : The Times notes at one point that it ’ s not clear if a grand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses have been interviewed .
That is , maybe this matter is just something the office is casually looking into and some Comey enemy in the building decided to feed it to the Times to impugn him , with no real prospect of the case going anywhere .
( “ Leak cases are incredibly difficult to prosecute , ” said one expert to the NYT . )
But put it on your radar anyway , just in case it blows up in a month or two and suddenly the prospect of a Comey/Avenatti @ @ @ @ @

You realize we’re never going to be rid of this guy, right?
The wormhole that opened in the fabric of time and space in 2016 sucked us all into an alternate dimension in which, among many other weird and frightening things, James B. Comey is a permanent recurring character. We just need to accept it.
Sounds from this new NYT story like his next cameo appearance might be as a federal prisoner. Probably Michael Avenatti’s cellmate, if I had to guess, because that’s just how this dimension rolls.
You’ll recall that Comey has already been investigated twice before for leaking, each time in the context of feeding his memos about conversations with Trump to journalists via a friend. The first probe, a criminal investigation by the DOJ, resulted in no charges. The second, by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz, lambasted Comey for violating FBI policy — but also didn’t create criminal jeopardy. Maybe third time’s the charm. The Times reports that the U.S. Attorney in D.C. is looking at the revelation in 2017 that Comey was driven to go over the head of Loretta Lynch on the Hillary Emailgate probe because he feared that Lynch wasn’t impartial — or at least wouldn’t be perceived that way by the public. The reason for his concern was a strange document purporting to show Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then the head of the DNC, emailing a lefty operative to say that Lynch had told her she’d make sure Hillary wasn’t prosecuted. When Comey saw that he flipped, expecting that if Lynch cleared Clinton of Emailgate charges the document would leak and the decision not to prosecute her would look utterly corrupt.
Wasserman Schultz denied writing the email. Both she and the guy to whom it was supposedly addressed say they’ve never communicated. To this day, notes the Times, it’s an “open question” if the document is real. So how’d Comey get hold of it? Per the Times, it was given to the FBI by Dutch intelligence, who lifted it off of … Russian computers. That is, the whole thing may have been a bit of Russian disinformation concocted with an eye to leaking it publicly if/when the DOJ announced that Clinton wouldn’t be charged, in order to sow suspicion of that decision. From Comey’s perspective it may not have mattered if the document was real or not: Whether Lynch really was corrupt or was about to be smeared as corrupt by the Kremlin, he had to get her out of the process so that the investigation didn’t end up looking crooked. So he resolved to announce the results of the Clinton probe himself, to make clear that it was his conclusion not to prosecute rather than Lynch’s. Both the NYT and WaPo wrote about Comey’s thinking on this in early 2017, right around the time he was fired by Trump.
Which brings us to today’s story. How, exactly, did the media find out about that strange document at the time?
Hackers working for Dutch intelligence officials obtained the document and provided it to the F.B.I., and both its existence and the collection of it were highly classified secrets, the people said… Prosecutors are also looking at whether [Comey pal Daniel] Richman might have played a role in providing the information to reporters about the Russia document and how it figured into Mr. Comey’s rationale about the news conference, according to the people familiar with the investigation. Mr. Comey hired Mr. Richman at one point to consult for the F.B.I. about encryption and other complex legal issues, and investigators have expressed interest in how he operated. Mr. Richman was quoted in the April 2017 article in The Times that revealed the document’s existence.
Richman is the same friend who told the media the contents of Comey’s memo about his chats with Trump. Did he also relay the contents of this classified document to them on Comey’s behalf? Did Comey himself comment off the record on what the document said? Clearly someone privy to his thinking and the substance of the document was in touch with reporters, wanting to help them understand in the spring of 2017 why Comey had felt impelled to handle the end of the Emailgate probe in the irregular way that he did. He was under scrutiny at the time for his unorthodox approach to that case (both in explaining his rationale for not charging Clinton and his fateful decision to reopen the probe right before the election) and for the seriousness of the FBI’s interest in the Steele dossier. Maybe he decided he needed to defend himself, even if that meant sharing a little classified info with reporters.
The entire Comey story from the day of his Hillary press conference until tonight has been him straining to reassure Americans that they can trust the integrity of the system and ending up taking increasingly wacky measures that undermined that trust at every turn. Would it be so surprising at this point if a casual leak of classified info to show that he meant well was part of that approach?
Comey defenders will have a field day attacking this story regardless. It’s unusual for leak investigations to focus on leaks that happened years ago, the Times notes, since it’s harder with each passing day to track down the original source of the leak. The U.S. Attorney always has pressing new business to handle too, in which case why revisit the Comey episode now? Comey allies will doubtless claim that this is a Bill Barr operation (via the D.C. office) to exact revenge on Comey on Trump’s behalf. In fact, maybe the “investigation” isn’t a real-deal investigation at all: The Times notes at one point that it’s not clear if a grand jury has been called or how many witnesses have been interviewed. That is, maybe this matter is just something the office is casually looking into and some Comey enemy in the building decided to feed it to the Times to impugn him, with no real prospect of the case going anywhere. (“Leak cases are incredibly difficult to prosecute,” said one expert to the NYT.) But put it on your radar anyway, just in case it blows up in a month or two and suddenly the prospect of a Comey/Avenatti prison-roomie subplot turns real.


hotair--2020-01-16--New York homeless man who stabbed two college students claims he was defending his home

In October 2018 , a NY homeless man named Joseph Matos set up a series of cardboard boxes in front of a hair salon and went to sleep .
A couple of college students , Jorge Morales and Jose Bosch , walked past the spot while looking for a pizza place .
Morales was celebrating his 21st birthday and had been drinking a lot that night .
He saw the boxes and kicked them , thinking they were trash .
Matos , who is 57 years-old , came out from under the boxes with a knife and went after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and slashing the other in the face .
He ’ s now facing up to 22 years in prison if he is convicted .
Matos was offered a plea deal but refused it .
He and his attorneys are now claiming that the case against him should be dismissed entirely on the grounds that he was defending his home : Under New York ’ s “ castle doctrine , ” a person has a right to protect his home with deadly force if he reasonably believes another person is entering without permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The defense hinges partly on whether a collection of cardboard boxes is a home… The Manhattan district attorney ’ s office declined to comment but said in court papers that Mr. Matos had vengeance , not safety , on his mind when he confronted the students .
Prosecutors said Mr. Matos was the instigator , chasing after the young men , stabbing one of them in his shoulder and back , lacerating his liver , and slashing the other above the eye… If the case goes to trial , Mr. Matos ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judge to address whether Mr. Matos was obligated to retreat or whether he could stand his ground reasonably believing he was in his home and did not have to run from it , said Carl Bornstein , a former state and federal prosecutor who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice .
Matos tells a different story about what happened .
He claims that after he exited his boxes , the two students returned and confronted him and that one of them brushed past him in a dismissive way .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matos leaving the box but not the confrontation that followed .
So does Matos have a chance of succeeding here ?
I ’ m tempted to say no because this claim seems pretty ridiculous on its face .
Matos was on public property , immediately adjacent to private property he didn ’ t own .
The only thing he owned in this scenario were the boxes .
I don ’ t see how you can claim boxes are a home in the first place , but even if you somehow decide they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walking by on the sidewalk didn ’ t know Matos was inside .
And even if you take it a step further and assume they did know Matos was inside , the attack happened outside the boxes on the public sidewalk .
Castle doctrine applies to threats happening inside your home , not outside of it .
It ’ s one thing to respond with force against an intruder who climbed through your bedroom window , but if someone kicks your front door , you can ’ t run out into the street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I would think a court would be very hesitant to send the message that a homeless person who decides some piece of public property ( a park , a sidewalk , an underpass ) is his own has the legal right to defend it with violent force from everyone who intrudes .
That seems like an invitation to chaos .

In October 2018, a NY homeless man named Joseph Matos set up a series of cardboard boxes in front of a hair salon and went to sleep. A couple of college students, Jorge Morales and Jose Bosch, walked past the spot while looking for a pizza place. Morales was celebrating his 21st birthday and had been drinking a lot that night. He saw the boxes and kicked them, thinking they were trash.
Matos, who is 57 years-old, came out from under the boxes with a knife and went after the two students, stabbing one in the back and slashing the other in the face. He’s now facing up to 22 years in prison if he is convicted. Matos was offered a plea deal but refused it. He and his attorneys are now claiming that the case against him should be dismissed entirely on the grounds that he was defending his home:
Under New York’s “castle doctrine,” a person has a right to protect his home with deadly force if he reasonably believes another person is entering without permission and is seeking to commit a crime. The defense hinges partly on whether a collection of cardboard boxes is a home… The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment but said in court papers that Mr. Matos had vengeance, not safety, on his mind when he confronted the students. Prosecutors said Mr. Matos was the instigator, chasing after the young men, stabbing one of them in his shoulder and back, lacerating his liver, and slashing the other above the eye… If the case goes to trial, Mr. Matos’s lawyer could request jury instructions from the judge to address whether Mr. Matos was obligated to retreat or whether he could stand his ground reasonably believing he was in his home and did not have to run from it, said Carl Bornstein, a former state and federal prosecutor who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Matos tells a different story about what happened. He claims that after he exited his boxes, the two students returned and confronted him and that one of them brushed past him in a dismissive way. There was a security camera nearby which showed Matos leaving the box but not the confrontation that followed.
So does Matos have a chance of succeeding here? I’m tempted to say no because this claim seems pretty ridiculous on its face. Matos was on public property, immediately adjacent to private property he didn’t own. The only thing he owned in this scenario were the boxes. I don’t see how you can claim boxes are a home in the first place, but even if you somehow decide they are functionally a home, the two students walking by on the sidewalk didn’t know Matos was inside.
And even if you take it a step further and assume they did know Matos was inside, the attack happened outside the boxes on the public sidewalk. Castle doctrine applies to threats happening inside your home, not outside of it. It’s one thing to respond with force against an intruder who climbed through your bedroom window, but if someone kicks your front door, you can’t run out into the street and stab them for it.
Finally, I would think a court would be very hesitant to send the message that a homeless person who decides some piece of public property (a park, a sidewalk, an underpass) is his own has the legal right to defend it with violent force from everyone who intrudes. That seems like an invitation to chaos.


hotair--2020-01-16--Rand Paul warns GOP centrists: If you vote to call Dem witnesses at Trump's trial, I'll force you to

Rand Paul warns GOP centrists: If you vote to call Dem witnesses at Trump's trial, I'll force you to vote on calling Hunter Biden too

I ’ m pretty sure Susan Collins and the rest of the centrists already understand that reciprocity will be demanded in calling witnesses .
In fact , thanks to Lev Parnas , they ’ re not only facing one hard decision now on whether to call witnesses , they ’ re facing two .
If they join Schumer on calling Parnas and John Bolton , they ’ ll have to give Trump two witnesses in exchange .
Hunter Biden is the first , obviously .
The second remains to be determined .
Joe Biden , maybe ?
Rudy Giuliani ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this , which is strange for a guy from a red state whose populist cred is not in doubt and who doesn ’ t face voters again until 2022 .
Either he really believes in reciprocity on the merits or he ’ s alarmed by Trump ’ s hawkish turn towards Iran and is eager to reassert his influence over the president by showing him that he ’ ll be every bit as loyal on impeachment as superhawk Lindsey Graham will , if not more so .
Paul says if four or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to entertain new witness testimony , he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president ’ s preferred witnesses , including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren ’ t eager to call .
So he has a simple message for his party : end the trial before witnesses are called .
“ If you vote against Hunter Biden , you ’ re voting to lose your election , basically .
Seriously .
That ’ s what it is , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office on Wednesday .
“ If you don ’ t want to vote and you think you ’ re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden , you should just vote against witnesses , period.
” … If “ some Republicans help Democrats get witnesses and there are no witnesses for the president , I think the end result is a revolutionary tide against those people , ” Paul said .
“ I can ’ t imagine that [ Trump ] will let it go by if someone votes to bring in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in.
” Politico makes two good points on how to understand Paul ’ s threat .
First , he isn ’ t being as confrontational with the Collins crew as he could have been .
He could have forced a vote on a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment at the start of the trial , which would put the centrists on the spot by forcing them to go on record in believing that it should proceed — against Trump ’ s wishes .
That would irritate their MAGA constituents back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t demand that vote because he knows it has no chance of passing .
A vote on calling Hunter Biden as a witness might , so that ’ s worth doing .
The other key point is that Rand doesn ’ t really want to call Biden .
The goal of his threat is deterrence , not full nuclear release .
He wants Collins et al .
to think hard in advance about the potential cost of voting with Democrats to call Bolton and/or Parnas and conclude that maaaaaybe it ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called .
In a way it ’ s doing Collins a favor by offering her a pretext to vote no on the Dem witnesses : “ I ’ d like to hear from John Bolton and Lev Parnas but members of my caucus are threatening to turn the trial into a circus with tangential witnesses if I vote to call them , and I can ’ t allow that to happen in good conscience.
” Except that won ’ t work , will it ?
Collins could always cowboy up and vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling Hunter Biden or whoever .
She can ’ t be Rand ’ s hostage unless she agrees to be one , which is a bad look for a senator who ’ ll be running next fall on the message that she ’ s an “ independent voice ” in Washington .
Besides , although Senate Republicans aren ’ t keen on hearing from Biden , there ’ s no great risk to calling him .
He ’ s already admitted in interviews that he probably got his seat on the Burisma board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s certainly not going to clear Joe of corruption suspicions , even if he doesn ’ t provide Trump ’ s defense with any evidence to confirm them .
The whole country ’ s going to watch his testimony and come away thinking , “ This guy is a textbook case of swampy nepotism.
” No harm done to the GOP .
One GOP lawmaker , Sen. John Cornyn of Texas , suggested that Biden ’ s testimony would not help senators resolve the primary question raised by the trial .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 20 years ’ experience as a lawyer and a judge .
I view it through that frame , ” he said .
“ This is about who has material evidence on a disputed question of fact that is charged by the articles of impeachment .
To me , that ’ s the way I approach that.
” “ I ’ m not saying it wouldn ’ t be interesting , ” Cornyn continued .
“ I ’ m not saying he won ’ t be called as a witness , but if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton , for example , is called witness—I agree with Sen. Cruz and others who said they should be done in pairs , or in other words there needs to be witnesses called by both sides.
” I wonder if McConnell ’ s quietly trying to work out a deal with Collins , Gardner , Romney , Murkowski , and Trump to make it easier for Collins and Gardner to vote however they need to on calling individual witnesses .
Collins and Gardner are the two most vulnerable Republicans next fall so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be protected .
Conveniently , the GOP can afford to lose two members on each individual floor vote during the trial .
If McConnell can convince Romney and Murkowski to stick with the team on , say , calling Hunter Biden , he could engineer a 51/49 vote in which Hunter is called but Collins and Gardner each get to vote no in hopes of impressing swing voters that they were interested in only the most relevant witnesses .
Trump , meanwhile , would need to be convinced not to attack Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that vote , which shouldn ’ t be hard considering that they ’ ll both end up voting to acquit him .
Here ’ s Paul yesterday insisting on recripocity with witnesses .
Tit for tat — or no witnesses at all , which is what he ’ d prefer .

I’m pretty sure Susan Collins and the rest of the centrists already understand that reciprocity will be demanded in calling witnesses.
In fact, thanks to Lev Parnas, they’re not only facing one hard decision now on whether to call witnesses, they’re facing two. If they join Schumer on calling Parnas and John Bolton, they’ll have to give Trump two witnesses in exchange. Hunter Biden is the first, obviously. The second remains to be determined.
Joe Biden, maybe? Rudy Giuliani? Do they dare?
Rand sounds agitated about this, which is strange for a guy from a red state whose populist cred is not in doubt and who doesn’t face voters again until 2022. Either he really believes in reciprocity on the merits or he’s alarmed by Trump’s hawkish turn towards Iran and is eager to reassert his influence over the president by showing him that he’ll be every bit as loyal on impeachment as superhawk Lindsey Graham will, if not more so.
Paul says if four or more of his GOP colleagues join with Democrats to entertain new witness testimony, he will make the Senate vote on subpoenaing the president’s preferred witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower who revealed the Ukraine scandal — polarizing picks who moderate Republicans aren’t eager to call. So he has a simple message for his party: end the trial before witnesses are called. “If you vote against Hunter Biden, you’re voting to lose your election, basically. Seriously. That’s what it is,” Paul said during an interview in his office on Wednesday. “If you don’t want to vote and you think you’re going to have to vote against Hunter Biden, you should just vote against witnesses, period.”… If “some Republicans help Democrats get witnesses and there are no witnesses for the president, I think the end result is a revolutionary tide against those people,” Paul said. “I can’t imagine that [Trump] will let it go by if someone votes to bring in witnesses that his administration isn’t interested in.”
Politico makes two good points on how to understand Paul’s threat. First, he isn’t being as confrontational with the Collins crew as he could have been. He could have forced a vote on a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment at the start of the trial, which would put the centrists on the spot by forcing them to go on record in believing that it should proceed — against Trump’s wishes. That would irritate their MAGA constituents back home. Paul says he won’t demand that vote because he knows it has no chance of passing. A vote on calling Hunter Biden as a witness might, so that’s worth doing.
The other key point is that Rand doesn’t really want to call Biden. The goal of his threat is deterrence, not full nuclear release. He wants Collins et al. to think hard in advance about the potential cost of voting with Democrats to call Bolton and/or Parnas and conclude that maaaaaybe it’d be better if no witnesses at all were called. In a way it’s doing Collins a favor by offering her a pretext to vote no on the Dem witnesses: “I’d like to hear from John Bolton and Lev Parnas but members of my caucus are threatening to turn the trial into a circus with tangential witnesses if I vote to call them, and I can’t allow that to happen in good conscience.”
Except that won’t work, will it? Collins could always cowboy up and vote to call Bolton and Parnas while voting against calling Hunter Biden or whoever. She can’t be Rand’s hostage unless she agrees to be one, which is a bad look for a senator who’ll be running next fall on the message that she’s an “independent voice” in Washington. Besides, although Senate Republicans aren’t keen on hearing from Biden, there’s no great risk to calling him. He’s already admitted in interviews that he probably got his seat on the Burisma board because of his last name. He’s certainly not going to clear Joe of corruption suspicions, even if he doesn’t provide Trump’s defense with any evidence to confirm them. The whole country’s going to watch his testimony and come away thinking, “This guy is a textbook case of swampy nepotism.” No harm done to the GOP.
One GOP lawmaker, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, suggested that Biden’s testimony would not help senators resolve the primary question raised by the trial. “I suffer from a legal education and about 20 years’ experience as a lawyer and a judge. I view it through that frame,” he said. “This is about who has material evidence on a disputed question of fact that is charged by the articles of impeachment. To me, that’s the way I approach that.” “I’m not saying it wouldn’t be interesting,” Cornyn continued. “I’m not saying he won’t be called as a witness, but if he is called as a witness—I mean Bolton, for example, is called witness—I agree with Sen. Cruz and others who said they should be done in pairs, or in other words there needs to be witnesses called by both sides.”
I wonder if McConnell’s quietly trying to work out a deal with Collins, Gardner, Romney, Murkowski, and Trump to make it easier for Collins and Gardner to vote however they need to on calling individual witnesses. Collins and Gardner are the two most vulnerable Republicans next fall so they’re the two who most need to be protected. Conveniently, the GOP can afford to lose two members on each individual floor vote during the trial. If McConnell can convince Romney and Murkowski to stick with the team on, say, calling Hunter Biden, he could engineer a 51/49 vote in which Hunter is called but Collins and Gardner each get to vote no in hopes of impressing swing voters that they were interested in only the most relevant witnesses. Trump, meanwhile, would need to be convinced not to attack Collins and Gardner for their disloyalty in casting that vote, which shouldn’t be hard considering that they’ll both end up voting to acquit him.
Here’s Paul yesterday insisting on recripocity with witnesses. Tit for tat — or no witnesses at all, which is what he’d prefer.


hotair--2020-01-16--CNN: Why oh why was Pelosi handing out souvenir impeachment pens with a grin?

“ Nothing says seriousness and sobriety , ” Mitch McConnell quipped , “ like handing out souvenirs as though this were a happy bill signing instead of the gravest process in our Constitution.
” In this case , however , the Senate Majority Leader wasn ’ t alone in pointing out the celebratory nature of Nancy Pelosi ’ s supposed “ solemn ” moment .
Fox News captures the moments where the House Speaker makes sure all her colleagues get their Officially Licensed Impeachment Engrossment Pens , smiling for the cameras the whole time : Just how seriously is Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s literally signing her name one letter at a time per pen in order to generate as many souvenirs as possible .
In between , she laughingly quips about how many pens she ’ s using , and at the end starts passing them out to other House Democrats .
A few of them are also smiling , but a couple of them cast furtive glances at the cameras while trying to look as though they believe Pelosi ’ s claim of this being “ solemn.
” Don ’ t miss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolyn Maloney at the end , too , when both flash toothy grins to the press photographers covering the event .
The only possible way this could have been more “ solemn ” was if Pelosi was taking a smartphone selfie .
Say “ cheese !
” The fact that this resembled a partisan football-spiking more than a solemn obligation was not lost even on the CNN panel covering the event .
After Wolf Blitzer noted the historical nature of the impeachment , Dana Bash called Pelosi ’ s cheery souvenir production “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proclaiming the moment “ jarring ” and “ off-message ” : BASH : That ’ s right , and it is ceremonial .
The one thing I will say , and as we were watching it , we are used to seeing signing ceremonies , handing out pens at moments of celebration when a president is signing is legislation .
When — even sometimes , you know , rare occasion but has happened , when the House sends over a landmark piece of legislation .
It was — it was unusual to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House Speaker has bent over backward to say , publicly and privately , this is somber , this is not a time for celebration .
Understandable .
This is history and the people who were involved to mark the moment , but I did not expect to see it .
HENDERSON : Yes .
I thought that was a little jarring and certainly , I think , off message .
Because you heard Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this was a sad and tragic day , and then there she is holding up the pen and having photographs taken with those pens .
So , yes , it — I think it was a little off message for someone who has tried to set a very serious tone , and here she is , posing for photographs with the pen .
So probably not the best decision ( ph ) .
McConnell ridiculed the moment this morning on the Senate floor , noting that the souvenirs were “ gold pens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we take this seriously , after their professions of sobriety and solemnity , McConnell asked , when “ this final display neatly distilled the House ’ s entire partisan process into one perfect visual ” ?
It was a transparently partisan performance from beginning to end .
That ’ s why they sped through a slapdash inquiry in 12 weeks when previous presidential impeachments came after months if not years of investigation and hearings .
That ’ s why the House cut short their own inquiry , declined to pursue their own subpoenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but now want the Senate to re-do their homework and re-run the investigation .
That ’ s why our colleague the Democratic Leader told the press that whatever happens next , as long as he can weaponize the trial to hurt Republicans in the 2020 election , quote , “ it ’ s a win-win.
” And that ’ s why the Speaker of the House apparently saw nothing strange about celebrating the third presidential impeachment in American history with souvenirs and posed photographs .
That about sums it up .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus far .
But it is not what this process will be going forward .
At least they all got the pens , however .

“Nothing says seriousness and sobriety,” Mitch McConnell quipped, “like handing out souvenirs as though this were a happy bill signing instead of the gravest process in our Constitution.” In this case, however, the Senate Majority Leader wasn’t alone in pointing out the celebratory nature of Nancy Pelosi’s supposed “solemn” moment. Fox News captures the moments where the House Speaker makes sure all her colleagues get their Officially Licensed Impeachment Engrossment Pens, smiling for the cameras the whole time:
Just how seriously is Pelosi taking this “solemn” moment? She’s literally signing her name one letter at a time per pen in order to generate as many souvenirs as possible. In between, she laughingly quips about how many pens she’s using, and at the end starts passing them out to other House Democrats. A few of them are also smiling, but a couple of them cast furtive glances at the cameras while trying to look as though they believe Pelosi’s claim of this being “solemn.”
Don’t miss the “solemn” pose with Rep. Carolyn Maloney at the end, too, when both flash toothy grins to the press photographers covering the event. The only possible way this could have been more “solemn” was if Pelosi was taking a smartphone selfie. Say “cheese!”
The fact that this resembled a partisan football-spiking more than a solemn obligation was not lost even on the CNN panel covering the event. After Wolf Blitzer noted the historical nature of the impeachment, Dana Bash called Pelosi’s cheery souvenir production “unusual. Nia-Malika Henderson went further, proclaiming the moment “jarring” and “off-message”:
BASH: That’s right, and it is ceremonial. The one thing I will say, and as we were watching it, we are used to seeing signing ceremonies, handing out pens at moments of celebration when a president is signing is legislation. When — even sometimes, you know, rare occasion but has happened, when the House sends over a landmark piece of legislation. It was — it was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and making — you know, handing out the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the House Speaker has bent over backward to say, publicly and privately, this is somber, this is not a time for celebration. Understandable. This is history and the people who were involved to mark the moment, but I did not expect to see it. BLITZER: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. I thought that was a little jarring and certainly, I think, off message. Because you heard Nancy Pelosi there say, in fact, that this was a sad and tragic day, and then there she is holding up the pen and having photographs taken with those pens. So, yes, it — I think it was a little off message for someone who has tried to set a very serious tone, and here she is, posing for photographs with the pen. So probably not the best decision (ph).
McConnell ridiculed the moment this morning on the Senate floor, noting that the souvenirs were “gold pens on silver platters.” Just how can we take this seriously, after their professions of sobriety and solemnity, McConnell asked, when “this final display neatly distilled the House’s entire partisan process into one perfect visual”?
It was a transparently partisan performance from beginning to end. That’s why they sped through a slapdash inquiry in 12 weeks when previous presidential impeachments came after months if not years of investigation and hearings. That’s why the House cut short their own inquiry, declined to pursue their own subpoenas, and denied the president due process — but now want the Senate to re-do their homework and re-run the investigation. That’s why our colleague the Democratic Leader told the press that whatever happens next, as long as he can weaponize the trial to hurt Republicans in the 2020 election, quote, “it’s a win-win.” And that’s why the Speaker of the House apparently saw nothing strange about celebrating the third presidential impeachment in American history with souvenirs and posed photographs. That about sums it up. That’s what this process has been thus far. But it is not what this process will be going forward.
At least they all got the pens, however.


hotair--2020-01-16--Milwaukee woman says she was fired for posting pro-Trump messages on Facebook

Robyn Polak worked as a dental assistant at Precision Dental MKE in Milwaukee until this week .
She claims she was fired because someone was offended by pro-Trump messages she posted on social media in her off-hours : Robyn Polak , 35 , of South Milwaukee , posted an article from the conservative Daily Wire website praising Trump on Facebook Monday along with a caption saying how “ extremely lucky ” Americans were to have such an “ amazing ” commander-in-chief .
“ I don ’ t care what anyone says !
” wrote Polak , who works as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Polak attended Trump ’ s rally in Milwaukee and wrote “ MAGA 2020 , ” again showing her allegiance to Trump… Those posts motivated a man to post a negative review on her employer ’ s Facebook page , saying that workers at Precision Dental MKE in Milwaukee should not be “ spouting racist comments on Facebook , ” according to a screenshot posted by Polak .
The company noticed the comment and at that point , Polak said she got a call telling her she was fired : The “ Precision Dental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I am so very sorry to have learned that this was posted .
We are handling the situation in-house as we speak .
I assure you that this office does not share those beliefs , ” the response said .
Polak said “ handling it in-house ” meant she got fired over the phone .
“ I was taking my son to speech class , doing errands and my boss called and said , ‘ We need to terminate you , ’ ” Polak said .
“ The office manager said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their Facebook ( page ) , but my name wasn ’ t on there .
They assumed it was me because I ’ m the only Republican in that office.
” WDJT in Milwaukee covered the story yesterday but pointed out that some of Polak ’ s social media posts went beyond positive MAGA messages : Many of her comments Polak shared with CBS 58 included the slogan “ Make America Great Again.
” Others are more colorful , like a meme implying that Barack Obama is the leader of ISIS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader of ISIS ?
Absolutely not , ” Polak said .
“ It ’ s my freedom of speech .
At the end of the day it ’ s my right to defend how I believe.
” It sounds as if Polak engaged in a bit of trolling .
A lot of people on the left and the right share trolling memes because they find them funny , not because they believe they are true .
It ’ s not clear if the person who left the message on her employer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but even if he did it ’ s still a leap from being annoyed by a troll to contacting that person ’ s employer in public .
Ultimately though it ’ s the employer that chose to fire her over this .
Polak has started a gofundme page to raise money for a lawyer and to help her financially until she finds a new job .
Her former employers are denying she was fired for her political views expressed off hours saying “ no employee has ever been terminated for their political beliefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President or any political candidate.
” The company ’ s site has been review-bombed by people angry about the firing and is currently hidden behind a privacy page that requires a login .

Robyn Polak worked as a dental assistant at Precision Dental MKE in Milwaukee until this week. She claims she was fired because someone was offended by pro-Trump messages she posted on social media in her off-hours:
Robyn Polak, 35, of South Milwaukee, posted an article from the conservative Daily Wire website praising Trump on Facebook Monday along with a caption saying how “extremely lucky” Americans were to have such an “amazing” commander-in-chief. “I don’t care what anyone says!” wrote Polak, who works as a dental assistant. A day later, Polak attended Trump’s rally in Milwaukee and wrote “MAGA 2020,” again showing her allegiance to Trump… Those posts motivated a man to post a negative review on her employer’s Facebook page, saying that workers at Precision Dental MKE in Milwaukee should not be “spouting racist comments on Facebook,” according to a screenshot posted by Polak.
The company noticed the comment and at that point, Polak said she got a call telling her she was fired:
The “Precision Dental MKE” account responded to the review. “I am so very sorry to have learned that this was posted. We are handling the situation in-house as we speak. I assure you that this office does not share those beliefs,” the response said. Polak said “handling it in-house” meant she got fired over the phone. “I was taking my son to speech class, doing errands and my boss called and said, ‘We need to terminate you,’ ” Polak said. “The office manager said it was for the review they got on their Facebook (page), but my name wasn’t on there. They assumed it was me because I’m the only Republican in that office.”
WDJT in Milwaukee covered the story yesterday but pointed out that some of Polak’s social media posts went beyond positive MAGA messages:
Many of her comments Polak shared with CBS 58 included the slogan “Make America Great Again.” Others are more colorful, like a meme implying that Barack Obama is the leader of ISIS. “Do I feel like Obama was the leader of ISIS? Absolutely not,” Polak said. “It’s my freedom of speech. At the end of the day it’s my right to defend how I believe.”
It sounds as if Polak engaged in a bit of trolling. A lot of people on the left and the right share trolling memes because they find them funny, not because they believe they are true. It’s not clear if the person who left the message on her employer’s site ever saw that particular message but even if he did it’s still a leap from being annoyed by a troll to contacting that person’s employer in public. Ultimately though it’s the employer that chose to fire her over this.
Polak has started a gofundme page to raise money for a lawyer and to help her financially until she finds a new job. Her former employers are denying she was fired for her political views expressed off hours saying “no employee has ever been terminated for their political beliefs or their support or opposition of the President or any political candidate.” The company’s site has been review-bombed by people angry about the firing and is currently hidden behind a privacy page that requires a login.


hotair--2020-01-16--It begins: John Roberts swears in senators to officially open Trump's impeachment trial

Worth posting if only because it ’ s not something we see every day .
Although , given how this process has and will inevitably normalize impeachment , it ’ s something we ’ ll probably see every four years or so going forward .
It ’ s also worth noting because it ’ s rare to watch a bunch of public officials swear an oath and know that every last one of them will violate it .
The oath , as you ’ ll see , calls for “ impartial justice.
” There are no impartial people in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Marsha Blackburn asked a fair question yesterday .
How the hell can senators who ’ d directly benefit from Trump ’ s removal possibly rule impartially on his guilt ?
They have a gross conflict of interest .
“ Tomorrow , one hundred United States Senators will be sworn in to serve in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office , ” Blackburn said in a statement .
She added that Sens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , Michael Bennet ( D-Colo. ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
“ can not sit in judgment of the very President they seek to replace.
” Of course , it ’ s not like those four votes will matter to the ultimate verdict .
Recusing them would only make the decision in Trump ’ s favor a bit more lopsided .
It could even backfire .
If you think Bernie-style populism is a bigger threat electorally than Biden-style centrism then the last thing you should want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skip the trial and head back out to campaign .
Democrats have their own grievances about impartiality , of course .
Val Demings , one of Pelosi ’ s new impeachment managers , wants to know : How the hell can Mitch McConnell possibly rule impartially on Trump ’ s guilt when he ’ s already on record as saying he ’ s not impartial ?
“ The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution , he will be in violation of that oath , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He has effectively promised to let President Trump manage his own impeachment trial .
The Senator must withdraw.
” Following the press conference announcing impeachment managers on Wednesday , when asked if she still holds that position , Demings told McClatchy , “ I certainly do.
” “ I ’ m disappointed , ” she continued .
“ As I said before , the senators and we have been given a tremendous responsibility , as well as the president .
For the Senate Majority Leader to publicly announce that he has no intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of fact , he ’ s coordinating every step with the White House and there will be no difference between the White House and his views , is absolutely shameful .
It ’ s hard to take that one back and put that toothpaste back in the tube.
” McConnell had an answer to all that back in December : “ Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial ?
Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial ?
Bernie Sanders is impartial ?
So let ’ s quit the charade .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right , he ’ s right .
How can we single out one political hack when they ’ re all political hacks ?
The trial is now adjourned until Tuesday .
They ’ ll have just 12 business days to acquit Trump if they want him vindicated by the State of the Union .

Worth posting if only because it’s not something we see every day.
Although, given how this process has and will inevitably normalize impeachment, it’s something we’ll probably see every four years or so going forward.
It’s also worth noting because it’s rare to watch a bunch of public officials swear an oath and know that every last one of them will violate it. The oath, as you’ll see, calls for “impartial justice.” There are no impartial people in that crowd of 100. Not a one.
Well … maybe Kyrsten Sinema.
Marsha Blackburn asked a fair question yesterday. How the hell can senators who’d directly benefit from Trump’s removal possibly rule impartially on his guilt? They have a gross conflict of interest.
“Tomorrow, one hundred United States Senators will be sworn in to serve in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office,” Blackburn said in a statement. She added that Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) “cannot sit in judgment of the very President they seek to replace.”
Of course, it’s not like those four votes will matter to the ultimate verdict. Recusing them would only make the decision in Trump’s favor a bit more lopsided. It could even backfire. If you think Bernie-style populism is a bigger threat electorally than Biden-style centrism then the last thing you should want is to give Sanders an excuse to skip the trial and head back out to campaign.
Democrats have their own grievances about impartiality, of course. Val Demings, one of Pelosi’s new impeachment managers, wants to know: How the hell can Mitch McConnell possibly rule impartially on Trump’s guilt when he’s already on record as saying he’s not impartial?
“The moment Senator McConnell takes the oath of impartiality required by the Constitution, he will be in violation of that oath,” she said [on December 13]. “He has effectively promised to let President Trump manage his own impeachment trial. The Senator must withdraw.” Following the press conference announcing impeachment managers on Wednesday, when asked if she still holds that position, Demings told McClatchy, “I certainly do.” “I’m disappointed,” she continued. “As I said before, the senators and we have been given a tremendous responsibility, as well as the president. For the Senate Majority Leader to publicly announce that he has no intentions on being impartial and, as a matter of fact, he’s coordinating every step with the White House and there will be no difference between the White House and his views, is absolutely shameful. It’s hard to take that one back and put that toothpaste back in the tube.”
McConnell had an answer to all that back in December: “Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie Sanders is impartial? So let’s quit the charade. This is a political exercise.” When the man’s right, he’s right.
How can we single out one political hack when they’re all political hacks?
The trial is now adjourned until Tuesday. They’ll have just 12 business days to acquit Trump if they want him vindicated by the State of the Union.


hotair--2020-01-16--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Hear ye, hear ye, Impeachapalooza draws near, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane “ Generalissimo ” Patterson brings us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow ’ s Hugh Hewitt show .
With all of the high drama and low partisanship on display @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend a lot of time on impeachment .
We ’ ll also talk about USMCA too , Iran if we can , Ilhan maybe illin ’ at the FBI , and the end of state and local vetoes on refugee resettlement .
• Tune in tonight at the Hughniverse for Duane ’ s Aftershow , where we will continue our conversation at 8 pm ET !
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. With all of the high drama and low partisanship on display in Washington DC, we’ll spend a lot of time on impeachment. We’ll also talk about USMCA too, Iran if we can, Ilhan maybe illin’ at the FBI, and the end of state and local vetoes on refugee resettlement.
Tune in tonight at the Hughniverse for Duane’s Aftershow, where we will continue our conversation at 8 pm ET!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-01-16--NY Times Opinion: Anti-Semitism can begin in progressive high schools

The long list of anti-Semitic attacks in the New York area last year left a lot of people wondering where all the hatred for Jews was coming from .
It was quietly noted by a few brave souls that most of the incidents didn ’ t seem to involve the usual suspects , i.e .
white supremacists .
On the contrary , video showed that many of the people responsible for anti-Semitic incidents in New York were black .
Many of them seemed to be fairly young .
So where was all of this coming from ?
Jane Coaston wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this hate might be connected to conspiracy theories about Jews which had been spread for decades by the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan .
Specifically , Coaston blamed a 1991 book titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews .
But if her piece offered an explanation of the source of the hate , it didn ’ t offer a vector .
How was anti-Semitism being spread around to the point that even high school kids seemed to have picked up on it ?
Today , the NY Times published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Semitism is being spread in high schools : We recently spoke to some 500 high school students , teachers and administrators at Ethical Culture Fieldston School in the Bronx .
As the senior rabbis of two major Reform synagogues with which dozens of Fieldston families are affiliated , we presented the Jewish community ’ s perspectives on the surge in anti-Semitic incidents in our area and throughout the country .
We clarified that while we do not claim to represent all Jews , our views do fall within mainstream Jewish opinion .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police and the F.B.I .
about the pervasiveness of attacks against Jews .
We also addressed the controversy that had erupted in the aftermath of Fieldston ’ s November assembly , in which a guest speaker equated Israelis with Nazis and asserted that Israelis are an example of “ victims becoming the perpetrators.
” Several hours after we spoke last week , Fieldston fired a teacher who had posted tweets demonizing Zionism .
Students reported that while we were speaking , the teacher flipped a middle finger at one of us… The events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reflective of a much bigger problem .
Anti-Israel activism has spread beyond the college campus and into the elementary and high school classroom .
In Newton , Mass.
, a high school taught that Israel was “ murdering and torturing Palestinian women.
” In 2016 , a Palestinian activist visiting an elementary school classroom in Ithaca , N.Y. , inveighed against Israel and called on students to “ be the freedom fighter ” for the Palestinians… Jewish parents should be especially worried .
When teachers and professors turn the classroom into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unwitting pawns instead of safeguarded learners .
Once again , it has to be pointed out that the students and faculty at Fieldston are known to be progressive .
New York magazine said the school considered itself “ a standard-bearer in progressive education ” which intended to combat racism starting in elementary school .
Here ’ s how the NY Times described what happened at the school last year in an earlier news story : Fieldston spent much of last year trying to contain a rebellion by its students , some of whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campus in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in March to protest what they said was a racist school culture .
The school agreed to many of the students ’ demands , including anti-bias training and a commitment to hire more teachers of color… In November , Kayum Ahmed , a director at the Open Society Foundations philanthropic organization who had been invited to speak at an assembly at the high school , responded to a student ’ s question about South Africa by linking what Jews endured during the Holocaust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As part of an answer about victims of violence becoming perpetrators in South Africa , Mr. Ahmed said , “ I use the same example in talking about the Holocaust .
That Jews who suffered in the Holocaust and established the State of Israel today , they perpetuate violence against Palestinians.
” So if there ’ s anti-Semitism cropping up at Fieldston , it ’ s not coming from a cabal of white supremacists , it ’ s being transmitted from earnest progressives .
You can certainly argue that students who engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it ’ s still on the schools to be explicitly about where the lines are drawn between political opposition to Israel and anti-Semitism .
If even some teachers are struggling with that at Fieldston ( and similar schools ) then it ’ s not surprising some students might be as well .

The long list of anti-Semitic attacks in the New York area last year left a lot of people wondering where all the hatred for Jews was coming from. It was quietly noted by a few brave souls that most of the incidents didn’t seem to involve the usual suspects, i.e. white supremacists. On the contrary, video showed that many of the people responsible for anti-Semitic incidents in New York were black. Many of them seemed to be fairly young. So where was all of this coming from?
Jane Coaston wrote a piece for Vox suggesting that some of this hate might be connected to conspiracy theories about Jews which had been spread for decades by the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan. Specifically, Coaston blamed a 1991 book titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. But if her piece offered an explanation of the source of the hate, it didn’t offer a vector. How was anti-Semitism being spread around to the point that even high school kids seemed to have picked up on it? Today, the NY Times published a piece by two rabbis which argues that anti-Semitism is being spread in high schools:
We recently spoke to some 500 high school students, teachers and administrators at Ethical Culture Fieldston School in the Bronx. As the senior rabbis of two major Reform synagogues with which dozens of Fieldston families are affiliated, we presented the Jewish community’s perspectives on the surge in anti-Semitic incidents in our area and throughout the country. We clarified that while we do not claim to represent all Jews, our views do fall within mainstream Jewish opinion. We shared statistics from the New York City police and the F.B.I. about the pervasiveness of attacks against Jews. We also addressed the controversy that had erupted in the aftermath of Fieldston’s November assembly, in which a guest speaker equated Israelis with Nazis and asserted that Israelis are an example of “victims becoming the perpetrators.” Several hours after we spoke last week, Fieldston fired a teacher who had posted tweets demonizing Zionism. Students reported that while we were speaking, the teacher flipped a middle finger at one of us… The events at Fieldston have broad importance, and are reflective of a much bigger problem. Anti-Israel activism has spread beyond the college campus and into the elementary and high school classroom. In Newton, Mass., a high school taught that Israel was “murdering and torturing Palestinian women.” In 2016, a Palestinian activist visiting an elementary school classroom in Ithaca, N.Y., inveighed against Israel and called on students to “be the freedom fighter” for the Palestinians… Jewish parents should be especially worried. When teachers and professors turn the classroom into an arena for anti-Israel animosity, students become unwitting pawns instead of safeguarded learners.
Once again, it has to be pointed out that the students and faculty at Fieldston are known to be progressive. New York magazine said the school considered itself “a standard-bearer in progressive education” which intended to combat racism starting in elementary school. Here’s how the NY Times described what happened at the school last year in an earlier news story:
Fieldston spent much of last year trying to contain a rebellion by its students, some of whom locked themselves in buildings on the school’s campus in the Riverdale section of the Bronx in March to protest what they said was a racist school culture. The school agreed to many of the students’ demands, including anti-bias training and a commitment to hire more teachers of color… In November, Kayum Ahmed, a director at the Open Society Foundations philanthropic organization who had been invited to speak at an assembly at the high school, responded to a student’s question about South Africa by linking what Jews endured during the Holocaust to violence against Palestinians in Israel. As part of an answer about victims of violence becoming perpetrators in South Africa, Mr. Ahmed said, “I use the same example in talking about the Holocaust. That Jews who suffered in the Holocaust and established the State of Israel today, they perpetuate violence against Palestinians.”
So if there’s anti-Semitism cropping up at Fieldston, it’s not coming from a cabal of white supremacists, it’s being transmitted from earnest progressives. You can certainly argue that students who engage in anti-Semitic acts are misunderstanding the messages, but it’s still on the schools to be explicitly about where the lines are drawn between political opposition to Israel and anti-Semitism. If even some teachers are struggling with that at Fieldston (and similar schools) then it’s not surprising some students might be as well.


hotair--2020-01-16--GAO: Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act in hold on Ukraine aid

Theoretically ?
Maybe , although it ’ s still the weakest of the weak-sauce arguments for arguing the illegality of Donald Trump ’ s actions in Ukraine-Gate .
Even the General Accounting Office ’ s conclusion that the hold on congressionally appropriated military aid violated the Impoundment Control Act somehow misses the fact that it got sent in the same budget year .
It ’ s also not a crime , either , but a tort .
We ’ ll get to that in a moment : In the summer of 2019 , the Office of Management and Budget ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Department of Defense ( DOD ) for security assistance to Ukraine .
In order to withhold the funds , OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation .
Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law .
OMB withheld funds for a policy reason , which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act ( ICA ) .
The withholding was not a programmatic delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated the ICA .
Read the whole report , however , and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion , which is that the administration didn ’ t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year .
All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle : GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why .
Had the administration not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been required to send a “ special message ” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it .
The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “ programmatic ” issues rather than policy decisions , which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them .
That , however , is not found in the text of the ICA ; in fact , it doesn ’ t place any effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , emphasis mine : Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons ( including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided ) , or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress a special message specifying— ( 1 ) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved ; ( 2 ) any account , department , or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation , and the specific project or governmental functions involved ; ( 3 ) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved ; ( 4 ) to the maximum extent practicable , the estimated fiscal , economic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or of the reservation ; and ( 5 ) all facts , circumstances , and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation , and to the maximum extent practicable , the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects , purposes , and programs for which the budget authority is provided .
The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “ fiscal policy or other reasons , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ programmatic.
” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “ authorized projects , ” which is the opposite of the GAO ’ s definition of “ programmatic.
” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions , but only when the money won ’ t be spent within the fiscal year .
That makes sense , because to delay it past the September 30 date would force Congress to re-appropriate the money in the next cycle .
Plus , since appropriations are enacted as laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – if in fact the money didn ’ t get spent .
In this case , the money did get spent within the budget year .
The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned , but as long as it got spent , there ’ s no violation .
And contra the GAO ’ s take , delays for non-programmatic reasons don ’ t violate the ICA as long as it doesn ’ t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself , as I noted last month when the issue first got raised .
The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds , not to criminally prosecute the president over it , emphases mine : If , under this chapter , budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation , the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered , through attorneys of his own selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation , and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action , against any department , agency , officer , or employee of the United States , any decree , judgment , or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation .
No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate .
Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974 , this is a civil matter , not a “ high crime or misdemeanor.
” It ’ s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president , the head of a co-equal branch of government .
And it ’ s worth pointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same year that Congress was working to remove a duly-elected president over actual crimes , one who resigned ahead of impeachment and removal .
Buried deeply in the Washington Post report on the GAO ’ s conclusion , below where they quote Sen. Chris Murphy calling this a “ bombshell , ” readers discover just how mundane this finding actually is : The administration has previously disagreed with the GAO ’ s findings , including last year when GAO said the Trump administration violated federal spending law during the government shutdown by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In cases of a violation , the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money , which has happened only once– in the 1970s .
The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released .
Several administrations have been slapped by the GAO , including that of George Bush , Bill Clinton and George W. Bush .
In general , the administrations were cited for freeing funds for spending , making lawsuits unnecessary .
Most recently , in December 2018 , the GAO said the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriated for the Coast Guard to support national security efforts .
The funds were eventually released .
It ’ s an ongoing issue , barely even worth mentioning , especially when the funds ended up getting released anyway .
It ’ s hardly surprising , given the thin case made by the House , that the media and Trump ’ s opponents are rushing to turn this civil molehill into a criminal mountain .

Theoretically? Maybe, although it’s still the weakest of the weak-sauce arguments for arguing the illegality of Donald Trump’s actions in Ukraine-Gate. Even the General Accounting Office’s conclusion that the hold on congressionally appropriated military aid violated the Impoundment Control Act somehow misses the fact that it got sent in the same budget year.
It’s also not a crime, either, but a tort. We’ll get to that in a moment:
In the summer of 2019, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld from obligation funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) for security assistance to Ukraine. In order to withhold the funds, OMB issued a series of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes that made all unobligated balances unavailable for obligation. Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The withholding was not a programmatic delay. Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.
Read the whole report, however, and one finds the glaring issue with this conclusion, which is that the administration didn’t have an obligation to release the funds on any specific date in the fiscal year. All they needed to do was to make sure the money got spent by the last day of the budget cycle:
For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Pub. L. No. 115-245, § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044–45. The funds were available “to provide assistance, including training; equipment; lethal assistance; logistics support, supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.” Id. § 9013, 132 Stat. at 3044. The appropriation made the funds available for obligation through September 30, 2019.
GAO rebukes the Trump administration for issuing a series of orders making the funds temporarily unavailable without any explanations for why. Had the administration not spent the funds at all, it would have been required to send a “special message” to Congress within 15 days of that decision to allow for both chambers to take action on it. The GAO also argues that those decisions have to be based on “programmatic” issues rather than policy decisions, which they mean temporary issues with the programs and processes themselves rather than policy opposition to them. That, however, is not found in the text of the ICA; in fact, it doesn’t place any effective limitation on the reason for such rescissions, emphasis mine:
Whenever the President determines that all or part of any budget authority will not be required to carry out the full objectives or scope of programs for which it is provided or that such budget authority should be rescinded for fiscal policy or other reasons (including the termination of authorized projects or activities for which budget authority has been provided), or whenever all or part of budget authority provided for only one fiscal year is to be reserved from obligation for such fiscal year, the President shall transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying— (1) the amount of budget authority which he proposes to be rescinded or which is to be so reserved; (2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involved; (3) the reasons why the budget authority should be rescinded or is to be so reserved; (4) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed rescission or of the reservation; and (5) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission or the reservation and the decision to effect the proposed rescission or the reservation, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed rescission or the reservation upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided.
The very text of the ICA envisions such rescissions taken for reasons of “fiscal policy or other reasons,” and has no explicit limitation on reasons being “programmatic.” It even explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of canceling “authorized projects,” which is the opposite of the GAO’s definition of “programmatic.” The ICA does require the president/administration to notify Congress of those decisions, but only when the money won’t be spent within the fiscal year. That makes sense, because to delay it past the September 30 date would force Congress to re-appropriate the money in the next cycle. Plus, since appropriations are enacted as laws, such a failure would violate the law – if in fact the money didn’t get spent.
In this case, the money did get spent within the budget year. The aid may not have gone out as quickly as Congress intended or as the administration first planned, but as long as it got spent, there’s no violation. And contra the GAO’s take, delays for non-programmatic reasons don’t violate the ICA as long as it doesn’t go past the same fiscal year as the appropriation.
Even if it did, though, Congress proposed the remedy for such failures within the ICA itself, as I noted last month when the issue first got raised. The remedy is to sue the administration to force it to spend the funds, not to criminally prosecute the president over it, emphases mine:
If, under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation, and such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action, against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation. No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days of continuous session of the Congress following the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
Under the agreement of both the executive and legislative branches in 1974, this is a civil matter, not a “high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s an absurdly picayune basis for removing an elected president, the head of a co-equal branch of government. And it’s worth pointing out that this act got signed in the same year that Congress was working to remove a duly-elected president over actual crimes, one who resigned ahead of impeachment and removal.
Buried deeply in the Washington Post report on the GAO’s conclusion, below where they quote Sen. Chris Murphy calling this a “bombshell,” readers discover just how mundane this finding actually is:
The administration has previously disagreed with the GAO’s findings, including last year when GAO said the Trump administration violated federal spending law during the government shutdown by allowing popular park sites to stay open. In cases of a violation, the most the GAO can do is sue the administration to release money, which has happened only once– in the 1970s. The lawsuit was later dismissed when the funds were released. Several administrations have been slapped by the GAO, including that of George Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. In general, the administrations were cited for freeing funds for spending, making lawsuits unnecessary. Most recently, in December 2018, the GAO said the Department of Homeland Security illegally withheld $95 million appropriated for the Coast Guard to support national security efforts. The funds were eventually released.
It’s an ongoing issue, barely even worth mentioning, especially when the funds ended up getting released anyway. It’s hardly surprising, given the thin case made by the House, that the media and Trump’s opponents are rushing to turn this civil molehill into a criminal mountain.