hotair--2020-01-30--Video: Roberts shoots down Paul's whistleblower question ... again

Same effort … same result , and it didn ’ t even trigger a floor fight that might have livened up today ’ s Senate trial session .
Earlier this morning , Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) appeared to be readying a challenge to Chief Justice John Roberts ’ authority to screen questions directed at the legal teams fighting out Donald Trump ’ s impeachment .
Instead , it ended in a fizzle — on Twitter .
Here ’ s the anti-climactic moment on the Senate floor : Paul could have objected to the ruling and forced a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aloud .
Instead , Paul left the chamber immediately afterward and continued his argument on Twitter .
He denied that his question was about the whistleblower per se , a rather disingenuous take considering that he keeps bringing up the name of the man widely suspected of being the whistleblower .
Paul then goes on to tweet that name plus the name of an Adam Schiff staffer to demand information about contacts between the two .
Here ’ s the question without the name , which Roberts could easily have read and allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the links if curiosity overwhelms you , but this shows that naming the whistleblower was entirely Paul ’ s point .
The question is legitimate , as are the issues it raises .
Patrick Philbin did a masterful job last night in outlining both the substantive and due-process issues relating to the conduct of the House Intelligence Committee and the whistleblower , without having to name him at all .
Paul could have done the same with this question by asking it in such a manner as to force Schiff and other House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul chose to grandstand — and then retreat .
Why retreat ?
Mitch McConnell made his displeasure with his Kentucky colleague fully known at the start of the session , that ’ s why : Before the question , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , opened the question session by assuring Roberts that the Senate would respect his “ unique position in reading in reading our questions.
” “ I want to be able to continue to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained multiple times in multiple contexts here , only has the authority granted to him by the Senate as its Presiding Officer .
The Senate runs itself and sets it own rules .
According to its rules on impeachment , any action taken by the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer is subject to a floor vote if any one member objects to it on the floor .
Paul could have availed himself of that option , but in all likelihood he would have lost by an overwhelming majority , an outcome that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible that he might have been the only vote in favor of his own objection in this case .
Still , it seems a shame to have missed out on that opportunity for bipartisanship and consensus .
We ’ re not going to have many of those over the next few days , or weeks , or months , or …

Same effort … same result, and it didn’t even trigger a floor fight that might have livened up today’s Senate trial session. Earlier this morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared to be readying a challenge to Chief Justice John Roberts’ authority to screen questions directed at the legal teams fighting out Donald Trump’s impeachment. Instead, it ended in a fizzle — on Twitter.
Here’s the anti-climactic moment on the Senate floor:
Rand Paul: I have a question to present to the desk for the House manager Schiff and for the president's counsel. *Chief Justice John Roberts receives and reads Paul's written question* Roberts: The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted pic.twitter.com/HC0QGht4V1 — POLITICO (@politico) January 30, 2020
Paul could have objected to the ruling and forced a vote on whether the question should be read aloud. Instead, Paul left the chamber immediately afterward and continued his argument on Twitter. He denied that his question was about the whistleblower per se, a rather disingenuous take considering that he keeps bringing up the name of the man widely suspected of being the whistleblower. Paul then goes on to tweet that name plus the name of an Adam Schiff staffer to demand information about contacts between the two. Here’s the question without the name, which Roberts could easily have read and allowed an answer:
Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with [the alleged whistleblower] while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that [whistleblower] and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.
Feel free to follow the links if curiosity overwhelms you, but this shows that naming the whistleblower was entirely Paul’s point. The question is legitimate, as are the issues it raises. Patrick Philbin did a masterful job last night in outlining both the substantive and due-process issues relating to the conduct of the House Intelligence Committee and the whistleblower, without having to name him at all. Paul could have done the same with this question by asking it in such a manner as to force Schiff and other House managers to answer it. Instead, Paul chose to grandstand — and then retreat.
Why retreat? Mitch McConnell made his displeasure with his Kentucky colleague fully known at the start of the session, that’s why:
Before the question, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opened the question session by assuring Roberts that the Senate would respect his “unique position in reading in reading our questions.” “I want to be able to continue to assure him that that level of consideration for him will continue,” he said.
Roberts, as has been explained multiple times in multiple contexts here, only has the authority granted to him by the Senate as its Presiding Officer. The Senate runs itself and sets it own rules. According to its rules on impeachment, any action taken by the Chief Justice as Presiding Officer is subject to a floor vote if any one member objects to it on the floor. Paul could have availed himself of that option, but in all likelihood he would have lost by an overwhelming majority, an outcome that would have proven embarrassing. It’s possible that he might have been the only vote in favor of his own objection in this case.
Still, it seems a shame to have missed out on that opportunity for bipartisanship and consensus. We’re not going to have many of those over the next few days, or weeks, or months, or …


hotair--2020-01-30--Elizabeth Warren: A young trans person will have veto power over my choice for Secretary of Educatio

Elizabeth Warren: A young trans person will have veto power over my choice for Secretary of Education

Via the Daily Caller , a leftover from last weekend that somehow wasn ’ t noticed until now .
I guess my question would be : Why just the Secretary of Education ?
Every arm of the government reaches trans people in one way or another .
The Secretary of Defense would be expected to have input on whether trans soldiers should be admitted to the military .
The Secretary of State might have some ideas about how to restrain foreign governments from persecuting their own trans citizens .
If we ’ re going to be as nutty as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power over cabinet appointments in the name of identity politics , we might as well go whole hog .
Does she understand , by the way , that other minority groups will also understandably demand a veto over her nominees via some designated representative if a veto is granted to a trans person ( or to someone from a different group ) ?
One way she might answer that would be to note that interest groups of all sorts already have vetoes to some degree over cabinet officials .
For instance , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of Labor would have a major problem getting nominated if the AFL-CIO opposed him or her for whatever reason .
Isn ’ t this the same thing ?
Well … no , because ( a ) the AFL-CIO has a clearly defined leadership that ’ s empowered to speak for it and ( b ) they ’ re a major constituency within the realm of policy governed by the Labor Department .
Warren ’ s proposal would grant an unusual right of refusal to a single niche among the huge array of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it would limit that right to a single person , chosen basically at random .
In fact , I think she has a specific trans person in mind , the one who asked her a question about education policy at a town hall in October .
That child is nine .
Which , perhaps , explains the pander here .
This isn ’ t an old-fashioned Elizabeth Warren bald-faced lie but it may be something like a little white lie .
If she ’ s talking about letting a nine-year-old “ vet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be forthcoming .
It ’ ll be a photo op in which the nominee promises to take bullying seriously , approval is duly granted by the child , and on we go to confirmation — on Earth 2 , at least .
Here on Earth 1 , Warren looks like she ’ s destined to get wrecked next month .
Exit question from Seth Mandel : “ Is Elizabeth Warren real or have right-wing minds simply conjured her from existing materials like a woke golem ” ?
Update : I tweaked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s talking about the cabinet nomination process here .

Via the Daily Caller, a leftover from last weekend that somehow wasn’t noticed until now.
I guess my question would be: Why just the Secretary of Education? Every arm of the government reaches trans people in one way or another. The Secretary of Defense would be expected to have input on whether trans soldiers should be admitted to the military. The Secretary of State might have some ideas about how to restrain foreign governments from persecuting their own trans citizens.
If we’re going to be as nutty as to grant random members of minority communities veto power over cabinet appointments in the name of identity politics, we might as well go whole hog.
Does she understand, by the way, that other minority groups will also understandably demand a veto over her nominees via some designated representative if a veto is granted to a trans person (or to someone from a different group)?
One way she might answer that would be to note that interest groups of all sorts already have vetoes to some degree over cabinet officials. For instance, a Warren donor with a yearning to be Secretary of Labor would have a major problem getting nominated if the AFL-CIO opposed him or her for whatever reason. Isn’t this the same thing? Well … no, because (a) the AFL-CIO has a clearly defined leadership that’s empowered to speak for it and (b) they’re a major constituency within the realm of policy governed by the Labor Department. Warren’s proposal would grant an unusual right of refusal to a single niche among the huge array of constituencies involved in American public education. And it would limit that right to a single person, chosen basically at random.
In fact, I think she has a specific trans person in mind, the one who asked her a question about education policy at a town hall in October. That child is nine.
Which, perhaps, explains the pander here. This isn’t an old-fashioned Elizabeth Warren bald-faced lie but it may be something like a little white lie. If she’s talking about letting a nine-year-old “vet” her nominee then obviously no veto will be forthcoming. It’ll be a photo op in which the nominee promises to take bullying seriously, approval is duly granted by the child, and on we go to confirmation — on Earth 2, at least. Here on Earth 1, Warren looks like she’s destined to get wrecked next month.
Exit question from Seth Mandel: “Is Elizabeth Warren real or have right-wing minds simply conjured her from existing materials like a woke golem”?
Update: I tweaked the headline to make clear that she’s talking about the cabinet nomination process here.


hotair--2020-01-30--Bolton lawyer to NSC: Finish your review of book immediately so Bolton can testify

The train has done left the station on that score , apparently , but John Bolton ’ s legal team didn ’ t know that at the time .
The NSC letter informed Bolton and his publisher on January 23rd that his book contained classified information ( including TOP SECRET ) that would have to be removed for publication approval .
That prompted an immediate reply from Bolton ’ s legal team on January 24th , although both communications are only now emerging in public .
Not only did Charles Cooper reject their finding that the book contains classified information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclude its review so Bolton can make an appearance in the Senate trial of Donald Trump .
Eh … they can probably take their time now : An attorney for John Bolton has pushed back against the White House ’ s assessment that his book manuscript contains classified material and asked for an expedited review of a chapter about Ukraine in case the former national security adviser is called to testify in the Senate impeachment trial .
The Jan. 24 email to the White House from Bolton ’ s lawyer , Charles Cooper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the National Security Council a day earlier warning that the manuscript contained “ significant amounts ” of classified material that could not be disclosed publicly .
“ We do not believe that any of that information could reasonably be considered classified , ” Cooper responded , according to a copy of the email he released Wednesday .
He added that Bolton is “ preparing ” for the possibility he could be called to testify in the ongoing Senate trial , writing that it was “ imperative that we have the results of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible.
” What was the implication here ?
It sounds as though Bolton ’ s legal team wanted to accuse the NSC of obstructing Bolton ’ s testimony , which seems … rather odd , since the NSC is one of the prime suspects in the leak .
Or are they ?
All of this took place on Wednesday and Thursday of last week .
Three days after Cooper ’ s letter went out , the New York Times published an overview of the Ukraine chapter after having been briefed by “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bolton ’ s legal team lashed out publicly within hours , blaming the leak on the NSC .
The White House and its allies also raised questions about the NSC ( specifically about the Vindman brothers ) .
However , if Cooper was insinuating that the NSC was blocking the release of the information in order to keep Bolton from testifying , why would the NSC turn around and leak the information ?
It ’ s at least plausible that Bolton ’ s team engineered the leak in order to force the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t back down .
Not that it matters now , since Republicans seem to have the votes locked down on ending the trial without calling new witnesses .
That will no doubt infuriate House Democrats , but they can call Bolton at their leisure later , after having litigated the executive-privilege claim that will follow shortly afterward .
Once they do or once the book comes out , Democrats will hail Bolton as a courageous whistleblower — and perhaps not without reason .
It ’ s worth remembering when they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both newfound and entirely transactional .
To get a better read on what Democrats actually think of Bolton , just keep this bon mot from Adam Schiff circa March 2018 handy .
“ This is someone who ’ s likely to exaggerate the dangerous impulses of the president toward belligerence , his proclivity to act without thinking , and his love of conspiracy theories , ” Schiff said of Bolton to MSNBC ’ s Rachel Maddow on March 22 , 2018 , when Bolton was named Trump ’ s national security adviser .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know , just add one data point to what you were talking about earlier : John Bolton once suggested on Fox News that the Russian hack of the DNC [ Democratic National Committee ] was a false flag operation that had been conducted by the Obama administration .
”

The train has done left the station on that score, apparently, but John Bolton’s legal team didn’t know that at the time. The NSC letter informed Bolton and his publisher on January 23rd that his book contained classified information (including TOP SECRET) that would have to be removed for publication approval. That prompted an immediate reply from Bolton’s legal team on January 24th, although both communications are only now emerging in public. Not only did Charles Cooper reject their finding that the book contains classified information, he demanded that the NSC immediately conclude its review so Bolton can make an appearance in the Senate trial of Donald Trump.
Eh … they can probably take their time now:
An attorney for John Bolton has pushed back against the White House’s assessment that his book manuscript contains classified material and asked for an expedited review of a chapter about Ukraine in case the former national security adviser is called to testify in the Senate impeachment trial. The Jan. 24 email to the White House from Bolton’s lawyer, Charles Cooper, was in response to a letter from the National Security Council a day earlier warning that the manuscript contained “significant amounts” of classified material that could not be disclosed publicly. “We do not believe that any of that information could reasonably be considered classified,” Cooper responded, according to a copy of the email he released Wednesday. He added that Bolton is “preparing” for the possibility he could be called to testify in the ongoing Senate trial, writing that it was “imperative that we have the results of your review of that chapter as soon as possible.”
What was the implication here? It sounds as though Bolton’s legal team wanted to accuse the NSC of obstructing Bolton’s testimony, which seems … rather odd, since the NSC is one of the prime suspects in the leak. Or are they? All of this took place on Wednesday and Thursday of last week. Three days after Cooper’s letter went out, the New York Times published an overview of the Ukraine chapter after having been briefed by “multiple people” with access to it.
Bolton’s legal team lashed out publicly within hours, blaming the leak on the NSC. The White House and its allies also raised questions about the NSC (specifically about the Vindman brothers). However, if Cooper was insinuating that the NSC was blocking the release of the information in order to keep Bolton from testifying, why would the NSC turn around and leak the information? It’s at least plausible that Bolton’s team engineered the leak in order to force the NSC into an uncomfortable position if they didn’t back down.
Not that it matters now, since Republicans seem to have the votes locked down on ending the trial without calling new witnesses. That will no doubt infuriate House Democrats, but they can call Bolton at their leisure later, after having litigated the executive-privilege claim that will follow shortly afterward. Once they do or once the book comes out, Democrats will hail Bolton as a courageous whistleblower — and perhaps not without reason. It’s worth remembering when they do that their respect for Bolton will be both newfound and entirely transactional.
To get a better read on what Democrats actually think of Bolton, just keep this bon mot from Adam Schiff circa March 2018 handy.


hotair--2020-01-30--John Brennan: Cancel the State of the Union, blames impeachment

Former CIA Director John Brennan is an unabashed member of The Resistance .
He and the rest of the Trump-hating left are bitterly clinging to the hope that a miracle will occur in the impeachment trial .
Nothing short of a vote in the Senate to affirm that the president is guilty of the charges before them will suffice .
Then , of course , President Trump must be removed from office .
Reality is slowly setting in for men like Brennan .
President Trump will not be voted guilty in the Senate and he will not be removed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of his term .
Brennan has found a way to vent about Trump through a sweet gig as a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC .
During an appearance on Chuck Todd ’ s MSNBC show on Monday , Brennan went so far as to say that President Trump should just cancel the State of the Union address this year .
It probably shouldn ’ t surprise us that Brennan made such a statement .
He ’ s an authoritarian and denying the opportunity of an opposing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
Just look at the problems conservative speakers on college campuses have .
Brennan ’ s contention is that since the timing of the address by the president and the impeachment trial may collide , the State of the Union address should be canceled .
The date scheduled for the president to deliver the address is February 4 – next Tuesday .
Brennan has no more clear idea of when the impeachment trial will be wrapping up than any of the rest of us but he wanted to get out there and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Brennan is worried about the intersection of two events and , well , it ’ s just embarrassing to America on the world stage , you know .
And , just like that , show host Chuck Todd chimed in with agreement .
Brennan said , “ I just can not imagine .
It ’ s not just embarrassing , but also I think it ’ s very destructive to the image of the United States worldwide to have this going on and have Mr. Trump up there.
” Todd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our union is strong , ’ who the hell is going to say that ?
” Are you kidding me ?
It ’ s bad enough to have a former government employee go off on President Trump and calling him out for something that hasn ’ t even happened yet – making the SOTU speech all about him and not the country – but for Chuck Todd to ask who the hell is going to say that the state of our union is strong is beyond the pale .
If either are truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the globe , they have only to check themselves .
The former CIA Director trashing the leader of the free world on television – a show that was airing during a break from the impeachment trial , by the way – is the worst look to be projected .
I realize that Chuck Todd and his ilk live in a special kind of bubble .
What he and his pals don ’ t understand , though , is that at least half of the country doesn ’ t agree with such hyperbole and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are millions of people in America who can say the state of our union is strong without hesitation .
Cable news show hosts think of our nation ’ s union in only partisan thoughts – the political divisiveness that polarizes those in Washington , D.C. and other hubs of the political class isn ’ t how most of America lives .
We go about our lives and don ’ t become paralyzed by those around us who may hold different political opinions .
It must distress Brennan and Todd that the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced such a huge turnout of folks wanting to get in .
Thousands of people lined up for hours in cold weather hoping to get a seat inside .
The economy continues to boom , unemployment is still at record lows , employment of minorities and young people is at record highs , regulations are being stripped from crushing small businesses and big employers alike , for a few examples of what is going right for voters .
If Brennan is so concerned about the world ’ s opinion of President Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and see the kudos Trump receives for holding other nations accountable for their fair share of dues .
He is holding Mexico and other countries accountable for surges in illegal immigration on the southern border .
Trump signed the largest trade agreement with bipartisan support yesterday when he signed the USMCA .
And , there is a new middle east peace agreement .
Americans are feeling a high level of satisfaction .
According to Gallup , the satisfaction level is also higher than its historical average .
Satisfaction “ with the way things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reached a 15-year high , about four times better than the low points registered under President Barack Obama .
In its latest survey , Gallup said that 41 % are satisfied with the direction of the nation .
The last time it hit that level was in 2005 , during the administration of President George W. Bush .
Under Obama , it hit about 10 % in his first and third year , but it rose to the mid-30s in his last year .
“ The higher level of satisfaction measured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time when Americans ’ evaluations of the U.S. economy are the best they have been in nearly two decades , perhaps because of continued low unemployment and record stock values , ” said the analysis , which was accompanied with a photo of happy younger people .
As long as the economy holds and the Trump administration carries on with a positive agenda for Americans , hacks like Brennan and Todd are going to be really disappointed on Election Day in November .
There is no reason to cancel the State of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgotten that President Clinton delivered the address during his impeachment trial .
The country survived just fine .

Former CIA Director John Brennan is an unabashed member of The Resistance. He and the rest of the Trump-hating left are bitterly clinging to the hope that a miracle will occur in the impeachment trial. Nothing short of a vote in the Senate to affirm that the president is guilty of the charges before them will suffice. Then, of course, President Trump must be removed from office.
Reality is slowly setting in for men like Brennan. President Trump will not be voted guilty in the Senate and he will not be removed from office. He will serve out the rest of his term. Brennan has found a way to vent about Trump through a sweet gig as a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. During an appearance on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC show on Monday, Brennan went so far as to say that President Trump should just cancel the State of the Union address this year.
It probably shouldn’t surprise us that Brennan made such a statement. He’s an authoritarian and denying the opportunity of an opposing view to be heard is what authoritarians do. Just look at the problems conservative speakers on college campuses have. Brennan’s contention is that since the timing of the address by the president and the impeachment trial may collide, the State of the Union address should be canceled. The date scheduled for the president to deliver the address is February 4 – next Tuesday. Brennan has no more clear idea of when the impeachment trial will be wrapping up than any of the rest of us but he wanted to get out there and release his vitriol, just in case.
Brennan is worried about the intersection of two events and, well, it’s just embarrassing to America on the world stage, you know. And, just like that, show host Chuck Todd chimed in with agreement. Brennan said, “I just cannot imagine. It’s not just embarrassing, but also I think it’s very destructive to the image of the United States worldwide to have this going on and have Mr. Trump up there.” Todd’s response was, “‘State of our union is strong,’ who the hell is going to say that?”
Are you kidding me? It’s bad enough to have a former government employee go off on President Trump and calling him out for something that hasn’t even happened yet – making the SOTU speech all about him and not the country – but for Chuck Todd to ask who the hell is going to say that the state of our union is strong is beyond the pale. If either are truly worried about America’s image across the globe, they have only to check themselves. The former CIA Director trashing the leader of the free world on television – a show that was airing during a break from the impeachment trial, by the way – is the worst look to be projected.
I realize that Chuck Todd and his ilk live in a special kind of bubble. What he and his pals don’t understand, though, is that at least half of the country doesn’t agree with such hyperbole and doesn’t appreciate hearing it. There are millions of people in America who can say the state of our union is strong without hesitation. Cable news show hosts think of our nation’s union in only partisan thoughts – the political divisiveness that polarizes those in Washington, D.C. and other hubs of the political class isn’t how most of America lives. We go about our lives and don’t become paralyzed by those around us who may hold different political opinions.
It must distress Brennan and Todd that the campaign rally held in New Jersey this week produced such a huge turnout of folks wanting to get in. Thousands of people lined up for hours in cold weather hoping to get a seat inside. The economy continues to boom, unemployment is still at record lows, employment of minorities and young people is at record highs, regulations are being stripped from crushing small businesses and big employers alike, for a few examples of what is going right for voters. If Brennan is so concerned about the world’s opinion of President Trump and America, he can look at NATO and see the kudos Trump receives for holding other nations accountable for their fair share of dues. He is holding Mexico and other countries accountable for surges in illegal immigration on the southern border. Trump signed the largest trade agreement with bipartisan support yesterday when he signed the USMCA. And, there is a new middle east peace agreement. Americans are feeling a high level of satisfaction. According to Gallup, the satisfaction level is also higher than its historical average.
Satisfaction “with the way things are going” in the United States has reached a 15-year high, about four times better than the low points registered under President Barack Obama. In its latest survey, Gallup said that 41% are satisfied with the direction of the nation. The last time it hit that level was in 2005, during the administration of President George W. Bush. Under Obama, it hit about 10% in his first and third year, but it rose to the mid-30s in his last year. “The higher level of satisfaction measured in the Jan. 2-15 Gallup poll comes at a time when Americans’ evaluations of the U.S. economy are the best they have been in nearly two decades, perhaps because of continued low unemployment and record stock values,” said the analysis, which was accompanied with a photo of happy younger people.
As long as the economy holds and the Trump administration carries on with a positive agenda for Americans, hacks like Brennan and Todd are going to be really disappointed on Election Day in November. There is no reason to cancel the State of the Union address. Brennan must have forgotten that President Clinton delivered the address during his impeachment trial. The country survived just fine.


hotair--2020-01-30--CNN: McConnell's ready to end the circus by tomorrow night

In an hour , the second and final session of the question period in the Senate trial of Donald Trump will begin .
When it concludes , a long-awaited fight over subpoenas will commence , but that might just be the beginning of a very quick end , CNN reports .
Trump may have his acquittal in hand before his weekend round of golf at Mar-a-Lago : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit President Donald Trump if a closely watched vote planned for Friday to compel witnesses and documents for Trump ’ s impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Thune of South Dakota , who is the number two Senate Republican .
The discussions come as Republican leaders believe they are closing in on the votes necessary to block any witnesses , a move that would bring a swift end to the trial .
“ In the end it ’ s going to be up to the leader , but my view would be at that point you would want to start bringing this thing to a conclusion , ” Thune said Wednesday .
“ I ’ m not sure there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in keeping it going.
” The only point left is to see whether the final vote on the verdict is 56-44 to acquit or maybe 51-49 to convict , or somewhere in between those two points .
That ’ s the range of possibilities , and it doesn ’ t come anywhere near the 67-33 conviction vote necessary for removal from office .
No matter what happens , Trump will still be president , whether the trial ends tomorrow night or on February 29th or later .
The only issue at hand is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of what is shaping up to be a predictable vote .
Part of those rhetorical bragging rights , though , are whether the Senate subpoenas witnesses to reopen the House investigation .
A consensus against that appears to be solidifying in McConnell ’ s caucus , including with some purple-state incumbents at risk in November .
Cory Gardner announced yesterday that he would vote no , and Martha McSally added her name to the nays later in the day : However , The Hill reports that Mitt Romney is pushing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s turned into a power struggle within the Senate GOP caucus .
That fight might already be over , though : McConnell has staked his re-election to a seventh term on helping Trump implement his agenda and has made clear that he is closely coordinating trial strategy with the White House .
Romney doesn ’ t have the immediate pressure of re-election , and has told allies that he ’ s more interested in the role of elder statesman than climbing the Senate ’ s power ladder .
The Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate should hear from former national security adviser John Bolton and possibly other witnesses in the trial .
McConnell is decidedly against hearing from new witnesses .
After a week of tense debate , it appears McConnell , a senator from Kentucky , has emerged as the winner of their battle after convincing a handful of wavering Republicans that voting to subpoena additional witnesses and documents would be a mistake .
Romney will probably still vote for the subpoena , and maybe Susan Collins will feel the need to do so with McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sure he has 51 votes otherwise .
To that end , John Bolton did McConnell a favor , as I wrote yesterday at The Week : The timing is notable , but not necessarily because it handicaps Trump .
Bear in mind that the publication date for Bolton ’ s memoir was in less than two months .
The certainty that Bolton would speak out by mid-March one way or the other put Senate Republicans in an extremely uncomfortable position .
If they voted to acquit Trump without knowing what Bolton had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely seen as illegitimate .
It might have even pushed House Democrats to vote a new article of impeachment on the basis of Bolton ’ s memoir and force the Senate back into a trial , but at the very least it would have made for campaign fodder against vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents this fall .
Now , however , the leak lets Republicans off the hook , even if still leaves Trump on it .
Trump may not have told the truth in his outright denials on the quid pro quo allegation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that for certain .
The New York Times leak put the worst possible conclusion from Bolton where they can openly consider it and then still move to the alternate argument .
After all , as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review , there is no need to deny the quid pro quo because it ’ s a moot point — the aid went without strings attached in the end , and it didn ’ t rise to the “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” bar anyway .
So when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ town ?
As soon as tomorrow night if McConnell wins his votes , but perhaps not until Saturday : Could Trump be acquitted by Friday night ?
It ’ s possible .
Several Republican senators made that suggestion after it was discussed at the closed-door GOP lunch on Wednesday .
But the reality is we just don ’ t know — and neither to do they at this point .
There are a lot of variables at play ( do Democrats get a chance to offer motions that draw the process out ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide to deliberate ? )
So the short answer is , if the witness vote fails , Republican leaders are exploring how to vote to acquit Trump by Friday night .
But there is every possibility it moves into Saturday or possibly later .
Just stay tuned .
Closing arguments will likely stretch out further without witnesses , or at least it will seem that way .
Essentially , both sides will present their opening arguments again , since nothing much changed in between without witnesses .
They might add some elements to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from yesterday and later today , and House managers will almost certainly lose Jerrold Nadler ’ s self-defeating contributions .
Or who knows ?
If McConnell succeeds in spiking subpoenas , maybe all the House managers will accuse the Senate of being corrupt and in need of impeachment .
At least that ’ d be slightly less predictable than everything else about this impeachment , and that includes every day since Election Day 2018 .

In an hour, the second and final session of the question period in the Senate trial of Donald Trump will begin. When it concludes, a long-awaited fight over subpoenas will commence, but that might just be the beginning of a very quick end, CNN reports. Trump may have his acquittal in hand before his weekend round of golf at Mar-a-Lago:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to move quickly to acquit President Donald Trump if a closely watched vote planned for Friday to compel witnesses and documents for Trump’s impeachment trial is defeated, according to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who is the number two Senate Republican. The discussions come as Republican leaders believe they are closing in on the votes necessary to block any witnesses, a move that would bring a swift end to the trial. “In the end it’s going to be up to the leader, but my view would be at that point you would want to start bringing this thing to a conclusion,” Thune said Wednesday. “I’m not sure there would be any value or any point in keeping it going.”
The only point left is to see whether the final vote on the verdict is 56-44 to acquit or maybe 51-49 to convict, or somewhere in between those two points. That’s the range of possibilities, and it doesn’t come anywhere near the 67-33 conviction vote necessary for removal from office. No matter what happens, Trump will still be president, whether the trial ends tomorrow night or on February 29th or later. The only issue at hand is which side gets rhetorical bragging rights over the outcome of what is shaping up to be a predictable vote.
Part of those rhetorical bragging rights, though, are whether the Senate subpoenas witnesses to reopen the House investigation. A consensus against that appears to be solidifying in McConnell’s caucus, including with some purple-state incumbents at risk in November. Cory Gardner announced yesterday that he would vote no, and Martha McSally added her name to the nays later in the day:
I have heard enough. It is time to vote. — Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSally) January 30, 2020
A dangerous precedent will be set if we condone a rushed, partisan House impeachment with no due process that shuts down the Senate for weeks or months to do the House's work. — Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSally) January 30, 2020
like lowering the cost of prescription drugs, improving our infrastructure, and solving real problems like the epidemic of veteran suicide. — Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSally) January 30, 2020
However, The Hill reports that Mitt Romney is pushing for a yes vote on Bolton, and that it’s turned into a power struggle within the Senate GOP caucus. That fight might already be over, though:
McConnell has staked his re-election to a seventh term on helping Trump implement his agenda and has made clear that he is closely coordinating trial strategy with the White House. Romney doesn’t have the immediate pressure of re-election, and has told allies that he’s more interested in the role of elder statesman than climbing the Senate’s power ladder. The Utah Republican made it clear he thought the Senate should hear from former national security adviser John Bolton and possibly other witnesses in the trial. McConnell is decidedly against hearing from new witnesses. After a week of tense debate, it appears McConnell, a senator from Kentucky, has emerged as the winner of their battle after convincing a handful of wavering Republicans that voting to subpoena additional witnesses and documents would be a mistake.
Romney will probably still vote for the subpoena, and maybe Susan Collins will feel the need to do so with McConnell’s blessing — if he’s sure he has 51 votes otherwise. To that end, John Bolton did McConnell a favor, as I wrote yesterday at The Week:
The timing is notable, but not necessarily because it handicaps Trump. Bear in mind that the publication date for Bolton’s memoir was in less than two months. The certainty that Bolton would speak out by mid-March one way or the other put Senate Republicans in an extremely uncomfortable position. If they voted to acquit Trump without knowing what Bolton had to say, the outcome would be widely seen as illegitimate. It might have even pushed House Democrats to vote a new article of impeachment on the basis of Bolton’s memoir and force the Senate back into a trial, but at the very least it would have made for campaign fodder against vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents this fall. Now, however, the leak lets Republicans off the hook, even if still leaves Trump on it. Trump may not have told the truth in his outright denials on the quid pro quo allegation, but at least Senate Republicans now know that for certain. The New York Times leak put the worst possible conclusion from Bolton where they can openly consider it and then still move to the alternate argument. After all, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review, there is no need to deny the quid pro quo because it’s a moot point — the aid went without strings attached in the end, and it didn’t rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” bar anyway.
So when will the circus pack up and leave town? As soon as tomorrow night if McConnell wins his votes, but perhaps not until Saturday:
Could Trump be acquitted by Friday night? It’s possible. Several Republican senators made that suggestion after it was discussed at the closed-door GOP lunch on Wednesday. But the reality is we just don’t know — and neither to do they at this point. There are a lot of variables at play (do Democrats get a chance to offer motions that draw the process out? Are there closing arguments? Do senators decide to deliberate?) So the short answer is, if the witness vote fails, Republican leaders are exploring how to vote to acquit Trump by Friday night. But there is every possibility it moves into Saturday or possibly later. Just stay tuned.
Closing arguments will likely stretch out further without witnesses, or at least it will seem that way. Essentially, both sides will present their opening arguments again, since nothing much changed in between without witnesses. They might add some elements to take advantage of the questions and responses from yesterday and later today, and House managers will almost certainly lose Jerrold Nadler’s self-defeating contributions. Or who knows? If McConnell succeeds in spiking subpoenas, maybe all the House managers will accuse the Senate of being corrupt and in need of impeachment.
At least that’d be slightly less predictable than everything else about this impeachment, and that includes every day since Election Day 2018.


hotair--2020-01-30--Jeff Sessions on Bolton: You didn't see me write any tell-all books criticizing Trump after I left,

Jeff Sessions on Bolton: You didn't see me write any tell-all books criticizing Trump after I left, did you?

A tip o ’ the cap to America ’ s former chief law enforcement officer here , seemingly admitting that he ’ d withhold evidence of presidential misconduct from the public amid an impeachment inquiry because loyalty to Trump comes first .
This is framed as a critique of Bolton ’ s willingness to cash in on his White House service by writing a book .
But in context , given all the whispers lately about what Bolton knows about Ukraine and the momentous Senate vote tomorrow on calling witnesses , it ’ s obviously aimed at pressuring him not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts in a trial focused on possible presidential corruption would be treacherous , says a guy who served as Attorney General for a year and a half .
There ’ s not a whiff in his tweets of the idea that an official in the executive branch might owe a greater loyalty to the public by revealing wrongdoing — or at least participating in an exercise to find out if wrongdoing occurred — than to the president himself .
Which is ironic in Sessions ’ s case , since it was his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russiagate probe that led Trump to spend 15 months or so ripping on him publicly two or three times a week .
That ’ s what these tweets are about , of course — trying to undo his original sin in the mind of Trumpers , particularly Trumpers in Alabama , by attacking TrumpWorld ’ s current public enemy number one .
It might work out for him .
A week ago Trump himself touted this poll of the Alabama Senate primary : A tight race , but one led by Sessions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday by Breitbart , of all places , found him leading much more comfortably , 43/22 over Bradley Byrne .
Sessions appears to have made a cold political calculation when he decided to run for his old seat , offering Trump a tacit deal .
In return for the president staying out of the race Sessions would present him with what ’ s left of his dignity , preaching unwavering loyalty to Trump at every turn in hopes of convincing Alabama Republicans to forgive and forget the 8,000 “ Jeff Sessions sucks ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AG .
All Trump had to do was keep quiet during the primary and he would be gifted Sessions ’ s spine in an attractive display case for mounting in the Oval Office .
Seems like the deal ’ s working out for both of them .
Another way of putting that is that Sessions ’ s concept of “ loyalty ” is as self-serving as Trump ’ s is .
It ’ s not based on personal admiration or “ mutual respect.
” It ’ s transactional .
Trump demands fealty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ willing to provide that to the extent that it might get him his old job back .
John Bolton , for whatever unknown admirable or dubious reason , isn ’ t .
But let ’ s not overlook Sessions ’ s true motives just because he ’ s climbed on his high horse to lecture Bolton on this topic .
Exit question per Sessions ’ s last tweet : Does our former Attorney General believe that legal privileges are absolute ?
Even the most famous privilege , between attorney and client , contains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under what circumstances does he think a presidential aide would have a duty to speak out publicly about communications between him and the president ?
Are there any or is he calling for a true omerta ethic in the White House ?

A tip o’ the cap to America’s former chief law enforcement officer here, seemingly admitting that he’d withhold evidence of presidential misconduct from the public amid an impeachment inquiry because loyalty to Trump comes first.
FIRST – I don’t believe it is the honorable thing to do. You are there to serve his agenda, not your own. He was elected, not you. — Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) January 29, 2020
THIRD – it sets a very damaging and dangerous precedent. A President must have the ability to have candid conversations with his National Security Advisor, his AG, his SOS, etc., without fear that those conversations will end up in a book or a newspaper. — Jeff Sessions (@jeffsessions) January 29, 2020
This is framed as a critique of Bolton’s willingness to cash in on his White House service by writing a book. But in context, given all the whispers lately about what Bolton knows about Ukraine and the momentous Senate vote tomorrow on calling witnesses, it’s obviously aimed at pressuring him not to incriminate Trump. To offer material facts in a trial focused on possible presidential corruption would be treacherous, says a guy who served as Attorney General for a year and a half. There’s not a whiff in his tweets of the idea that an official in the executive branch might owe a greater loyalty to the public by revealing wrongdoing — or at least participating in an exercise to find out if wrongdoing occurred — than to the president himself.
Which is ironic in Sessions’s case, since it was his own “disloyalty” in recusing himself from the Russiagate probe that led Trump to spend 15 months or so ripping on him publicly two or three times a week. That’s what these tweets are about, of course — trying to undo his original sin in the mind of Trumpers, particularly Trumpers in Alabama, by attacking TrumpWorld’s current public enemy number one.
It might work out for him. A week ago Trump himself touted this poll of the Alabama Senate primary:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220452007389155328
A tight race, but one led by Sessions. A separate internal poll published on Monday by Breitbart, of all places, found him leading much more comfortably, 43/22 over Bradley Byrne. Sessions appears to have made a cold political calculation when he decided to run for his old seat, offering Trump a tacit deal. In return for the president staying out of the race Sessions would present him with what’s left of his dignity, preaching unwavering loyalty to Trump at every turn in hopes of convincing Alabama Republicans to forgive and forget the 8,000 “Jeff Sessions sucks” tweets that Trump sent while Sessions was AG. All Trump had to do was keep quiet during the primary and he would be gifted Sessions’s spine in an attractive display case for mounting in the Oval Office.
Seems like the deal’s working out for both of them.
Another way of putting that is that Sessions’s concept of “loyalty” is as self-serving as Trump’s is. It’s not based on personal admiration or “mutual respect.” It’s transactional. Trump demands fealty, not loyalty, and Sessions is now willing to provide that to the extent that it might get him his old job back. John Bolton, for whatever unknown admirable or dubious reason, isn’t. But let’s not overlook Sessions’s true motives just because he’s climbed on his high horse to lecture Bolton on this topic.
Exit question per Sessions’s last tweet: Does our former Attorney General believe that legal privileges are absolute? Even the most famous privilege, between attorney and client, contains an exception for particular types of misconduct. Under what circumstances does he think a presidential aide would have a duty to speak out publicly about communications between him and the president? Are there any or is he calling for a true omerta ethic in the White House?


hotair--2020-01-30--Hillary Clinton can apparently just refuse to accept a lawsuit

A little over a week ago , Ed Morrissey wrote about the lawsuit brought by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton .
Gabbard is accusing the former Secretary of State of defamation because she referred to her as a “ Russian asset.
” At the time , Ed declared that the suit was legally dead in the water and would go nowhere .
That remains to be seen , and I might quibble about that conclusion in a moment , but Ed ’ s prediction is looking more prescient this morning for an entirely different reason .
In order for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get started first .
And the first step in such a procedure is usually serving papers to the person being accused , informing them that the proceeding is getting underway .
That ’ s turning out to be more difficult than Gabbard ’ s attorneys likely expected because Clinton has simply refused to accept the documents and used her Secret Service detail to thwart the person trying to serve her .
( NY Post ) Hillary Clinton has now twice snubbed a process server attempting to deliver the defamation lawsuit filed against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Gabbard ’ s attorney .
“ I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won ’ t accept service of process , ” the congresswoman ’ s attorney , Brian Dunne , told The Post .
“ But I guess here we are.
” Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at the Clinton ’ s house in Chappaqua Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents .
After Clinton ’ s taxpayer-funded muscle sent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the papers to Clinton ’ s own attorney , David Kendall .
But when they attempted to go that route , Kendall informed them that he was “ unable to accept service on Clinton ’ s behalf.
” Hold on… can she just do that ?
According to the rules of the road in New York , you can ’ t force someone to receive the physical delivery of such papers , but that ’ s not going to stop the process .
If the process server is denied personal delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another person known to the accused or they can be left in “ a conspicuous location ” where the courts would agree that the subject was likely to see them .
In either case , copies of the papers must also be sent to the subject by mail .
Either will be acceptable to the courts and the proceedings can begin .
So one way or the other , unless Gabbard ’ s attorneys are complete idiots , they should be able to move forward to the next phase of the process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being successful ?
I agree with Ed that the actual lawsuit and demand of $ 50 million isn ’ t really what this is all about .
While I have no doubt Gabbard would gladly take the money if she won , what she ’ s really looking for right now is headlines and a name recognition bump in the Democratic primary .
That may backfire on her , however .
While Clinton ’ s star has definitely lost some of its shine and most Democrats don ’ t care to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s still a popular and sympathetic figure in her party .
Seeing Tulsi Gabbard going after her in this fashion may not play well among some primary voters .
Let ’ s get back to the actual merits of the lawsuit .
In order to prevail , Gabbard would have to convince the court that Clinton acted with actual malice to defame her .
That means proving that Clinton either knew with certainty that her claim of Gabbard being a Russian asset was false or , at a minimum , that she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the truth .
While many defamation suits against public figures wind up going down in flames , this one could at least potentially have some legs .
Proving a negative is impossible , but the idea that a sitting member of Congress is literally working in league with the Russians should require some proof .
And doing or saying things that might deliver a result that could potentially be pleasing to Vladimir Putin ( such as increasing the chances that Donald Trump wins a second term ) , is not the same as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working on their behalf .
It ’ s a very serious charge and a damning allegation .
So if you ask me , this defamation lawsuit is far from dead in the water .
I ’ m not saying Gabbard will definitely prevail , but it ’ s not beyond the realm of possibility .

A little over a week ago, Ed Morrissey wrote about the lawsuit brought by Tulsi Gabbard against Hillary Clinton. Gabbard is accusing the former Secretary of State of defamation because she referred to her as a “Russian asset.” At the time, Ed declared that the suit was legally dead in the water and would go nowhere.
That remains to be seen, and I might quibble about that conclusion in a moment, but Ed’s prediction is looking more prescient this morning for an entirely different reason. In order for the lawsuit to go anywhere, it needs to get started first. And the first step in such a procedure is usually serving papers to the person being accused, informing them that the proceeding is getting underway. That’s turning out to be more difficult than Gabbard’s attorneys likely expected because Clinton has simply refused to accept the documents and used her Secret Service detail to thwart the person trying to serve her. (NY Post)
Hillary Clinton has now twice snubbed a process server attempting to deliver the defamation lawsuit filed against her by Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, according to Gabbard’s attorney. “I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” the congresswoman’s attorney, Brian Dunne, told The Post. “But I guess here we are.” Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at the Clinton’s house in Chappaqua Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents.
After Clinton’s taxpayer-funded muscle sent the process server packing, they were told to take the papers to Clinton’s own attorney, David Kendall. But when they attempted to go that route, Kendall informed them that he was “unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf.”
Hold on… can she just do that? According to the rules of the road in New York, you can’t force someone to receive the physical delivery of such papers, but that’s not going to stop the process. If the process server is denied personal delivery, they can either deliver them to another person known to the accused or they can be left in “a conspicuous location” where the courts would agree that the subject was likely to see them. In either case, copies of the papers must also be sent to the subject by mail. Either will be acceptable to the courts and the proceedings can begin.
So one way or the other, unless Gabbard’s attorneys are complete idiots, they should be able to move forward to the next phase of the process. But does this suit have a chance of being successful?
I agree with Ed that the actual lawsuit and demand of $50 million isn’t really what this is all about. While I have no doubt Gabbard would gladly take the money if she won, what she’s really looking for right now is headlines and a name recognition bump in the Democratic primary. That may backfire on her, however. While Clinton’s star has definitely lost some of its shine and most Democrats don’t care to see her run for President again, she’s still a popular and sympathetic figure in her party. Seeing Tulsi Gabbard going after her in this fashion may not play well among some primary voters.
Let’s get back to the actual merits of the lawsuit. In order to prevail, Gabbard would have to convince the court that Clinton acted with actual malice to defame her. That means proving that Clinton either knew with certainty that her claim of Gabbard being a Russian asset was false or, at a minimum, that she spoke with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
While many defamation suits against public figures wind up going down in flames, this one could at least potentially have some legs. Proving a negative is impossible, but the idea that a sitting member of Congress is literally working in league with the Russians should require some proof. And doing or saying things that might deliver a result that could potentially be pleasing to Vladimir Putin (such as increasing the chances that Donald Trump wins a second term), is not the same as being a literal asset to Russia and working on their behalf. It’s a very serious charge and a damning allegation.
So if you ask me, this defamation lawsuit is far from dead in the water. I’m not saying Gabbard will definitely prevail, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.


hotair--2020-01-30--What if the vote on witnesses is a tie?

What if the vote on witnesses is a tie?

Yes , I know that as of last night , Chuck Schumer was saying that he doesn ’ t believe he has enough Republican votes in the Senate to allow witnesses to be called and new evidence admitted in the impeachment trial .
And Cocaine Mitch is looking more and more confident that he can keep enough of his caucus inside the corral to make sure it doesn ’ t happen .
But nothing is written in stone until the vote actually takes place once the Q & A portion of the trial is complete .
The Democrats would need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , getting them to 51 .
But what if they get three ?
That splits the chamber in a 50-50 tie and we ’ re into some uncharted territory , though not everyone agrees with that description .
The smart money seems to be on the belief that Chief Justice John Roberts won ’ t step in to break the tie , but the smart money has been wrong before .
( Politico ) Ahead of a tight vote on whether to hear new witnesses in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility that this crucial roll call has an asterisk in the history books : It ends in a tie .
And it ’ s a scenario that would suddenly put a spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts .
For weeks , Republicans and Democrats alike have been confident that Roberts would not break a tie vote during Trump ’ s impeachment trial , citing past precedent , the Constitution and their own gut feelings about how it would play in a polarized nation… “ That is a great unknown .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would do .
Or if he ’ ll do ” anything , said Sen. James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) .
We discussed this question previously and the rather sparse precedent for opinions on either side .
The Constitution doesn ’ t specifically say that the Chief Justice can break ties as part of his role in “ presiding ” over the trial , but it also doesn ’ t say that he can ’ t .
( In fact , the Constitution doesn ’ t provide much of anything in the way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only actual precedent we have comes to us from the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson .
At that time , Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase broke two ties regarding procedural matters by casting a vote .
But does that really settle the matter ?
That ’ s up for debate because one of those votes was on the question as to whether or not he could vote to break ties .
In other words , he cast a vote before it had been determined that he was entitled to cast a vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t this something that the Senate could have voted on during the first two days when they were establishing the rules ?
At least then it would already be out of the way and I get the impression that Roberts would go along with whatever the Senators decided .
After all , the Constitution does give them the right to make their own rules of conduct .
But even on that issue , there have been doubts raised .
While everyone agrees that they can make their own rules , are their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ branch ?
Given his past conduct and desire to not make the Supreme Court look overtly political , I ’ m guessing that Roberts would prefer not to have to cast a tiebreaking vote .
With that in mind , he ’ s probably hoping that they spare him the trouble and just come up with 51 votes no matter which way the decision goes .
The only other question that doesn ’ t seem to have been resolved is that of whether or not Mike Pence could come down and break the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that “ The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate , but shall have no vote , unless they be equally divided.
” It doesn ’ t say anything about that rule being suspended during an impeachment trial .
But the counter-argument there is that the VP has to be sitting and presiding over the Senate to exercise that power , replacing whoever the Senate President pro tempore was .
At the moment , John Roberts is “ presiding ” over the Senate , if you follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer and McConnell are correct in their estimations , it shouldn ’ t come to this and the witness vote will fail .
But either Murkowski or Lamar Alexander could still screw things up .
In that case , John Roberts will be put in a position where he ’ ll be making history whether he likes it or not .

Yes, I know that as of last night, Chuck Schumer was saying that he doesn’t believe he has enough Republican votes in the Senate to allow witnesses to be called and new evidence admitted in the impeachment trial. And Cocaine Mitch is looking more and more confident that he can keep enough of his caucus inside the corral to make sure it doesn’t happen. But nothing is written in stone until the vote actually takes place once the Q&A portion of the trial is complete.
The Democrats would need four GOP votes to make it happen, getting them to 51. But what if they get three? That splits the chamber in a 50-50 tie and we’re into some uncharted territory, though not everyone agrees with that description. The smart money seems to be on the belief that Chief Justice John Roberts won’t step in to break the tie, but the smart money has been wrong before. (Politico)
Ahead of a tight vote on whether to hear new witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, the Senate is preparing for the possibility that this crucial roll call has an asterisk in the history books: It ends in a tie. And it’s a scenario that would suddenly put a spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts. For weeks, Republicans and Democrats alike have been confident that Roberts would not break a tie vote during Trump’s impeachment trial, citing past precedent, the Constitution and their own gut feelings about how it would play in a polarized nation… “That is a great unknown. There’s no way to know procedurally what he would do. Or if he’ll do” anything, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).
We discussed this question previously and the rather sparse precedent for opinions on either side. The Constitution doesn’t specifically say that the Chief Justice can break ties as part of his role in “presiding” over the trial, but it also doesn’t say that he can’t. (In fact, the Constitution doesn’t provide much of anything in the way of details.)
As previously discussed, the only actual precedent we have comes to us from the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. At that time, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase broke two ties regarding procedural matters by casting a vote. But does that really settle the matter? That’s up for debate because one of those votes was on the question as to whether or not he could vote to break ties. In other words, he cast a vote before it had been determined that he was entitled to cast a vote.
Not for nothing, but isn’t this something that the Senate could have voted on during the first two days when they were establishing the rules? At least then it would already be out of the way and I get the impression that Roberts would go along with whatever the Senators decided. After all, the Constitution does give them the right to make their own rules of conduct. But even on that issue, there have been doubts raised. While everyone agrees that they can make their own rules, are their rules binding on someone from the Judicial branch?
Given his past conduct and desire to not make the Supreme Court look overtly political, I’m guessing that Roberts would prefer not to have to cast a tiebreaking vote. With that in mind, he’s probably hoping that they spare him the trouble and just come up with 51 votes no matter which way the decision goes.
The only other question that doesn’t seem to have been resolved is that of whether or not Mike Pence could come down and break the tie. Remember that the Constitution only states that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” It doesn’t say anything about that rule being suspended during an impeachment trial. But the counter-argument there is that the VP has to be sitting and presiding over the Senate to exercise that power, replacing whoever the Senate President pro tempore was. At the moment, John Roberts is “presiding” over the Senate, if you follow that line of thinking.
If both Schumer and McConnell are correct in their estimations, it shouldn’t come to this and the witness vote will fail. But either Murkowski or Lamar Alexander could still screw things up. In that case, John Roberts will be put in a position where he’ll be making history whether he likes it or not.


hotair--2020-01-30--Trump attorney: Did whistleblower have his own connection to Biden quid pro quo?

Just what role did the Ukraine-Gate whistleblower play in the quid pro quo ?
Not the one allegedly committed by Donald Trump in 2019 , but the one openly admitted by Joe Biden that took place in 2016 .
Senate Republicans asked defense counsel Patrick Philbin whether Adam Schiff ’ s coordination with the whistleblower interfere with due process in the impeachment process .
Yes it did , Philbin replied , but that ’ s not the only potential problem with the whistleblower and Schiff ’ s case .
His reported work for Biden raises questions whether he had any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withhold aid from Ukraine to get Viktor Shokin fired , Philbin noted .
Was his “ whistleblowing ” crafted to protect himself when it became clear that Trump was determined to investigate the Bidens ?
“ If the whistleblower , as is alleged in some public reports , actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues , exactly what was his role ?
What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board of Burisma , ” Philbin asked .
“ Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that ?
” … “ Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won ’ t get this billion dollars until you fire him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We don ’ t know , and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record , ” the president ’ s lawyer declared .
Yes , indeed it does , at least in the legal sense .
This isn ’ t a criminal trial , however ; it ’ s a political process , and it ’ s intended to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the trappings of a judicial process , however , including due process and the right to present an effective defense .
Even if Philbin ’ s theory on the whistleblower comes to naught , the defense should have the opportunity to pursue it .
They were denied access to the whistleblower during the House impeachment process and thus far aren ’ t getting any access during the trial either .
Trump ’ s legal team has made clear presentations that they believe the Bidens ’ actions in Ukraine are reasonably suspicious enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the whistleblower worked on that issue for Biden , the whistleblower suddenly has a lot of motive to obstruct that investigation .
Schiff ’ s actions in using and then withdrawing the whistleblower effectively shut down the kind of due process that criminal defendants routinely get — the opportunity to pursue their alternate theories of the supposed crime .
That ’ s not an unlimited right ; alternate theories have to have at least some evidentiary basis .
The House process , however , completely denied the president the chance to even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people involved .
Philbin ’ s smart to keep this theoretical and focus instead on due process , in case this theory of the case ends up going nowhere .
The important issue , Philbin emphasizes , is that the entire process lacked any credibility as a search for truth , which effectively poisons the trial as well .
That should be sufficient to warrant a dismissal , if the Senate was inclined to pursue such a motion , but an acquittal will have to suffice .
And this is not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whistleblower today either , but we will have more on that later this morning .

Just what role did the Ukraine-Gate whistleblower play in the quid pro quo? Not the one allegedly committed by Donald Trump in 2019, but the one openly admitted by Joe Biden that took place in 2016. Senate Republicans asked defense counsel Patrick Philbin whether Adam Schiff’s coordination with the whistleblower interfere with due process in the impeachment process.
Yes it did, Philbin replied, but that’s not the only potential problem with the whistleblower and Schiff’s case. His reported work for Biden raises questions whether he had any role in Biden’s decision to withhold aid from Ukraine to get Viktor Shokin fired, Philbin noted. Was his “whistleblowing” crafted to protect himself when it became clear that Trump was determined to investigate the Bidens?
We can't trust the integrity of the Democrats' impeachment case. Adam Schiff misled Americans about his committee's interactions w/ the "whistleblower." He held secret depositions to manufacture a pro-impeachment narrative. And he blocked POTUS's team for most of the process. pic.twitter.com/Nxyn7yJee1 — Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 30, 2020
“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma,” Philbin asked. “Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?” … “Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him?” Philbin asked, pointedly. “We don’t know, and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record,” the president’s lawyer declared.
Yes, indeed it does, at least in the legal sense. This isn’t a criminal trial, however; it’s a political process, and it’s intended to be a political process. It still should have the trappings of a judicial process, however, including due process and the right to present an effective defense.
Even if Philbin’s theory on the whistleblower comes to naught, the defense should have the opportunity to pursue it. They were denied access to the whistleblower during the House impeachment process and thus far aren’t getting any access during the trial either. Trump’s legal team has made clear presentations that they believe the Bidens’ actions in Ukraine are reasonably suspicious enough to have warranted an investigation, and if the whistleblower worked on that issue for Biden, the whistleblower suddenly has a lot of motive to obstruct that investigation.
Schiff’s actions in using and then withdrawing the whistleblower effectively shut down the kind of due process that criminal defendants routinely get — the opportunity to pursue their alternate theories of the supposed crime. That’s not an unlimited right; alternate theories have to have at least some evidentiary basis. The House process, however, completely denied the president the chance to even seek the evidence, let alone identify the people involved.
Philbin’s smart to keep this theoretical and focus instead on due process, in case this theory of the case ends up going nowhere. The important issue, Philbin emphasizes, is that the entire process lacked any credibility as a search for truth, which effectively poisons the trial as well. That should be sufficient to warrant a dismissal, if the Senate was inclined to pursue such a motion, but an acquittal will have to suffice. And this is not the last we’ll hear about the whistleblower today either, but we will have more on that later this morning.


hotair--2020-01-30--Trump: Don't worry. China's got this coronavirus thing covered

One person we haven ’ t heard much from about the recent WuFlu outbreak is the President .
He had been oddly silent on the subject for the past couple of weeks for the most part , but that changed on Wednesday .
During yesterday ’ s signing of a new trade deal , Trump weighed in , saying that he ’ s been in touch with Chinese President Xi Jinping and that our two nations are working together on the problem .
He followed that up later with a very optimistic tweet .
This is all being described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t tick off the Chinese too much during trade negotiations .
( Associated Press ) “ We ’ re very much involved with them , right now , on the virus that ’ s going around , ” Trump said of China before signing a trade deal at the White House on Wednesday .
He said he had discussed the situation with Chinese President Xi Jinping and added , “ We ’ re working very closely with China.
” Aides and confidants say Trump ’ s careful approach is part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stock market or angering China by calling too much attention to the virus or blaming Beijing for not managing the situation better , according to a White House official and a Republican close to the White House… Later Wednesday , Trump tweeted out photos from a briefing on the virus he attended with administration officials in the Situation Room , writing that “ we have the best experts anywhere in the world and they are on top of it 24/7 !
” Let ’ s hope he ’ s on top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that China is acting like a country that ’ s got this under control… at least not yet .
But I do believe that our relationship is still strong enough that they ’ re willing to cooperate .
Meanwhile , there appears to be a quarantine that ’ s not really a quarantine in California .
Or at least officials aren ’ t calling it a quarantine yet , but it sure sounds like one .
As we discussed yesterday , a planeload of nearly 200 American diplomats and their family members flew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alaska .
They arrived in Los Angeles and heightened “ precautions ” were being taken to ensure they weren ’ t infected with the new coronavirus .
As it turns out , those precautions included transferring them all to a military base where they are being kept under observation .
( AP ) The 195 Americans evacuated from the Chinese city at the center of the new virus outbreak are undergoing three days of testing and monitoring at a California military base to ensure they do not show signs of the illness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s understandable if the government is trying to avoid causing a panic by talking about quarantines and such .
The people flown out of China on a plane chartered by the U.S. government have not been quarantined , Dr. Chris Braden of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told reporters after the plane landed at March Air Reserve Base .
Authorities said those evacuated , including U.S. consular employees based in the Chinese city of Wuhan and families with children , are technically not required to stay on the base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay for up to three days while they are evaluated for the illness that ’ s infected thousands and killed more than 100 , the CDC ’ s Dr. Nancy Messonnier said .
The description of the situation provided to the media makes it sound as if the government is bending over backward to make sure people don ’ t think this is a quarantine .
The travelers are allegedly “ not required ” to stay on the military base and remain under observation , but all 195 of them are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , officials said that if any of them wanted to leave , “ U.S .
officials would discuss their request.
” If you ’ re supposedly free to leave , you wouldn ’ t have to “ request ” permission to do so and wait for officials to discuss it .
That implies that your request might be denied , in which case you are effectively under a quarantine .
Not that I ’ m complaining , mind you .
As I wrote yesterday , these folks absolutely should be under quarantine until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed .
But now we ’ re hearing that the period in question might be longer than originally described .
Dr. Chris Braden of the CDC is quoted in the linked article , saying it can take “ up to 14 days for someone who is infected to develop symptoms.
” This is an alarming development .
We were originally told that the incubation period could somewhere between five and seven days .
Now it ’ s been doubled to two weeks .
The people at the military base are going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current plan and then monitored “ at their destinations ” for the rest of the 14 days .
This is certainly better than doing nothing , but these people were flown here straight from Wuhan .
It still sounds like we ’ re playing a little bit fast and loose with our containment strategy .
Keep your fingers crossed for now .

One person we haven’t heard much from about the recent WuFlu outbreak is the President. He had been oddly silent on the subject for the past couple of weeks for the most part, but that changed on Wednesday. During yesterday’s signing of a new trade deal, Trump weighed in, saying that he’s been in touch with Chinese President Xi Jinping and that our two nations are working together on the problem. He followed that up later with a very optimistic tweet. This is all being described as a political maneuver to make sure he doesn’t tick off the Chinese too much during trade negotiations. (Associated Press)
“We’re very much involved with them, right now, on the virus that’s going around,” Trump said of China before signing a trade deal at the White House on Wednesday. He said he had discussed the situation with Chinese President Xi Jinping and added, “We’re working very closely with China.” Aides and confidants say Trump’s careful approach is part of a political strategy crafted to avoid upsetting the stock market or angering China by calling too much attention to the virus or blaming Beijing for not managing the situation better, according to a White House official and a Republican close to the White House… Later Wednesday, Trump tweeted out photos from a briefing on the virus he attended with administration officials in the Situation Room, writing that “we have the best experts anywhere in the world and they are on top of it 24/7!”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222672488934584324
Let’s hope he’s on top of this. I wouldn’t say that China is acting like a country that’s got this under control… at least not yet. But I do believe that our relationship is still strong enough that they’re willing to cooperate.
Meanwhile, there appears to be a quarantine that’s not really a quarantine in California. Or at least officials aren’t calling it a quarantine yet, but it sure sounds like one.
As we discussed yesterday, a planeload of nearly 200 American diplomats and their family members flew back home from China by way of Alaska. They arrived in Los Angeles and heightened “precautions” were being taken to ensure they weren’t infected with the new coronavirus. As it turns out, those precautions included transferring them all to a military base where they are being kept under observation. (AP)
The 195 Americans evacuated from the Chinese city at the center of the new virus outbreak are undergoing three days of testing and monitoring at a California military base to ensure they do not show signs of the illness, officials said Wednesday. But I suppose it’s understandable if the government is trying to avoid causing a panic by talking about quarantines and such. The people flown out of China on a plane chartered by the U.S. government have not been quarantined, Dr. Chris Braden of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told reporters after the plane landed at March Air Reserve Base. Authorities said those evacuated, including U.S. consular employees based in the Chinese city of Wuhan and families with children, are technically not required to stay on the base. But all 195 passengers have agreed to stay for up to three days while they are evaluated for the illness that’s infected thousands and killed more than 100, the CDC’s Dr. Nancy Messonnier said.
The description of the situation provided to the media makes it sound as if the government is bending over backward to make sure people don’t think this is a quarantine. The travelers are allegedly “not required” to stay on the military base and remain under observation, but all 195 of them are doing so. But when pressed for details, officials said that if any of them wanted to leave, “U.S. officials would discuss their request.”
If you’re supposedly free to leave, you wouldn’t have to “request” permission to do so and wait for officials to discuss it. That implies that your request might be denied, in which case you are effectively under a quarantine.
Not that I’m complaining, mind you. As I wrote yesterday, these folks absolutely should be under quarantine until the incubation period for the WuFlu has passed. But now we’re hearing that the period in question might be longer than originally described. Dr. Chris Braden of the CDC is quoted in the linked article, saying it can take “up to 14 days for someone who is infected to develop symptoms.”
This is an alarming development. We were originally told that the incubation period could somewhere between five and seven days. Now it’s been doubled to two weeks. The people at the military base are going to be held there for three days under the current plan and then monitored “at their destinations” for the rest of the 14 days. This is certainly better than doing nothing, but these people were flown here straight from Wuhan. It still sounds like we’re playing a little bit fast and loose with our containment strategy. Keep your fingers crossed for now.


hotair--2020-02-04--Video: Pelosi tears up Trump speech

Video: Pelosi tears up Trump speech

“ The best is yet to come , ” Donald Trump had just said , when Nancy Pelosi provided it to him .
Even before Trump turned to walk off the stage , the House Speaker made a show of tearing up his speech while the cameras were still pointed at the dais : To be fair , Trump had left Pelosi hanging when he first arrived on the dais , ignoring her outstretched hand after handing her the copy of the speech .
Clearly there isn ’ t much love lost between these two ; reportedly they haven ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment push began in earnest .
Both of them routinely slag the other in public , and probably have worse to say about each other in private .
This , however , is just petty beyond belief , and furthermore it ’ s not hers to rip up .
The State of the Union message is a constitutional requirement , and his delivery to the Speaker is the official copy ( as is the delivery to the Vice President as president of the Senate ) .
Obviously , they ’ ll get another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end to what had been a very good but straightforward SOTU .
I suspect that some on the Left will cheer this , but like the turnout in Iowa , they ’ ll be surprised when they find a lot of people they expect to laugh along haven ’ t materialized in anywhere near the numbers they predict .

“The best is yet to come,” Donald Trump had just said, when Nancy Pelosi provided it to him. Even before Trump turned to walk off the stage, the House Speaker made a show of tearing up his speech while the cameras were still pointed at the dais:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ripped up her printed copy of President Trump's State of the Union address as he concluded his remarks. #sotu https://t.co/lO6zVHAcxc pic.twitter.com/LWbPNuQEWd — CNN (@CNN) February 5, 2020
To be fair, Trump had left Pelosi hanging when he first arrived on the dais, ignoring her outstretched hand after handing her the copy of the speech. Clearly there isn’t much love lost between these two; reportedly they haven’t spoken since October, when the impeachment push began in earnest. Both of them routinely slag the other in public, and probably have worse to say about each other in private.
This, however, is just petty beyond belief, and furthermore it’s not hers to rip up. The State of the Union message is a constitutional requirement, and his delivery to the Speaker is the official copy (as is the delivery to the Vice President as president of the Senate). Obviously, they’ll get another copy, but this is a disrespectful end to what had been a very good but straightforward SOTU.
I suspect that some on the Left will cheer this, but like the turnout in Iowa, they’ll be surprised when they find a lot of people they expect to laugh along haven’t materialized in anywhere near the numbers they predict.


hotair--2020-02-04--James Carville panics over Sanders: 'I am scared to death...Do we want to be an ideological cult?'

James Carville is sounding the same alarm that a lot of Democrats have been sounding over the past month , but he ’ s doing it at full volume on national television .
Appearing on MSNBC , Carville said things were not going well and wondered aloud why Tom Perez was still in charge of the DNC .
“ The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days and I ’ ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we might like it , ” Carville said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far and why is Tom Perez still the chairman of the Democratic National Committee , I have no idea .
This party needs to wake up , ” he added .
Later ( see 3rd clip below ) Carville said , “ I know these donors and they ’ re not going to give a popsicle to the DNC right now .
I can promise you that.
” Carville repeatedly suggested the Democratic Party was in danger of following the path of the Labour Party in Britain .
“ Look at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re like talking about people voting from jail cells .
Alright , we ’ re talking about not having a border .
I mean , come on people , ” he added .
“ Of course I would vote for him [ Sanders ] , but I don ’ t want the Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of United Kingdom.
” In another segment from the same interview , Carville contrasted what he sees in 2020 with the result from 2018 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since women were granted the right to vote , ” Carville said .
He continued , “ We had the biggest margin .
We ran a smart campaign and it worked .
It matters who the candidate is .
It matters what the party chooses to talk about .
“ I mean , I ’ m 75 years old why am I here doing this ?
Because I am scared to death that ’ s why .
Let ’ s get relevant , people , here for sure…All the Sanders people were taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Later in this clip he said , “ the press corps went AOC crazy…We got to decide what we want to be .
Do we want to be an ideological cult or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party ?
…The urban core is not going to get it done .
What we need is power .
You understand ?
That ’ s what this is about .
Without power you have nothing .
You just have talking points.
” I don ’ t have a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is absolutely right and people on the left and the right have been saying it for weeks .
The Democratic Party is setting itself up for disaster and they don ’ t seem to see it .

James Carville is sounding the same alarm that a lot of Democrats have been sounding over the past month, but he’s doing it at full volume on national television. Appearing on MSNBC, Carville said things were not going well and wondered aloud why Tom Perez was still in charge of the DNC.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days and I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we might like it,” Carville said. “This is not going particularly well, so far and why is Tom Perez still the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I have no idea. This party needs to wake up,” he added. Later (see 3rd clip below) Carville said, “I know these donors and they’re not going to give a popsicle to the DNC right now. I can promise you that.”
Carville repeatedly suggested the Democratic Party was in danger of following the path of the Labour Party in Britain.
“Look at the British Labour Party,” Carville said. “We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. Alright, we’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on people,” he added.
“Of course I would vote for him [Sanders], but I don’t want the Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of United Kingdom.”
In another segment from the same interview, Carville contrasted what he sees in 2020 with the result from 2018. “We had the highest turnout in 2018 since women were granted the right to vote,” Carville said. He continued, “We had the biggest margin. We ran a smart campaign and it worked. It matters who the candidate is. It matters what the party chooses to talk about.
“I mean, I’m 75 years old why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death that’s why. Let’s get relevant, people, here for sure…All the Sanders people were taking pictures wishing Jeremy Corbyn the best.”
Later in this clip he said, “the press corps went AOC crazy…We got to decide what we want to be. Do we want to be an ideological cult or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to be a majority party?…The urban core is not going to get it done. What we need is power. You understand? That’s what this is about. Without power you have nothing. You just have talking points.”
I don’t have a lot to add to this except that Carville is absolutely right and people on the left and the right have been saying it for weeks. The Democratic Party is setting itself up for disaster and they don’t seem to see it.