hotair--2020-01-28--Deficit will top $1 trillion this year as entitlement spending continues to rise

The Congressional Budge Office announced today that the deficit will exceed $ 1 trillion this year and will continue to widen each year over the coming decade : The U.S. government ’ s budget deficit is projected to reach $ 1.02 trillion in 2020 , according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office , as the federal government continues to spend much more than it collects in tax revenue .
A combination of the 2017 tax cuts and a surge in new spending has pushed the deficit wider .
This year would mark the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 trillion , a threshold that has alarmed some budget experts because deficits typically contract — not expand — during periods of sustained economic growth .
Tax cuts and new spending have contributed to rising deficits , but they are a relatively small portion of an ocean of red ink we are currently facing in the form of entitlement spending .
Manhattan Institute fellow Brian Riedl testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs committee today that entitlements and not tax cuts are the real drivers of our future deficits : A portion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 billion annual cost of the recent tax cuts , and the $ 150 billion annual cost of the higher discretionary spending caps..
However , that combined $ 400 billion to $ 500 billion cost will remain relatively steady if extended .
It does not explain the $ 1.3 trillion rise in projected red ink between 2019 and 2029 .
Instead , nearly the entire surge in red ink will come from adding 74 million baby boomers to the Social Security and Medicare systems… The annual Social Security and Medicare shortfalls ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 440 billion in 2019 , to $ 1,656 billion a decade from now .
These $ 1.2 trillion in additional Social Security and Medicare deficits will account for 90 % of the $ 1.3 trillion projected rise in the annual deficit over the next decade , according to the CBO current-policy budget baseline .
Riedl goes on to argue that the long term outlook , i.e .
beyond the ten year budget window , is even worse : According to CBO , between 2019 and 2049 , Medicare is projected to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Social Security will run an $ 19 trillion cash deficit , and the interest on the resulting program debt will be $ 40 trillion ( chart 5 ) .
( To adjust these 30-year totals for inflation , trim by one-third . )
Rather than self-finance through payroll taxes and premiums , these two programs are set to add $ 103 trillion to the national debt .
The rest of the federal budget is projected to run a surplus over the next 30 years .
Here ’ s a chart he prepared showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to entitlements over the next 30 years : Riedl has a long portion of his document dealing with both conservative and liberal fantasies about how this problem can be solved .
For instance , it ’ s one thing to argue the government ’ s role in antipoverty programs is a costly failure , but there is no universe in which cutting this spending can make up for the deficits created by Medicare and Social Security : Over the past 15 years , congressional GOP blueprints have typically imposed nearly all the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Medicaid , ACA subsidies , SNAP [ aka food stamps ] , and others ) as well as nondefense discretionary spending , such as education , veterans ’ health , homeland security , medical research , and infrastructure .
This pot of spending—7 % of GDP and declining—would have to be mostly eliminated to balance the budget a decade from now.19 These cuts will never be passed by any Congress , as their advocates on Capitol Hill and in top think tanks surely know .
While there are any number of failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform , proposals to eviscerate these entire categories of spending while letting Social Security and Medicare off the hook are a politically delusional distraction .
On the other hand , Riedl says the progressive fantasy that a single-payer program will solve this deficit problem is also a delusion : When confronted with rising Medicare and Medicaid costs driving federal deficits , a popular response on the left is to propose single-payer health care .
The theory here is that a fully socialized health plan would drastically slash costs to families and the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care has been widely debated over the past two years .
However , it is important to emphasize that the estimated $ 30 trillion to $ 40 trillion federal cost of singlepayer refers only to the federal cost of bringing those under 65 into the Medicare program ( and expanding benefits for the elderly ) .
It does not include the cost of closing the existing $ 44 trillion shortfall for those age 65 and older .
In other words , even a “ fully-funded ” single-payer program would finance only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s baseline shortfall of $ 44 trillion .
Perhaps lawmakers should figure out how to pay for the current Medicare system before pledging $ 30 trillion to expand it .
Obviously what is needed is entitlement reform to bring long-term spending back in line with revenues but doing that seems difficult at a time when impeachment is driving the partisan divide .
Sen. Romney has proposed a plan called the Time to Rescue United States ’ Trusts ( TRUST ) Act .
The TRUST act would create bipartisan rescue committees made up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Senate who would meet to propose changes to stabilize each of the major federal trust funds .
Is this kind of bipartisan compromise still possible ?
I ’ m not sure but it seems preferable to running directly into a wall of insolvency while interest costs eat up an ever-increasing portion of our budget .
Here ’ s Romney talking about the TRUST Act earlier today :

The Congressional Budge Office announced today that the deficit will exceed $1 trillion this year and will continue to widen each year over the coming decade:
The U.S. government’s budget deficit is projected to reach $1.02 trillion in 2020, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as the federal government continues to spend much more than it collects in tax revenue. A combination of the 2017 tax cuts and a surge in new spending has pushed the deficit wider. This year would mark the first time since 2012 that the deficit breached $1 trillion, a threshold that has alarmed some budget experts because deficits typically contract — not expand — during periods of sustained economic growth.
Tax cuts and new spending have contributed to rising deficits, but they are a relatively small portion of an ocean of red ink we are currently facing in the form of entitlement spending. Manhattan Institute fellow Brian Riedl testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs committee today that entitlements and not tax cuts are the real drivers of our future deficits:
A portion of the underlying deficit is driven by the $250 billion annual cost of the recent tax cuts, and the $150 billion annual cost of the higher discretionary spending caps.. However, that combined $400 billion to $500 billion cost will remain relatively steady if extended. It does not explain the $1.3 trillion rise in projected red ink between 2019 and 2029. Instead, nearly the entire surge in red ink will come from adding 74 million baby boomers to the Social Security and Medicare systems… The annual Social Security and Medicare shortfalls (and their interest costs) will jump from $440 billion in 2019, to $1,656 billion a decade from now. These $1.2 trillion in additional Social Security and Medicare deficits will account for 90% of the $1.3 trillion projected rise in the annual deficit over the next decade, according to the CBO current-policy budget baseline.
Riedl goes on to argue that the long term outlook, i.e. beyond the ten year budget window, is even worse:
According to CBO, between 2019 and 2049, Medicare is projected to run a $44 trillion cash deficit, Social Security will run an $19 trillion cash deficit, and the interest on the resulting program debt will be $40 trillion (chart 5). (To adjust these 30-year totals for inflation, trim by one-third.) Rather than self-finance through payroll taxes and premiums, these two programs are set to add $103 trillion to the national debt. The rest of the federal budget is projected to run a surplus over the next 30 years.
Here’s a chart he prepared showing the long-term outlook of tax cuts compared to entitlements over the next 30 years:
Riedl has a long portion of his document dealing with both conservative and liberal fantasies about how this problem can be solved. For instance, it’s one thing to argue the government’s role in antipoverty programs is a costly failure, but there is no universe in which cutting this spending can make up for the deficits created by Medicare and Social Security:
Over the past 15 years, congressional GOP blueprints have typically imposed nearly all the first decade’s cuts on antipoverty programs (Medicaid, ACA subsidies, SNAP [aka food stamps], and others) as well as nondefense discretionary spending, such as education, veterans’ health, homeland security, medical research, and infrastructure. This pot of spending—7% of GDP and declining—would have to be mostly eliminated to balance the budget a decade from now.19 These cuts will never be passed by any Congress, as their advocates on Capitol Hill and in top think tanks surely know. While there are any number of failed and unnecessary programs in need of major reform, proposals to eviscerate these entire categories of spending while letting Social Security and Medicare off the hook are a politically delusional distraction.
On the other hand, Riedl says the progressive fantasy that a single-payer program will solve this deficit problem is also a delusion:
When confronted with rising Medicare and Medicaid costs driving federal deficits, a popular response on the left is to propose single-payer health care. The theory here is that a fully socialized health plan would drastically slash costs to families and the federal budget. The budgetary impact of single-payer health care has been widely debated over the past two years. However, it is important to emphasize that the estimated $30 trillion to $40 trillion federal cost of singlepayer refers only to the federal cost of bringing those under 65 into the Medicare program (and expanding benefits for the elderly). It does not include the cost of closing the existing $44 trillion shortfall for those age 65 and older. In other words, even a “fully-funded” single-payer program would finance only the federal expansion, not the Medicare system’s baseline shortfall of $44 trillion. Perhaps lawmakers should figure out how to pay for the current Medicare system before pledging $30 trillion to expand it.
Obviously what is needed is entitlement reform to bring long-term spending back in line with revenues but doing that seems difficult at a time when impeachment is driving the partisan divide.
Sen. Romney has proposed a plan called the Time to Rescue United States’ Trusts (TRUST) Act. The TRUST act would create bipartisan rescue committees made up of elected representatives from both the House and Senate who would meet to propose changes to stabilize each of the major federal trust funds. Is this kind of bipartisan compromise still possible? I’m not sure but it seems preferable to running directly into a wall of insolvency while interest costs eat up an ever-increasing portion of our budget. Here’s Romney talking about the TRUST Act earlier today:


hotair--2020-01-28--There's just one problem with Trump's Middle East peace plan

So President Trump is in the process of unveiling his new Middle East peace plan and Bibi Netanyahu seems pretty excited about it .
There ’ s no signal that the Palestinians are onboard yet , but if someone went to all the trouble to put this together , we might as well take a look at it .
National Review has some of the few details that have been made available thus far , but it ’ s hardly a complete picture of how this would supposedly work .
President Trump unveiled his administration ’ s plan for Israeli-Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that currently lacks Palestinian buy-in but nevertheless provides a path to Palestinian statehood and substantial territorial gains .
Trump said that Israel would adopt the plan as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians .
The plan itself calls for more than doubling the area of the West Bank currently under Palestinian control , as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem .
However , the President also insisted that Israel would retain “ undivided ” control over its capital of Jerusalem , and that no Israelis or Palestinians would be uprooted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m not going to throw cold water all over this idea out of hand and I commend the administration for making the effort .
Of course , there have been any number of peace plans proposed for basically all of my adult life and I ’ m getting a little long in the tooth .
But if someone could get the Palestinians to go along for the ride , that would indeed be awesome .
In terms of the details , Israel being willing to give up some territory on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to statehood and recognize a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem seems like the sort of concessions that would be needed to get everyone to the table .
And as I already said , if it could somehow crystallize into a lasting peace , that would be awesome indeed .
Now , with all of that said , let me tell you why I don ’ t think it ’ s going to happen .
First of all , we can infer that this agreement was drawn up between the United States and Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ input from the Palestinians .
We can safely assume that ’ s why Abbas or one of his surrogates wasn ’ t involved with the unveiling .
It also explains why the announcement included the phrase saying that Israel would use it as “ a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians.
” In case that doesn ’ t make it abundantly clear , there were no negotiations with the Palestinians yet .
And they ’ ve never struck me as being really big on surprises .
Nor have they ever shown a tendency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice of reason .
Just saying… But let ’ s just say that there was some sort of path toward an agreement from the other side .
In order to create an agreement of this magnitude and complexity , you need two honest brokers at the table who have both the authority to speak for their people and the power to stick to and enforce the agreement from their side .
Those qualities are present in Israel to be sure .
But not with the Palestinians .
I have no doubt that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tired of generations of battle and acrimony and would like to have peace .
However , those people are not really in charge of things and have no control over the forces that don ’ t give a hoot about a two-state solution or anything else .
They want the Jews driven into the sea and Isreal wiped off the face of the map .
That ’ s their idea of compromise .
Further , we ’ ve been getting steady signals from Mahmoud Abbas that he sees the United States as completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinians .
Less than a year ago , after forming the new government , Abbas came out and said that he had no interest in the peace plan being worked on by the Trump administration and it wasn ’ t worth discussing after we moved our embassy .
Look , I ’ d love to be wrong .
And I sincerely hope I am .
If this somehow works and lasting peace is established , I will be the happiest person you ’ ve ever seen wolfing down a big old plate of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when it comes to the Palestinians , there is no responsible party that could forge a deal that the rest of them would stick to .
If an agreement is somehow signed , I will personally be starting a clock to see how long it takes before the first missiles fly over the border toward Israel .
I ’ m willing to bet that I won ’ t need to change the batteries in that clock .

So President Trump is in the process of unveiling his new Middle East peace plan and Bibi Netanyahu seems pretty excited about it. There’s no signal that the Palestinians are onboard yet, but if someone went to all the trouble to put this together, we might as well take a look at it. National Review has some of the few details that have been made available thus far, but it’s hardly a complete picture of how this would supposedly work.
President Trump unveiled his administration’s plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace at a press conference on Tuesday that currently lacks Palestinian buy-in but nevertheless provides a path to Palestinian statehood and substantial territorial gains. Trump said that Israel would adopt the plan as a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians. The plan itself calls for more than doubling the area of the West Bank currently under Palestinian control, as well as a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. However, the President also insisted that Israel would retain “undivided” control over its capital of Jerusalem, and that no Israelis or Palestinians would be uprooted from their homes to make the deal.
I’m not going to throw cold water all over this idea out of hand and I commend the administration for making the effort. Of course, there have been any number of peace plans proposed for basically all of my adult life and I’m getting a little long in the tooth. But if someone could get the Palestinians to go along for the ride, that would indeed be awesome.
In terms of the details, Israel being willing to give up some territory on the West Bank, provide a path to statehood and recognize a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem seems like the sort of concessions that would be needed to get everyone to the table. And as I already said, if it could somehow crystallize into a lasting peace, that would be awesome indeed.
Now, with all of that said, let me tell you why I don’t think it’s going to happen. First of all, we can infer that this agreement was drawn up between the United States and Israel with little – if any – structured input from the Palestinians. We can safely assume that’s why Abbas or one of his surrogates wasn’t involved with the unveiling. It also explains why the announcement included the phrase saying that Israel would use it as “a basis for negotiations with the Palestinians.”
In case that doesn’t make it abundantly clear, there were no negotiations with the Palestinians yet. And they’ve never struck me as being really big on surprises. Nor have they ever shown a tendency to be willing to listen to a voice of reason. Just saying…
But let’s just say that there was some sort of path toward an agreement from the other side. In order to create an agreement of this magnitude and complexity, you need two honest brokers at the table who have both the authority to speak for their people and the power to stick to and enforce the agreement from their side. Those qualities are present in Israel to be sure. But not with the Palestinians.
I have no doubt that there are some among the Palestinians who are tired of generations of battle and acrimony and would like to have peace. However, those people are not really in charge of things and have no control over the forces that don’t give a hoot about a two-state solution or anything else. They want the Jews driven into the sea and Isreal wiped off the face of the map. That’s their idea of compromise.
Further, we’ve been getting steady signals from Mahmoud Abbas that he sees the United States as completely loyal to Israel and hostile toward the Palestinians. Less than a year ago, after forming the new government, Abbas came out and said that he had no interest in the peace plan being worked on by the Trump administration and it wasn’t worth discussing after we moved our embassy.
Palestinian leaders said Israel was being empowered by U.S. President Donald Trump to “violate national and human rights of the people of Palestine”. Speaking to his new cabinet members, Abbas repeated his rejection of Trump’s peace plan and said it was not useful to talk to Trump after he moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognized the holy city as Israel’s capital.
Look, I’d love to be wrong. And I sincerely hope I am. If this somehow works and lasting peace is established, I will be the happiest person you’ve ever seen wolfing down a big old plate of crow. But I’m afraid that when it comes to the Palestinians, there is no responsible party that could forge a deal that the rest of them would stick to. If an agreement is somehow signed, I will personally be starting a clock to see how long it takes before the first missiles fly over the border toward Israel. I’m willing to bet that I won’t need to change the batteries in that clock.


hotair--2020-01-28--No, Dianne Feinstein isn't leaning towards acquitting Trump. But it sort of sounded that way at firs

No, Dianne Feinstein isn't leaning towards acquitting Trump. But it sort of sounded that way at first.

I ’ m trying to imagine what the analog to a DiFi “ not guilty ” vote would be on the Republican side , in a world where a Democratic president were on trial in the Senate instead .
Maybe John Cornyn ?
Even that doesn ’ t quite capture the magnitude , I think .
Feinstein ’ s an elder statesman of her party , in office for nearly 30 years .
She ’ s the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee .
She represents California .
You can imagine Democrats like Joe Manchin or Doug Jones , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final vote .
You ’ d never imagine a Californian .
The left tried to take her out the last time she ran , in 2018 .
They came close-ish , with their preferred candidate losing by less than nine points in a deep blue state where Feinstein has been a household name for decades .
She ’ s 86 and probably in her last term no matter what , but a vote to acquit Trump would finish her off in 2024 if she runs again .
“ Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” bellowed a shocking LA Times headline this afternoon , highlighting the comments below .
A debate immediately broke out on Twitter : Do these really tell us anything or are they just Feinstein ’ s version of “ let ’ s all keep an open mind ” boilerplate ?
“ Nine months left to go , the people should judge .
We are a republic , we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge , ” Feinstein said Tuesday , after the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense .
“ That was my view and it still is my view.
” Still , she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump ’ s character and fitness for office had left her undecided .
“ What changed my opinion as this went on , ” she said , is a realization that “ impeachment isn ’ t about one offense .
It ’ s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people , not themselves.
” Asked whether she would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , “ We ’ re not finished.
” “ The people should judge ” sounds like a strong hint that she ’ s uncomfortable voting for removal , especially given that bit at the end when she was asked flatly if she ’ ll vote to acquit and didn ’ t deny it .
She ’ s open to being persuaded to convict , but … hoo boy .
There ’ s no way she ’ d vote that way , though .
It ’ s unimaginable .
Even if she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another California institution , mind you ) would pull her aside and remind her that Feinstein voting to acquit would open the floodgates for Manchin , Jones , and Kyrsten Sinema to vote that way too .
And it would take all kinds of political pressure off of Susan Collins and Cory Gardner , the two most vulnerable Republicans running for reelection this fall .
At a minimum , what Democrats want from the impeachment saga is a higher probability of flipping Collins ’ s seat in Maine and Gardner ’ s seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process began .
If Feinstein votes no , that ’ s out the window .
Collins and Gardner will simply say to Democrats back home who are angry at Trump ’ s acquittal , “ This wasn ’ t a partisan thing .
We ’ re not in the tank for Trump .
Even Dianne Feinstein , one of your own , couldn ’ t convict based on this paltry evidence.
” It ’ s unthinkable that DiFi would put her party in that position after all this .
And in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made these comments claims the LA Times has it all wrong .
She ’ s not leaning towards acquittal and open to being convinced otherwise .
Rather the opposite : By “ before this , ” I think Feinstein means before hearing the arguments in the Senate .
She ’ s out with a statement this afternoon , in fact , in lockstep with her party by insisting that we need to hear from John Bolton now .
Only Feinstein knows whether she earnestly believed at some point that we ’ re too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( “ the people should judge ” ) or if that was political nonsense she was pushing to make it sound like the Democratic case at trial was so irresistibly persuasive that it had miraculously changed her mind .
Either way , I ’ d bet cash money that she ’ ll vote to convict in the end .
It would cost her party too much for her not to .
I ’ ll leave you with this , her official walkback :

I’m trying to imagine what the analog to a DiFi “not guilty” vote would be on the Republican side, in a world where a Democratic president were on trial in the Senate instead. Maybe John Cornyn?
Even that doesn’t quite capture the magnitude, I think. Feinstein’s an elder statesman of her party, in office for nearly 30 years. She’s the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. She represents California. You can imagine Democrats like Joe Manchin or Doug Jones, from deep red states, defecting on the final vote. You’d never imagine a Californian.
The left tried to take her out the last time she ran, in 2018. They came close-ish, with their preferred candidate losing by less than nine points in a deep blue state where Feinstein has been a household name for decades. She’s 86 and probably in her last term no matter what, but a vote to acquit Trump would finish her off in 2024 if she runs again.
“Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments,” bellowed a shocking LA Times headline this afternoon, highlighting the comments below. A debate immediately broke out on Twitter: Do these really tell us anything or are they just Feinstein’s version of “let’s all keep an open mind” boilerplate?
“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.” Still, she indicated that arguments in the trial about Trump’s character and fitness for office had left her undecided. “What changed my opinion as this went on,” she said, is a realization that “impeachment isn’t about one offense. It’s really about the character and ability and physical and mental fitness of the individual to serve the people, not themselves.” Asked whether she would ultimately vote to acquit, she demurred, saying, “We’re not finished.”
“The people should judge” sounds like a strong hint that she’s uncomfortable voting for removal, especially given that bit at the end when she was asked flatly if she’ll vote to acquit and didn’t deny it. She’s open to being persuaded to convict, but … hoo boy.
There’s no way she’d vote that way, though. It’s unimaginable. Even if she wanted to, Schumer and Pelosi (another California institution, mind you) would pull her aside and remind her that Feinstein voting to acquit would open the floodgates for Manchin, Jones, and Kyrsten Sinema to vote that way too. And it would take all kinds of political pressure off of Susan Collins and Cory Gardner, the two most vulnerable Republicans running for reelection this fall. At a minimum, what Democrats want from the impeachment saga is a higher probability of flipping Collins’s seat in Maine and Gardner’s seat in Colorado than they had when this process began. If Feinstein votes no, that’s out the window. Collins and Gardner will simply say to Democrats back home who are angry at Trump’s acquittal, “This wasn’t a partisan thing. We’re not in the tank for Trump. Even Dianne Feinstein, one of your own, couldn’t convict based on this paltry evidence.”
It’s unthinkable that DiFi would put her party in that position after all this. And in fact, a reporter who was there when she made these comments claims the LA Times has it all wrong. She’s not leaning towards acquittal and open to being convinced otherwise. Rather the opposite:
I think the @latimes has this story backwards. I was the reporter who asked @SenFeinstein these questions. She told me she was initially going to vote against impeachment "before this" But when I asked her to clarify, she said she's changed her opinion https://t.co/sJeYl2VkNl — Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) January 28, 2020
By “before this,” I think Feinstein means before hearing the arguments in the Senate. She’s out with a statement this afternoon, in fact, in lockstep with her party by insisting that we need to hear from John Bolton now.
“The decision the Senate must make is whether we hear from John Bolton now – testimony that may well have a determining factor in senators’ consideration of their votes – or if we postpone learning what he has to say until his book comes out in March.” pic.twitter.com/vRwjvEBXeU — Senator Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) January 28, 2020
Only Feinstein knows whether she earnestly believed at some point that we’re too close to an election to justify removal (“the people should judge”) or if that was political nonsense she was pushing to make it sound like the Democratic case at trial was so irresistibly persuasive that it had miraculously changed her mind. Either way, I’d bet cash money that she’ll vote to convict in the end. It would cost her party too much for her not to.
I’ll leave you with this, her official walkback:


hotair--2020-01-28--"I believe John Bolton," says ... Trump's former chief of staff?

Eeenteresting , because John Kelly and John Bolton didn ’ t necessarily mesh well together in the Trump White House during their respective tenures .
In an appearance last night , Trump ’ s former chief of staff told a Sarasota audience that he hasn ’ t read Bolton ’ s manuscript or spoken with the former national security adviser about what happened with Ukraine aid .
However , Kelly endorsed Bolton ’ s honesty and integrity , saying “ I believe John Bolton.
” Left unsaid was any comparison to Donald Trump , but … .
“ If John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe John Bolton , ” said retired Gen. John Kelly , who served as Trump ’ s chief of staff for 18 months .
… “ Every single time I was with him … he always gave the president the unvarnished truth , ” Kelly said of Bolton , who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry .
… Asked about the passages in Bolton ’ s book — which has yet to be released — that appear to reinforce the impeachment allegations , Kelly said Monday evening that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s a man of integrity and great character , so we ’ ll see what happens.
” Also left unsaid is whether Bolton ’ s memoir actually says what reports indicate , and in how much detail .
That has yet to be known , by Kelly and pretty much everyone else , which makes this a rather safe statement .
In fact , it makes it a rather uneventful statement too , since Kelly had left the White House in January 2019 , a few months before the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly not know what Bolton says in the book , he wouldn ’ t know what Bolton told Trump or vice versa about Ukraine aid between May and September of last year .
Kelly ’ s a character witness at best , not a fact witness .
Still , Kelly ’ s endorsement of Bolton ’ s integrity certainly contradicts the rebuttal strategy at the White House and the RNC , where Bolton ’ s being called “ John the Backstabber.
” In a character fight between Bolton and Trump , who wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that is ?
Kelly ’ s thoughts on that subject are likely to be widely shared , and not just among Democrats .
Given that they didn ’ t always see eye to eye on policy , this might make Kelly ’ s character witness a little stronger .
Remember their feud on immigration and national security in late 2018 involving Kirstjen Nielsen ?
That , however , raises another interesting point about Bolton ’ s renaissance on the Left .
He has been for more than a decade Democrats ’ bête @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused Bolton of being a radical neo-con , a wolf in slightly less frightening wolf ’ s clothing , ready to destroy America ’ s diplomatic standing to advance his hardline politics .
Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer as the £2 caucus leader at the time filibustered his appointment as UN Ambassador , forcing George W. Bush to use a recess appointment to fill the slot .
The reason that Trump added Bolton as national security adviser is because there appeared to be little chance of Bolton winning Senate confirmation to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s alleged predilection for foreign wars among Republicans like Rand Paul and Mike Lee , among others .
Now , suddenly , the man who couldn ’ t be trusted to meet diplomats at the UN is the voice of reason in Ukraine-Gate ?
I mean , that ’ s certainly possible , as Bolton has made his reputation for his bluntness , but it ’ s a change in posture for Democrats that might require full-time chiropractic care .
It will be quite amusing to see Senate Democrats — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — line up to declare their reliance on John Bolton ’ s integrity and love of country at this late date .
Perhaps it will be most amusing to Bolton himself .
And let ’ s not forget that it really doesn ’ t matter much anyway whether there was a quid pro quo or not , as Alan Dershowitz argued yesterday .
Bolton ’ s going to get rehabilitated on the cheap .

Eeenteresting, because John Kelly and John Bolton didn’t necessarily mesh well together in the Trump White House during their respective tenures. In an appearance last night, Trump’s former chief of staff told a Sarasota audience that he hasn’t read Bolton’s manuscript or spoken with the former national security adviser about what happened with Ukraine aid. However, Kelly endorsed Bolton’s honesty and integrity, saying “I believe John Bolton.”
Left unsaid was any comparison to Donald Trump, but ….
“If John Bolton says that in the book I believe John Bolton,” said retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump’s chief of staff for 18 months. … “Every single time I was with him … he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton, who has become a figure of intense interest in the impeachment inquiry. … Asked about the passages in Bolton’s book — which has yet to be released — that appear to reinforce the impeachment allegations, Kelly said Monday evening that “John’s an honest guy. He’s a man of integrity and great character, so we’ll see what happens.”
Also left unsaid is whether Bolton’s memoir actually says what reports indicate, and in how much detail. That has yet to be known, by Kelly and pretty much everyone else, which makes this a rather safe statement. In fact, it makes it a rather uneventful statement too, since Kelly had left the White House in January 2019, a few months before the Ukrainian aid situation arose. Not only does Kelly not know what Bolton says in the book, he wouldn’t know what Bolton told Trump or vice versa about Ukraine aid between May and September of last year. Kelly’s a character witness at best, not a fact witness.
Still, Kelly’s endorsement of Bolton’s integrity certainly contradicts the rebuttal strategy at the White House and the RNC, where Bolton’s being called “John the Backstabber.” In a character fight between Bolton and Trump, who wins? Outside of Trump’s base, that is? Kelly’s thoughts on that subject are likely to be widely shared, and not just among Democrats. Given that they didn’t always see eye to eye on policy, this might make Kelly’s character witness a little stronger. Remember their feud on immigration and national security in late 2018 involving Kirstjen Nielsen?
That, however, raises another interesting point about Bolton’s renaissance on the Left. He has been for more than a decade Democrats’ bête noire on foreign policy. They have accused Bolton of being a radical neo-con, a wolf in slightly less frightening wolf’s clothing, ready to destroy America’s diplomatic standing to advance his hardline politics. Senate Democrats led by Chuck Schumer as the £2 caucus leader at the time filibustered his appointment as UN Ambassador, forcing George W. Bush to use a recess appointment to fill the slot. The reason that Trump added Bolton as national security adviser is because there appeared to be little chance of Bolton winning Senate confirmation to any other post, especially given suspicions about Bolton’s alleged predilection for foreign wars among Republicans like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, among others.
Now, suddenly, the man who couldn’t be trusted to meet diplomats at the UN is the voice of reason in Ukraine-Gate? I mean, that’s certainly possible, as Bolton has made his reputation for his bluntness, but it’s a change in posture for Democrats that might require full-time chiropractic care. It will be quite amusing to see Senate Democrats — and the mainstream media, for that matter — line up to declare their reliance on John Bolton’s integrity and love of country at this late date. Perhaps it will be most amusing to Bolton himself.
And let’s not forget that it really doesn’t matter much anyway whether there was a quid pro quo or not, as Alan Dershowitz argued yesterday. Bolton’s going to get rehabilitated on the cheap.


hotair--2020-01-28--Unspeakable evil: A fisherman dredged up evidence of a murder spree involving five children

This is one of those stories that you would think was too unbelievable to be true if you saw it play out on a television show .
Unfortunately it ’ s not fiction but fact .
It started in March 2007 when a man who was fishing with a bow and arrow in a canal north of San Francisco missed his target and dredged up something horrible : He shot at a fleeting carp and missed .
But the arrow kept sinking , as the Woodland Daily Democrat reported at the time , and Brian Roller could feel that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he hauled the catch out of the cloudy , still water , he found that the arrow had pierced a metal cooler .
Inside the cooler was a tiny body , badly decomposed , along with a diaper .
The infant was bundled in a Winnie the Pooh blanket smeared with dirt , and wrapped in plastic , according to a 2007 Yolo County Sheriff ’ s Office coroner ’ s report .
The baby ’ s skull appeared fractured , according to the report .
The remains appeared to be those of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction when he opened to cooler to the Associated Press : “ When I opened that box , I was 99 percent sure it was a human body but I wanted to hold on to the belief that maybe it wasn ’ t , ” Brian Roller said .
“ When I saw one of the officers ( at the scene ) start to cry , I knew right then that what I was thinking was true.
” It took more than 12 years before the baby was identified .
Last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through an expanded FBI database and found it was a match for Paul Perez , a man who had served time for sexual assault in the 1990s .
The baby was identified as his child Nikko Lee Perez .
But as investigators started to gather information they soon discovered something worse .
Nikko Perez had siblings who were also missing .
Today authorities charged Paul Perez with five counts of premeditated murder .
Each of the five victims was one of his own infant children : Paul Perez , 57 , a convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was charged in the deaths of the children born between 1992 and 2001 , authorities announced Monday , the same day he was supposed to be released from a state prison in Delano on unrelated charges .
Yolo County Sheriff Tom Lopez said the case reflects an “ unspeakable evil , ” though a motive has not been determined .
“ I can not think of a case more disturbing than this one , ” he said .
“ There can be no victim more vulnerable and innocent than an infant and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” I don ’ t understand how five infants could go missing and no one caught on to what was happening .
Were these children born in a hospital ?
Did they all have the same mother ?
There are plenty of things about this case that don ’ t make sense .
Still , it ’ s a relief this monster was arrested before he could be released .
Now it ’ s a safe bet he will die in prison though this ABC 10 story says because the crime is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalty .

This is one of those stories that you would think was too unbelievable to be true if you saw it play out on a television show. Unfortunately it’s not fiction but fact. It started in March 2007 when a man who was fishing with a bow and arrow in a canal north of San Francisco missed his target and dredged up something horrible:
He shot at a fleeting carp and missed. But the arrow kept sinking, as the Woodland Daily Democrat reported at the time, and Brian Roller could feel that he had caught something much bigger. When he hauled the catch out of the cloudy, still water, he found that the arrow had pierced a metal cooler. Inside the cooler was a tiny body, badly decomposed, along with a diaper. The infant was bundled in a Winnie the Pooh blanket smeared with dirt, and wrapped in plastic, according to a 2007 Yolo County Sheriff’s Office coroner’s report. The baby’s skull appeared fractured, according to the report. The remains appeared to be those of a 1-month-old boy.
Roller described his reaction when he opened to cooler to the Associated Press:
“When I opened that box, I was 99 percent sure it was a human body but I wanted to hold on to the belief that maybe it wasn’t,” Brian Roller said. “When I saw one of the officers (at the scene) start to cry, I knew right then that what I was thinking was true.”
It took more than 12 years before the baby was identified. Last year, detectives ran the child’s DNA through an expanded FBI database and found it was a match for Paul Perez, a man who had served time for sexual assault in the 1990s. The baby was identified as his child Nikko Lee Perez. But as investigators started to gather information they soon discovered something worse. Nikko Perez had siblings who were also missing. Today authorities charged Paul Perez with five counts of premeditated murder. Each of the five victims was one of his own infant children:
Paul Perez, 57, a convicted sex offender with a 20-year criminal history, was charged in the deaths of the children born between 1992 and 2001, authorities announced Monday, the same day he was supposed to be released from a state prison in Delano on unrelated charges. Yolo County Sheriff Tom Lopez said the case reflects an “unspeakable evil,” though a motive has not been determined. “I cannot think of a case more disturbing than this one,” he said. “There can be no victim more vulnerable and innocent than an infant and unfortunately this case involves five of them.”
I don’t understand how five infants could go missing and no one caught on to what was happening. Were these children born in a hospital? Did they all have the same mother? There are plenty of things about this case that don’t make sense.
Still, it’s a relief this monster was arrested before he could be released. Now it’s a safe bet he will die in prison though this ABC 10 story says because the crime is so horrible that Perez could face the death penalty.


hotair--2020-01-28--Accused Hanukkah stabber may not even stand trial

I ’ m sure you recall the deranged antisemite who stabbed five people with a machete at a rabbi ’ s home who were there for a Hanukkah celebration .
It was only one in a string of attacks on Jews in New York City in recent months , but this attack was particularly gruesome in nature .
Fortunately , an arrest was made quickly and the detailed investigation began .
At the time , relatives of Grafton Thomas claimed that he had a history of mental illness .
We hear that a lot in violent crimes , but as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be throwing a huge wrench in the prosecution .
A psychiatrist has found that the maniac really is a maniac and is not competent to stand trial .
( NY Post ) Accused Hanukkah stabber Grafton Thomas was found by a psychiatrist to be incompetent to stand trial on federal hate crime charges for allegedly stabbing five Orthodox Jews last month , his lawyer said Monday .
Thomas ’ attorney , Michael Sussman , has asked a federal judge to hold a competency evaluation for his client , the lawyer said Monday in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US Attorney ’ s office two weeks to respond to Sussman ’ s request .
It ’ s unclear whether or not the findings of this particular psychiatrist will make the case for the defendant .
His own attorney made the announcement , and it ’ s not hard to find a shrink to go along with your client ’ s prognosis if it seems at all credible .
The prosecutors should be able to review the report and perhaps even request that a second doctor be brought in to conduct a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certified domestic terrorist , but is he really crazy ?
That always seems to be the conundrum we find ourselves in when dealing with criminals exhibiting excessively warped behavior .
Granted , choosing a machete as your weapon of choice to stage an attack on a crowd certainly sounds kind of crazy .
But how crazy does one have to be to qualify as too crazy to understand and be responsible for your own actions ?
Insanity pleas don ’ t work all that often , but sometimes they do , at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loughner after the Tuscon shooting involving Gabby Giffords .
He too was initially determined to be too psychotic to understand what was going on and assist in his own defense .
But over the course of a year , prison medical staff forcibly administered anti-psychotic drugs to him until it was determined that he was fit to stand trial .
He then pleaded guilty to 19 counts of various crimes and was put away .
Perhaps the most successful use of the insanity defense was pulled off by Lorena Bobbit , the woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on her husband .
Her lawyers pleaded temporary insanity and the court agreed , sending her to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison .
Miraculously , five weeks later she was apparently cured of her mental illness and released .
So with all these examples to draw on , the Hanukkah stabber might get away with a stretch in a mental hospital .
But if the doctors there can treat his alleged mental illness to the point where he ’ s determined to be fit to stand trial , he might not be @ @ @ @ @ @

I’m sure you recall the deranged antisemite who stabbed five people with a machete at a rabbi’s home who were there for a Hanukkah celebration. It was only one in a string of attacks on Jews in New York City in recent months, but this attack was particularly gruesome in nature. Fortunately, an arrest was made quickly and the detailed investigation began.
At the time, relatives of Grafton Thomas claimed that he had a history of mental illness. We hear that a lot in violent crimes, but as of this week his mental state may be throwing a huge wrench in the prosecution. A psychiatrist has found that the maniac really is a maniac and is not competent to stand trial. (NY Post)
Accused Hanukkah stabber Grafton Thomas was found by a psychiatrist to be incompetent to stand trial on federal hate crime charges for allegedly stabbing five Orthodox Jews last month, his lawyer said Monday. Thomas’ attorney, Michael Sussman, has asked a federal judge to hold a competency evaluation for his client, the lawyer said Monday in a statement. The federal court gave the US Attorney’s office two weeks to respond to Sussman’s request.
It’s unclear whether or not the findings of this particular psychiatrist will make the case for the defendant. His own attorney made the announcement, and it’s not hard to find a shrink to go along with your client’s prognosis if it seems at all credible. The prosecutors should be able to review the report and perhaps even request that a second doctor be brought in to conduct a new examination.
This guy is a certified domestic terrorist, but is he really crazy? That always seems to be the conundrum we find ourselves in when dealing with criminals exhibiting excessively warped behavior. Granted, choosing a machete as your weapon of choice to stage an attack on a crowd certainly sounds kind of crazy. But how crazy does one have to be to qualify as too crazy to understand and be responsible for your own actions?
Insanity pleas don’t work all that often, but sometimes they do, at least temporarily. Recall the case of Jared Loughner after the Tuscon shooting involving Gabby Giffords. He too was initially determined to be too psychotic to understand what was going on and assist in his own defense. But over the course of a year, prison medical staff forcibly administered anti-psychotic drugs to him until it was determined that he was fit to stand trial. He then pleaded guilty to 19 counts of various crimes and was put away.
Perhaps the most successful use of the insanity defense was pulled off by Lorena Bobbit, the woman who performed some unauthorized gender correction surgery on her husband. Her lawyers pleaded temporary insanity and the court agreed, sending her to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. Miraculously, five weeks later she was apparently cured of her mental illness and released.
So with all these examples to draw on, the Hanukkah stabber might get away with a stretch in a mental hospital. But if the doctors there can treat his alleged mental illness to the point where he’s determined to be fit to stand trial, he might not be out of the woods yet.


hotair--2020-01-28--Reports: Trump, McConnell each increasingly resigned to Senate calling witnesses

It ’ s amazing how the GOP ’ s best-laid plans for the trial were upended by two short documents .
One was Bolton ’ s statement on January 6 that he ’ d testify if subpoenaed by the Senate notwithstanding his prior reluctance to do so in the House .
The other was the Times ’ s story on Sunday night alleging that Bolton ’ s book draft claims Trump told him personally there was an aid-for-Biden-dirt deal with Ukraine .
That ’ s all it took .
If Bolton had kept silent about testifying , if that manuscript @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s zero question that the GOP would be on the brink of wrapping up the trial without calling any witnesses .
To my mind that ’ s the best evidence that Bolton or his inner circle are behind the leak of the manuscript to the Times this past weekend .
Clearly he wanted to testify , per his statement earlier this month , but until Sunday night it looked like Democrats might fall just short of the 51 votes they ’ d need to call him .
Lamar Alexander was keeping his head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disapproving noises wondering why Democrats didn ’ t call the witnesses they want in the House to begin with .
Suddenly , like a bolt from the blue , the bombshell allegation from Bolton ’ s draft landed on page one of the NYT , all but ensuring that Murkowski and others would have to call him after all .
It ’ s got ta be Bolton who leaked , no ?
Gabriel Sherman reports that that ’ s the suspicion within TrumpWorld — and that McConnell realizes the chances of a trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s revelations have made McConnell frustrated with Trump , two Republicans briefed on McConnell ’ s private conversations told me .
“ The White House knew and kept it mum , ” a McConnell ally said .
McConnell is said to be unhappy , and recalibrating his impeachment tactics .
“ He ’ s resigned to the fact there will be witnesses , ” another prominent Republican said .
Inside Trumpworld , it is widely assumed Bolton is behind the leak , three Republican sources told me .
Their suspicion is driven by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September on bad terms and has been waging a shadow war against Trump ever since .
In November , NBC News reported Bolton trashed Trump during a private speech , saying Trump ’ s foreign policy was driven by Trump ’ s business interests .
A source close to Bolton told me that Bolton has privately told GOP donors that Trump is “ mentally unstable.
” Bolton also has said he worries Trump will pull the United States out of NATO if he gets a second term .
“ Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
He ’ s the ultimate passive-aggressive , ” the person close to Bolton said .
That might explain why he ’ s eager to insinuate himself into the trial .
There ’ s no chance the Senate removes Trump , but if Trump ’ s own NSA testifies under oath that he thinks POTUS is both nutty and corrupt then a million Democratic attack ads will flow from it this fall .
He doesn ’ t need to testify to make that point , of course : The book is coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV interviews as he wants .
But nothing would lend gravity to a claim like that the way testimony during an impeachment trial would .
And Bolton may want to create the perception , however weak , that he ’ s being compelled to speak out rather than attacking Trump willingly , never mind that he immediately took to writing a memoir after stepping down as NSA and practically begged the Senate to subpoena him per his statement a few weeks ago .
One former White House official told Sherman he thought Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get called as a witness if in fact he ’ s intent on accusing Trump of Ukraine misconduct in his book : “ I mean , what an a**hole he would look like if impeachment ended and it looked like he withheld evidence.
” So yeah , he ’ s going to be called .
Like McConnell , Trump is reportedly resigned to it too : According to several people who spoke to him , Mr. Trump has sounded resigned to the possibility of witnesses after The New York Times reported Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president directly tying the release of security aid to Ukraine to the country ’ s pursuit of investigations he sought into Democrats .
Still , several Trump advisers said that Republican senators seemed reassured after hearing from one of the president ’ s defense lawyers , Alan Dershowitz , the only member of Mr. Trump ’ s team to reference the manuscript ’ s claims during the legal team ’ s presentation on Monday .
Even if what Mr. Bolton wrote was true , Mr. Dershowitz told the senators , it did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachable offense .
It ’ d be funny if they used Dershowitz ’ s presentation last night as an excuse to shift immediately to the increasingly inevitable “ bad but not impeachable ” grounds for acquittal without ever calling Bolton .
If Dersh is right that withholding military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens isn ’ t a high crime or misdemeanor , well , then there ’ s no need to hear any witnesses .
Just stipulate that Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo , exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue the verdict .
Not a removable offense .
I don ’ t think they have the stones to do it , especially since Trump is so wedded to his “ PERFECT CALL !
” nonsense .
But the shamelessness of it would befit our era .
They could turn on a dime from “ there ’ s no evidence !
” to “ the overwhelming evidence is irrelevant !
” and skip the intermediate step in which Bolton has to deliver his dramatic testimony .
They should go for it !
Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I tried , ” and then release his book to great fanfare .
Susan Collins could shrug and say , “ I admitted that what Trump did was bad , didn ’ t I ?
” , and then hopefully get reelected .
Everyone would be happy .
Except the president , fuming that his own party ended up agreeing with Pelosi that he misbehaved .
Just not so egregiously that he had to be removed from office because of it .
Here ’ s Lindsey Graham this afternoon also sounding more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning Democrats that both Bidens , the whistleblower , and some DNC official who was in contact with the Ukrainians in 2016 will all be called .
That ’ s highly unlikely , both because the Collins crew will be reluctant to call the whistleblower and because something will have to go badly wrong — mostly for the GOP — if each side is suddenly chasing as many as four witnesses apiece .
( If the Dems get four , they ’ re going to be heavy-hitters like Bolton , Mulvaney , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump serious damage . )
Axios reported this morning that once McConnell is convinced there are 51 Republicans who want to call witnesses , he ’ ll probably reach out to Schumer to try to make a deal on the number .
But Schumer has no reason to deal with him .
If Collins feels she has to call people like Bolton to impress swing voters back home , as a matter of her own self-preservation , then Schumer is under no pressure to make any sort of concession to her or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton or anyone else unless the Dems agree to call Hunter Biden , etc , that ’ s still a “ no deal ” from Schumer .
Democrats will simply go into attack mode and accuse Collins and other vulnerable Republicans of engaging in a cover-up by refusing to call anyone , precisely the outcome Collins fears .
Where ’ s the leverage over Schumer to join with Republicans in calling the Bidens , then , especially knowing that Republicans can muster 51 votes to do that themselves ?

It’s amazing how the GOP’s best-laid plans for the trial were upended by two short documents. One was Bolton’s statement on January 6 that he’d testify if subpoenaed by the Senate notwithstanding his prior reluctance to do so in the House. The other was the Times’s story on Sunday night alleging that Bolton’s book draft claims Trump told him personally there was an aid-for-Biden-dirt deal with Ukraine.
That’s all it took. If Bolton had kept silent about testifying, if that manuscript had remained bottled up, there’s zero question that the GOP would be on the brink of wrapping up the trial without calling any witnesses. To my mind that’s the best evidence that Bolton or his inner circle are behind the leak of the manuscript to the Times this past weekend. Clearly he wanted to testify, per his statement earlier this month, but until Sunday night it looked like Democrats might fall just short of the 51 votes they’d need to call him. Lamar Alexander was keeping his head down and Lisa Murkowski was making various disapproving noises wondering why Democrats didn’t call the witnesses they want in the House to begin with. Suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, the bombshell allegation from Bolton’s draft landed on page one of the NYT, all but ensuring that Murkowski and others would have to call him after all.
It’s gotta be Bolton who leaked, no? Gabriel Sherman reports that that’s the suspicion within TrumpWorld — and that McConnell realizes the chances of a trial without witnesses are evaporating.
Bolton’s revelations have made McConnell frustrated with Trump, two Republicans briefed on McConnell’s private conversations told me. “The White House knew and kept it mum,” a McConnell ally said. McConnell is said to be unhappy, and recalibrating his impeachment tactics. “He’s resigned to the fact there will be witnesses,” another prominent Republican said. Inside Trumpworld, it is widely assumed Bolton is behind the leak, three Republican sources told me. Their suspicion is driven by the fact that Bolton left the administration in September on bad terms and has been waging a shadow war against Trump ever since. In November, NBC News reported Bolton trashed Trump during a private speech, saying Trump’s foreign policy was driven by Trump’s business interests. A source close to Bolton told me that Bolton has privately told GOP donors that Trump is “mentally unstable.” Bolton also has said he worries Trump will pull the United States out of NATO if he gets a second term. “Bolton’s been out there trying to bring down Trump. He’s the ultimate passive-aggressive,” the person close to Bolton said.
That might explain why he’s eager to insinuate himself into the trial. There’s no chance the Senate removes Trump, but if Trump’s own NSA testifies under oath that he thinks POTUS is both nutty and corrupt then a million Democratic attack ads will flow from it this fall. He doesn’t need to testify to make that point, of course: The book is coming out and he can do as many TV interviews as he wants. But nothing would lend gravity to a claim like that the way testimony during an impeachment trial would. And Bolton may want to create the perception, however weak, that he’s being compelled to speak out rather than attacking Trump willingly, never mind that he immediately took to writing a memoir after stepping down as NSA and practically begged the Senate to subpoena him per his statement a few weeks ago. One former White House official told Sherman he thought Bolton really had no choice but to try to get called as a witness if in fact he’s intent on accusing Trump of Ukraine misconduct in his book: “I mean, what an a**hole he would look like if impeachment ended and it looked like he withheld evidence.”
So yeah, he’s going to be called. Like McConnell, Trump is reportedly resigned to it too:
According to several people who spoke to him, Mr. Trump has sounded resigned to the possibility of witnesses after The New York Times reported Sunday that Mr. Bolton’s manuscript described the president directly tying the release of security aid to Ukraine to the country’s pursuit of investigations he sought into Democrats. Still, several Trump advisers said that Republican senators seemed reassured after hearing from one of the president’s defense lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, the only member of Mr. Trump’s team to reference the manuscript’s claims during the legal team’s presentation on Monday. Even if what Mr. Bolton wrote was true, Mr. Dershowitz told the senators, it did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
It’d be funny if they used Dershowitz’s presentation last night as an excuse to shift immediately to the increasingly inevitable “bad but not impeachable” grounds for acquittal without ever calling Bolton. If Dersh is right that withholding military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor, well, then there’s no need to hear any witnesses. Just stipulate that Trump is guilty of a quid pro quo, exactly as House Democrats have alleged, and issue the verdict. Not a removable offense.
I don’t think they have the stones to do it, especially since Trump is so wedded to his “PERFECT CALL!” nonsense. But the shamelessness of it would befit our era. They could turn on a dime from “there’s no evidence!” to “the overwhelming evidence is irrelevant!” and skip the intermediate step in which Bolton has to deliver his dramatic testimony. They should go for it! Bolton could shrug and say, “Hey, I tried,” and then release his book to great fanfare. Susan Collins could shrug and say, “I admitted that what Trump did was bad, didn’t I?”, and then hopefully get reelected.
Everyone would be happy. Except the president, fuming that his own party ended up agreeing with Pelosi that he misbehaved. Just not so egregiously that he had to be removed from office because of it.
Here’s Lindsey Graham this afternoon also sounding more resigned to witnesses being called, and warning Democrats that both Bidens, the whistleblower, and some DNC official who was in contact with the Ukrainians in 2016 will all be called. That’s highly unlikely, both because the Collins crew will be reluctant to call the whistleblower and because something will have to go badly wrong — mostly for the GOP — if each side is suddenly chasing as many as four witnesses apiece. (If the Dems get four, they’re going to be heavy-hitters like Bolton, Mulvaney, and Pompeo, all of whom could do Trump serious damage.) Axios reported this morning that once McConnell is convinced there are 51 Republicans who want to call witnesses, he’ll probably reach out to Schumer to try to make a deal on the number. But Schumer has no reason to deal with him. If Collins feels she has to call people like Bolton to impress swing voters back home, as a matter of her own self-preservation, then Schumer is under no pressure to make any sort of concession to her or to McConnell. If Collins refuses to call Bolton or anyone else unless the Dems agree to call Hunter Biden, etc, that’s still a “no deal” from Schumer. Democrats will simply go into attack mode and accuse Collins and other vulnerable Republicans of engaging in a cover-up by refusing to call anyone, precisely the outcome Collins fears. Where’s the leverage over Schumer to join with Republicans in calling the Bidens, then, especially knowing that Republicans can muster 51 votes to do that themselves?


hotair--2020-01-28--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment persuasion, red-state invasion, Bolton abrasion, Middle Eas

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment persuasion, red-state invasion, Bolton abrasion, Middle East equation, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news of the day !
The show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew !
The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day .
Who will win the Sanders-Biden square-off ?
We ’ ll also review the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverage , including last night ’ s faceplant on CNN .
• Has red-state America become “ purpled ” by the flight of progressives from the disasters they created ?
Kristin B. Tate joins us to discuss her new book The Liberal Invasion of Red State America , and her warning as to what this could mean in 2020 .
• Donald Trump unveiled his Middle East peace plan today , and it ’ s already been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestinians .
Jeff Dunetz joins us to explain what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time may — or may not — be different .
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join us , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from Crown Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm joins us for Tuesdays with Andrew! The Prince of Twitter and I will discuss all of the hot political stories of the day. Who will win the Sanders-Biden square-off? We’ll also review the latest in impeachment developments and discuss the media coverage, including last night’s faceplant on CNN.
Has red-state America become “purpled” by the flight of progressives from the disasters they created? Kristin B. Tate joins us to discuss her new book The Liberal Invasion of Red State America, and her warning as to what this could mean in 2020.
Donald Trump unveiled his Middle East peace plan today, and it’s already been accepted by Israel and rejected by the Palestinians. Jeff Dunetz joins us to explain what’s changed, and why this time may — or may not — be different.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-01-28--Harvard professor arrested for failing to disclose $50,000 per month he received from China

Dr. Charles Lieber , a professor who led Harvard ’ s chemistry department has been arrested and accused of lying about his ties to a Chinese program that recruited scientists and paid them to share their expertise at Chinese universities .
According to a criminal complaint , Lieber failed to disclose that he was being paid a salary of up to $ 50,000 per month and up to $ 158,000 per year in living expenses by China ’ s Thousand Talents Plan and the Wuhan University of Technology .
Federal investigators also determined that Lieber was awarded more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lab at WUT… Simultaneously , Lelling said , Lieber was receving U.S. grant funds from the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health .
Lieber is accused of making false statements about his connections to China on National Institutes of Health grant applications .
Lelling said those programs required Lieber to disclose if he was working with any foreign power .
Lieber ’ s home was raided by the FBI today .
Photos at the link above show agents removing boxes of material from the home .
The program Lieber is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Thousand Talents Plan .
A Senate report published last Noevember identified the Thousand Talents Plan as an open attempt to transmit US taxpayer funded research to China in order to fuel its national development .
From the report : Launched in 2008 , the Thousand Talents Plan incentivizes individuals engaged in research and development in the United States to transmit the knowledge and research they gain here to China in exchange for salaries , research funding , lab space , and other incentives .
China unfairly uses the American research and expertise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military gain .
In recent years , federal agencies have discovered talent recruitment plan members who downloaded sensitive electronic research files before leaving to return to China , submitted false information when applying for grant funds , and willfully failed to disclose receiving money from the Chinese government on U.S. grant applications .
This report exposes how American taxpayer funded research has contributed to China ’ s global rise over the last 20 years .
During that time , China openly recruited U.S.-based researchers , scientists , and experts in the public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intellectual capital in exchange for monetary gain and other benefits .
Lieber isn ’ t the only case of recruitment of a leading scientist by China though he may be the most prominent .
Last August , federal prosecutors revealed an indictment of University of Kansas professor Franklin Tao : The seven-page indictment alleges Tao signed a “ Changjiang Scholar Distinguished Professor Employment Contract ” on or about May 1 , 2018 , a deal prosecutors say is part of a talent-recruitment program of the Chinese government .
The indictment charged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conflict-of-interest form he filed that September .
Through that omission , the indictment alleged , Tao “ knowingly and intentionally ” submitted false statements that enabled him to defraud the university by continuing with his work at Kansas .
And last May , Emory University fired two professors over very similar allegations of undisclosed connections to China : Xiao-Jiang Li and his wife Shihua Li , both professors of human genetics at Emory University School of Medicine , have been dismissed this week , Yahoo Finance learned .
The investigation on Li @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) sent to over 10,000 academic research universities last August .
The letter urged institutions to work with NIH and other agencies including the FBI to crack down on foreign influence , particularly from China .
Recipients of U.S. federal funds have to disclose if they are receiving funds from other countries and are not allowed to share their grant applications with foreign governments… “ Through an internal investigation , Emory discovered that two of its faculty members named as key personnel on NIH grant awards to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign sources of research funding and the extent of their work for research institutions and universities in China .
Emory has shared this information with the NIH , and the faculty members are no longer employed at Emory , ” Emory said in a statement on Thursday .
Here ’ s Sen .
Rob Portman talking about the conclusions of the Senate report quoted above .
According to Portman , the FBI revealed the total budget for these Chinese recruitment programs , of which the Thousand Talents Plan is just one , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why bother to send spies when you can just pay professors to hand over their research ?

Dr. Charles Lieber, a professor who led Harvard’s chemistry department has been arrested and accused of lying about his ties to a Chinese program that recruited scientists and paid them to share their expertise at Chinese universities.
According to a criminal complaint, Lieber failed to disclose that he was being paid a salary of up to $50,000 per month and up to $158,000 per year in living expenses by China’s Thousand Talents Plan and the Wuhan University of Technology. Federal investigators also determined that Lieber was awarded more than $1.5 million to establish a nanotechnology research lab at WUT… Simultaneously, Lelling said, Lieber was receving U.S. grant funds from the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health. Lieber is accused of making false statements about his connections to China on National Institutes of Health grant applications. Lelling said those programs required Lieber to disclose if he was working with any foreign power.
Lieber’s home was raided by the FBI today. Photos at the link above show agents removing boxes of material from the home.
The program Lieber is accused of participating in is known as the Thousand Talents Plan. A Senate report published last Noevember identified the Thousand Talents Plan as an open attempt to transmit US taxpayer funded research to China in order to fuel its national development. From the report:
Launched in 2008, the Thousand Talents Plan incentivizes individuals engaged in research and development in the United States to transmit the knowledge and research they gain here to China in exchange for salaries, research funding, lab space, and other incentives. China unfairly uses the American research and expertise it obtains for its own economic and military gain. In recent years, federal agencies have discovered talent recruitment plan members who downloaded sensitive electronic research files before leaving to return to China, submitted false information when applying for grant funds, and willfully failed to disclose receiving money from the Chinese government on U.S. grant applications. This report exposes how American taxpayer funded research has contributed to China’s global rise over the last 20 years. During that time, China openly recruited U.S.-based researchers, scientists, and experts in the public and private sector to provide China with knowledge and intellectual capital in exchange for monetary gain and other benefits.
Lieber isn’t the only case of recruitment of a leading scientist by China though he may be the most prominent. Last August, federal prosecutors revealed an indictment of University of Kansas professor Franklin Tao:
The seven-page indictment alleges Tao signed a “Changjiang Scholar Distinguished Professor Employment Contract” on or about May 1, 2018, a deal prosecutors say is part of a talent-recruitment program of the Chinese government. The indictment charged that Tao omitted mention of the contract in a conflict-of-interest form he filed that September. Through that omission, the indictment alleged, Tao “knowingly and intentionally” submitted false statements that enabled him to defraud the university by continuing with his work at Kansas.
And last May, Emory University fired two professors over very similar allegations of undisclosed connections to China:
Xiao-Jiang Li and his wife Shihua Li, both professors of human genetics at Emory University School of Medicine, have been dismissed this week, Yahoo Finance learned. The investigation on Li was prompted by a letter that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) sent to over 10,000 academic research universities last August. The letter urged institutions to work with NIH and other agencies including the FBI to crack down on foreign influence, particularly from China. Recipients of U.S. federal funds have to disclose if they are receiving funds from other countries and are not allowed to share their grant applications with foreign governments… “Through an internal investigation, Emory discovered that two of its faculty members named as key personnel on NIH grant awards to Emory University had failed to fully disclose foreign sources of research funding and the extent of their work for research institutions and universities in China. Emory has shared this information with the NIH, and the faculty members are no longer employed at Emory,” Emory said in a statement on Thursday.
Here’s Sen. Rob Portman talking about the conclusions of the Senate report quoted above. According to Portman, the FBI revealed the total budget for these Chinese recruitment programs, of which the Thousand Talents Plan is just one, is two trillion dollars over 12 years. Why bother to send spies when you can just pay professors to hand over their research?


hotair--2020-01-28--Restaurants complaining about Grubhub, etc. are missing the mark

Another odd dustup involving the gig economy popped up in Philadelphia this week .
But instead of the usual suspects , this one involves food delivery services such as Grubhub , Postmates and DoorDash .
Complaints are being raised , not by the government , but by local restaurants upset to find that their food was being offered through those services without anyone consulting them first .
Let the kvetching begin !
( CBS Philadelphia ) If you plan on ordering in this weekend , pay close attention to how you ’ re getting your food .
A growing number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up on popular delivery apps against their will .
“ We were just absolutely blown away that , one being our intellectual property which they can not have that without or consent , was put on there , ” said Christine Konda , co-owner of Cornerstone Bistro and Artisanal .
That ’ s how the co-owner of Cornerstone Bistro and Artisanal describes the moment she found out the Radnor Township restaurant was listed on Grubhub and Postmates without her knowledge .
The complaints from the restaurant owners seem to fall into two or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they never agreed to “ partner with ” the delivery service .
Another involves questions over whether the delivery service will impact their customer satisfaction or quality standards .
The last has to do with the alleged theft of intellectual property .
Of all of these , the only issue that appears to have any merit is the last one .
If the restaurant has an online menu and the delivery service lifts all of the images , names of the dishes , etc .
and puts it on their app , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content .
The way around that , of course , is to build the menu offering without proprietary images or using anything resembling their menu , while still allowing customers to select the dishes they want .
Beyond that , it ’ s tough to see what the restaurant owners are complaining about or why they would object in the first place .
These delivery services are doing free marketing for them .
Either you offer takeout food as an option or you don ’ t .
If you don ’ t , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no product available to deliver .
And if you do offer a takeout menu , anyone can buy the food .
The way the delivery services operate is to have the customer make the selections via their phone and pay with a credit card .
Then the order is placed with the restaurant remotely .
The driver arrives and picks up the food .
What possible impact could this have on the customer experience ?
Once you accept a takeout order , prepare the food and accept payment for it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is their business .
Making an order through Grubhub is no different than calling in an order and asking your friend or relative to run over and pick it up for you .
The food still winds up at the same destination and the restaurant is paid the same amount of money .
What sort of business model are you operating on when you complain about a chance for more people to purchase your dishes ?
I ’ m sorry , but this just sounds crazy to me .
Even in a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough place to turn a profit .
People who tend to stay at home and order delivery are very unlikely to walk into your restaurant .
But if your menu shows up on the apps offered by these services , new potential customer markets open up .
And you were already making the food anyway .
You ’ re just selling more of it to people you don ’ t wind up meeting in person .
And just for the record , when CBS contacted Postmates about this they seemed genuinely surprised that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they also said that there ’ s an option right on their app to have the restaurant removed from the list .
It ’ s just such a maddeningly petty argument to make .

Another odd dustup involving the gig economy popped up in Philadelphia this week. But instead of the usual suspects, this one involves food delivery services such as Grubhub, Postmates and DoorDash. Complaints are being raised, not by the government, but by local restaurants upset to find that their food was being offered through those services without anyone consulting them first. Let the kvetching begin! (CBS Philadelphia)
If you plan on ordering in this weekend, pay close attention to how you’re getting your food. A growing number of restaurants say they’re showing up on popular delivery apps against their will. “We were just absolutely blown away that, one being our intellectual property which they cannot have that without or consent, was put on there,” said Christine Konda, co-owner of Cornerstone Bistro and Artisanal. That’s how the co-owner of Cornerstone Bistro and Artisanal describes the moment she found out the Radnor Township restaurant was listed on Grubhub and Postmates without her knowledge.
The complaints from the restaurant owners seem to fall into two or three categories. One is the fact that they never agreed to “partner with” the delivery service. Another involves questions over whether the delivery service will impact their customer satisfaction or quality standards. The last has to do with the alleged theft of intellectual property.
Of all of these, the only issue that appears to have any merit is the last one. If the restaurant has an online menu and the delivery service lifts all of the images, names of the dishes, etc. and puts it on their app, they may indeed have stolen protected web content. The way around that, of course, is to build the menu offering without proprietary images or using anything resembling their menu, while still allowing customers to select the dishes they want.
Beyond that, it’s tough to see what the restaurant owners are complaining about or why they would object in the first place. These delivery services are doing free marketing for them. Either you offer takeout food as an option or you don’t. If you don’t, then there is no issue since there’s no product available to deliver. And if you do offer a takeout menu, anyone can buy the food.
The way the delivery services operate is to have the customer make the selections via their phone and pay with a credit card. Then the order is placed with the restaurant remotely. The driver arrives and picks up the food. What possible impact could this have on the customer experience?
Once you accept a takeout order, prepare the food and accept payment for it, what the person does with the food is their business. Making an order through Grubhub is no different than calling in an order and asking your friend or relative to run over and pick it up for you. The food still winds up at the same destination and the restaurant is paid the same amount of money. What sort of business model are you operating on when you complain about a chance for more people to purchase your dishes?
I’m sorry, but this just sounds crazy to me. Even in a strong economy, the foodservice industry is a tough place to turn a profit. People who tend to stay at home and order delivery are very unlikely to walk into your restaurant. But if your menu shows up on the apps offered by these services, new potential customer markets open up. And you were already making the food anyway. You’re just selling more of it to people you don’t wind up meeting in person.
And just for the record, when CBS contacted Postmates about this they seemed genuinely surprised that any business owners would complain. But they also said that there’s an option right on their app to have the restaurant removed from the list. It’s just such a maddeningly petty argument to make.


hotair--2020-01-28--Chait: Nominating Sanders would be an 'act of insanity'

Jonathan Chait has a piece today arguing that the socialist left is pushing the Democratic party toward a cliff , one the party ought to be trying to avoid .
He opens with the usual caveats , i.e .
no one can predict the outcome of an election in a time when populism and partisan division are surging .
But then he makes a sustained case that even if you can ’ t know nominating Sanders will end in failure , there ’ s lots of evidence to suggest that ’ s the case .
“ The totality of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps uniquely , risky nominee , ” Chait writes .
A big part of the risk comes from the fact that Sanders is pushing a lot of agenda items that are not very popular : That link about the fracking ban proposal goes to an Axios story which highlights these results from several swing states : As you can see , in states the Democratic Party needs to win , the fracking ban is barely a majority position among Democratic voters and it ’ s a loser among swing voters .
Yesterday I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were warning that this issue was a looming disaster for the party .
“ If a candidate comes into this state and tries to sell that policy , they ’ re going to have a hard time winning , ” the mayor of Pittsburgh said .
Simply put , Sanders unwillingness to compromise on his utopian vision is appealing to the far left but is going to make it very difficult for him to compete in rust belt states Democrats need to win .
If Bernie is such an obviously flawed candidate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flirting with choosing him as their nominee ?
Here Chait argues that the socialist left has been living in a bubble .
After Hillary lost in 2016 , the left offered an explanation which doubled as a plan : Moderates don ’ t excite voters .
Instead of fighting over the mushy middle , a bold progressive could win by exciting voters the party usually ignores .
But as Chait points out , there have been two recent tests of that theory and in both cases the bold progressives have failed : Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a historic blowout .
After his loss , various voices in the media pointed out that this was a flashing warning light about candidates like Sanders and Warren .
Even MSNBC ’ s Chris Hayes made the point about Corbyn testing the bold progressive model and failing .
But he was shouted down by the left and eventually deleted his tweet .
The other test of this theory was the 2018 election .
The far left scoffed at the idea fighting over the moderate middle was a winning strategy : “ Their theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white guys who are longtime Establishment insiders who will run on a boring agenda Democrats would have run on 20 years ago , ” complained Adam Green , co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee .
“ The DCCC is doing it wrong , ” insisted Democracy for America ’ s Neil Sroka .
“ In district after district , the national party is throwing its weight behind candidates who are out of step with the national mood , ” proclaimed a long piece in the left-wing Intercept attacking the party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s failure to understand the shifting progressive electorate is costing the party.
” … Democrats flipped 40 seats .
Tellingly , while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska , Richard Ojeda in West Virginia , and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts , not a single one of them prevailed in November .
Our Revolution went 0–22 , Justice Democrats went 0–16 , and Brand New Congress went 0–6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party ’ s House gains .
Why would anyone looking at this conclude that the project that failed at the local level will suddenly succeed at the national level ?
Chait says the answer is that the left simply isn ’ t looking at the data .
This isn ’ t a rational calculation , it ’ s an ideological crusade .
As Chait put it , “ For the socialist left , which has no other standard-bearer to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail.
” The emotional investment of the Bernie Bros is driving the Democratic Party toward a cliff .
Of course anything can happen in an election so you can never say it ’ s impossible , but that doesn ’ t change the fact that , if you step back a bit and look at it , Bernie is the worst possible choice the party could make to run against Trump .

Jonathan Chait has a piece today arguing that the socialist left is pushing the Democratic party toward a cliff, one the party ought to be trying to avoid. He opens with the usual caveats, i.e. no one can predict the outcome of an election in a time when populism and partisan division are surging. But then he makes a sustained case that even if you can’t know nominating Sanders will end in failure, there’s lots of evidence to suggest that’s the case. “The totality of the evidence suggests Sanders is an extremely, perhaps uniquely, risky nominee,” Chait writes. A big part of the risk comes from the fact that Sanders is pushing a lot of agenda items that are not very popular:
Sanders has gleefully discarded the party’s conventional wisdom that it has to pick and choose where to push public opinion leftward, adopting a comprehensive left-wing agenda, some of which is popular, and some of which is decidedly not. Positions in the latter category include replacing all private health insurance with a government plan, banning fracking, letting prisoners vote, decriminalizing the border, giving free health care to undocumented immigrants, and eliminating ICE.
That link about the fracking ban proposal goes to an Axios story which highlights these results from several swing states:
As you can see, in states the Democratic Party needs to win, the fracking ban is barely a majority position among Democratic voters and it’s a loser among swing voters. Yesterday I wrote about elected Democrats in Pennsylvania who were warning that this issue was a looming disaster for the party. “If a candidate comes into this state and tries to sell that policy, they’re going to have a hard time winning,” the mayor of Pittsburgh said. Simply put, Sanders unwillingness to compromise on his utopian vision is appealing to the far left but is going to make it very difficult for him to compete in rust belt states Democrats need to win.
If Bernie is such an obviously flawed candidate, why do Democrats seem to be seriously flirting with choosing him as their nominee? Here Chait argues that the socialist left has been living in a bubble. After Hillary lost in 2016, the left offered an explanation which doubled as a plan: Moderates don’t excite voters. Instead of fighting over the mushy middle, a bold progressive could win by exciting voters the party usually ignores. But as Chait points out, there have been two recent tests of that theory and in both cases the bold progressives have failed:
Numerous activists and intellectuals in the Sanders orbit held up Jeremy Corbyn as proof of concept for his viability. Anticipating a Corbyn victory, they argued over and over that Corbyn was showing how socialism would attract and mobilize, not repel, voters. Corbyn is more extreme than Sanders, but Sanders enthusiasts themselves drew a connection between the two, and his massive defeat obviously casts serious doubt on the model he was supposed to vindicate.
Corbyn not only lost, he lost in a historic blowout. After his loss, various voices in the media pointed out that this was a flashing warning light about candidates like Sanders and Warren. Even MSNBC’s Chris Hayes made the point about Corbyn testing the bold progressive model and failing. But he was shouted down by the left and eventually deleted his tweet.
The other test of this theory was the 2018 election. The far left scoffed at the idea fighting over the moderate middle was a winning strategy:
“Their theory of the case is to recruit old white guys who are longtime Establishment insiders who will run on a boring agenda Democrats would have run on 20 years ago,” complained Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “The DCCC is doing it wrong,” insisted Democracy for America’s Neil Sroka. “In district after district, the national party is throwing its weight behind candidates who are out of step with the national mood,” proclaimed a long piece in the left-wing Intercept attacking the party’s House recruitment strategy, “The DCCC’s failure to understand the shifting progressive electorate is costing the party.”… Democrats flipped 40 seats. Tellingly, while progressives managed to nominate several candidates in red districts — Kara Eastman in Nebraska, Richard Ojeda in West Virginia, and many others — any one of whose victory they would have cited as proof that left-wing candidates can win Trump districts, not a single one of them prevailed in November. Our Revolution went 0–22, Justice Democrats went 0–16, and Brand New Congress went 0–6.* The failed technocratic 26-year-old bourgeoise shills who were doing it wrong somehow accounted for 100 percent of the party’s House gains.
Why would anyone looking at this conclude that the project that failed at the local level will suddenly succeed at the national level? Chait says the answer is that the left simply isn’t looking at the data. This isn’t a rational calculation, it’s an ideological crusade. As Chait put it, “For the socialist left, which has no other standard-bearer to choose from, Bernie is too big to fail.” The emotional investment of the Bernie Bros is driving the Democratic Party toward a cliff.
Of course anything can happen in an election so you can never say it’s impossible, but that doesn’t change the fact that, if you step back a bit and look at it, Bernie is the worst possible choice the party could make to run against Trump.