hotair--2020-01-28--McConnell doesn't have the votes to block witnesses yet

McConnell doesn't have the votes to block witnesses yet -- but it sounds like he will by Friday

The headlines going around this evening , all to the effect that “ McConnell doesn ’ t have the votes !
” , are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves .
Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago , in the first flush of the NYT ’ s story on Sunday night about Bolton ’ s book .
McConnell doesn ’ t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to call witnesses .
Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won ’ t go any further than that now .
And no one thinks Lamar Alexander ’ s going to blow up his buddy Mitch ’ s plans for a quick ending to the trial .
They seem to be calculating that they ’ d rather get torched by nine months of Democratic “ COVER UP !
” attack ads than put Bolton on the stand , which is cynical but rational .
Those “ cover up ” ads are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They could call Bolton , Mulvaney , Pompeo , even Giuliani , and so long as they vote to acquit Dems will accuse them of being Trump ’ s co-conspirators .
And it may well be that Republicans will suffer less politically from a quick acquittal without witnesses than they would if they called Bolton , he gave damning testimony , and then they voted to acquit anyway .
True , Bolton ’ s probably going to give damning “ testimony ” to the media anyway after his book comes out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump created this problem for his Senate caucus ; there ’ s no way out of it without some political pain .
Maybe an obviously sham process aimed at ducking material witnesses is less painful than a pretend-diligent process in which the verdict is assured no matter what any witness says .
It ’ s certainly debatable .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R. , Ky. ) said the vote total wasn ’ t where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents , these people said .
He had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ no , ” and “ maybes ” marked on it , apparently a whip count , but he didn ’ t show it to senators .
Sens .
Cory Gardner of Colorado , Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina , who face competitive races in the fall , warned colleagues in the meeting against backing more witnesses , people familiar with the matter said .
The senators said a drawn-out trial could lead to more Democratic attacks and hurt their re-election chances , the people said .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to requests for comment… The reports of Mr. Bolton ’ s account unsettled Republican senators and bolstered the odds of a successful vote to hear further witness testimony .
Several on-the-fence Republican senators said Mr. Bolton ’ s claims strengthened the case for further witness testimony , while the number of senators the White House believes may vote for more testimony ticked up .
That sounds pretty dicey !
But other reporters say otherwise , sensing far more confidence about the big vote on Friday : How do they get 51 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to betray McConnell ?
Pat Toomey ?
He ’ d be taking a big risk in Pennsylvania if his vote ended up enabling Bolton testimony that did real damage to Trump .
As I say , either way there ’ ll be political pain no matter what they do .
New from Quinnipiac : Note the numbers in all three partisan groups there , and bear in mind that most of this poll was conducted before the big Times story on Sunday night that Bolton really might have something meaningful to say about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes me laugh that he could blow up the current GOP mood on a whim , at a moment ’ s notice , just by dialing into his cable news channel of choice tonight and telling them on air , “ Yeah , the Times story was true .
Trump told me he held back the aid to force Ukraine to hurt Biden before the election .
Just thought people should know.
” *click* I wonder if he ’ s tempted to do so .
Like I said this morning , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from him ( as Team Trump reportedly does ) then that makes twice in the past three weeks that he ’ s tried to force the Senate to demand his testimony .
We ’ re 48 hours away from the big vote on witnesses now and they ’ re still resisting .
If he really does want to make it impossible for them to decline to subpoena him , he ’ s got to say something accusatory about Trump to the media .
If he doesn ’ t , Republicans will end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call Bolton .
One : They didn ’ t want to “ open the floodgates ” on witness testimony by calling him since that also would have meant calling Hunter Biden *and* potentially anyone else whom Bolton accused of involvement in the Ukraine scheme *and* then any reciprocal defense witnesses to “ balance ” those new prosecution witnesses .
John Thune made that argument to reporters this morning in fact , that calling Bolton potentially means a long trial with lots of new evidence .
But that ’ s a hard argument to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country that wants witnesses called .
The reason for not calling anyone is that … the jury didn ’ t want to hear all of the evidence that was potentially available ?
Two : They ’ re coming around to the defense of last resort , that even if Bolton ’ s telling the truth in his book and Trump is guilty as sin that that ’ s simply not an impeachable offense .
Various Republicans began tentatively defending that position today .
Smart Trumpers like Tucker Carlson were pushing that point as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first few weeks after the Ukraine story broke big , allowing that Trump ’ s pressure on Zelensky during their phone call was inappropriate but that it ’ s not something to remove a president for .
Mike Braun was on CNN today connecting that logic to the issue of Bolton ’ s testimony , noting that Alan Dershowitz insists there ’ s no impeachable offense here even if Bolton ’ s book is true — in which case , hey , why bother hearing from Bolton at all ?
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic , of course , is that it denies Trump the moral vindication he ’ s seeking from the Senate GOP for his “ perfect phone call.
” But who knows ?
Maybe Republicans will find a way to deliver that too .
They don ’ t need to add the caveat that the call was “ bad , ” merely to assure the country that it was not impeachable .
“ But senator , don ’ t you think it ’ s wrong to squeeze foreign governments for oppo on your prospective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Right , but is it wrong ?
Is it something presidents should do in the future ?
” “ Not .
Impeachable.
” At least we ’ ll see some fun before-and-after ads down the road of various Republicans like Lindsey Graham insisting in October that actual evidence of a quid pro quo would be disturbing , then Bolton providing that evidence at some point , then Graham insisting in January that there ’ s just nothing all that disturbing about a quid pro quo .
Those ads are already being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they haven ’ t yet been produced .
Here ’ s Susan Collins telegraphing that she ’ ll be one of the two or three Republican votes to call witnesses on Friday .
Not enough .

The headlines going around this evening, all to the effect that “McConnell doesn’t have the votes!”, are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves. Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago, in the first flush of the NYT’s story on Sunday night about Bolton’s book. McConnell doesn’t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it’s highly likely they’ll vote to call witnesses. Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won’t go any further than that now. And no one thinks Lamar Alexander’s going to blow up his buddy Mitch’s plans for a quick ending to the trial.
They seem to be calculating that they’d rather get torched by nine months of Democratic “COVER UP!” attack ads than put Bolton on the stand, which is cynical but rational. Those “cover up” ads are coming no matter what, after all. They could call Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, even Giuliani, and so long as they vote to acquit Dems will accuse them of being Trump’s co-conspirators. And it may well be that Republicans will suffer less politically from a quick acquittal without witnesses than they would if they called Bolton, he gave damning testimony, and then they voted to acquit anyway. True, Bolton’s probably going to give damning “testimony” to the media anyway after his book comes out. But that can’t be avoided. Trump created this problem for his Senate caucus; there’s no way out of it without some political pain.
Maybe an obviously sham process aimed at ducking material witnesses is less painful than a pretend-diligent process in which the verdict is assured no matter what any witness says. It’s certainly debatable.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said the vote total wasn’t where it needed to be on blocking witnesses or documents, these people said. He had a card with “yes,” “no,” and “maybes” marked on it, apparently a whip count, but he didn’t show it to senators. Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, warned colleagues in the meeting against backing more witnesses, people familiar with the matter said. The senators said a drawn-out trial could lead to more Democratic attacks and hurt their re-election chances, the people said. None of the three senators’ offices immediately responded to requests for comment… The reports of Mr. Bolton’s account unsettled Republican senators and bolstered the odds of a successful vote to hear further witness testimony. Several on-the-fence Republican senators said Mr. Bolton’s claims strengthened the case for further witness testimony, while the number of senators the White House believes may vote for more testimony ticked up.
That sounds pretty dicey! But other reporters say otherwise, sensing far more confidence about the big vote on Friday:
I’m at the Senate and it’s clear to me, based on background conversations with several GOP senators, that McConnell is wary of calling witnesses and doesn’t want the trial to get out of control for his party. “Mitch wants this done,” said one of them. — Robert Costa (@costareports) January 28, 2020
NEWS — McConnell told his members that he did not yet have enough votes to be able to kill the witness vote, expected Friday, according to people familiar. Yet several 2020ers spoke, saying they're ready to move on to final vote, move on from the trial. — Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) January 28, 2020
McConnell and several Republicans warned today in private that moving ahead with one witness could lead to a number of new witnesses – and there would be no clear path out of the trial, per sources familiar with remarks. GOP confident they can defeat witness vote — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 28, 2020
Politico detected a cheerful mood too:
In fact, Republicans feel increasingly confident about prevailing. In the meeting, critics of hearing from witnesses made a “strong” case against voting for new evidence, according to two attendees. A third attendee who opposes new witnesses said the meeting seemed to solidify the position against new witnesses and documents: “I feel good.”… [B]y Tuesday, a “feeling of calm had been restored” to the Republican Conference, claimed GOP senators and aides. “I think the conference is coming together,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told reporters as he was leaving the room.
How do they get 51 votes to call anyone if Alexander is unlikely to betray McConnell? Pat Toomey? He’d be taking a big risk in Pennsylvania if his vote ended up enabling Bolton testimony that did real damage to Trump.
As I say, either way there’ll be political pain no matter what they do. New from Quinnipiac:
Note the numbers in all three partisan groups there, and bear in mind that most of this poll was conducted before the big Times story on Sunday night that Bolton really might have something meaningful to say about what Trump knew about Ukraine.
It makes me laugh that he could blow up the current GOP mood on a whim, at a moment’s notice, just by dialing into his cable news channel of choice tonight and telling them on air, “Yeah, the Times story was true. Trump told me he held back the aid to force Ukraine to hurt Biden before the election. Just thought people should know.” *click* I wonder if he’s tempted to do so. Like I said this morning, if you believe that the leak to the NYT came from him (as Team Trump reportedly does) then that makes twice in the past three weeks that he’s tried to force the Senate to demand his testimony. We’re 48 hours away from the big vote on witnesses now and they’re still resisting. If he really does want to make it impossible for them to decline to subpoena him, he’s got to say something accusatory about Trump to the media.
If he doesn’t, Republicans will end up with two arguments for refusing to call Bolton. One: They didn’t want to “open the floodgates” on witness testimony by calling him since that also would have meant calling Hunter Biden *and* potentially anyone else whom Bolton accused of involvement in the Ukraine scheme *and* then any reciprocal defense witnesses to “balance” those new prosecution witnesses. John Thune made that argument to reporters this morning in fact, that calling Bolton potentially means a long trial with lots of new evidence.
But that’s a hard argument to make to the 75 percent of the country that wants witnesses called. The reason for not calling anyone is that … the jury didn’t want to hear all of the evidence that was potentially available?
Two: They’re coming around to the defense of last resort, that even if Bolton’s telling the truth in his book and Trump is guilty as sin that that’s simply not an impeachable offense. Various Republicans began tentatively defending that position today. Smart Trumpers like Tucker Carlson were pushing that point as far back as early October, in the first few weeks after the Ukraine story broke big, allowing that Trump’s pressure on Zelensky during their phone call was inappropriate but that it’s not something to remove a president for. Mike Braun was on CNN today connecting that logic to the issue of Bolton’s testimony, noting that Alan Dershowitz insists there’s no impeachable offense here even if Bolton’s book is true — in which case, hey, why bother hearing from Bolton at all?
The problem with “bad but not impeachable” logic, of course, is that it denies Trump the moral vindication he’s seeking from the Senate GOP for his “perfect phone call.” But who knows? Maybe Republicans will find a way to deliver that too. They don’t need to add the caveat that the call was “bad,” merely to assure the country that it was not impeachable.
“But senator, don’t you think it’s wrong to squeeze foreign governments for oppo on your prospective election opponent?”
“Not impeachable.”
“Right, but is it wrong? Is it something presidents should do in the future?”
“Not. Impeachable.”
At least we’ll see some fun before-and-after ads down the road of various Republicans like Lindsey Graham insisting in October that actual evidence of a quid pro quo would be disturbing, then Bolton providing that evidence at some point, then Graham insisting in January that there’s just nothing all that disturbing about a quid pro quo. Those ads are already being written, in fact, even if they haven’t yet been produced.
Here’s Susan Collins telegraphing that she’ll be one of the two or three Republican votes to call witnesses on Friday. Not enough.


hotair--2020-01-28--Trump: Man, Fox News is as bad as CNN and "MSDNC" these days

To judiciously quote the well-known philosopher Jules Winnfield , “ ain ’ t the same [ expletive ] ballpark , it ain ’ t the same league , it ain ’ t even the same [ expletive ] sport.
” Well , it ’ s the same sport , but that ’ s always been true when comparing Fox News to MSNBC , and more recently to CNN , too .
Same sport , wildly different teams and leagues , which is one of the problems with media reliability these days .
That ’ s not the problem Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump blasted the network this morning after watching Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-MD ) making an appearance on Fox & Friends , normally the president ’ s favorite morning show : The departure of Shep Smith seems like a counter-argument to Trump ’ s claim here .
Fox cut him loose because Smith cut too hard against the grain of Trump-supporting viewers , not because they wanted to dial up criticism of the president .
If anything , the network has gotten even less politically correct than it had been during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guests like Van Hollen or other Democrats , Fox has always claimed to be “ fair and balanced ” in part because of their editorial policy of getting competing voices among talking-head guests … even while homogenizing the host voices across the entire broadcast schedule .
As we ’ ll see in a moment , the other networks not only don ’ t consistently adhere to it , that failure ends up making them look worse than they otherwise would .
For the moment , though , point to one hour of broadcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maaaaaayyyyybe Fox News Sunday — in which Trump can expect to be regularly criticized by Fox News personnel .
Trump does complain specifically about Wallace , but Wallace balances out his skepticism of Trump with hard questions aimed at Trump opponents , too .
He set up Pete Buttigieg for a spanking over abortion on Sunday , for instance , and shredded Hakeem Jeffries over the Souvenir Impeachment Pen Giveaway options earlier this month .
Those don ’ t happen at all without at least some journalistic distance .
That ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Wallace .
He and our pal and colleague Katie Pavlich got into a heated exchange over the facts around impeachment , which might have been what caught Trump ’ s attention about Wallace : These are mild prices to pay for a network that may not be 24/7 Trumpvision , but it ’ s at least 23/6.5 Trumpvision .
To compare , let ’ s recall the clip that Karen Townsend first posted earlier today on supposedly neutral CNN : Not even the same league , as Jules Winnfield would say .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves or their points of view from institutions they see as their own team ; I certainly would be annoyed by that too , especially if I thought they were misrepresenting my positions .
But in this case , Trump ’ s undermining the only friendly competition that exists to CNN and “ MSDNC ” , at least in the same-sport category .
A little perspective is in order here .

To judiciously quote the well-known philosopher Jules Winnfield, “ain’t the same [expletive] ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same [expletive] sport.” Well, it’s the same sport, but that’s always been true when comparing Fox News to MSNBC, and more recently to CNN, too. Same sport, wildly different teams and leagues, which is one of the problems with media reliability these days.
That’s not the problem Donald Trump has with Fox News today, however. Trump blasted the network this morning after watching Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) making an appearance on Fox & Friends, normally the president’s favorite morning show:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222183788924502017
The departure of Shep Smith seems like a counter-argument to Trump’s claim here. Fox cut him loose because Smith cut too hard against the grain of Trump-supporting viewers, not because they wanted to dial up criticism of the president. If anything, the network has gotten even less politically correct than it had been during the Roger Ailes era. As to guests like Van Hollen or other Democrats, Fox has always claimed to be “fair and balanced” in part because of their editorial policy of getting competing voices among talking-head guests … even while homogenizing the host voices across the entire broadcast schedule. As we’ll see in a moment, the other networks not only don’t consistently adhere to it, that failure ends up making them look worse than they otherwise would.
For the moment, though, point to one hour of broadcast time on the network — other than maaaaaayyyyybe Fox News Sunday — in which Trump can expect to be regularly criticized by Fox News personnel. Trump does complain specifically about Wallace, but Wallace balances out his skepticism of Trump with hard questions aimed at Trump opponents, too. He set up Pete Buttigieg for a spanking over abortion on Sunday, for instance, and shredded Hakeem Jeffries over the Souvenir Impeachment Pen Giveaway options earlier this month. Those don’t happen at all without at least some journalistic distance.
That’s not to say it’s all strategic for Wallace. He and our pal and colleague Katie Pavlich got into a heated exchange over the facts around impeachment, which might have been what caught Trump’s attention about Wallace:
These are mild prices to pay for a network that may not be 24/7 Trumpvision, but it’s at least 23/6.5 Trumpvision. To compare, let’s recall the clip that Karen Townsend first posted earlier today on supposedly neutral CNN:
The media hardly ever hides their contempt for @realDonaldTrump supporters but this clip is featuring CNN’s @donlemon, The New York Times’ @WajahatAli, and @TheRickWilson is ludicrous. This is one of the most offensive segments I’ve seen in a while.
pic.twitter.com/CknQQZ5idR — Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 28, 2020
Not even the same league, as Jules Winnfield would say. No one wants to hear criticism of themselves or their points of view from institutions they see as their own team; I certainly would be annoyed by that too, especially if I thought they were misrepresenting my positions. But in this case, Trump’s undermining the only friendly competition that exists to CNN and “MSDNC”, at least in the same-sport category. A little perspective is in order here.


hotair--2020-01-28--Ron Johnson to Bolton: How about you open that yapper of yours and give us some clarity on this Ukra

Ron Johnson to Bolton: How about you open that yapper of yours and give us some clarity on this Ukraine thing

Come to think of it , it is a little irritating that Washington is having a nervous breakdown about what Bolton may or may not have said about Trump and Ukraine in his manuscript and the guy can ’ t be bothered to so much as tweet about it .
No interviews .
No statements confirming or denying the NYT story from Sunday night .
Nada .
Just suspenseful silence as Senate Republicans mull what to do about witnesses .
This drama queen must be having the time of life , knowing that the entire political world is momentarily hanging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s request here is fundamentally the same as James Lankford ’ s request for Bolton ’ s manuscript this morning .
In each case they ’ re asking the question , do we absolutely have to call this guy ?
Because if the Times ’ s account of the book is true and Bolton really does claim Trump mentioned an aid-for-Biden-dirt deal to him , then yes , they may have to call him after all and deal with that .
But if it ’ s not true , either an outright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton actually alleges , then it would be nice to know that *before* Republicans take up the issue of witnesses on Friday .
Can ’ t he give them a hint ?
A wink and a nod ?
Anything ?
Johnson said Bolton should clarify what he knows but suggested he do so outside the formal proceedings of the impeachment trial .
“ Now that what has unfolded with the manuscript being leaked — by the way , exquisite timing , maybe suspicious timing — The Wall Street Journal has called for John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public what you know .
I think that would actually be a smart thing .
I ’ d encourage John to do that.
” Johnson said Bolton should do so “ without involving the trial ” and possibly go straight to the media .
All it would take to wrap this trial up by the weekend is a surprise John Bolton appearance this evening on CNN in which he tells Anderson Cooper , “ Nah , Trump was fine on Ukraine.
” That would lock down 51 Republican votes against calling witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guilty ” verdict by late Saturday evening .
Counterargument , though : Shouldn ’ t Republicans want to call him either way at this point ?
I understand that they don ’ t want to prolong the trial if they don ’ t need to , but if the Times is wrong about what Bolton claims in his book then it ’ d be a political master stroke for the GOP to ascertain that fact at trial , under oath .
If Bolton testified that Trump said nothing incriminating to him about Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be smashed .
The Democrats , so hopeful about Bolton ’ s testimony , would be humiliated .
And the public would probably toss aside the rest of Adam Schiff ’ s presentation and zero in on Bolton ’ s testimony as the acid test of whether Trump was guilty or not .
“ They had all this hype for Bolton , and in the end Bolton said Trump was innocent .
They really didn ’ t have anything on him !
” It would be an epic disaster for Dems .
Whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scoop , that ’ s bad and will probably cost the GOP a few points on impeachment polling but maybe not as many points as if they declined to call him and then he confirmed the Times ’ s scoop in an interview .
That would discredit Trump ’ s acquittal more than it would discredit it for Republicans to hear Bolton out under oath and decide that the quid pro quo may have happened but it just isn ’ t an impeachable offense under the Constitution .
Long story short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing from him at this point regardless of whether he exculpates Trump or incriminates him then why not call him ?
Swing a Bolton-for-Hunter-Biden trade and cross your fingers that Bolton doesn ’ t say anything so incriminating about some other major player in the Ukraine matter that the GOP then has to decide whether to call that person too .
That ’ s when the trial would get really messy , and potentially long .
Lankford ’ s manuscript idea could prevent that potentially by giving the GOP some type of fig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The book was clear enough , sort of , that Trump did nothing wrong.
” ) But that plan has problems too : Is there anything stopping Bolton from handing over the manuscript voluntarily , provided that it ’ s held in a SCIF in case it contains any classified information ?
All senators have security clearances to read classified info .
Why can ’ t Lankford get the draft from him instead of from the White House ?
There ’ s another reason why Johnson and Lankford don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way to prevent it .
This latest leak from his book suggests that his criticism of Trump runs far beyond the narrow issue of the Ukraine deal .
Democrats would doubtless try during his deposition to get him to comment on all sorts of grievances he was with the president , from policy to temperament to corruption .
( Impeachment is a political process ! )
Just today , Vanity Fair claimed that Bolton has been telling GOP donors privately that Trump is “ mentally unstable.
” Imagine him saying that under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given to the U.S. Senate .
Or this : John R. Bolton , the former national security adviser , privately told Attorney General William P. Barr last year that he had concerns that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China , according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton .
Mr. Barr responded by pointing to a pair of Justice Department investigations of companies in those countries and said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the manuscript .
Backing up his point , Mr. Barr mentioned conversations Mr. Trump had with the leaders , President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Xi Jinping of China… Mr. Bolton ’ s statements in the book align with other comments he has made since leaving the White House in September .
In November , he said in a private speech that none of Mr. Trump ’ s advisers shared the president ’ s views on Turkey and that he believed Mr. Trump adopted a more permissive approach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , NBC News reported .
Mr. Trump ’ s company has a property in Turkey .
Trump ’ s lawyers would argue , probably successfully , that that ’ s irrelevant and shouldn ’ t be included as evidence at trial .
Dems might fire back that Trump ’ s poor judgment about whether foreign leaders should do corrupt personal favors for each other in the course of routine diplomacy is exactly what the Ukraine quid pro quo is about , but in the end they wouldn ’ t care if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The verdict is assured either way .
The point would simply be to get Bolton to talk about it and then to publicize his testimony by every avenue available .
Do Senate Republicans really want a disgruntled former NSA who ’ s reportedly concerned about his boss ’ s ethics to be deposed with the whole country waiting to hear what he says ?
Eh , he ’ s destined to do TV interviews in March once his book drops anyway .
Hurricane Bolton ’ s going to make landfall .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what category it ’ ll be when it does .

Come to think of it, it is a little irritating that Washington is having a nervous breakdown about what Bolton may or may not have said about Trump and Ukraine in his manuscript and the guy can’t be bothered to so much as tweet about it.
No interviews. No statements confirming or denying the NYT story from Sunday night. Nada. Just suspenseful silence as Senate Republicans mull what to do about witnesses.
This drama queen must be having the time of life, knowing that the entire political world is momentarily hanging on his every move.
Ron Johnson’s request here is fundamentally the same as James Lankford’s request for Bolton’s manuscript this morning. In each case they’re asking the question, do we absolutely have to call this guy? Because if the Times’s account of the book is true and Bolton really does claim Trump mentioned an aid-for-Biden-dirt deal to him, then yes, they may have to call him after all and deal with that. But if it’s not true, either an outright fabrication or a gross exaggeration of what Bolton actually alleges, then it would be nice to know that *before* Republicans take up the issue of witnesses on Friday. Can’t he give them a hint? A wink and a nod? Anything?
Johnson said Bolton should clarify what he knows but suggested he do so outside the formal proceedings of the impeachment trial. “Now that what has unfolded with the manuscript being leaked — by the way, exquisite timing, maybe suspicious timing — The Wall Street Journal has called for John to just come forward. Just tell the public what you know. I think that would actually be a smart thing. I’d encourage John to do that.” Johnson said Bolton should do so “without involving the trial” and possibly go straight to the media.
All it would take to wrap this trial up by the weekend is a surprise John Bolton appearance this evening on CNN in which he tells Anderson Cooper, “Nah, Trump was fine on Ukraine.” That would lock down 51 Republican votes against calling witnesses. Outside chance of a “not guilty” verdict by late Saturday evening.
Counterargument, though: Shouldn’t Republicans want to call him either way at this point? I understand that they don’t want to prolong the trial if they don’t need to, but if the Times is wrong about what Bolton claims in his book then it’d be a political master stroke for the GOP to ascertain that fact at trial, under oath. If Bolton testified that Trump said nothing incriminating to him about Ukraine, the Times’s credibility would be smashed. The Democrats, so hopeful about Bolton’s testimony, would be humiliated. And the public would probably toss aside the rest of Adam Schiff’s presentation and zero in on Bolton’s testimony as the acid test of whether Trump was guilty or not. “They had all this hype for Bolton, and in the end Bolton said Trump was innocent. They really didn’t have anything on him!”
It would be an epic disaster for Dems. Whereas if Bolton testifies and confirms the Times’s scoop, that’s bad and will probably cost the GOP a few points on impeachment polling but maybe not as many points as if they declined to call him and then he confirmed the Times’s scoop in an interview. That would discredit Trump’s acquittal more than it would discredit it for Republicans to hear Bolton out under oath and decide that the quid pro quo may have happened but it just isn’t an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
Long story short, if they’re better off hearing from him at this point regardless of whether he exculpates Trump or incriminates him then why not call him? Swing a Bolton-for-Hunter-Biden trade and cross your fingers that Bolton doesn’t say anything so incriminating about some other major player in the Ukraine matter that the GOP then has to decide whether to call that person too. That’s when the trial would get really messy, and potentially long.
Lankford’s manuscript idea could prevent that potentially by giving the GOP some type of fig leaf to avoid calling him. (“The book was clear enough, sort of, that Trump did nothing wrong.”) But that plan has problems too:
Attempting to make the manuscript available to senators, however, could create a number of roadblocks. It is unclear whether Mr. Bolton’s publisher would be willing to release the manuscript or whether Mr. Bolton himself would be able to release it under the terms of his contract. In order for the Senate to subpoena the transcript, senators would have to clear a 51 vote threshold that would open up a floodgate of motions, an outcome Republican leadership would find unappealing.
Is there anything stopping Bolton from handing over the manuscript voluntarily, provided that it’s held in a SCIF in case it contains any classified information? All senators have security clearances to read classified info. Why can’t Lankford get the draft from him instead of from the White House?
There’s another reason why Johnson and Lankford don’t want Bolton to testify if they can find a way to prevent it. This latest leak from his book suggests that his criticism of Trump runs far beyond the narrow issue of the Ukraine deal. Democrats would doubtless try during his deposition to get him to comment on all sorts of grievances he was with the president, from policy to temperament to corruption. (Impeachment is a political process!) Just today, Vanity Fair claimed that Bolton has been telling GOP donors privately that Trump is “mentally unstable.” Imagine him saying that under oath, on tape, in evidence given to the U.S. Senate. Or this:
John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, privately told Attorney General William P. Barr last year that he had concerns that President Trump was effectively granting personal favors to the autocratic leaders of Turkey and China, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton. Mr. Barr responded by pointing to a pair of Justice Department investigations of companies in those countries and said he was worried that Mr. Trump had created the appearance that he had undue influence over what would typically be independent inquiries, according to the manuscript. Backing up his point, Mr. Barr mentioned conversations Mr. Trump had with the leaders, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Xi Jinping of China… Mr. Bolton’s statements in the book align with other comments he has made since leaving the White House in September. In November, he said in a private speech that none of Mr. Trump’s advisers shared the president’s views on Turkey and that he believed Mr. Trump adopted a more permissive approach to the country because of his financial ties there, NBC News reported. Mr. Trump’s company has a property in Turkey.
Trump’s lawyers would argue, probably successfully, that that’s irrelevant and shouldn’t be included as evidence at trial. Dems might fire back that Trump’s poor judgment about whether foreign leaders should do corrupt personal favors for each other in the course of routine diplomacy is exactly what the Ukraine quid pro quo is about, but in the end they wouldn’t care if it’s excluded from the trial. The verdict is assured either way. The point would simply be to get Bolton to talk about it and then to publicize his testimony by every avenue available. Do Senate Republicans really want a disgruntled former NSA who’s reportedly concerned about his boss’s ethics to be deposed with the whole country waiting to hear what he says?
Eh, he’s destined to do TV interviews in March once his book drops anyway. Hurricane Bolton’s going to make landfall. It’s a question of when, and what category it’ll be when it does.


hotair--2020-01-29--Vox: Say, these nationwide injunctions could be bad news if a Democrat wins the White House

Remember when Sen. Harry Reid and his party eliminated the filibuster on nominees and how Democrats later came to regret that ?
Something very similar is eventually going to happen with nationwide injunctions and it looks like Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser just picked up on it .
Millhiser has a piece up today titled “ Democrats need to listen to Neil Gorsuch ’ s surprisingly good idea.
” The good idea he ’ s referring to was a concurring opinion Gorsuch wrote when the Court put an end to a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge ” rule .
What Gorsuch said , essentially , is that individual judges should not be able to issue nationwide injunctions because it gives them too much power to halt government policy .
Injunctions , Gorsuch writes , are “ meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit.
” Thus , the appropriate remedy when a court issues an injunction against a particular policy is to prevent that policy from being enforced against the plaintiffs — and that ’ s it… As Gorsuch notes , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and senior district court judges , sitting across 94 judicial districts , and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.
” In theory , any one of those judges could issue a nationwide injunction blocking any government policy… As Gorsuch writes , “ The stakes are asymmetric.
” In a world with nationwide injunctions , “ The government ’ s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep , parlaying a 94-to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the government faces “ a single loss , ” then “ the policy goes on ice.
” As Millhiser mentions in passing , criticisms like this have been made before .
Last May , Attorney General Barr gave a speech to the American Law Institute in which he said nearly the same thing .
Since President Trump took office , federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch .
That ’ s more than one a month .
By comparison , during President Obama ’ s first two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injunctions against the Executive Branch , both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit .
And according to the Department ’ s best estimates , courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century… Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power , they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically .
When a court denies a nationwide injunction , the decision does not affect other cases .
But when a court grants a nationwide injunction , it renders all other litigation on the issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means for the Government .
When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts , the Government has to run the table—we must win every case .
The challengers , however , must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction .
One judge can , in effect , cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen .
No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power , with the sole exception of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to nationwide election , among other constitutional checks , as a prerequisite to wielding that power .
Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide .
When Barr said all of this last year , Vox apparently didn ’ t consider it worth writing about .
Maybe some progressive sites did discuss it at the time but for the most part the left hasn ’ t been remarkably supportive of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admits there ’ s a pretty obvious reason this practice hasn ’ t attracted much scrutiny from the left or the media : It ’ s working in Democrats ’ favor — for now .
But in the long term , nationwide injunctions are likely to be a much bigger thorn in the side of Democratic presidents than they are for Republican presidents .
The Supreme Court , after all , is controlled by Republicans .
So liberal nationwide injunctions tend to be wiped away quickly , while conservative injunctions may last forever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican litigants will have a much easier time finding judges willing to block Democratic policies .
Trump , after all , has filled the federal court with deeply ideological judges .
And a party seeking a nationwide injunction may need to find only a single judge willing to hand down such an order .
Millhiser concludes by saying , “ if Democrats wait until after they ’ re back in power , any chance of forming an alliance with Republicans to prevent judicial overreach is likely to evaporate overnight.
” In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employing for the past three years needs to end before a Democrat is elected .
Otherwise , Republicans will use the same tactic against us !
I suspect this is something a lot of progressives are quietly worried about .
The problem with Millhiser ’ s concern is that it may have arrived a little too soon .
They may need to keep this up for a while longer if Trump is reelected .
So my guess is they ’ ll continue to worry about this quietly .
But you can bet your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years , if and only if a Democrat is elected president , we ’ ll suddenly have a surfeit of think-pieces like this one explaining how nationwide injunctions are an affront to the constitutional order .
Until then , the left is going to keep celebrating every bit of judicial overreach they can get .

Remember when Sen. Harry Reid and his party eliminated the filibuster on nominees and how Democrats later came to regret that? Something very similar is eventually going to happen with nationwide injunctions and it looks like Vox’s Ian Millhiser just picked up on it.
Millhiser has a piece up today titled “Democrats need to listen to Neil Gorsuch’s surprisingly good idea.” The good idea he’s referring to was a concurring opinion Gorsuch wrote when the Court put an end to a nationwide injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from moving forward with a new “public charge” rule. What Gorsuch said, essentially, is that individual judges should not be able to issue nationwide injunctions because it gives them too much power to halt government policy.
Injunctions, Gorsuch writes, are “meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit.” Thus, the appropriate remedy when a court issues an injunction against a particular policy is to prevent that policy from being enforced against the plaintiffs — and that’s it… As Gorsuch notes, “There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.” In theory, any one of those judges could issue a nationwide injunction blocking any government policy… As Gorsuch writes, “The stakes are asymmetric.” In a world with nationwide injunctions, “The government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94-to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal.” Nationwide injunctions mean that if the government faces “a single loss,” then “the policy goes on ice.”
As Millhiser mentions in passing, criticisms like this have been made before. Last May, Attorney General Barr gave a speech to the American Law Institute in which he said nearly the same thing.
Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circuit. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century… Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen. No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.
When Barr said all of this last year, Vox apparently didn’t consider it worth writing about. Maybe some progressive sites did discuss it at the time but for the most part the left hasn’t been remarkably supportive of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration’s various executive orders. Today, Millhiser admits there’s a pretty obvious reason this practice hasn’t attracted much scrutiny from the left or the media:
It’s working in Democrats’ favor — for now. But in the long term, nationwide injunctions are likely to be a much bigger thorn in the side of Democratic presidents than they are for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court, after all, is controlled by Republicans. So liberal nationwide injunctions tend to be wiped away quickly, while conservative injunctions may last forever. It’s also likely that Republican litigants will have a much easier time finding judges willing to block Democratic policies. Trump, after all, has filled the federal court with deeply ideological judges. And a party seeking a nationwide injunction may need to find only a single judge willing to hand down such an order.
Millhiser concludes by saying, “if Democrats wait until after they’re back in power, any chance of forming an alliance with Republicans to prevent judicial overreach is likely to evaporate overnight.” In other words, the judicial overreach Dems have been employing for the past three years needs to end before a Democrat is elected. Otherwise, Republicans will use the same tactic against us!
Wouldn’t that be a terrible shame.
I suspect this is something a lot of progressives are quietly worried about. The problem with Millhiser’s concern is that it may have arrived a little too soon. They may need to keep this up for a while longer if Trump is reelected. So my guess is they’ll continue to worry about this quietly.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that next year or in five years, if and only if a Democrat is elected president, we’ll suddenly have a surfeit of think-pieces like this one explaining how nationwide injunctions are an affront to the constitutional order. Until then, the left is going to keep celebrating every bit of judicial overreach they can get.


hotair--2020-01-29--Warren: Hey, let's make fake news a crime!

Disinformation aimed at election campaigns undermine democracy and the American way of life , Elizabeth Warren declared today .
And the best way to protect American freedoms , according to her plan , is to , er … lock up people for lying .
At least Warren has the kind of sterling reputation for public honesty that can carry this off , right ?
Er … .
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released a plan to fight disinformation to hold tech companies accountable for their actions in light of the 2016 election .
“ Disinformation and online foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has invited both , ” Warren said in a Tweet Wednesday .
“ Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take this on – and I ’ ve got a plan to do it.
” Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook , Twitter and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out .
“ I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote , ” Warren said in a press release .
Lest anyone think that this is a misunderstanding or a narrowly tailored exception to First Amendment-protected speech , turn to her campaign website for an actual description of how Warren plans to make “ disinformation ” a crime .
Note well the phrase “ and more ” in terms of scope , emphases in original : Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kind offend basic American values .
In both the 2016 and 2018 elections , online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text , giving people the wrong date for election day , and more .
I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information , which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote .
These are the kind of dirty tricks that would be fodder for public criticism , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech is more speech , though , not criminal prosecution , not even when it comes to jackassery about election dates and polling techniques , most of which are usually offered as jokes or commentary anyway .
This also smells very much like a solution in desperate search for a problem , too , as well as a pretext to increase the power of government over the market for speech .
Just how many voters didn ’ t show up on November 8 , 2016 , because a meme told them they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they sent a text instead without bothering to verify the information first ?
I ’ d bet the number approaches zero , or roughly the same number of people whose votes were influenced by Hillary vs Jesus arm-wrestling memes .
But even beyond that , there ’ s the “ and more ” to parse out .
Pray tell , what would be the “ more , ” when even the explicitly cited actions would almost certainly run afoul of First Amendment protections for satirical and political speech ?
If Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people up for their speech , perhaps we should know the precise scope of that effort .
Clearly , she ’ s thinking past the “ lying about the date of the election ” memery that appears in every election , long before 2016 .
Will it include lying about the candidates ?
Lèse majeste , perhaps ?
One can not be too cautious in protecting true American values , you know .
How about lying by the candidates in an election campaign ?
Can we start arresting politicians who spread disinformation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because if that ’ s the case , law enforcement should have a word with Warren about her stories over getting fired for being pregnant , where her son went to school , and perhaps her claim about what Bernie Sanders said to her about the potential for a woman to win a presidential election .
In fact , on that last one , let ’ s not take any chances .
Arrest both of them .
We have to protect American values , y ’ all !
Above all , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warren ’ s plan protects American values by ensuring that government gets to judge the validity of political speech , taking that responsibility out of the hands of benighted citizens who clearly can ’ t be trusted to check on voting dates for themselves , despite near-universal access to the greatest collection of information in human history .
The mere fact that something pops up on Facebook is evidence of its overwhelming influence and utter power , which only a few people in Washington can hope to combat .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who crafted the First Amendment to make sure that political speech was carefully vetted to only allow for government-approved truth to be propagated .
I can ’ t wait for what comes next — government policing of thought .
I ’ ll bet Warren has a plan for that , too !

Disinformation aimed at election campaigns undermine democracy and the American way of life, Elizabeth Warren declared today. And the best way to protect American freedoms, according to her plan, is to, er … lock up people for lying.
At least Warren has the kind of sterling reputation for public honesty that can carry this off, right? Er ….
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released a plan to fight disinformation to hold tech companies accountable for their actions in light of the 2016 election. “Disinformation and online foreign interference erode our democracy, and Donald Trump has invited both,” Warren said in a Tweet Wednesday. “Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take this on – and I’ve got a plan to do it.” Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out. “I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote,” Warren said in a press release.
Lest anyone think that this is a misunderstanding or a narrowly tailored exception to First Amendment-protected speech, turn to her campaign website for an actual description of how Warren plans to make “disinformation” a crime. Note well the phrase “and more” in terms of scope, emphases in original:
Push to create civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating false information about when and how to vote in U.S. elections: Voter suppression efforts of any kind offend basic American values. In both the 2016 and 2018 elections, online disinformation sought to depress voter turnout by telling people they could vote via text, giving people the wrong date for election day, and more. I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote.
These are the kind of dirty tricks that would be fodder for public criticism, to be sure. The cure for bad speech is more speech, though, not criminal prosecution, not even when it comes to jackassery about election dates and polling techniques, most of which are usually offered as jokes or commentary anyway. This also smells very much like a solution in desperate search for a problem, too, as well as a pretext to increase the power of government over the market for speech. Just how many voters didn’t show up on November 8, 2016, because a meme told them they could vote on November 9? Or because they sent a text instead without bothering to verify the information first? I’d bet the number approaches zero, or roughly the same number of people whose votes were influenced by Hillary vs Jesus arm-wrestling memes.
But even beyond that, there’s the “and more” to parse out. Pray tell, what would be the “more,” when even the explicitly cited actions would almost certainly run afoul of First Amendment protections for satirical and political speech? If Warren’s proposal to protect American values envisions locking people up for their speech, perhaps we should know the precise scope of that effort. Clearly, she’s thinking past the “lying about the date of the election” memery that appears in every election, long before 2016. Will it include lying about the candidates? Lèse majeste, perhaps? One cannot be too cautious in protecting true American values, you know.
How about lying by the candidates in an election campaign? Can we start arresting politicians who spread disinformation in an effort to get themselves elected? Because if that’s the case, law enforcement should have a word with Warren about her stories over getting fired for being pregnant, where her son went to school, and perhaps her claim about what Bernie Sanders said to her about the potential for a woman to win a presidential election.
In fact, on that last one, let’s not take any chances. Arrest both of them. We have to protect American values, y’all!
Above all, though, I’m excited by this idea. Warren’s plan protects American values by ensuring that government gets to judge the validity of political speech, taking that responsibility out of the hands of benighted citizens who clearly can’t be trusted to check on voting dates for themselves, despite near-universal access to the greatest collection of information in human history. The mere fact that something pops up on Facebook is evidence of its overwhelming influence and utter power, which only a few people in Washington can hope to combat. That’s precisely the American spirit of our forefathers, who crafted the First Amendment to make sure that political speech was carefully vetted to only allow for government-approved truth to be propagated.
I can’t wait for what comes next — government policing of thought. I’ll bet Warren has a plan for that, too!


hotair--2020-01-29--Dershowitz: A quid pro quo is in the public interest if the president believes it's in the public in

Dershowitz: A quid pro quo is in the public interest if the president believes it's in the public interest for him to win reelection

Ludicrous , and it ’ s proof of how desperate Team Trump is to suddenly defend the “ bad but not impeachable ” terrain ( or “ not impeachable and maybe not even bad ” terrain ) that Dershowitz feels he has to stoop to this .
Essentially he ’ s arguing that only a fat envelope of cash or its equivalent would constitute an impeachable offense if received by the president in exchange for some public benefit over which he has control .
“ Basically , so long as the president doesn ’ t walk around with a briefcase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ , he is good , ” says lawyer Bradley Moss , paraphrasing Dershowitz .
Basically , yes .
That ’ s the claim Dershowitz is making .
Any quid pro quo that ’ s even *arguably* in the public interest is fine , even if “ the public interest ” as defined by the president is nothing more than his own reelection .
Dersh isn ’ t claiming that the Ukraine deal is fine because there was a proper public purpose in investigating whether Joe Biden ’ s dealings with Ukraine as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words .
He ’ s claiming it would be fine even if the only “ public ” purpose involved were Trump concluding that he has to take down the Democratic frontrunner by any means because it ’ s just that important that MAGA gets another four years in charge , baby .
Thought experiment : Imagine President Bernie is sworn in next January and decides to celebrate Inauguration Day with a conference call with Xi Jinping and Putin .
“ Here are the ground rules for my administration , ” he tells them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with me , you come to the table with whatever your intelligence bureaus have on the top 10 Republican presidential prospects in 2024 .
I don ’ t even care if it ’ s true .
I want it all because it ’ s crucial that my socialist revolution survive my first term .
We can ’ t make the kind of changes to the system we need to improve Americans ’ lives in just four years.
” Perfectly fine by the Dershowitz standard .
Bernie ’ s belief that his reelection is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be perfectly sincere .
Trump critics both left and right are playing with Dersh ’ s logic , wondering how far it might stretch in extreme scenarios : Dershowitz would probably say that those examples don ’ t work because each involves the president ordering a murder or soliciting a murder , actual crimes .
But here ’ s a thornier example : A crazed fan decides to shoot the president ’ s opponent , believing that it ’ ll guarantee his reelection in the fall , and the grateful president decides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal crimes he might be charged with .
Impeachable or not ?
POTUS has committed no crime in that example .
The pardon would be valid too , as his pardon power is absolute .
Under the Dershowitz standard , Congress couldn ’ t strip the president of his office for rewarding the murder of his own political opponent because it improved his own reelection odds .
This absurdity came during the Q & A section of the trial , by the way , which began earlier this afternoon .
Mitt Romney posted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sides and they ’ re all solid : I suspect his second question reflects the reasoning centrist Republicans like Lamar Alexander will end up citing to avoid calling witnesses later this week .
Even if Trump were trying to damage Biden , they ’ ll say , the fact remains that Hunter Biden ’ s role on the Burisma board looks shady and the public deserves to know what went on there .
But there ’ s a counter to that : Two of the president ’ s most trusted cabinet secretaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in charge of the agencies we ’ d normally expect to lead a corruption probe involving international diplomacy by a former U.S. government official .
The State Department and the DOJ also have vastly more resources than Rudy Giuliani does .
If the goal were to investigate Biden ’ s corruption , Trump could have worked with Barr and Pompeo .
But that would have created a risk — namely , that no corruption would have been found by the underlings tasked with carrying out the probe .
The well of Biden dirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tasked with the matter instead because the point wasn ’ t really to investigate Biden , it was to insinuate wrongdoing and encourage suspicion of him irrespective of whether there ’ s actual evidence of corruption .
That ’ s why Gordon Sondland and others have stressed that it was the *announcement* by Ukraine that it was reopening the Burisma probe that was so important to Trump , more so than the investigation itself .
In a way it was like feeding a story about an enemy to the National Enquirer , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intimately familiar .
The story might be true or it might be false but the point is that people will notice and start buzzing about it .
That ’ s mainly what he wanted from Zelensky , it appears : Anti-Biden buzz .
That ’ s in “ the public interest ” only if you define it the way Dershowitz does , i.e .
insanely .
Here he is on the Senate floor earlier .

Ludicrous, and it’s proof of how desperate Team Trump is to suddenly defend the “bad but not impeachable” terrain (or “not impeachable and maybe not even bad” terrain) that Dershowitz feels he has to stoop to this. Essentially he’s arguing that only a fat envelope of cash or its equivalent would constitute an impeachable offense if received by the president in exchange for some public benefit over which he has control. “Basically, so long as the president doesn’t walk around with a briefcase labeled ‘put all bribe money here’, he is good,” says lawyer Bradley Moss, paraphrasing Dershowitz.
Basically, yes. That’s the claim Dershowitz is making. Any quid pro quo that’s even *arguably* in the public interest is fine, even if “the public interest” as defined by the president is nothing more than his own reelection. Dersh isn’t claiming that the Ukraine deal is fine because there was a proper public purpose in investigating whether Joe Biden’s dealings with Ukraine as vice president were corrupt, in other words. He’s claiming it would be fine even if the only “public” purpose involved were Trump concluding that he has to take down the Democratic frontrunner by any means because it’s just that important that MAGA gets another four years in charge, baby.
Thought experiment: Imagine President Bernie is sworn in next January and decides to celebrate Inauguration Day with a conference call with Xi Jinping and Putin. “Here are the ground rules for my administration,” he tells them. “If you want to deal with me, you come to the table with whatever your intelligence bureaus have on the top 10 Republican presidential prospects in 2024. I don’t even care if it’s true. I want it all because it’s crucial that my socialist revolution survive my first term. We can’t make the kind of changes to the system we need to improve Americans’ lives in just four years.”
Perfectly fine by the Dershowitz standard. Bernie’s belief that his reelection is essential to the public interest would doubtless be perfectly sincere.
Trump critics both left and right are playing with Dersh’s logic, wondering how far it might stretch in extreme scenarios:
Dershowitz would probably say that those examples don’t work because each involves the president ordering a murder or soliciting a murder, actual crimes. But here’s a thornier example: A crazed fan decides to shoot the president’s opponent, believing that it’ll guarantee his reelection in the fall, and the grateful president decides to issue him a full pardon for any federal crimes he might be charged with.
Impeachable or not? POTUS has committed no crime in that example. The pardon would be valid too, as his pardon power is absolute. Under the Dershowitz standard, Congress couldn’t strip the president of his office for rewarding the murder of his own political opponent because it improved his own reelection odds.
This absurdity came during the Q&A section of the trial, by the way, which began earlier this afternoon. Mitt Romney posted the questions he submitted for the two sides and they’re all solid:
Senator Romney's questions as submitted pic.twitter.com/Q9FvVC9opV — Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) January 29, 2020
I suspect his second question reflects the reasoning centrist Republicans like Lamar Alexander will end up citing to avoid calling witnesses later this week. Even if Trump were trying to damage Biden, they’ll say, the fact remains that Hunter Biden’s role on the Burisma board looks shady and the public deserves to know what went on there. But there’s a counter to that: Two of the president’s most trusted cabinet secretaries, Bill Barr and Mike Pompeo, are in charge of the agencies we’d normally expect to lead a corruption probe involving international diplomacy by a former U.S. government official. The State Department and the DOJ also have vastly more resources than Rudy Giuliani does. If the goal were to investigate Biden’s corruption, Trump could have worked with Barr and Pompeo. But that would have created a risk — namely, that no corruption would have been found by the underlings tasked with carrying out the probe. The well of Biden dirt might run dry.
Giuliani was probably tasked with the matter instead because the point wasn’t really to investigate Biden, it was to insinuate wrongdoing and encourage suspicion of him irrespective of whether there’s actual evidence of corruption. That’s why Gordon Sondland and others have stressed that it was the *announcement* by Ukraine that it was reopening the Burisma probe that was so important to Trump, more so than the investigation itself. In a way it was like feeding a story about an enemy to the National Enquirer, a practice with which Trump is no doubt intimately familiar. The story might be true or it might be false but the point is that people will notice and start buzzing about it. That’s mainly what he wanted from Zelensky, it appears: Anti-Biden buzz. That’s in “the public interest” only if you define it the way Dershowitz does, i.e. insanely.
Here he is on the Senate floor earlier.


hotair--2020-01-29--'American Dirt' publisher cancels book tour citing safety concerns

Earlier this week the publisher of “ American Dirt ” cancelled several planned appearances by the author .
The novel , which tells the story of a woman and her son fleeing Mexico to escape cartel violence , was initially praised by Oprah Winfrey and several Hispanic celebrities .
However , strong pushback from the left over the authors identity has led some of the celebrities to delete their endorsements .
Today , the publisher cancelled the remainder of the author ’ s book tour citing safety concerns : “ Jeanine Cummins spent five years of her life writing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spotlight on tragedies facing immigrants , ” Bob Miller , president and publisher of Flatiron Books , said in a statement Wednesday .
“ We are saddened that a work of fiction that was well-intentioned has led to such vitriolic rancor .
“ Unfortunately , our concerns about safety have led us to the difficult decision to cancel the book tour.
” One of the main focuses of the detractors is the idea that author Jeanine Cummins , who is white , should not have attempted to tell this story : The success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the real-life experiences of Latinos , and immigrants , are only valid when they are packed with digestible , familiar stereotypes , as told through the lens of white , or white-passing , storytellers .
The book affords its readers a safe distance between real immigrants and the caricatures presented in the book .
American Dirt never fully addresses — or even tries to address — the real reasons why migrants come to the US , and the conditions they encounter when they arrive .
Instead the book takes its fictional protagonist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfectly crafted obstacle course with a neat ending that is rarely , if ever , the one real migrants encounter .
Cummins set herself up for this criticism with an author ’ s note which suggests she was also not sure she was the person to write this .
And that view seems to undergird most of the complaints about the book .
Every mistake is seen as proof that the author was engaged in a form of cultural appropriation : The story begins when Lydia , a bookstore owner , is celebrating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a new cartel — the subject of Lydia ’ s journalist husband ’ s recent exposé — shows up to take revenge , killing everyone except Lydia and her son Luca .
When the “ sicarios ” have emptied their clips and the “ gunfire slows , ” Luca can hear “ a woman ’ s voice announcing ¡La Mejor 100.1 FM Acapulco !
” Quinceañeras have a special place in my heart , because I always dreamed of having one in my hometown of Taxco , Guerrero , just four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was 14 years old , my visa expired and I became undocumented in the United States , unable to travel to Mexico to celebrate my 15th birthday with family and friends .
So let me set the record straight : No Mexican family would have a mere 16 people at a quinceañera , and no Mexican family would be listening to the radio at a quinceañera .
Sure , we celebrate birthdays with cookouts and playlists ; we don ’ t have a mariachi or banda at every pachanga — but this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening scene and a cultural error that is a sign of things to come .
There are apparently lots of other flaws like this in the novel that , to many Mexican readers , suggest the author is looking in from the outside .
Maybe that wouldn ’ t have mattered if this book had been dropped into the world with little fanfare .
But the book sold for 7-figures , became an Oprah book club selection , was proclaimed a great American novel , and was likely to result in a feature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s clear they are angry that the culture at large didn ’ t see the flaws in the novel and didn ’ t care .
In other words , I don ’ t think it ’ s the flaws in the book so much as it ’ s the elevation of the novel despite the flaws that is irritating some people .
But even if all of that is true , should it matter ?
It ’ s a novel .
In this case it ’ s essentially entertainment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every book on this topic have to be deeply researched and serious ?
Can ’ t some of them just be “ beach novels ” ?
Whenever conservatives complain about some product of the culture that seems to misunderstand them or even be openly hostile to them ( which happens pretty often on television ) , they are told to turn the channel .
Why can ’ t the progressives do the same when they don ’ t like something ?
Instead , the urge seems to be to cancel whatever they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , it seems to be working .

Earlier this week the publisher of “American Dirt” cancelled several planned appearances by the author. The novel, which tells the story of a woman and her son fleeing Mexico to escape cartel violence, was initially praised by Oprah Winfrey and several Hispanic celebrities. However, strong pushback from the left over the authors identity has led some of the celebrities to delete their endorsements. Today, the publisher cancelled the remainder of the author’s book tour citing safety concerns:
“Jeanine Cummins spent five years of her life writing this book with the intent to shine a spotlight on tragedies facing immigrants,” Bob Miller, president and publisher of Flatiron Books, said in a statement Wednesday. “We are saddened that a work of fiction that was well-intentioned has led to such vitriolic rancor. “Unfortunately, our concerns about safety have led us to the difficult decision to cancel the book tour.”
One of the main focuses of the detractors is the idea that author Jeanine Cummins, who is white, should not have attempted to tell this story:
The success of American Dirt has reiterated the message that the real-life experiences of Latinos, and immigrants, are only valid when they are packed with digestible, familiar stereotypes, as told through the lens of white, or white-passing, storytellers. The book affords its readers a safe distance between real immigrants and the caricatures presented in the book. American Dirt never fully addresses — or even tries to address — the real reasons why migrants come to the US, and the conditions they encounter when they arrive. Instead the book takes its fictional protagonist, Lydia Quixano Pérez, on a perfectly crafted obstacle course with a neat ending that is rarely, if ever, the one real migrants encounter.
Cummins set herself up for this criticism with an author’s note which suggests she was also not sure she was the person to write this.
“I was worried that, as a nonimmigrant and non-Mexican, I had no business writing a book set almost entirely in Mexico, set entirely among immigrants,” Cummins wrote in the author’s note. “I wished someone slightly browner than me would write it.” “Lots of someones ‘slightly browner’ than Cummins did write it,” VanDenburgh wrote in response, noting several recent examples.
And that view seems to undergird most of the complaints about the book. Every mistake is seen as proof that the author was engaged in a form of cultural appropriation:
The story begins when Lydia, a bookstore owner, is celebrating her niece Yénifer’s 15th birthday, and a new cartel — the subject of Lydia’s journalist husband’s recent exposé — shows up to take revenge, killing everyone except Lydia and her son Luca. When the “sicarios” have emptied their clips and the “gunfire slows,” Luca can hear “a woman’s voice announcing ¡La Mejor 100.1 FM Acapulco!” Quinceañeras have a special place in my heart, because I always dreamed of having one in my hometown of Taxco, Guerrero, just four hours north of Acapulco. But when I was 14 years old, my visa expired and I became undocumented in the United States, unable to travel to Mexico to celebrate my 15th birthday with family and friends. So let me set the record straight: No Mexican family would have a mere 16 people at a quinceañera, and no Mexican family would be listening to the radio at a quinceañera. Sure, we celebrate birthdays with cookouts and playlists; we don’t have a mariachi or banda at every pachanga — but this was a quinceañera! This is the opening scene and a cultural error that is a sign of things to come.
There are apparently lots of other flaws like this in the novel that, to many Mexican readers, suggest the author is looking in from the outside. Maybe that wouldn’t have mattered if this book had been dropped into the world with little fanfare. But the book sold for 7-figures, became an Oprah book club selection, was proclaimed a great American novel, and was likely to result in a feature film. Reading some of the critics, it’s clear they are angry that the culture at large didn’t see the flaws in the novel and didn’t care. In other words, I don’t think it’s the flaws in the book so much as it’s the elevation of the novel despite the flaws that is irritating some people.
But even if all of that is true, should it matter? It’s a novel. In this case it’s essentially entertainment, albeit entertainment with a message. Does every book on this topic have to be deeply researched and serious? Can’t some of them just be “beach novels”?
Whenever conservatives complain about some product of the culture that seems to misunderstand them or even be openly hostile to them (which happens pretty often on television), they are told to turn the channel. Why can’t the progressives do the same when they don’t like something? Instead, the urge seems to be to cancel whatever they don’t approve of and, in this case, it seems to be working.


hotair--2020-01-29--Yale canceling "straight, white male" art history course

If you or one of your children are heading off to get a degree from Yale , you ’ ve missed out on the last chance to enroll in their course called “ Introduction to Art History : Renaissance to the Present ” because this semester is the last time it will be offered .
It ’ s not that the course wasn ’ t popular .
It was always full .
Unfortunately , the curriculum was simply too full of the work of straight , white , European men .
Katherine Timpf at National Review has the details .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily News , “ Introduction to Art History : Renaissance to the Present ” was once “ touted to be one of Yale College ’ s quintessential classes.
” Now , the college is canceling it over what it calls “ student uneasiness over an idealized Western ‘ canon ’ — a product of an overwhelmingly white , straight European and male cadre of artists.
” Tim Berringer , the chair of the art-history department and the course ’ s instructor , explained the decision to discontinue the course this way : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all residents of New Haven who can enter our museums freely ) to have access to and to feel confident analyzing and enjoying the core works of the western tradition , ” he wrote in an email to the Daily News .
“ But I don ’ t mistake a history of European painting for the history of all art in all places.
” Timpf also notes that if you read the entire , original article at the school ’ s paper , there are no quotes or examples offered to indicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presumable lack of non-European lesbian artists of color .
Also , four hundred students applied for the 300 available seats .
This appears to be nothing more than the left ’ s latest efforts to “ cancel ” history because it doesn ’ t conform to idealized liberal views of the world .
But the one glaring fact being ignored here is that the word “ history ” is right in the title of the course .
And while I hate to break the news to you , history really wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as a cultural goal or norm is actually a very recent development in human culture .
( And it still hasn ’ t spread across the world .
Just go spend some time in Japan or the Koreas . )
The reality of the bygone eras covered for most of that course was that women were afforded far fewer opportunities , and that included being recognized in the arts .
It ’ s equally true that the vast majority of people in power in Europe were white .
( Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but if you study the early art and culture of China from the same period , nearly everyone is Chinese . )
And while it ’ s either known or suspected that some of the prominent artists featured in such courses may have been gay , they generally didn ’ t talk about it in public .
If they did , it could have ended very badly for them .
Criticize those cultures if you wish , which is clearly easy enough to do when looking at the question through a 21st-century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will change the reality of those times .
Eliminating that course may make the liberal powers that be feel better about themselves , but all of the sculptures , paintings and other classic works will stubbornly remain a part of history whether you like it or not .
Only now , the students at Yale won ’ t be versed in that world and the masterpieces it produced .

If you or one of your children are heading off to get a degree from Yale, you’ve missed out on the last chance to enroll in their course called “Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present” because this semester is the last time it will be offered. It’s not that the course wasn’t popular. It was always full. Unfortunately, the curriculum was simply too full of the work of straight, white, European men. Katherine Timpf at National Review has the details.
According to an article in the Yale Daily News, “Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present” was once “touted to be one of Yale College’s quintessential classes.” Now, the college is canceling it over what it calls “student uneasiness over an idealized Western ‘canon’ — a product of an overwhelmingly white, straight European and male cadre of artists.” Tim Berringer, the chair of the art-history department and the course’s instructor, explained the decision to discontinue the course this way: “I want all Yale students (and all residents of New Haven who can enter our museums freely) to have access to and to feel confident analyzing and enjoying the core works of the western tradition,” he wrote in an email to the Daily News. “But I don’t mistake a history of European painting for the history of all art in all places.”
Timpf also notes that if you read the entire, original article at the school’s paper, there are no quotes or examples offered to indicate that there was “student uneasiness” over the presumable lack of non-European lesbian artists of color. Also, four hundred students applied for the 300 available seats.
This appears to be nothing more than the left’s latest efforts to “cancel” history because it doesn’t conform to idealized liberal views of the world. But the one glaring fact being ignored here is that the word “history” is right in the title of the course. And while I hate to break the news to you, history really wasn’t all that woke. “Diversity” as a cultural goal or norm is actually a very recent development in human culture. (And it still hasn’t spread across the world. Just go spend some time in Japan or the Koreas.)
The reality of the bygone eras covered for most of that course was that women were afforded far fewer opportunities, and that included being recognized in the arts. It’s equally true that the vast majority of people in power in Europe were white. (Don’t let the fragile people at Yale know, but if you study the early art and culture of China from the same period, nearly everyone is Chinese.) And while it’s either known or suspected that some of the prominent artists featured in such courses may have been gay, they generally didn’t talk about it in public. If they did, it could have ended very badly for them.
Criticize those cultures if you wish, which is clearly easy enough to do when looking at the question through a 21st-century lens. But no amount of censorship will change the reality of those times. Eliminating that course may make the liberal powers that be feel better about themselves, but all of the sculptures, paintings and other classic works will stubbornly remain a part of history whether you like it or not. Only now, the students at Yale won’t be versed in that world and the masterpieces it produced.