hotair--2020-01-28--Bondi: You'd better believe Burisma and the Bidens are relevant to this trial

If Team Trump has to shrug off the quid pro quo denial after John Bolton ’ s memoir , they ’ d better make sure the quid had some value beyond Donald Trump ’ s political future .
To that end , Pam Bondi made an argument that Trump had plenty of reason to suspect that both Joe and Hunter Biden had participated in a corrupt scheme to enrich his family through Biden ’ s own admitted quid pro quo moment .
The Burisma question was not only made relevant by House managers pushing their impeachment case , Bondi says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden père et fils .
“ When the House managers gave you their presentation when they submitted their brief , they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma .
They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times , ” Bondi explained .
“ And when they gave these presentations , they said there was nothing , nothing to see , it was a sham.
” “ This is fiction , ” the former Florida AG declared .
“ In their trial memorandum , the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times ?
The reason they needed to do that is because they ’ re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern.
” While repeatedly referencing Burisma and the supposed ridiculousness of suspecting corruption , Bondi argues , House Democrats left out a lot of information known to both the Trump and Barack Obama administrations .
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) took a particular interest in this part of Bondi ’ s presentation : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , Devon Archer meets with Vice President Biden at the White House .
Just two days later , on April 18 , 2014 , is when Hunter Biden quietly joins Burisma , according to public reporting , ” Bondi noted .
“ Remember , this is just one month after the United Kingdom ’ s Serious Fraud Office opened a money-laundering case into Burisma , Hunter Biden joins the board.
” “ And not only 10 days after Hunter Biden joins the board , British authorities seize $ 23 million in British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the owner of Burisma .
Did Hunter Biden leave the board then ?
No , ” the former Florida AG continued .
“ Then , only then , did the company choose to announce that Hunter Biden had joined the board .
After the assets of Burisma and its oligarch owner Zlochevsky , were frozen and a criminal investigation had begun.
” She quoted from the German newspaper Deutsche-Welle that the hiring “ has raised eyebrows the world over , ” and noted BuzzFeed ’ s reporting that the Burisma appointment “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden.
” This is even more important when it comes to Joe Biden ’ s famous billion-dollar quid pro quo .
Democrats argue that Biden wanted Viktor Shokin fired as general prosecutors for Ukraine because he wasn ’ t investigating corruption enthusiastically enough , including Zlochevsky and Burisma .
It seems pretty clear , however , that Zlochevsky had hired Hunter Biden for his connection to his father — especially since Hunter has no other qualifications for a board position on a Ukrainian energy company .
He knew nothing about Ukraine , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s apparently true that Shokin was less than enthusiastic about his work regarding Burisma .
However , as the New York Times reported in September , Zlochevsky was happy to see him go — because Shokin was shaking him down : Mr. Zlochevsky ’ s allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin , the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought , according to people familiar with the situation .
Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma .
But the oligarch ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team , and that left the oligarch ’ s team leery of dealing with the prosecutor .
Mr. Shokin was replaced by a prosecutor named Yuriy Lutsenko , whom former Vice President Biden later called “ someone who was solid at the time.
” Mr. Zlochevsky ’ s representatives were pleased by the choice , concluding they could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch ’ s legal issues , according to the people familiar with the situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ line against Burisma , within 10 months after he took office , Burisma announced that Mr. Lutsenko and the courts had “ fully closed ” all “ legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations ” against Mr. Zlochevsky and his companies .
So yes , Shokin presented more than a couple of issues , but Lutsenko wasn ’ t any better .
He eventually dropped the probe into Burisma , which he then tried to revive before the Ukrainian elections in 2019 .
Zlochevsky got exactly what he wanted out of Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly must have seemed to him that Hunter ’ s $ 600,000 per year salary was money well spent .
Does that mean Joe Biden intended to help Hunter out with that quid pro quo ?
Not necessarily , but that ’ s certainly one reasonable conclusion to reach from it , as is the idea that Biden was working with allies strictly because of concerns over Shokin .
That same approach should be taken with Trump as well , however .
Yes , finding that the Bidens corruptly used aid for personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election , but it ’ s also reasonable to conclude that he was pursuing the same ostensible foreign-policy goal as Biden did — cleaning up corruption in Ukraine , especially that tied to US aid .
This might be the best part of the Trump team ’ s argument post-Bolton .
And this time , the media has to take note of it .

If Team Trump has to shrug off the quid pro quo denial after John Bolton’s memoir, they’d better make sure the quid had some value beyond Donald Trump’s political future. To that end, Pam Bondi made an argument that Trump had plenty of reason to suspect that both Joe and Hunter Biden had participated in a corrupt scheme to enrich his family through Biden’s own admitted quid pro quo moment. The Burisma question was not only made relevant by House managers pushing their impeachment case, Bondi says, but also by the actions of Biden père et fils.
White House Counsel Pam Bondi delivers argument focused on Hunter Biden and Burisma https://t.co/iwYPRsRtGP pic.twitter.com/PdZ8NLfpvk — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 27, 2020
“When the House managers gave you their presentation when they submitted their brief, they repeatedly referenced Hunter Biden and Burisma. They spoke to you for over 21 hours and they referenced Biden or Burisma over 400 times,” Bondi explained. “And when they gave these presentations, they said there was nothing, nothing to see, it was a sham.” “This is fiction,” the former Florida AG declared. “In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as ‘baseless.’ Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times? The reason they needed to do that is because they’re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern.”
While repeatedly referencing Burisma and the supposed ridiculousness of suspecting corruption, Bondi argues, House Democrats left out a lot of information known to both the Trump and Barack Obama administrations. Sen. Ted Cruz(R-TX) took a particular interest in this part of Bondi’s presentation:
WATCH: Trump legal team member Pam Bondi lays out Hunter Biden’s “nefarious” dealings with #Burisma (as WaPo wrote at the time), validating @realDonaldTrump’s request to investigate corruption. pic.twitter.com/JjmvkSpvaI — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 27, 2020
“Public records show that April 16, 2014, Devon Archer meets with Vice President Biden at the White House. Just two days later, on April 18, 2014, is when Hunter Biden quietly joins Burisma, according to public reporting,” Bondi noted. “Remember, this is just one month after the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office opened a money-laundering case into Burisma, Hunter Biden joins the board.” “And not only 10 days after Hunter Biden joins the board, British authorities seize $23 million in British bank accounts connected to the oligarch Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma. Did Hunter Biden leave the board then? No,” the former Florida AG continued. “Then, only then, did the company choose to announce that Hunter Biden had joined the board. After the assets of Burisma and its oligarch owner Zlochevsky, were frozen and a criminal investigation had begun.” She quoted from the German newspaper Deutsche-Welle that the hiring “has raised eyebrows the world over,” and noted BuzzFeed’s reporting that the Burisma appointment “created a conflict of interest for Joe Biden.”
This is even more important when it comes to Joe Biden’s famous billion-dollar quid pro quo. Democrats argue that Biden wanted Viktor Shokin fired as general prosecutors for Ukraine because he wasn’t investigating corruption enthusiastically enough, including Zlochevsky and Burisma. It seems pretty clear, however, that Zlochevsky had hired Hunter Biden for his connection to his father — especially since Hunter has no other qualifications for a board position on a Ukrainian energy company. He knew nothing about Ukraine, and had never worked for an energy firm.
It’s apparently true that Shokin was less than enthusiastic about his work regarding Burisma. However, as the New York Times reported in September, Zlochevsky was happy to see him go — because Shokin was shaking him down:
Mr. Zlochevsky’s allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Shokin was not aggressively pursuing investigations into Mr. Zlochevsky or Burisma. But the oligarch’s allies say Mr. Shokin was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team, and that left the oligarch’s team leery of dealing with the prosecutor. Mr. Shokin was replaced by a prosecutor named Yuriy Lutsenko, whom former Vice President Biden later called “someone who was solid at the time.” Mr. Zlochevsky’s representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch’s legal issues, according to the people familiar with the situation. While Mr. Lutsenko initially took a hard line against Burisma, within 10 months after he took office, Burisma announced that Mr. Lutsenko and the courts had “fully closed” all “legal proceedings and pending criminal allegations” against Mr. Zlochevsky and his companies.
So yes, Shokin presented more than a couple of issues, but Lutsenko wasn’t any better. He eventually dropped the probe into Burisma, which he then tried to revive before the Ukrainian elections in 2019. Zlochevsky got exactly what he wanted out of Biden’s billion-dollar quid pro quo, and it certainly must have seemed to him that Hunter’s $600,000 per year salary was money well spent.
Does that mean Joe Biden intended to help Hunter out with that quid pro quo? Not necessarily, but that’s certainly one reasonable conclusion to reach from it, as is the idea that Biden was working with allies strictly because of concerns over Shokin. That same approach should be taken with Trump as well, however. Yes, finding that the Bidens corruptly used aid for personal benefit would give him an advantage in the election, but it’s also reasonable to conclude that he was pursuing the same ostensible foreign-policy goal as Biden did — cleaning up corruption in Ukraine, especially that tied to US aid.
This might be the best part of the Trump team’s argument post-Bolton. And this time, the media has to take note of it.


hotair--2020-01-28--GOP Sen. James Lankford: The White House should give us a copy of Bolton's manuscript; <span class='

GOP Sen. James Lankford: The White House should give us a copy of Bolton's manuscript; Update: No SCIF, says Schumer

Trump fans complained yesterday that the leak about Bolton ’ s book was a case of Democrats following the “ Kavanaugh playbook , ” offering a last-second bombshell to try to derail a looming political victory for Republicans .
The Kavanaugh playbook didn ’ t work against Kavanaugh and it won ’ t work to prevent an acquittal here , but the point is clear enough .
Maybe James Lankford is following the Kavanaugh playbook too .
The playbook on the Republican side after Christine Blasey Ford emerged in 2018 was to briefly delay the confirmation vote so that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what allegedly happened between Kavanaugh and Ford as teenagers .
Those interviews resulted in a secret report that was made available to the Senate ; the contents were reassuring enough to fencesitters like Jeff Flake and Susan Collins that they ended up voting to confirm .
Lankford wants a ( temporarily ) secret document to guide the Senate in this case too before it votes on whether to call witnesses .
Give us the Bolton manuscript that the National Security Council is reviewing , he said to the White House yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has to say about Trump and Ukraine .
Then we ’ ll decide if he needs to be deposed or not .
“ I think getting that information first-hand would be really important for us , ” Lankford said on Facebook after the second day of White House defense arguments in the impeachment trial of the president .
“ My encouragement would be : If John Bolton ’ s got something to say , there ’ s plenty of microphones all over the country that he should step forward and start talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meantime , Lankford said , senators should get access to the manuscript even though it ’ s going through a screening process to determine whether it contains classified information .
All members of Congress have clearances to read classified information , Lankford said .
“ That ’ s a minimum amount that we should actually be able to get and I am encouraging the White House , anybody that I can talk to to say : That manuscript is pertinent and we should get access to that manuscript to see what they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lindsey Graham floated the same idea yesterday and doubled down on it today in light of Lankford ’ s proposal .
Send the manuscript over to the SCIF , just in case the NSC hasn ’ t finished redacting the classified parts yet , and let the Senate see for itself what Bolton alleged instead of relying on assurances from whoever ’ s whispering to the New York Times .
Might be the cleanest way out of this mess for the White House at this point .
Since the public can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans could review the manuscript and assure the country that there ’ s nothing *so* terrible in there that it would require calling Bolton as a witness .
Democrats would naturally counter that the manuscript is damning but the GOP would have the votes to block an attempt to subpoena him .
A la Kavanaugh being confirmed , the momentary pause to review the new material would give some voters confidence that the Senate really did try to get to the facts , sort of , before making its decision .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other GOP incumbents .
Except that the FBI report on Kavanaugh and Ford remained a secret .
The Bolton book will be published eventually .
Or Bolton will give an interview describing what he knows .
Or both .
What ’ s the next chess move for Lankford and Graham if they review the manuscript , insist that there ’ s not enough incriminating material in it to justify calling him as a witness , and then Bolton turns up on Rachel Maddow ’ s show and claims Trump told him personally that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden dirt ” quid pro quo deal with Ukraine ?
Are Lankford and Graham going to claim that that information wasn ’ t in the manuscript at the time they reviewed it ?
Because Democrats could contradict them on that .
And either way , Bolton ’ s public statements about what Trump knew will gift-wrap a Democratic “ COVER UP !
” attack on the likes of Collins and Cory Gardner .
Realistically , any assertion by Bolton in the manuscript that he heard firsthand from Trump about a Ukraine deal would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he heard was incriminating or exculpatory .
They ’ re better off hauling Bolton in , getting this over it , then falling back on the “ unethical but not impeachable ” defense .
Trump won ’ t like it , but whatever .
Get it all out now rather than ramming through an acquittal and having it look like a sham in hindsight once Bolton starts talking .
At least then Collins and Gardner can tell voters that they heard the Democrats ’ star witness before making their decision .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that Bolton will be called .
This morning on the president ’ s favorite show Brian Kilmeade acknowledged that “ I don ’ t see how you avoid bringing Bolton in now.
” Last night Hannity half-heartedly floated his own version of the “ bad but not impeachable ” rationale , arguing that even if it ’ s all true and Trump did pursue a quid pro quo to condition Ukraine aid on Biden dirt , that ’ s okay because they got their aid anyway without having to impugn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that the reason they got the aid without having to impugn Biden was because by mid-September the whistleblower complaint was circulating and House Dems were starting to bang on Trump ’ s door about this .
Zelensky was reportedly 48 hours away from going on CNN to announce that the Burisma probe would be reopened when Trump finally released the money .
The only reason Bolton ’ s book is a bombshell , notes impeachment opponent Rich Lowry today , is because of Trump ’ s narcissistic insistence on being absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate instead of accepting a much more reasonable “ bad but not impeachable ” acquittal .
Obviously there was a quid pro quo ; obviously Trump knew about it per the lead role taken in the Ukraine pressure campaign by his top crony , Rudy Giuliani .
If he were willing to let Senate Republicans tsk-tsk him perfunctorily about it , there ’ d be no need to call Bolton .
The fact of the quid pro quo would have already been established , with the debate in the Senate a comparatively dry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high crime or misdemeanor .
[ T ] he White House team is constrained by Trump ’ s smash-mouth instinct for total denial and total war , leaving them no option but to contest the underlying facts and complicate their own argument .
It makes no sense to say , on the one hand , that the House impeachment case fails for lack of firsthand witnesses , but , on the other , that there should be no first-hand witnesses .
It is malpractice to go out on a limb saying no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo when a witness with direct knowledge , Bolton , is ready and willing to testify .
It is foolhardy to make assurances that could easily — and probably would — be contradicted if the Senate did decide to call for any witnesses… The way to make a case against witnesses and to inoculate against what Bolton or anyone else might say is to acknowledge that we know what happened and to maintain that , even if it ’ s blameworthy , it doesn ’ t justify removal .
I suspect Trump views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many other things , as a test of basic loyalty .
Any president can get acquitted when their party controls the Senate .
That ’ s simple partisan loyalty at work .
What he wants is personal loyalty .
When he says , “ 2 + 2 = 5 , ” he wants Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham not only to vote that 2 + 2 = 5 but to praise his math skills .
So if Trump says “ no quid pro quo ” despite all available evidence to the contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Senate Republicans .
We may be looking at a scenario this fall in Maine in which Susan Collins loses reelection because she couldn ’ t turn out her base despite voting “ not guilty ” on impeachment .
Not guilty ’ s not enough .
Can she force herself to say there was no quid pro quo even after hearing Bolton ’ s testimony ?
Stay tuned .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s Lou Dobbs also preparing for a “ Bolton ’ s gon na testify ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turns out the former NSA , a lifelong conservative and former guest on Lou Dobbs ’ s show , is a tool of the left .
Update : Schumer doesn ’ t like the idea of the manuscript being kept secret .
It won ’ t be secret for long , though .
And there ’ s a legitimate concern about inadvertently revealing classified info by publishing parts of it before the NSC has finished reviewing it .
Expect Dems to start arguing that the NSC should accelerate its review of the parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine and to turn those over once they pass the vetting for classified material .
How much of the book could realistically be devoted to that ?
A chapter at best ?

Trump fans complained yesterday that the leak about Bolton’s book was a case of Democrats following the “Kavanaugh playbook,” offering a last-second bombshell to try to derail a looming political victory for Republicans. The Kavanaugh playbook didn’t work against Kavanaugh and it won’t work to prevent an acquittal here, but the point is clear enough.
Maybe James Lankford is following the Kavanaugh playbook too. The playbook on the Republican side after Christine Blasey Ford emerged in 2018 was to briefly delay the confirmation vote so that the FBI could interview a few select witnesses about what allegedly happened between Kavanaugh and Ford as teenagers. Those interviews resulted in a secret report that was made available to the Senate; the contents were reassuring enough to fencesitters like Jeff Flake and Susan Collins that they ended up voting to confirm.
Lankford wants a (temporarily) secret document to guide the Senate in this case too before it votes on whether to call witnesses. Give us the Bolton manuscript that the National Security Council is reviewing, he said to the White House yesterday, and let us see for ourselves what it has to say about Trump and Ukraine. Then we’ll decide if he needs to be deposed or not.
“I think getting that information first-hand would be really important for us,” Lankford said on Facebook after the second day of White House defense arguments in the impeachment trial of the president. “My encouragement would be: If John Bolton’s got something to say, there’s plenty of microphones all over the country that he should step forward and start talking about it right now.” In the meantime, Lankford said, senators should get access to the manuscript even though it’s going through a screening process to determine whether it contains classified information. All members of Congress have clearances to read classified information, Lankford said. “That’s a minimum amount that we should actually be able to get and I am encouraging the White House, anybody that I can talk to to say: That manuscript is pertinent and we should get access to that manuscript to see what they’re actually saying,” Lankford said.
Lindsey Graham floated the same idea yesterday and doubled down on it today in light of Lankford’s proposal. Send the manuscript over to the SCIF, just in case the NSC hasn’t finished redacting the classified parts yet, and let the Senate see for itself what Bolton alleged instead of relying on assurances from whoever’s whispering to the New York Times.
I totally support @SenatorLankford's
proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each Senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination. https://t.co/e18nUfSMgI — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 28, 2020
Might be the cleanest way out of this mess for the White House at this point. Since the public can’t see what Bolton wrote, Senate Republicans could review the manuscript and assure the country that there’s nothing *so* terrible in there that it would require calling Bolton as a witness. Democrats would naturally counter that the manuscript is damning but the GOP would have the votes to block an attempt to subpoena him. A la Kavanaugh being confirmed, the momentary pause to review the new material would give some voters confidence that the Senate really did try to get to the facts, sort of, before making its decision. That’s good politics for Susan Collins and other GOP incumbents.
Except that the FBI report on Kavanaugh and Ford remained a secret. The Bolton book will be published eventually. Or Bolton will give an interview describing what he knows. Or both. What’s the next chess move for Lankford and Graham if they review the manuscript, insist that there’s not enough incriminating material in it to justify calling him as a witness, and then Bolton turns up on Rachel Maddow’s show and claims Trump told him personally that there was a “military aid for Biden dirt” quid pro quo deal with Ukraine?
Are Lankford and Graham going to claim that that information wasn’t in the manuscript at the time they reviewed it? Because Democrats could contradict them on that. And either way, Bolton’s public statements about what Trump knew will gift-wrap a Democratic “COVER UP!” attack on the likes of Collins and Cory Gardner. Realistically, any assertion by Bolton in the manuscript that he heard firsthand from Trump about a Ukraine deal would be grounds for subpoenaing him, whether what he heard was incriminating or exculpatory.
They’re better off hauling Bolton in, getting this over it, then falling back on the “unethical but not impeachable” defense. Trump won’t like it, but whatever. Get it all out now rather than ramming through an acquittal and having it look like a sham in hindsight once Bolton starts talking. At least then Collins and Gardner can tell voters that they heard the Democrats’ star witness before making their decision.
I think even MAGA Nation is resigning itself to the fact that Bolton will be called. This morning on the president’s favorite show Brian Kilmeade acknowledged that “I don’t see how you avoid bringing Bolton in now.” Last night Hannity half-heartedly floated his own version of the “bad but not impeachable” rationale, arguing that even if it’s all true and Trump did pursue a quid pro quo to condition Ukraine aid on Biden dirt, that’s okay because they got their aid anyway without having to impugn Biden:
Sean Hannity defends Trump: "So if you say 'I want to kill this person,' ok, what crime have you committed? Did you kill the person? No. Did you think about it for a second? Yeah but you didn't do it." pic.twitter.com/OTggEUkoXF — Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) January 28, 2020
He didn’t mention the fact that the reason they got the aid without having to impugn Biden was because by mid-September the whistleblower complaint was circulating and House Dems were starting to bang on Trump’s door about this. Zelensky was reportedly 48 hours away from going on CNN to announce that the Burisma probe would be reopened when Trump finally released the money.
The only reason Bolton’s book is a bombshell, notes impeachment opponent Rich Lowry today, is because of Trump’s narcissistic insistence on being absolutely vindicated by his loyal servants in the Senate instead of accepting a much more reasonable “bad but not impeachable” acquittal. Obviously there was a quid pro quo; obviously Trump knew about it per the lead role taken in the Ukraine pressure campaign by his top crony, Rudy Giuliani. If he were willing to let Senate Republicans tsk-tsk him perfunctorily about it, there’d be no need to call Bolton. The fact of the quid pro quo would have already been established, with the debate in the Senate a comparatively dry dispute over whether it amounts to a high crime or misdemeanor.
[T]he White House team is constrained by Trump’s smash-mouth instinct for total denial and total war, leaving them no option but to contest the underlying facts and complicate their own argument. It makes no sense to say, on the one hand, that the House impeachment case fails for lack of firsthand witnesses, but, on the other, that there should be no first-hand witnesses. It is malpractice to go out on a limb saying no one has direct knowledge of a quid pro quo when a witness with direct knowledge, Bolton, is ready and willing to testify. It is foolhardy to make assurances that could easily — and probably would — be contradicted if the Senate did decide to call for any witnesses… The way to make a case against witnesses and to inoculate against what Bolton or anyone else might say is to acknowledge that we know what happened and to maintain that, even if it’s blameworthy, it doesn’t justify removal.
I suspect Trump views this the way he seems to view so many other things, as a test of basic loyalty. Any president can get acquitted when their party controls the Senate. That’s simple partisan loyalty at work. What he wants is personal loyalty. When he says, “2 + 2 = 5,” he wants Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham not only to vote that 2 + 2 = 5 but to praise his math skills. So if Trump says “no quid pro quo” despite all available evidence to the contrary, *that’s* the true test for Senate Republicans. We may be looking at a scenario this fall in Maine in which Susan Collins loses reelection because she couldn’t turn out her base despite voting “not guilty” on impeachment. Not guilty’s not enough. Can she force herself to say there was no quid pro quo even after hearing Bolton’s testimony? Stay tuned.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s Lou Dobbs also preparing for a “Bolton’s gonna testify” universe in his own special way. Turns out the former NSA, a lifelong conservative and former guest on Lou Dobbs’s show, is a tool of the left.
Update: Schumer doesn’t like the idea of the manuscript being kept secret.
“What an absurd proposal,” @SenSchumer says of allowing senators to view the Bolton manuscript in a SCIF. “There’s no need for it to be read in the SCIF unless you want to hide something.” — Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) January 28, 2020
It won’t be secret for long, though. And there’s a legitimate concern about inadvertently revealing classified info by publishing parts of it before the NSC has finished reviewing it.
Expect Dems to start arguing that the NSC should accelerate its review of the parts of the book having to do with Ukraine and to turn those over once they pass the vetting for classified material. How much of the book could realistically be devoted to that? A chapter at best?


hotair--2020-01-28--CNN panel trashes Trump supporters as illiterate "boomer rubes"

CNN and its contributors just may be the best in-kind donation President Trump ’ s re-election campaign could hope for .
Never have we seen a better example of this opinion than a panel discussion during Don Lemon ’ s show Saturday night .
In a video clip that first ran last Saturday during special live coverage of the impeachment trial , the absolute hatred for Trump ’ s supporters came through in particularly ugly mockery as Lemon led a discussion with New York Times columnist and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali , and ex-GOP strategist Rick Wilson about the confrontation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reports surfaced that during an interview Friday , NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly asked Pompeo questions about his defense of Marie Yovanovitch , the former U.S. ambassador in Kyiv , or a lack of defense of her .
Apparently the interview didn ’ t go well .
Pompeo indicated that Kelly was overly aggressive in her questioning and focused on that one piece of the Ukrainian story .
After the interview , Kelly said Pompeo yelled and cursed at her in his private living room .
Pompeo also , according to Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a map .
Kelly said that after the NPR interview she was taken to Pompeo ’ s private living room , where he shouted at her “ for about the same amount of time as the interview itself ” and cursed repeatedly .
Pompeo responded Saturday that Kelly had “ lied ” to him , and he called her conduct “ shameful.
” NPR said it stood by Kelly ’ s reporting .
As is predictable , the CNN panel came to her defense and at one point , Rick Wilson began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to lump his supporters into the discussion .
The other two men chimed right in and it got ugly for Trump supporters but hilariously funny for the commentators .
“ [ Pompeo ] also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump couldn ’ t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it , ” Wilson began , causing Lemon to chuckle .
“ He knows that this is , you know , an administration defined by ignorance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience .
You know , the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump.
” “ ‘ Donald Trump ’ s the smart one — any y ’ all elitists are dumb ! '
” Wilson said with a heavy southern accent .
“ ‘ You elitists with your geography and your maps- and your spelling ! '
” Ali chimed in during the mockery .
“ ‘ Your math and your reading ! '
” Wilson added .
“ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' ” Lemon is seen gasping for air because he is laughing so hard .
At one point , we hear nothing but laughter and snorting from Lemon , he is so lost in his enjoyment of what is being said .
Wilson began speaking with what must have been his idea of a hillbilly accent and Lemon laughed harder .
Finally , Ali half-heartedly apologized for the turn of the conversation but the laughter continued and Lemon ended up thanking Wilson – “ That was a good one .
I needed that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an obnoxious laugh at the expense of Trump voters .
Could it be because Trump ’ s legal team began to make their case in the Senate trial on Saturday and it was widely reported to have gone well for them ?
Remember , this was a special edition of his show , given that it is normally a Monday through Friday evening show .
The video lit up conservatives Monday when it began circling on social media .
The utter contempt for voters was so strong in the clip that even casual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter in response .
He ’ s right .
It took from when the show aired Saturday night to Monday evening before most people even noticed the segment on CNN .
Perhaps the best response came from radio host and FOX show host , Mark Levin .
He asked , “ Why does NPR still exist ?
” That ’ s something most of us ask pretty regularly .
Why are taxpayers still paying for a radio network that was founded to provide everyone from city dwellers to rural listeners access to radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s world ?
NPR is unapologetically liberal and at least half of the taxpayers in America are not .
The State Department has denied NPR access to Pompeo ’ s upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia .
The State Department Correspondents ’ Association calls it “ retaliation ” .
The State Department has denied a National Public Radio reporter a seat aboard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s plane for an upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia .
The decision comes a few days after Pompeo allegedly lashed out at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions about Ukraine and Marie Yovanovitch .
NPR said in a statement Monday that correspondent Michele Kelemen wasn ’ t given a reason for being barred from the flight .
The State Department declined to comment .
The State Department Correspondents ’ Association said the decision to deny Kelemen a seat on Pompeo ’ s plane led it to conclude that “ the State Department is retaliating ” against NPR .
The group asked the agency to reconsider and allow Kelemen to join Pompeo .
In the meantime , the campaign ads write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN .
Those of us who live in flyover country appreciate your help in the president ’ s re-election campaign .

CNN and its contributors just may be the best in-kind donation President Trump’s re-election campaign could hope for. Never have we seen a better example of this opinion than a panel discussion during Don Lemon’s show Saturday night.
In a video clip that first ran last Saturday during special live coverage of the impeachment trial, the absolute hatred for Trump’s supporters came through in particularly ugly mockery as Lemon led a discussion with New York Times columnist and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali, and ex-GOP strategist Rick Wilson about the confrontation Secretary Pompeo had with an NPR reporter. Reports surfaced that during an interview Friday, NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly asked Pompeo questions about his defense of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador in Kyiv, or a lack of defense of her. Apparently the interview didn’t go well. Pompeo indicated that Kelly was overly aggressive in her questioning and focused on that one piece of the Ukrainian story. After the interview, Kelly said Pompeo yelled and cursed at her in his private living room. Pompeo also, according to Kelly, demanded that she point to Ukraine on a map.
Kelly said that after the NPR interview she was taken to Pompeo’s private living room, where he shouted at her “for about the same amount of time as the interview itself” and cursed repeatedly. Pompeo responded Saturday that Kelly had “lied” to him, and he called her conduct “shameful.” NPR said it stood by Kelly’s reporting.
As is predictable, the CNN panel came to her defense and at one point, Rick Wilson began mocking the President as ignorant and went on to lump his supporters into the discussion. The other two men chimed right in and it got ugly for Trump supporters but hilariously funny for the commentators.
“[Pompeo] also knows deep within his heart that Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter U and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it,” Wilson began, causing Lemon to chuckle. “He knows that this is, you know, an administration defined by ignorance of the world. And so that’s partly him playing to the base and playing to their audience. You know, the credulous boomer rube demo that backs Donald Trump.” “‘Donald Trump’s the smart one — any y’all elitists are dumb!'” Wilson said with a heavy southern accent. “‘You elitists with your geography and your maps- and your spelling!'” Ali chimed in during the mockery. “‘Your math and your reading!'” Wilson added. “‘All those lines on the map!'”
Lemon is seen gasping for air because he is laughing so hard. At one point, we hear nothing but laughter and snorting from Lemon, he is so lost in his enjoyment of what is being said. Wilson began speaking with what must have been his idea of a hillbilly accent and Lemon laughed harder. Finally, Ali half-heartedly apologized for the turn of the conversation but the laughter continued and Lemon ended up thanking Wilson – “That was a good one. I needed that.”
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
I wonder why Lemon needed such an obnoxious laugh at the expense of Trump voters. Could it be because Trump’s legal team began to make their case in the Senate trial on Saturday and it was widely reported to have gone well for them? Remember, this was a special edition of his show, given that it is normally a Monday through Friday evening show.
The video lit up conservatives Monday when it began circling on social media. The utter contempt for voters was so strong in the clip that even casual supporters of the president weighed in on Twitter in response.
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1222132747164057600
If you want to give people a reason to vote Trump as a screw you to the media, keep airing segments like these https://t.co/hbr1GVjJWw — Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) January 28, 2020
President Trump weighed in.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222028267865223170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fmedia%2Fcnn-don-lemon-wajahat-ali-rick-wilson
He’s right. It took from when the show aired Saturday night to Monday evening before most people even noticed the segment on CNN.
Perhaps the best response came from radio host and FOX show host, Mark Levin. He asked, “Why does NPR still exist?” That’s something most of us ask pretty regularly. Why are taxpayers still paying for a radio network that was founded to provide everyone from city dwellers to rural listeners access to radio when everyone has access in today’s world? NPR is unapologetically liberal and at least half of the taxpayers in America are not.
Why does NPR still exist? We have thousands of radio stations in the U.S. Plus Satellite radio. Podcasts. Why are we paying for this big-government, Democrat Party propaganda operation. https://t.co/mYynXoY2MK — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 26, 2020
The State Department has denied NPR access to Pompeo’s upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia. The State Department Correspondents’ Association calls it “retaliation”.
The State Department has denied a National Public Radio reporter a seat aboard Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s plane for an upcoming trip to Europe and Central Asia. The decision comes a few days after Pompeo allegedly lashed out at another NPR reporter when she asked him questions about Ukraine and Marie Yovanovitch. NPR said in a statement Monday that correspondent Michele Kelemen wasn’t given a reason for being barred from the flight. The State Department declined to comment. The State Department Correspondents’ Association said the decision to deny Kelemen a seat on Pompeo’s plane led it to conclude that “the State Department is retaliating” against NPR. The group asked the agency to reconsider and allow Kelemen to join Pompeo.
In the meantime, the campaign ads write themselves for Team Trump. Kudos, CNN. Those of us who live in flyover country appreciate your help in the president’s re-election campaign.


hotair--2020-01-28--The effects of New York's bungled criminal justice reforms are already hitting home

The “ year of the perp ” ( as it ’ s being called by the NYPD ) is well underway in New York City and around the rest of the state .
Under the newly enacted bail reform laws , criminals are being shuffled into jails and courtrooms and then back out onto the streets so quickly that the cops are getting dizzy just watching them .
This new way of doing things has resulted in anger and frustration among many of the more law-abiding residents of the state , but thus far no solutions are being offered .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including turning all evidence over to defense lawyers within fifteen days of an indictment , is also complicating matters .
And as the NY Post reports , dealing with this new state of affairs is beginning to cost the taxpayers money .
A lot of money .
Gov .
Andrew Cuomo isn ’ t the barrier to fixing last year ’ s botched criminal justice reforms — but he ’ s still showing no sign he ’ ll lead the way .
Notably , the gov ’ s budget admits one point that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders have denied for months : The “ reforms ” mean crime labs and district attorney ’ s offices need a ton of cash .
The new law requires prosecutors to turn over all evidence to the defense within 15 days of arraignment or indictment .
That ’ s a huge burden : Until now , it ’ s often taken months for labs to process crime-scene evidence , and it often wasn ’ t even necessary , because the defense cut a plea deal first .
Most cases never even go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s overtime for the police officers and detectives or premium costs for laboratories to rush back evidence analysis from crime scenes , the bills are adding up fast .
And much of this is pointless , anyway .
As the report notes , the majority of criminal cases never even go to trial .
If the prosecution ’ s case looks strong enough , a plea deal is usually put on the table and we avoid the need for a trial .
Then the evidence all disappears into a locker .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have to pay to process pretty much everything .
The overtime question also covers security for witnesses and victims .
In the past , anyone thinking of offering testimony could remain relatively anonymous , particularly if a plea deal eliminated the need for a trial .
But now the names of both the victim ( s ) and potential witnesses have to be turned over to the defense rapidly .
And particularly in cases involving gang violence , “ snitches ” aren ’ t very popular and can wind up in trouble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect them .
All of this comes on top of the string of serial burglars and habitual bank robbers cycling through the revolving door of the justice system and hitting one target after another .
People are getting increasingly fed up and venting their anger in public meetings .
And yet , at least so far , the Governor hasn ’ t offered any possible remedy except to consider making an exception for perpetrators of hate crimes , particularly those committed against Jews .
That ’ s great for our friends in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t do much for everyone else putting up with all of the mayhem .
When will the Governor and the Mayor of Gotham finally come out and admit that they completely dropped the ball on this ?
And if they refuse to do anything about it , will New York ’ s voters keep sending this same collection of clown car occupants back to office again next November ?
Insanity is famously described as doing the same thing over and over again while somehow expecting different results .
The Democratic stranglehold on New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought us to this sorry state of affairs .
Don ’ t expect them to bail you out if you keep rewarding them with more electoral victories .

The “year of the perp” (as it’s being called by the NYPD) is well underway in New York City and around the rest of the state. Under the newly enacted bail reform laws, criminals are being shuffled into jails and courtrooms and then back out onto the streets so quickly that the cops are getting dizzy just watching them. This new way of doing things has resulted in anger and frustration among many of the more law-abiding residents of the state, but thus far no solutions are being offered. The other criminal justice reform measures, including turning all evidence over to defense lawyers within fifteen days of an indictment, is also complicating matters. And as the NY Post reports, dealing with this new state of affairs is beginning to cost the taxpayers money. A lot of money.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo isn’t the barrier to fixing last year’s botched criminal justice reforms — but he’s still showing no sign he’ll lead the way. Notably, the gov’s budget admits one point that he and the Legislature’s Democratic leaders have denied for months: The “reforms” mean crime labs and district attorney’s offices need a ton of cash. The new law requires prosecutors to turn over all evidence to the defense within 15 days of arraignment or indictment. That’s a huge burden: Until now, it’s often taken months for labs to process crime-scene evidence, and it often wasn’t even necessary, because the defense cut a plea deal first. Most cases never even go to trial, after all.
Whether it’s overtime for the police officers and detectives or premium costs for laboratories to rush back evidence analysis from crime scenes, the bills are adding up fast. And much of this is pointless, anyway. As the report notes, the majority of criminal cases never even go to trial. If the prosecution’s case looks strong enough, a plea deal is usually put on the table and we avoid the need for a trial. Then the evidence all disappears into a locker. But now, under the new law, they have to pay to process pretty much everything.
The overtime question also covers security for witnesses and victims. In the past, anyone thinking of offering testimony could remain relatively anonymous, particularly if a plea deal eliminated the need for a trial. But now the names of both the victim(s) and potential witnesses have to be turned over to the defense rapidly. And particularly in cases involving gang violence, “snitches” aren’t very popular and can wind up in trouble, so officers have to be assigned to protect them.
All of this comes on top of the string of serial burglars and habitual bank robbers cycling through the revolving door of the justice system and hitting one target after another. People are getting increasingly fed up and venting their anger in public meetings.
And yet, at least so far, the Governor hasn’t offered any possible remedy except to consider making an exception for perpetrators of hate crimes, particularly those committed against Jews. That’s great for our friends in the Jewish community, but doesn’t do much for everyone else putting up with all of the mayhem.
When will the Governor and the Mayor of Gotham finally come out and admit that they completely dropped the ball on this? And if they refuse to do anything about it, will New York’s voters keep sending this same collection of clown car occupants back to office again next November? Insanity is famously described as doing the same thing over and over again while somehow expecting different results. The Democratic stranglehold on New York City and the state government has brought us to this sorry state of affairs. Don’t expect them to bail you out if you keep rewarding them with more electoral victories.


hotair--2020-01-28--Dershowitz: Even if Bolton's correct, it's not impeachable conduct

And so , thanks to John Bolton , Team Trump has reverted to its fallback “ no big deal ” strategy , by default more than choice .
The former national security adviser ’ s name didn ’ t even come up in the defense presentation until almost the end of the day yesterday , when Alan Dershowitz launched his promised constitutional argument against impeachment over Ukraine-Gate .
Dershowitz conceded nothing on Bolton ’ s reported claims in his upcoming memoir , but he argued that those wouldn ’ t matter even if they were entirely true .
Quid pro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power are political arguments in elections , Dershowitz argued , not crimes that trigger impeachment .
And he has the history to show it : This argument might have been more effective had the White House just stuck to it all along .
Trump ’ s team and his Republican allies have argued this point , but they ’ ve overshadowed it with denial after denial of any quid pro quo at all .
Andrew McCarthy has repeatedly warned that they should be careful about outright denials , and wrote last night that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this : For months , I ’ ve been arguing that the president ’ s team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv ’ s conducting of investigations the president wanted .
Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable .
You don ’ t know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you .
So you want to mount your best defense , the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best defense has always been that Ukraine got its security aid , and President Volodymyr Zelensky got his coveted high-profile audience with the president of the United States ( albeit at the U.N. , rather than at the White House ) .
Kyiv barely knew defense aid was being withheld , the very temporary delay had no impact whatsoever on Ukraine ’ s capacity to counter Russian aggression , and Zelensky was required neither to order nor to announce any investigation of the Bidens .
However objectionable the calculations that led to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequence happened .
Therefore , there was no impeachable offense .
Case closed .
Except it ’ s not case closed , because President Trump and his advocates would not content themselves with a strong defense built on what was true .
The president wants total vindication , which is not necessary in order to avoid removal from office .
So he has mounted his defense on the impossible propositions that his interaction with Zelensky was “ perfect ” and that there was no quid pro quo .
Well , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like it or not .
Had they stuck to the course McCarthy suggested , it might not have made Trump look pristine but it wouldn ’ t have made him look as dirty as contradicted denials will make him look now .
Even if Dershowitz makes a great argument on this point , Trump will likely come out of this looking dishonest , assuming that Bolton ’ s book says what has been reported by second-hand sources .
If Trump hadn ’ t gone the denial route , Bolton ’ s testimony would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his team fought the Democrats on their turf rather than his .
Dershowitz scored points on other arguments , however .
He told the Senate that the House ’ s “ standard-less ” approach creates such an ambiguous fog that literally any and every president has and will fall afoul of it if the Senate enforces this precedent .
Not only are the articles based on subjective hearsay and rumor , they are being offered in the worst partisan interpretation of it all : How many presidents would have been impeached under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amusing stroll through history : Note that Dershowitz left three names off the list — Richard Nixon , Bill Clinton , and Andrew Johnson , the three presidents who either got impeached or resigned ahead of it .
Both Nixon and Clinton committed statutory crimes , while Johnson got impeached on largely the same basis as Trump did , on constitutionally deficient allegations of “ abuse of power.
” At any rate , Dershowitz ’ litany was an effective presentation on how abuses of power short of “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historically handled : at the ballot box , not in the Senate dock .
“ Let the public decide.
” They will have their change in ten months to determine whether they think Trump should get a second term .
Why not let them ?

And so, thanks to John Bolton, Team Trump has reverted to its fallback “no big deal” strategy, by default more than choice. The former national security adviser’s name didn’t even come up in the defense presentation until almost the end of the day yesterday, when Alan Dershowitz launched his promised constitutional argument against impeachment over Ukraine-Gate. Dershowitz conceded nothing on Bolton’s reported claims in his upcoming memoir, but he argued that those wouldn’t matter even if they were entirely true.
Quid pro quos and ambiguous allegations of abuse of power are political arguments in elections, Dershowitz argued, not crimes that trigger impeachment. And he has the history to show it:
Dershowitz: Nothing in the Bolton revelations would "rise to the level of abuse of power" https://t.co/QPGLFavIKe pic.twitter.com/I301MpbuM7 — POLITICO (@politico) January 28, 2020
This argument might have been more effective had the White House just stuck to it all along. Trump’s team and his Republican allies have argued this point, but they’ve overshadowed it with denial after denial of any quid pro quo at all. Andrew McCarthy has repeatedly warned that they should be careful about outright denials, and wrote last night that they’ve dug their own hole on this:
For months, I’ve been arguing that the president’s team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv’s conducting of investigations the president wanted. Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable. You don’t know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you. So you want to mount your best defense, the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations. Here, the president’s best defense has always been that Ukraine got its security aid, and President Volodymyr Zelensky got his coveted high-profile audience with the president of the United States (albeit at the U.N., rather than at the White House). Kyiv barely knew defense aid was being withheld, the very temporary delay had no impact whatsoever on Ukraine’s capacity to counter Russian aggression, and Zelensky was required neither to order nor to announce any investigation of the Bidens. However objectionable the calculations that led to the delay may have been, nothing of consequence happened. Therefore, there was no impeachable offense. Case closed. Except it’s not case closed, because President Trump and his advocates would not content themselves with a strong defense built on what was true. The president wants total vindication, which is not necessary in order to avoid removal from office. So he has mounted his defense on the impossible propositions that his interaction with Zelensky was “perfect” and that there was no quid pro quo.
Well, they’re back to that argument now whether they like it or not. Had they stuck to the course McCarthy suggested, it might not have made Trump look pristine but it wouldn’t have made him look as dirty as contradicted denials will make him look now. Even if Dershowitz makes a great argument on this point, Trump will likely come out of this looking dishonest, assuming that Bolton’s book says what has been reported by second-hand sources. If Trump hadn’t gone the denial route, Bolton’s testimony would be irrelevant now. Essentially, Trump and his team fought the Democrats on their turf rather than his.
Dershowitz scored points on other arguments, however. He told the Senate that the House’s “standard-less” approach creates such an ambiguous fog that literally any and every president has and will fall afoul of it if the Senate enforces this precedent. Not only are the articles based on subjective hearsay and rumor, they are being offered in the worst partisan interpretation of it all:
How many presidents would have been impeached under this standard-less approach? Dershowitz offers an amusing stroll through history:
Note that Dershowitz left three names off the list — Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Andrew Johnson, the three presidents who either got impeached or resigned ahead of it. Both Nixon and Clinton committed statutory crimes, while Johnson got impeached on largely the same basis as Trump did, on constitutionally deficient allegations of “abuse of power.” At any rate, Dershowitz’ litany was an effective presentation on how abuses of power short of “high crimes and misdemeanors” should be handled — and have been historically handled: at the ballot box, not in the Senate dock.
“Let the public decide.” They will have their change in ten months to determine whether they think Trump should get a second term. Why not let them?


hotair--2020-01-28--Our "screening" for the coronavirus may not be cutting it

As the news out of Asia regarding the spread of the coronavirus continues to sound more and more alarming , the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to tell us that the threat to America is “ low.
” That ’ s not sitting well with a lot of people , including yours truly .
I mean , are they saying that the risk to human health is low or the chance of the disease running wild in North America is low ?
As to the first possibility , the Chinese are already owning up to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as they worked on the construction of a massive new hospital in only four days in the quarantine zone amid reports of bodies being cremated in significant numbers .
And now , Hong Kong has cut off all travel to and from China .
Sounds to me like somebody is taking this pretty seriously .
So what about the second question ?
Do we really have this under control in terms of making sure that the virus doesn ’ t , you know… go viral in the United States ?
As of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to six confirmed cases , but even the CDC is admitting that there are another 110 cases “ under investigation ” already .
( Fox News ) Health officials monitoring the coronavirus in the U.S. said there are currently 110 “ persons under investigation ” across 26 states , noting that the number “ will only increase ” as the outbreak in China continues .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) said in an update on Monday that five of the cases in the U.S. tested positive for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 32 so far had produced negative results .
At this point , the CDC said the virus does appear to have mutated , but described the outbreak as a “ rapidly changing situation.
” The virus has killed at least 81 people in China and sickened over 2,700 more .
The CDC said 16 other international locations had reported a case of the virus .
There ’ s a comforting sentence to read with your morning coffee , eh ?
The CDC confirms that “ the virus has mutated.
” These are several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak started .
Viruses do tend to mutate , and this one appears to be doing so quickly .
And not only is the coronavirus definitely able to be spread from human to human ( originally only being spread from animals ) , Chinese doctors have concluded that it ’ s contagious during the incubation period .
As I pointed out in my previous article , the incubation period appears to be anywhere from three or four days to a week .
This means that people can be walking around feeling just fine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were people flying out of ( or simply fleeing ) the affected portions of China for weeks before they started locking things down .
We may have closed the barn door long after the horses had hit the road .
Meanwhile , in Baltimore , somebody was pulled from a flight after failing the initial coronavirus screening .
The truly sad part is that even if that person turns out to be a carrier , they ’ ll still probably sue the airline for yanking them off the plane .
This isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific areas where we might be able to set up some quarantine lines .
Two people were just identified in upstate New York who had recently traveled to China and are now experiencing “ respiratory effects.
” Whether we ’ re talking about them or the person in Baltimore , what if they wind up testing positive ?
Given the incubation period I mentioned above , how many others were they in contact with between returning from China and finally realizing they were ill and going to the hospital ?
I assure you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alarmist here , but shouldn ’ t we have been better prepared than this after all of the Ebola madness a few years back ?
Perhaps we ’ ll get lucky again this time and the virus will turn out to be not such a big deal .
Perhaps .
But history has shown us that Captain Trips is going to show up sooner or later and we need better procedures in place than what ’ s been on display here so far .

As the news out of Asia regarding the spread of the coronavirus continues to sound more and more alarming, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continues to tell us that the threat to America is “low.” That’s not sitting well with a lot of people, including yours truly. I mean, are they saying that the risk to human health is low or the chance of the disease running wild in North America is low?
As to the first possibility, the Chinese are already owning up to a death toll of more than 100, even as they worked on the construction of a massive new hospital in only four days in the quarantine zone amid reports of bodies being cremated in significant numbers. And now, Hong Kong has cut off all travel to and from China. Sounds to me like somebody is taking this pretty seriously.
So what about the second question? Do we really have this under control in terms of making sure that the virus doesn’t, you know… go viral in the United States? As of last night, we were only up to six confirmed cases, but even the CDC is admitting that there are another 110 cases “under investigation” already. (Fox News)
Health officials monitoring the coronavirus in the U.S. said there are currently 110 “persons under investigation” across 26 states, noting that the number “will only increase” as the outbreak in China continues. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said in an update on Monday that five of the cases in the U.S. tested positive for the novel coronavirus, or 2019-nCoV, and 32 so far had produced negative results. At this point, the CDC said the virus does appear to have mutated, but described the outbreak as a “rapidly changing situation.” The virus has killed at least 81 people in China and sickened over 2,700 more. The CDC said 16 other international locations had reported a case of the virus.
There’s a comforting sentence to read with your morning coffee, eh? The CDC confirms that “the virus has mutated.” These are several of the concerns I expressed when this outbreak started. Viruses do tend to mutate, and this one appears to be doing so quickly. And not only is the coronavirus definitely able to be spread from human to human (originally only being spread from animals), Chinese doctors have concluded that it’s contagious during the incubation period.
As I pointed out in my previous article, the incubation period appears to be anywhere from three or four days to a week. This means that people can be walking around feeling just fine and still spreading the disease. There were people flying out of (or simply fleeing) the affected portions of China for weeks before they started locking things down. We may have closed the barn door long after the horses had hit the road. Meanwhile, in Baltimore, somebody was pulled from a flight after failing the initial coronavirus screening.
A passenger who recently traveled to China was escorted off a plane at BWI Airport “out of an abundance of caution,” after showing flu-like symptoms.
Health officials escorted the passenger off of a Southwest flight from Las Vegas. The Maryland Department of Health said, “the passenger did not meet the CDC’s critical for coronavirus testing but was referred to a medical facility for evaluation to determine whether additional follow-up was necessary.”
The truly sad part is that even if that person turns out to be a carrier, they’ll still probably sue the airline for yanking them off the plane.
This isn’t just going on in a few specific areas where we might be able to set up some quarantine lines. Two people were just identified in upstate New York who had recently traveled to China and are now experiencing “respiratory effects.” Whether we’re talking about them or the person in Baltimore, what if they wind up testing positive? Given the incubation period I mentioned above, how many others were they in contact with between returning from China and finally realizing they were ill and going to the hospital?
I assure you I’m not trying to be an alarmist here, but shouldn’t we have been better prepared than this after all of the Ebola madness a few years back? Perhaps we’ll get lucky again this time and the virus will turn out to be not such a big deal. Perhaps. But history has shown us that Captain Trips is going to show up sooner or later and we need better procedures in place than what’s been on display here so far.


hotair--2020-01-28--Venezuela may be forced to sell off its oil company... to Russia

( Stop me if you ’ ve heard this one . )
Venezuela is so broke… HOW BROKE ARE THEY ?
They ’ re so broke that they ’ re looking to sell their nationalized oil company to the private sector .
Okay , I won ’ t be giving up my day job for a career as a standup comic anytime soon , but this really isn ’ t a joking matter anyway .
Back when Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Socialist Party took over that country , one of Chavez ’ s early moves was to finish locking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil industry .
( Nationalization had originally begun under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez back in the 70 ’ s , but Chavez cemented state control of all assets . )
It was a blow to their already crippled private sector , but it provided admirable income for the socialist regime for many years .
Now , as most of you are doubtless aware , the country has effectively been driven into bankruptcy by the corrupt administration of Nicolas Maduro .
The only thing propping them up lately has been the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
Unfortunately for the Venezuelan people , that stream of revenue is probably coming to an end .
The national oil company , Petroleos de Venezuela SA ( PDVSA ) , is totally underwater .
Maduro is obviously desperate because he ’ s been in talks with several international oil companies to discuss selling control of the operation .
And one of the interested buyers is a Russian outfit , to the surprise of nobody .
( Bloomberg ) Facing economic collapse and painful sanctions , the socialist government of Venezuelan President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and control of its oil industry to big international corporations , a move that would forsake decades of state monopoly .
Maduro ’ s representatives have held talks with Russia ’ s Rosneft PJSC , Repsol SA of Spain and Italy ’ s Eni SpA .
The idea is to allow them to take over government-controlled oil properties and restructure some debt of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in exchange for assets , according to people with knowledge of the matter .
The proposal , which could offer a balm to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is in early stages and faces major obstacles .
Venezuela still sits on one of the richest deposits of sweet crude oil in the world , but it ’ s not doing them much good currently .
Maduro has robbed PDVSA blind and failed to fund the required maintenance and staffing to keep it functional .
The company once produced more than 3.5 million barrels of oil per day .
They currently struggle to produce even half a million and most of that has to go to pay the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Venezuela has been in talks with oil and gas companies from Spain and Italy as well , Russia is the most likely and obvious potential buyer .
That ’ s because of a combination of factors .
First of all , the Russians are already on the ground in the country and Maduro owes them a lot of money .
But also , current sanctions forbid companies from most western nations , including the United States , from doing business with PDVSA or anyone else in Venezuela without a waiver .
Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it allowed them to seize control of Venezuela ’ s oil .
Further complicating matters is the issue of the Venezuelan constitution and laws requiring the oil assets to be the property of “ the people.
” Of course , Maduro has already rewritten the constitution to suit him and he controls the Supreme Court and his new legislative body so that probably won ’ t slow him down much .
Vladimir Putin might want to be a bit cautious here , however .
There ’ s a significant risk in entering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a socialist nation like Venezuela .
Maduro ’ s government is weak and impotent now , but if they somehow stabilize in the years to come , things could change .
The socialists could , at some point , simply declare that the oil resources and assets are being taken back by the government without compensation .
That ’ s what they did in the 70s and 90s , and there ’ s no reason to believe they wouldn ’ t do it again if they felt they could get away with it @

(Stop me if you’ve heard this one.) Venezuela is so broke…
HOW BROKE ARE THEY?
They’re so broke that they’re looking to sell their nationalized oil company to the private sector.
Okay, I won’t be giving up my day job for a career as a standup comic anytime soon, but this really isn’t a joking matter anyway. Back when Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan Socialist Party took over that country, one of Chavez’s early moves was to finish locking down and nationalizing the nation’s oil industry. (Nationalization had originally begun under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez back in the 70’s, but Chavez cemented state control of all assets.) It was a blow to their already crippled private sector, but it provided admirable income for the socialist regime for many years.
Now, as most of you are doubtless aware, the country has effectively been driven into bankruptcy by the corrupt administration of Nicolas Maduro. The only thing propping them up lately has been the Russian military and regular inputs of cash from China. Unfortunately for the Venezuelan people, that stream of revenue is probably coming to an end. The national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), is totally underwater. Maduro is obviously desperate because he’s been in talks with several international oil companies to discuss selling control of the operation. And one of the interested buyers is a Russian outfit, to the surprise of nobody. (Bloomberg)
Facing economic collapse and painful sanctions, the socialist government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has proposed giving majority shares and control of its oil industry to big international corporations, a move that would forsake decades of state monopoly. Maduro’s representatives have held talks with Russia’s Rosneft PJSC, Repsol SA of Spain and Italy’s Eni SpA. The idea is to allow them to take over government-controlled oil properties and restructure some debt of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in exchange for assets, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The proposal, which could offer a balm to the country’s disintegrating oil industry, is in early stages and faces major obstacles.
Venezuela still sits on one of the richest deposits of sweet crude oil in the world, but it’s not doing them much good currently. Maduro has robbed PDVSA blind and failed to fund the required maintenance and staffing to keep it functional. The company once produced more than 3.5 million barrels of oil per day. They currently struggle to produce even half a million and most of that has to go to pay the country’s mounting debts.
While the report indicates that Venezuela has been in talks with oil and gas companies from Spain and Italy as well, Russia is the most likely and obvious potential buyer. That’s because of a combination of factors. First of all, the Russians are already on the ground in the country and Maduro owes them a lot of money. But also, current sanctions forbid companies from most western nations, including the United States, from doing business with PDVSA or anyone else in Venezuela without a waiver. Russia can and probably would ignore those rules if it allowed them to seize control of Venezuela’s oil.
Further complicating matters is the issue of the Venezuelan constitution and laws requiring the oil assets to be the property of “the people.” Of course, Maduro has already rewritten the constitution to suit him and he controls the Supreme Court and his new legislative body so that probably won’t slow him down much.
Vladimir Putin might want to be a bit cautious here, however. There’s a significant risk in entering into any sort of business deal with a socialist nation like Venezuela. Maduro’s government is weak and impotent now, but if they somehow stabilize in the years to come, things could change. The socialists could, at some point, simply declare that the oil resources and assets are being taken back by the government without compensation. That’s what they did in the 70s and 90s, and there’s no reason to believe they wouldn’t do it again if they felt they could get away with it.


hotair--2020-01-28--Buttigieg in Iowa: Slams Bernie, courts Trump voters

In just six short days Iowa will hold its Democrat caucuses .
Time flies when you ’ re having fun , right ?
Pete Buttigieg has experienced being at the top of the polls as well as in spots further down the polls .
As I write this Tuesday morning , according to Real Clear Politics , Mayor Pete is in third place in Iowa .
Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner with 25 % , Joe Biden is at 22 % , and Buttigieg is at 17 % .
If all of that holds , which is not at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary season , Buttigieg will be able to claim one of the three tickets out of Iowa and be able to justify carrying on with his campaign .
As a matter of fact , this year due to changes in the caucus rules , more candidates may be able to take a victory lap and sprint off to New Hampshire for the first primary .
On Feb. 3 , 2020 , more than one Democratic presidential hopeful could declare themselves the “ winner ” of the Iowa caucuses because of new result-reporting rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules , which were meant to add transparency to the Iowa Democratic caucus process after complaints in 2016 , could muddle the results in media reporting and allow candidates to make competing claims for momentum out of Iowa .
The party will release three different metrics for candidates ’ support on Feb. 3 — a raw total of caucusgoer support , a second reshuffling , and the final state delegate equivalents .
With a handful of Democrats jockeying at around 20 percent support in the most recent Iowa Poll , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each measure of support .
So , that means that Elizabeth Warren in fourth place at 13.5 % today might also be able to claim a decent victory .
Amy Klobuchar is desperately trying to convince voters that she ’ s going to finish strong in Iowa but she ’ s currently at 8.5 % , quite a drop from the top candidates .
Bernie , frankly , is looking really strong right now and he is the one the others should take aim at .
Pete Buttigieg is doing that this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scare voters with Bernie ’ s extremism and the possibility that he ’ ll win the caucuses .
He tells voters that Sanders won ’ t beat Trump in the general election .
And Buttigieg is courting Trump supporters .
He plays on the theme of turning the page , ushering in new leadership in Washington , D.C .
The problem for Democrats running on new ideas , and able to think outside the box is that President Trump has already beaten them to it .
He released his final ad for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is a smart idea to go after Trump voters .
Bernie Sanders , by the way , is also doing that .
Just last night I received a text message from the Sanders campaign asking for my support .
This is where I remind you that I live in Texas and have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote .
Sorry , Bernie , it ain ’ t happening .
Trump wisely ran in 2016 with moderate Democrat voters in mind , as well as Republicans and conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to win a national election with the support of only one party ’ s loyal supporters .
Independents are more important than ever , too .
Mayor Pete is looking for “ disaffected Republicans ” to drag him over the finish line .
This messaging will manifest itself both in Buttigieg schedule over his final week in Iowa — the candidate will headline events in Webster , Boone and Wapello counties , all of which flipped to Trump in 2016 — as well as their decision to headline a Fox News town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoping the platform on Trump ’ s favorite cable outlet will reach some voters who helped him win the White House .
The campaign will also begin to run a slate of new digital ads aimed at building support in places Trump won in 2016 , including a series of 15-second ads that will highlight five Iowa counties that Trump won in 2016 — Appanoose , Henry , Marion , Warren and Washington — and Buttigieg ’ s pitch to win them back .
The ads feature the margin that Trump won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg can win .
Reaching Trump voters is also a reason given for Buttigieg doing a town hall with Chris Wallace on Sunday .
“ Pete is going everywhere and meeting everyone .
This is how we win.
” His campaign knows that if Buttigieg doesn ’ t finish in the top two spots in Iowa and New Hampshire , especially if he loses to Biden , his run for president is likely over .
If Biden finishes after Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire , as very well may happen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to continue and claim to be the moderate , more electable choice to counter Bernie ’ s far-left socialist agenda .
The number one goal for Democrat voters is to defeat President Trump .
Buttigieg is playing the electability card .
Courting Republicans , though , may not be such fertile ground for him .
Trump ’ s support among Republicans has remained high throughout his presidency .
Frankly , I ’ ve never seen the party so unified in its support for a Republican president .
According to the latest Gallup Poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from Republicans and 37 % support from Independents .
We ’ ll see soon enough how this all pans out for Mayor Pete .
It looks like Bernie ’ s to lose , though .

In just six short days Iowa will hold its Democrat caucuses. Time flies when you’re having fun, right?
Pete Buttigieg has experienced being at the top of the polls as well as in spots further down the polls. As I write this Tuesday morning, according to Real Clear Politics, Mayor Pete is in third place in Iowa. Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner with 25%, Joe Biden is at 22%, and Buttigieg is at 17%. If all of that holds, which is not at all a certainty given the history of this primary season, Buttigieg will be able to claim one of the three tickets out of Iowa and be able to justify carrying on with his campaign.
As a matter of fact, this year due to changes in the caucus rules, more candidates may be able to take a victory lap and sprint off to New Hampshire for the first primary.
On Feb. 3, 2020, more than one Democratic presidential hopeful could declare themselves the “winner” of the Iowa caucuses because of new result-reporting rules of the Iowa Democratic Party. The rules, which were meant to add transparency to the Iowa Democratic caucus process after complaints in 2016, could muddle the results in media reporting and allow candidates to make competing claims for momentum out of Iowa. The party will release three different metrics for candidates’ support on Feb. 3 — a raw total of caucusgoer support, a second reshuffling, and the final state delegate equivalents. With a handful of Democrats jockeying at around 20 percent support in the most recent Iowa Poll, there’s a possibility that different candidates could win each measure of support.
So, that means that Elizabeth Warren in fourth place at 13.5% today might also be able to claim a decent victory. Amy Klobuchar is desperately trying to convince voters that she’s going to finish strong in Iowa but she’s currently at 8.5%, quite a drop from the top candidates. Bernie, frankly, is looking really strong right now and he is the one the others should take aim at. Pete Buttigieg is doing that this week.
He has a two-prong strategy – scare voters with Bernie’s extremism and the possibility that he’ll win the caucuses. He tells voters that Sanders won’t beat Trump in the general election. And Buttigieg is courting Trump supporters.
The campaign is spending their final days blasting texts and emails to donors raising the possibility of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders winning the nomination, but failing to beat President Donald Trump. “Bernie Sanders is raising tons of money, he’s surging in the polls, and he has dark money groups attacking his competitors,” read one recent email. “If things stay steady until the Iowa Caucuses in just nine days, Bernie Sanders could be the nominee of our party.”
He plays on the theme of turning the page, ushering in new leadership in Washington, D.C. The problem for Democrats running on new ideas, and able to think outside the box is that President Trump has already beaten them to it. He released his final ad for the Iowa caucuses Monday.
To be honest, it is a smart idea to go after Trump voters. Bernie Sanders, by the way, is also doing that. Just last night I received a text message from the Sanders campaign asking for my support. This is where I remind you that I live in Texas and have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote. Sorry, Bernie, it ain’t happening. Trump wisely ran in 2016 with moderate Democrat voters in mind, as well as Republicans and conservatives. Buttigieg understands that no candidate is going to win a national election with the support of only one party’s loyal supporters. Independents are more important than ever, too. Mayor Pete is looking for “disaffected Republicans” to drag him over the finish line.
This messaging will manifest itself both in Buttigieg schedule over his final week in Iowa — the candidate will headline events in Webster, Boone and Wapello counties, all of which flipped to Trump in 2016 — as well as their decision to headline a Fox News town hall on Sunday in Des Moines, hoping the platform on Trump’s favorite cable outlet will reach some voters who helped him win the White House. The campaign will also begin to run a slate of new digital ads aimed at building support in places Trump won in 2016, including a series of 15-second ads that will highlight five Iowa counties that Trump won in 2016 — Appanoose, Henry, Marion, Warren and Washington — and Buttigieg’s pitch to win them back. The ads feature the margin that Trump won the county by and why the campaign believes Buttigieg can win.
Reaching Trump voters is also a reason given for Buttigieg doing a town hall with Chris Wallace on Sunday. “Pete is going everywhere and meeting everyone. This is how we win.” His campaign knows that if Buttigieg doesn’t finish in the top two spots in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially if he loses to Biden, his run for president is likely over. If Biden finishes after Sanders in both Iowa and New Hampshire, as very well may happen, then there is no need for Buttigieg to continue and claim to be the moderate, more electable choice to counter Bernie’s far-left socialist agenda.
The number one goal for Democrat voters is to defeat President Trump. Buttigieg is playing the electability card. Courting Republicans, though, may not be such fertile ground for him. Trump’s support among Republicans has remained high throughout his presidency. Frankly, I’ve never seen the party so unified in its support for a Republican president. According to the latest Gallup Poll, he’s got 88% support from Republicans and 37% support from Independents.
We’ll see soon enough how this all pans out for Mayor Pete. It looks like Bernie’s to lose, though.