hotair--2020-01-21--C'mon: Did McConnell really "back down" by tweaking the rules of the impeachment trial at the last m

C'mon: Did McConnell really "back down" by tweaking the rules of the impeachment trial at the last minute?

The premise of Chris Wallace ’ s argument in the clip below is that McConnell got rolled by the centrists in his caucus , who were nervous about the draft resolution he put out on Monday .
That resolution would have crammed 24 hours of opening arguments for each side into marathon two-day sessions instead of taking three days for each like the Clinton impeachment trial did .
It also wouldn ’ t have automatically admitted the evidence gathered by the House impeachment process , another deviation from the Clinton process .
It is … not normal for Cocaine Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ d be really abnormal for him to get rolled on impeachment procedures by the very people whom he ’ s trying to protect .
His entire mission en route to acquitting Trump is to make this process as painless as possible for Republicans who are up for reelection next year in purple states .
Why the hell would he publish a draft resolution that risked causing Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and Martha McSally pain ?
Why not get their sign-off first ?
There are reports circulating this afternoon that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Portman ) who supposedly twisted McConnell ’ s arm after the draft resolution was published to say that they were uncomfortable with the accelerated process .
They understand that Trump and Senate Republicans want this over lickety split , ideally in time for Trump to give the SOTU two weeks from today as a vindicated man , but handing Democrats gift-wrapped “ cover up !
” material in the form of trial sessions that run until two in the morning isn ’ t going to make their reelection campaigns any easier .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their objections were perfectly predictable .
NBC reporter Kasie Hunt asks a good question : He ’ s not an amateur .
He knew Collins et al .
would object .
So how ’ d that draft resolution end up being released ?
I can only assume that it ’ s kabuki .
McConnell probably coordinated with Collins and the other centrists and they agreed that he ’ d release a “ cover up !
” version of the trial rules initially , as a draft .
Democrats would then spend a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the day of the trial , Cocaine Mitch would release a “ fairer ” version of the rules and everyone would start leaking that the moderates had forced his hand .
Collins ’ s office is already taking credit , in fact , telling Politico , “ She and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript [ in ] the record .
Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible.
” Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong independent voice of independent-minded Mainers that isn ’ t afraid to stand up to Mitch McConnell in the name of guaranteeing a fair trial !
McConnell probably orchestrated the whole thing .
I bet he was never sincerely planning to hold arguments for each side over two days .
And as an added benefit to him , by starting off the trial with a showy concession to “ fairness , ” it ’ ll be that much easier for him to argue after Trump is acquitted that Republicans “ bent over backwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can ’ t think of another plausible explanation for him suddenly “ backing down.
” The best I can do is to wonder whether he might have earnestly believed there was a chance they could get the trial finished by the SOTU and then was told last night definitively that there are four Republican votes to call John Bolton and Hunter Biden , which would screw up the whole schedule .
That is , maybe McConnell tried playing hardball with the timetable in the belief that if they rushed through the opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingent would feel pressure to skip witnesses altogether and just plow ahead to a verdict .
If — if — Collins made clear to him last night that that ’ s not happening , that they ’ re going to slow down for witnesses no matter how quickly opening arguments are conducted , then he might have concluded there ’ s no point in rushing things after all .
Better to go more slowly and reassure voters that Democrats are crying wolf about procedural unfairness .
But all of that is hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a firm yes or no from Collins and the rest about calling witnesses before he put out the draft resolution .
If they said yes , there ’ d have been no reason for him to push a two-day timetable for opening arguments .
The fact that he ended up doing that anyway suggests that it was a head fake from the start , a pretext for Collins to get the credit for slowing the trial down .
Now , when she votes to acquit Trump , she can tell voters back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason we had a fair trial in the first place is because of me.
” Either that or McConnell made a deal with Collins : “ I ’ ll give you an extra day of oral arguments on each side if you agree not to call witnesses.
” That might allow them to finish before the SOTU .
But I don ’ t think she would make that deal .
The polling is too strong in the opposite direction .

The premise of Chris Wallace’s argument in the clip below is that McConnell got rolled by the centrists in his caucus, who were nervous about the draft resolution he put out on Monday. That resolution would have crammed 24 hours of opening arguments for each side into marathon two-day sessions instead of taking three days for each like the Clinton impeachment trial did. It also wouldn’t have automatically admitted the evidence gathered by the House impeachment process, another deviation from the Clinton process.
It is … not normal for Cocaine Mitch to get rolled, by anyone. And it’d be really abnormal for him to get rolled on impeachment procedures by the very people whom he’s trying to protect. His entire mission en route to acquitting Trump is to make this process as painless as possible for Republicans who are up for reelection next year in purple states. Why the hell would he publish a draft resolution that risked causing Susan Collins and Cory Gardner and Martha McSally pain?
Why not get their sign-off first?
There are reports circulating this afternoon that it was indeed Collins (and Rob Portman) who supposedly twisted McConnell’s arm after the draft resolution was published to say that they were uncomfortable with the accelerated process. They understand that Trump and Senate Republicans want this over lickety split, ideally in time for Trump to give the SOTU two weeks from today as a vindicated man, but handing Democrats gift-wrapped “cover up!” material in the form of trial sessions that run until two in the morning isn’t going to make their reelection campaigns any easier. And so McConnell backed down — even though their objections were perfectly predictable. NBC reporter Kasie Hunt asks a good question:
Sen. Susan Collins played a role in changing the opening resolution Raises question: Why didn’t McConnell anticipate this and save GOP 18 hours of negative coverage? https://t.co/Qs8fL5oGTL — Kasie Hunt (@kasie) January 21, 2020
He’s not an amateur. He knew Collins et al. would object. So how’d that draft resolution end up being released?
I can only assume that it’s kabuki. McConnell probably coordinated with Collins and the other centrists and they agreed that he’d release a “cover up!” version of the trial rules initially, as a draft. Democrats would then spend a day complaining about it. Finally, on the day of the trial, Cocaine Mitch would release a “fairer” version of the rules and everyone would start leaking that the moderates had forced his hand. Collins’s office is already taking credit, in fact, telling Politico, “She and others raised concerns about the 24 hours of opening statements in 2 days and the admission of the House transcript [in] the record. Her position has been that the trial should follow the Clinton model as much as possible.” Collins ends up as the hero, the strong independent voice of independent-minded Mainers that isn’t afraid to stand up to Mitch McConnell in the name of guaranteeing a fair trial!
McConnell probably orchestrated the whole thing. I bet he was never sincerely planning to hold arguments for each side over two days. And as an added benefit to him, by starting off the trial with a showy concession to “fairness,” it’ll be that much easier for him to argue after Trump is acquitted that Republicans “bent over backwards” to be fair to Democrats.
I can’t think of another plausible explanation for him suddenly “backing down.” The best I can do is to wonder whether he might have earnestly believed there was a chance they could get the trial finished by the SOTU and then was told last night definitively that there are four Republican votes to call John Bolton and Hunter Biden, which would screw up the whole schedule. That is, maybe McConnell tried playing hardball with the timetable in the belief that if they rushed through the opening phase of the trial, the Collins contingent would feel pressure to skip witnesses altogether and just plow ahead to a verdict. If — if — Collins made clear to him last night that that’s not happening, that they’re going to slow down for witnesses no matter how quickly opening arguments are conducted, then he might have concluded there’s no point in rushing things after all. Better to go more slowly and reassure voters that Democrats are crying wolf about procedural unfairness.
But all of that is hard to believe. Surely McConnell would have asked for a firm yes or no from Collins and the rest about calling witnesses before he put out the draft resolution. If they said yes, there’d have been no reason for him to push a two-day timetable for opening arguments. The fact that he ended up doing that anyway suggests that it was a head fake from the start, a pretext for Collins to get the credit for slowing the trial down. Now, when she votes to acquit Trump, she can tell voters back home, “Hey, the only reason we had a fair trial in the first place is because of me.”
Either that or McConnell made a deal with Collins: “I’ll give you an extra day of oral arguments on each side if you agree not to call witnesses.” That might allow them to finish before the SOTU. But I don’t think she would make that deal. The polling is too strong in the opposite direction.
Here’s Wallace via Raw Story.


hotair--2020-01-23--Awkward: Mayor Pete has his "please clap" moment in Iowa

Silence is the last thing a candidate wants when he or she expects when pausing for a moment of enthusiastic approval from an audience .
None of them want a “ please clap ” moment , yet those moments happen .
Pete Buttigieg experienced his moment in Iowa this week .
Mayor Pete is making the most of the time that frontrunners like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , along with Amy Klobuchar find themselves tied up in Washington with the impeachment trial .
During a town hall event in Iowa Buttigieg spoke of the need for “ better values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking for a “ sense of hope ” , too .
Whatever he meant by his rather strange message , it wasn ’ t getting through to his audience .
The audience didn ’ t spread anything but dead silence for Buttigieg ’ s remarks .
You could have heard a pin drop .
His plea to the crowd was “ Come on !
” Who among us doesn ’ t remember Jeb Bush ’ s awkward “ Please clap ” moment in New Hampshire in 2016 ?
Even after the spectacle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matriarch Barbara Bush through snow-covered streets with the help of her walker , New Hampshire voters just really weren ’ t that into him .
The moment was one of those that makes everyone chuckle because politicians tend to take themselves so seriously .
A few humbling moments along the way are probably good for their egos .
I hear pundits say on cable television shows that Mayor Pete is drawing the biggest crowds in Iowa and that they enthusiastically welcome him .
This awkward moment may be an indication that with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days away – voter fatigue is setting in .
No one would blame Iowans if their eyes are starting to glaze over and their minds tuning out to the constant stream of presidential hopefuls that descend upon their state .
There is an interesting piece from Forbes online that shows some troubling results for Mayor Pete .
Looking at the national polls , it is clear that his star is dimming .
Once looked upon , at least for a short time , as a fresh new face and the hope of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggles to gain traction even with younger audiences .
The inaugural Forbes Under 30 Voters Survey , powered by Zogby , doesn ’ t offer up any good news for Buttigieg ’ s path forward .
Not only is his support fading but there doesn ’ t appear to be any room for growth .
His fellow Millennials aren ’ t supporting him – they are going for the four septuagenarians in the race .
The 38-year-old candidate isn ’ t catching on with his own peers .
Even worse for his chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents would consider Buttigieg as their second choice .
Sanders , Biden , Warren , and Bloomberg get those votes , too .
Clearly , Buttigieg has hit a rough patch after riding high as the number one or number two candidate in the Iowa polls not long ago .
The Zogby poll shows that younger voters still prefer Bernie , just as they did in 2016 .
The biggest problem I ’ ve seen from Buttigieg is that while he entered the race as a choice for more moderate Democrat voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than Joe Biden .
Why should voters choose Buttigieg with such limited experience when they can choose an experienced candidate who is saying all the right things to get their vote ?
Buttigieg hasn ’ t really fleshed out a reason for his candidacy as far as distinctive policies go .
On paper , he looks like the perfect candidate to capture the support of young voters and deliver a historic upset as the youngest presidential candidate ever but that hasn ’ t happened in reality .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg as a second choice – 41 % say they would go to Sanders instead .
This seems to be what we are seeing in Iowa this week , and in New Hampshire , too .
Biden and Sanders are fighting it out for a first place in the polls in both of those early states .
Sanders , for the first time , is leading over Biden in a national poll according to the latest CNN poll .
Buttigieg is raising his name recognition and that will be a boost for future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shortlist of vice-presidential choices if the Democrat candidate is a woman , though I don ’ t think either of those two things will happen .
It looks like a re-run of the 2016 Democrat primary coming to the forefront now .
Biden is the Hillary candidate for the establishment wing of the party and Sanders is the socialist that the progressives looking for a revolution want to win .
We know how that turned out last time around .
I ’ ll end with this wild mash-up of Mayor Pete and @ @

Silence is the last thing a candidate wants when he or she expects when pausing for a moment of enthusiastic approval from an audience. None of them want a “please clap” moment, yet those moments happen. Pete Buttigieg experienced his moment in Iowa this week.
Mayor Pete is making the most of the time that frontrunners like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, along with Amy Klobuchar find themselves tied up in Washington with the impeachment trial. During a town hall event in Iowa Buttigieg spoke of the need for “better values” in government. He’s looking for a “sense of hope”, too. Whatever he meant by his rather strange message, it wasn’t getting through to his audience.
“By having better hands guided by better values on those pulleys and levers of American government,” Buttigieg told the crowd. “So I’m going to look to you to spread that sense of hope to those that you know.”
The audience didn’t spread anything but dead silence for Buttigieg’s remarks. You could have heard a pin drop. His plea to the crowd was “Come on!”
Who among us doesn’t remember Jeb Bush’s awkward “Please clap” moment in New Hampshire in 2016? Even after the spectacle of dragging his elderly mom, Bush family matriarch Barbara Bush through snow-covered streets with the help of her walker, New Hampshire voters just really weren’t that into him. The moment was one of those that makes everyone chuckle because politicians tend to take themselves so seriously. A few humbling moments along the way are probably good for their egos.
I hear pundits say on cable television shows that Mayor Pete is drawing the biggest crowds in Iowa and that they enthusiastically welcome him. This awkward moment may be an indication that with the Iowa caucuses so close – just eleven days away – voter fatigue is setting in. No one would blame Iowans if their eyes are starting to glaze over and their minds tuning out to the constant stream of presidential hopefuls that descend upon their state.
There is an interesting piece from Forbes online that shows some troubling results for Mayor Pete. Looking at the national polls, it is clear that his star is dimming. Once looked upon, at least for a short time, as a fresh new face and the hope of the next generation of progressives, he now struggles to gain traction even with younger audiences. The inaugural Forbes Under 30 Voters Survey, powered by Zogby, doesn’t offer up any good news for Buttigieg’s path forward. Not only is his support fading but there doesn’t appear to be any room for growth. His fellow Millennials aren’t supporting him – they are going for the four septuagenarians in the race. The 38-year-old candidate isn’t catching on with his own peers.
Given the chance to support the first major openly gay presidential candidate, someone who would be the youngest elected president in American history, the 650 likely Democratic voters we surveyed, all age 18 to 29, placed him in a virtual tie at the bottom on the primary pack, at 3%. The top four preferred candidates of Under 30 Democrats, according to our survey: Senator Bernie Sanders (32%), former Vice President Joe Biden (16%), Senator Elizabeth Warren (9%) and New York City’s billionaire former mayor, Mike Bloomberg (9%). All of them are white and in their 70s.
Even worse for his chances, only 5% of the poll respondents would consider Buttigieg as their second choice. Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Bloomberg get those votes, too. Clearly, Buttigieg has hit a rough patch after riding high as the number one or number two candidate in the Iowa polls not long ago.
The Zogby poll shows that younger voters still prefer Bernie, just as they did in 2016.
So what happened to a candidate seemingly tailored to excite young voters? “Sanders seems to have captivated these cohorts, says John Zogby, founder and senior partner of John Zogby Strategies. “He has the name recognition from 2016 and his message is direct on college tuition, minimum wage, the environment and health care. Pete is not as well-known nor has he defined his candidacy in generational terms.”
The biggest problem I’ve seen from Buttigieg is that while he entered the race as a choice for more moderate Democrat voters, he quickly began to sound more like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than Joe Biden. Why should voters choose Buttigieg with such limited experience when they can choose an experienced candidate who is saying all the right things to get their vote? Buttigieg hasn’t really fleshed out a reason for his candidacy as far as distinctive policies go. On paper, he looks like the perfect candidate to capture the support of young voters and deliver a historic upset as the youngest presidential candidate ever but that hasn’t happened in reality. Just 8% of Biden supporters would consider Buttigieg as a second choice – 41% say they would go to Sanders instead. This seems to be what we are seeing in Iowa this week, and in New Hampshire, too. Biden and Sanders are fighting it out for a first place in the polls in both of those early states. Sanders, for the first time, is leading over Biden in a national poll according to the latest CNN poll.
Buttigieg is raising his name recognition and that will be a boost for future campaigns. He may even be on a shortlist of vice-presidential choices if the Democrat candidate is a woman, though I don’t think either of those two things will happen. It looks like a re-run of the 2016 Democrat primary coming to the forefront now. Biden is the Hillary candidate for the establishment wing of the party and Sanders is the socialist that the progressives looking for a revolution want to win. We know how that turned out last time around.
I’ll end with this wild mash-up of Mayor Pete and Jeb!


hotair--2020-01-23--Sekulow: Dismissal? We don't need a stinkin' dismissal

Sure , but would Donald Trump ’ s legal team reject a motion to dismiss at this point ?
Jay Sekulow , lead attorney for the defense , says he “ I don ’ t rule out anything , ” but this sounds very much like marching orders for his client .
Trump has champed at the bit to go on the attack ever since the House began its Ukraine-Gate impeachment , which is why Sekulow insisted last night at the end of the first day of the House presentment , “ We want to try our case.
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tomorrow night , maybe , or Saturday sometime : “ I want to let them try their case , and we want to try our case because we believe without a question the president will be acquitted , ” he told reporters .
“ There is not a doubt .
“ Those of you who know me know I don ’ t rule out anything .
… The way the procedures are set up , at this point , here ’ s what I believe is going to happen : It looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Friday .
And then I suspect that we ’ ll start on Saturday , and then we ’ ll go probably another day or two , ” Sekulow continued when asked if he was ruling out the motion to dismiss .
The indication from Trump ’ s legal team that it will not try to dismiss the articles comes after Senate Republicans did not include a built-in motion to dismiss in their rules resolution .
The Clinton rules , unlike the current resolution , included language to force a motion to dismiss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Actually , does this comes from Trump ?
He has spent most of the last three months demanding a forum to make his rebuttal case , but Trump has sent out contradictory signals on this lately .
Less than two weeks ago , The Hill points out , Trump tweeted in support of a dismissal rather than contest the House ’ s impeachment : Sekulow is making a virtue out of a necessity in this case .
The Hill also notes in the same article that Senate Republicans don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , mindful of the need to at least follow form in the high-stakes forum of an impeachment : This is mostly theater in another sense .
To quote a celebrated American politician on the futility of accountability , “ What difference at this point does it make ?
” House Democrats had three months to themselves to make a very public case for impeachment , and they have the Senate floor for three full days unopposed to amplify it .
To dismiss now would be pointless .
The only advantage Trump has is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control Senate Republicans can exercise in a trial and in the uninterrupted rebuttal case his legal team can present with the media forced to cover it .
Why bail out before that point ?
And why bail out at all , when the outcome of this threadbare case is already beyond doubt ?
Trump wants to make his case , which is both reasonable and within form , and then the Senate can acquit him , which is the outcome House Democrats knew they ’ d get when they set out to impeach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No need to interrupt the predictable unfolding of this nonsense .

Sure, but would Donald Trump’s legal team reject a motion to dismiss at this point? Jay Sekulow, lead attorney for the defense, says he “I don’t rule out anything,” but this sounds very much like marching orders for his client. Trump has champed at the bit to go on the attack ever since the House began its Ukraine-Gate impeachment, which is why Sekulow insisted last night at the end of the first day of the House presentment, “We want to try our case.”
And he’ll get the chance … tomorrow night, maybe, or Saturday sometime:
Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s lawyer, said after today’s trial that he is prepared to point out errors in the presented case against the president: “At the end of the day I believe without question the President of the United States will be acquitted” https://t.co/hoTTT8ESmN pic.twitter.com/k4EOkiHnCu — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 23, 2020
“I want to let them try their case, and we want to try our case because we believe without a question the president will be acquitted,” he told reporters. “There is not a doubt. “Those of you who know me know I don’t rule out anything. … The way the procedures are set up, at this point, here’s what I believe is going to happen: It looks like they’re going to spend tomorrow and Friday. And then I suspect that we’ll start on Saturday, and then we’ll go probably another day or two,” Sekulow continued when asked if he was ruling out the motion to dismiss. The indication from Trump’s legal team that it will not try to dismiss the articles comes after Senate Republicans did not include a built-in motion to dismiss in their rules resolution. The Clinton rules, unlike the current resolution, included language to force a motion to dismiss after opening arguments and questions from senators.
Actually, does this comes from Trump? He has spent most of the last three months demanding a forum to make his rebuttal case, but Trump has sent out contradictory signals on this lately. Less than two weeks ago, The Hill points out, Trump tweeted in support of a dismissal rather than contest the House’s impeachment:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216448547777908737
Sekulow is making a virtue out of a necessity in this case. The Hill also notes in the same article that Senate Republicans don’t have the votes to carry a dismissal vote, mindful of the need to at least follow form in the high-stakes forum of an impeachment:
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told reporters after Trump’s comments that the Senate Republican caucus doesn’t have the votes to dismiss the articles. “I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. … Certainly there aren’t 51 votes for a motion to dismiss,” Blunt, the No. 4 Senate Republican, told reporters after a closed-door leadership meeting.
This is mostly theater in another sense. To quote a celebrated American politician on the futility of accountability, “What difference at this point does it make?” House Democrats had three months to themselves to make a very public case for impeachment, and they have the Senate floor for three full days unopposed to amplify it. To dismiss now would be pointless. The only advantage Trump has is still ahead of him, in the control Senate Republicans can exercise in a trial and in the uninterrupted rebuttal case his legal team can present with the media forced to cover it.
Why bail out before that point? And why bail out at all, when the outcome of this threadbare case is already beyond doubt? Trump wants to make his case, which is both reasonable and within form, and then the Senate can acquit him, which is the outcome House Democrats knew they’d get when they set out to impeach Trump over a delay in Ukraine aid. No need to interrupt the predictable unfolding of this nonsense.


hotair--2020-01-23--Rouhani: Who, us? We don't want any nuclear weapons

This little tidbit out of Iran came out yesterday and if nothing else , it should be good for a few chuckles .
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani released a statement clearly directed at the United Nations in general and most of our European allies in particular .
As the UN security council considers new or renewed sanctions on Rouhani ’ s nation , he declared that Iran has “ never sought nuclear weapons ” and would never do so , with or without any sort of deal with the United States in place .
As an uncle of mine used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other one .
It ’ s got bells on it .
( The Hill ) Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday his country will never seek nuclear weapons , with or without a treaty in place , and urged European nations not to violate the 2015 deal that President Trump pulled the U.S. out of in 2018 .
“ We have never sought nuclear weapons … With or without the nuclear deal , we will never seek nuclear weapon , ” Rouhani said , according to Reuters , which cited the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European powers will be responsible for the consequences of violating the pact , ” he reportedly added .
What ’ s going on here seems fairly obvious .
Rouhani is trying to weasel his way out from under any new sanctions and trying to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe by invoking President Trump ’ s withdrawal from the Obama administration ’ s nuclear deal .
Of course , it ’ s no longer clear that the sanctions will even go into place given Russia and China ’ s recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pretend that Rouhani ’ s claims are plausible since he managed to deliver them with a straight face .
If Iran has never sought nuclear weapons and “ will never seek ” them under any circumstances , how about just opening up the doors and allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors free access to all of your facilities ?
That would end the discussion once and for all .
Nobody is objecting to Iran developing peaceful nuclear technology to produce energy .
( Though why you need to invest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sitting on an ocean of oil is something of a mystery . )
If you give the IAEA inspectors free rein to all facilities and they find zero evidence of tactical weapons development , we don ’ t even need a deal and the entire subject can be dropped .
Of course , that ’ s not going to happen because Rouhani is lying and his words don ’ t match even his most recent actions .
It was literally only four days ago when he threatened to stop cooperating with the IAEA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really pure as the driven snow and not working on a nuclear weapons program , what ’ s the harm letting them do their job ?
On top of that , less than three months ago , Iran ’ s ambassador to the IAEA announced that they had begun injecting uranium gas into centrifuges in the presence of United Nations inspectors .
There is no practical application for that type of enrichment except for use in weapons .
How stupid does this guy think we are ?
This entire dog and pony show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are either lying or they are dangerously stupid .
They have everything to gain and virtually nothing to lose by allowing the inspectors into all of their facilities if there ’ s nothing to hide .
They would avoid all manner of sanctions and the west would mostly leave them alone .
( Well , except for rooting out their terrorist activities abroad . )
But it ’ s obvious that they do have something to hide .
It ’ s simply not credible to accept the idea that they would pretend to @ @ @ @ @

This little tidbit out of Iran came out yesterday and if nothing else, it should be good for a few chuckles. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani released a statement clearly directed at the United Nations in general and most of our European allies in particular. As the UN security council considers new or renewed sanctions on Rouhani’s nation, he declared that Iran has “never sought nuclear weapons” and would never do so, with or without any sort of deal with the United States in place.
As an uncle of mine used to be fond of saying, pull the other one. It’s got bells on it. (The Hill)
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday his country will never seek nuclear weapons, with or without a treaty in place, and urged European nations not to violate the 2015 deal that President Trump pulled the U.S. out of in 2018. “We have never sought nuclear weapons … With or without the nuclear deal, we will never seek nuclear weapon,” Rouhani said, according to Reuters, which cited the president’s Iranian website. “The European powers will be responsible for the consequences of violating the pact,” he reportedly added.
What’s going on here seems fairly obvious. Rouhani is trying to weasel his way out from under any new sanctions and trying to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe by invoking President Trump’s withdrawal from the Obama administration’s nuclear deal. Of course, it’s no longer clear that the sanctions will even go into place given Russia and China’s recent coziness with the Iranians.
But let’s pretend that Rouhani’s claims are plausible since he managed to deliver them with a straight face. If Iran has never sought nuclear weapons and “will never seek” them under any circumstances, how about just opening up the doors and allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors free access to all of your facilities? That would end the discussion once and for all.
Nobody is objecting to Iran developing peaceful nuclear technology to produce energy. (Though why you need to invest in that expensive technology when you’re sitting on an ocean of oil is something of a mystery.) If you give the IAEA inspectors free rein to all facilities and they find zero evidence of tactical weapons development, we don’t even need a deal and the entire subject can be dropped.
Of course, that’s not going to happen because Rouhani is lying and his words don’t match even his most recent actions. It was literally only four days ago when he threatened to stop cooperating with the IAEA inspectors entirely. If you’re really pure as the driven snow and not working on a nuclear weapons program, what’s the harm letting them do their job?
On top of that, less than three months ago, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA announced that they had begun injecting uranium gas into centrifuges in the presence of United Nations inspectors. There is no practical application for that type of enrichment except for use in weapons. How stupid does this guy think we are?
This entire dog and pony show is ridiculous. Rouhani and his minions are either lying or they are dangerously stupid. They have everything to gain and virtually nothing to lose by allowing the inspectors into all of their facilities if there’s nothing to hide. They would avoid all manner of sanctions and the west would mostly leave them alone. (Well, except for rooting out their terrorist activities abroad.) But it’s obvious that they do have something to hide. It’s simply not credible to accept the idea that they would pretend to have a weapons program.


hotair--2020-01-23--Here come the birth tourism restrictions

Well , that didn ’ t take long at all .
It was only a few days ago when we learned that the Trump administration was considering imposing restrictions on birth tourism , the practice of pregnant women with no attachments or allegiance to the United States coming here to give birth so their child can have American citizenship .
At the time , I raised a number of questions about how that might work and what challenges such a rule might face .
I also assumed that it would take some time for the White House to hammer all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show how wrong you can be .
The new rules are being rolled out today and are expected to go into effect tomorrow .
Unfortunately , most of the questions I posed still don ’ t appear to be answered .
The Trump administration is coming out with new visa restrictions aimed at restricting “ birth tourism , ” in which women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport .
The State Department planned to publicize the rules Thursday , according to two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity .
The rules would make it more difficult for pregnant women to travel on tourist visas .
In one draft of the regulations , they would have to clear an additional hurdle before obtaining the visas — convincing a consular officer that they have another legitimate reason to come to the U.S .
If the State Department releases the full text of the rules changes later today we ’ ll update this article .
For the time being , however , the leaked details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What we ’ ve learned thus far suggests that B-1 or B-2 visa application interviews may soon include questions about whether female applicants are pregnant .
Consular officers don ’ t currently ask that question and it ’ s not clear if such an inquiry would be challenged under personal/medical privacy claims .
Further , what if the woman lies about being pregnant and just claims to be a bit overweight ?
Immigration officials are going to get themselves into sticky situations if they have to make a judgment call about a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at her .
Of course , we ’ re not actually required to issue a visa to anyone , but it ’ s expected that the process will be administered in a fair and equal fashion .
If we just start denying visas to every woman who looks like she might be carrying a child , the end goal may be accomplished , but the complaints ( and likely lawsuits ) will follow quickly .
Perhaps we ’ re approaching this from the wrong direction .
Stopping pregnant foreign women from traveling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these purposes , in addition to being difficult and complicated , is predicated on the understanding that if she succeeds and delivers her baby here , the child is automatically a citizen .
But we already make exceptions to the federal law covering these situations .
For example , children born to diplomats working in the United States are not granted automatic citizenship .
The reason for that is found in Title 8 , Section 1401 .
That code states that persons “ born in the United States , and subject to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens of the United States at birth.
” Foreign diplomats aren ’ t considered to be “ subject to the jurisdiction ” of the United States .
So what if we attempt to expand the interpretation of that phrase to include tourists and business travelers ?
Except in cases of serious crimes , we generally just send such travelers back to their own countries if they get into trouble .
Failing that , we could amend the law to include a phrase about having allegiance to the United States and no other country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ d have to see the GOP take back the House majority and keep the White House to do that and it would have to be able to survive a constitutional court challenge .
But it ’ s worth thinking about .
In any event , I don ’ t expect to see this resolved any time soon .
The moment the new rules go into effect tomorrow and the first woman is denied a business or tourist visa , they will be heading to court and asking for an injunction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And assuming they shop around for the right judge , they ’ ll probably get one .

Well, that didn’t take long at all. It was only a few days ago when we learned that the Trump administration was considering imposing restrictions on birth tourism, the practice of pregnant women with no attachments or allegiance to the United States coming here to give birth so their child can have American citizenship. At the time, I raised a number of questions about how that might work and what challenges such a rule might face. I also assumed that it would take some time for the White House to hammer all of this out.
It just goes to show how wrong you can be. The new rules are being rolled out today and are expected to go into effect tomorrow. Unfortunately, most of the questions I posed still don’t appear to be answered.
The Trump administration is coming out with new visa restrictions aimed at restricting “birth tourism,” in which women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport. The State Department planned to publicize the rules Thursday, according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The rules would make it more difficult for pregnant women to travel on tourist visas. In one draft of the regulations, they would have to clear an additional hurdle before obtaining the visas — convincing a consular officer that they have another legitimate reason to come to the U.S.
If the State Department releases the full text of the rules changes later today we’ll update this article. For the time being, however, the leaked details are a bit thin on specifics.
What we’ve learned thus far suggests that B-1 or B-2 visa application interviews may soon include questions about whether female applicants are pregnant. Consular officers don’t currently ask that question and it’s not clear if such an inquiry would be challenged under personal/medical privacy claims. Further, what if the woman lies about being pregnant and just claims to be a bit overweight? Immigration officials are going to get themselves into sticky situations if they have to make a judgment call about a woman’s maternity status just by looking at her.
Of course, we’re not actually required to issue a visa to anyone, but it’s expected that the process will be administered in a fair and equal fashion. If we just start denying visas to every woman who looks like she might be carrying a child, the end goal may be accomplished, but the complaints (and likely lawsuits) will follow quickly.
Perhaps we’re approaching this from the wrong direction. Stopping pregnant foreign women from traveling to the United States to give birth for these purposes, in addition to being difficult and complicated, is predicated on the understanding that if she succeeds and delivers her baby here, the child is automatically a citizen. But we already make exceptions to the federal law covering these situations. For example, children born to diplomats working in the United States are not granted automatic citizenship.
The reason for that is found in Title 8, Section 1401. That code states that persons “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Foreign diplomats aren’t considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
So what if we attempt to expand the interpretation of that phrase to include tourists and business travelers? Except in cases of serious crimes, we generally just send such travelers back to their own countries if they get into trouble. Failing that, we could amend the law to include a phrase about having allegiance to the United States and no other country or something like that. Of course, we’d have to see the GOP take back the House majority and keep the White House to do that and it would have to be able to survive a constitutional court challenge. But it’s worth thinking about.
In any event, I don’t expect to see this resolved any time soon. The moment the new rules go into effect tomorrow and the first woman is denied a business or tourist visa, they will be heading to court and asking for an injunction putting the new rules on hold. And assuming they shop around for the right judge, they’ll probably get one.


hotair--2020-01-22--The day the peanut died

The day the peanut died

To cleanse the palate , it feels like the right moment culturally for Planters to finally phase out Mr. Peanut .
This is a populist era .
Not for us , a top-hat-sporting , monocle-wearing peanut aristocrat .
The new Mr. Peanut should be a peanut of the people .
Blindly trustful of authoritarian leaders .
Skeptical of expertise and vaccines .
Big — big — into QAnon .
This website does and always will support rapacious capitalism , though , and so today we mourn the original , a peanut-man who wasn ’ t above selling the broken bodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get rich .
The occasion for this dumb gimmick is Planters ’ upcoming Super Bowl ad , which features Wesley Snipes ( ! )
and Matt Walsh watching Mr. Peanut plummet to his fiery death after a horrific car accident .
Every fall ad agencies face the momentous challenge of designing Super Bowl spots for their clients that will stand out from the pack on a day when nearly every ad is a standout .
Kudos to whoever it was who thought , “ We ’ re going to literally incinerate the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on TV.
” “ And we ’ re going to get Wesley Snipes to be in it .
Just because.
” The teaser ad below served its purpose , though , by getting people on social media to start chattering about what the angle is .
Is Planters rebranding with a new and woker mascot , possibly the grieving Mrs. Peanut ?
Or is Mr. Peanut ’ s manner of death just a cheeky way to roll out a new “ roasted ” product ?
Or are they doing some sort of full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start specializing in a product for which they ’ re not at all known ?
My money ’ s on “ new product.
” They ’ re going to have Snipes and Walsh visit the crash site and be so overcome by the delicious savory aroma that they end up spreading Mr. Peanut ’ s mortal remains on toast and devouring him .
Roasted peanut butter , mm mmmm .
( He ’ s been “ creamyated , ” says Stephen “ redsteeze ” Miller . )
Why shouldn ’ t this insane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logical conclusion ?

To cleanse the palate, it feels like the right moment culturally for Planters to finally phase out Mr. Peanut. This is a populist era. Not for us, a top-hat-sporting, monocle-wearing peanut aristocrat.
The new Mr. Peanut should be a peanut of the people. Blindly trustful of authoritarian leaders. Skeptical of expertise and vaccines. Big — big — into QAnon.
This website does and always will support rapacious capitalism, though, and so today we mourn the original, a peanut-man who wasn’t above selling the broken bodies of his comrades for human consumption to get rich.
It is with heavy hearts that we confirm that Mr. Peanut has died at 104. In the ultimate selfless act, he sacrificed himself to save his friends when they needed him most. Please pay your respects with #RIPeanut pic.twitter.com/VFnEFod4Zp — Mr. Peanut (@MrPeanut) January 22, 2020
The occasion for this dumb gimmick is Planters’ upcoming Super Bowl ad, which features Wesley Snipes(!) and Matt Walsh watching Mr. Peanut plummet to his fiery death after a horrific car accident. Every fall ad agencies face the momentous challenge of designing Super Bowl spots for their clients that will stand out from the pack on a day when nearly every ad is a standout. Kudos to whoever it was who thought, “We’re going to literally incinerate the corporate mascot and hold a funeral for him on TV.”
“And we’re going to get Wesley Snipes to be in it. Just because.”
The teaser ad below served its purpose, though, by getting people on social media to start chattering about what the angle is. Is Planters rebranding with a new and woker mascot, possibly the grieving Mrs. Peanut? Or is Mr. Peanut’s manner of death just a cheeky way to roll out a new “roasted” product?
Or are they doing some sort of full corporate reboot, in which they inexplicably start specializing in a product for which they’re not at all known?
My money’s on “new product.” They’re going to have Snipes and Walsh visit the crash site and be so overcome by the delicious savory aroma that they end up spreading Mr. Peanut’s mortal remains on toast and devouring him. Roasted peanut butter, mm mmmm. (He’s been “creamyated,” says Stephen “redsteeze” Miller.) Why shouldn’t this insane concept be carried out to its insane logical conclusion?


hotair--2020-01-22--Biden: A witness trade involving Hunter for John Bolton would turn the process into a "farce"

Music to Mitch McConnell ’ s ears .
Between this and the disapproving comments about witness reciprocity from Schumer and Schiff , it ’ s getting harder for the centrists in the GOP caucus to justify calling Bolton .
After all , what Susan Collins and the rest want from Democrats in return for agreeing to subpoena Bolton is credit .
Credit for being fair , sort of .
Credit for being independent .
Credit for having done the right thing by trying to get to the truth of Trump ’ s intentions towards Ukraine .
That credit is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof of their independence and integrity .
Now here ’ s the Senate minority leader , the lead impeachment manager , and the leading Democratic candidate for president all suggesting on the same day that approving a Bolton-for-Hunter deal won ’ t get Collins et al .
any credit after all .
They ’ ll be attacked anyway as Trump ’ s lackeys , muddying the waters about whether the president engaged in misconduct by introducing the Bidens ’ ethical scruples into the mix , even though Bolton-for-Hunter is the best centrist Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOPer who agreed to subpoena Bolton without giving Trump his own pick of witnesses to call would be attacked as a traitor by the right .
It doesn ’ t do a RINO any good to pander to moderate voters at the cost of enraging their base .
So if Collins can ’ t afford to call Bolton without calling Hunter but she also can ’ t call Bolton without being attacked by Democrats for also calling Hunter , what ’ s left for her except to say , “ To hell with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree to her own conditions for a fair trial so maybe she ’ ll just end up doing what McConnell has wanted all along and decline to call any witnesses .
Dems don ’ t want Hunter on the stand ?
Fine , no problem .
Then no Bolton either .
Proceed to deliberations .
I don ’ t think Schumer ’ s worried about that , though .
As I said in the earlier post , he doesn ’ t need to make any deal with Collins to achieve an acceptable outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decides not to call any witnesses because Dems won ’ t give her cover on Hunter , fine .
Then lefties can proceed with attacking her for participating in a cover up and being a stooge for Trump .
If she decides to call both Bolton and Hunter in the interest of looking “ diligent ” to voters back home , that ’ s also fine for Dems .
They don ’ t need to provide a single vote on the question of whether to call Hunter .
In the end they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins ’ s help and then they can turn right around and slam her for doing Trump ’ s bidding by voting with Republicans to call Biden .
If they ’ re lucky , Bolton will do some damage to the president in his testimony *and* Democrats will make enough hay about Collins ’ s willingness to subpoena Biden that they end up damaging her next fall .
Either way , they ’ re not going to make it easy for her .
Of course , Joe Biden ’ s running a risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t testify .
Aaron Blake of WaPo imagines how testimony from Hunter or even from Joe himself could work to his advantage : Biden is , as mentioned , on the eve of asking voters for the Democratic nomination .
What better argument to make to them than that he took one for the team — that he went to Capitol Hill and withstood Republicans ’ questions in the name of getting the fuller version of the truth from Bolton ?
If Biden thinks he can handle himself and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an argument to be made that it could accrue to his benefit .
Add on top of that the fact that it ’ s still nine-plus months until the election — time during which lesser subplots in the Ukraine matter will inevitably fade — and maybe there ’ s an argument that there ’ s more upside in the short term ( the primaries ) than the long term ( the general election ) for Biden .
If instead Joe is reluctant to that , Trump will spin it as proof that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the same argument Democrats have made repeatedly about his refusal to let the likes of Bolton and Mulvaney testify .
What ’ s the less risky option for Biden , to go answer questions in a deposition and hope that his testimony doesn ’ t come off as incriminating or to refuse to dignify the accusations ( unless subpoenaed ) and hope that people don ’ t conclude from his silence that he ’ s guilty of something ?
Here ’ s Biden , along with a little bonus from George Conway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Lincoln Project ” PAC , turning up the heat on Collins in Maine .

Music to Mitch McConnell’s ears. Between this and the disapproving comments about witness reciprocity from Schumer and Schiff, it’s getting harder for the centrists in the GOP caucus to justify calling Bolton.
After all, what Susan Collins and the rest want from Democrats in return for agreeing to subpoena Bolton is credit. Credit for being fair, sort of. Credit for being independent. Credit for having done the right thing by trying to get to the truth of Trump’s intentions towards Ukraine. That credit is something they can tout to swing voters as proof of their independence and integrity.
Now here’s the Senate minority leader, the lead impeachment manager, and the leading Democratic candidate for president all suggesting on the same day that approving a Bolton-for-Hunter deal won’t get Collins et al. any credit after all. They’ll be attacked anyway as Trump’s lackeys, muddying the waters about whether the president engaged in misconduct by introducing the Bidens’ ethical scruples into the mix, even though Bolton-for-Hunter is the best centrist Republicans can do realistically for Democrats. Any GOPer who agreed to subpoena Bolton without giving Trump his own pick of witnesses to call would be attacked as a traitor by the right. It doesn’t do a RINO any good to pander to moderate voters at the cost of enraging their base.
So if Collins can’t afford to call Bolton without calling Hunter but she also can’t call Bolton without being attacked by Democrats for also calling Hunter, what’s left for her except to say, “To hell with it”? Democrats won’t agree to her own conditions for a fair trial so maybe she’ll just end up doing what McConnell has wanted all along and decline to call any witnesses. Dems don’t want Hunter on the stand? Fine, no problem. Then no Bolton either. Proceed to deliberations.
I don’t think Schumer’s worried about that, though. As I said in the earlier post, he doesn’t need to make any deal with Collins to achieve an acceptable outcome for his party here. If she decides not to call any witnesses because Dems won’t give her cover on Hunter, fine. Then lefties can proceed with attacking her for participating in a cover up and being a stooge for Trump. If she decides to call both Bolton and Hunter in the interest of looking “diligent” to voters back home, that’s also fine for Dems. They don’t need to provide a single vote on the question of whether to call Hunter. In the end they’ll get Bolton’s testimony with Collins’s help and then they can turn right around and slam her for doing Trump’s bidding by voting with Republicans to call Biden. If they’re lucky, Bolton will do some damage to the president in his testimony *and* Democrats will make enough hay about Collins’s willingness to subpoena Biden that they end up damaging her next fall.
Either way, they’re not going to make it easy for her.
Of course, Joe Biden’s running a risk of his own by insisting that Hunter shouldn’t testify. Aaron Blake of WaPo imagines how testimony from Hunter or even from Joe himself could work to his advantage:
Biden is, as mentioned, on the eve of asking voters for the Democratic nomination. What better argument to make to them than that he took one for the team — that he went to Capitol Hill and withstood Republicans’ questions in the name of getting the fuller version of the truth from Bolton? If Biden thinks he can handle himself and that he has nothing to hide, there’s an argument to be made that it could accrue to his benefit. Add on top of that the fact that it’s still nine-plus months until the election — time during which lesser subplots in the Ukraine matter will inevitably fade — and maybe there’s an argument that there’s more upside in the short term (the primaries) than the long term (the general election) for Biden.
If instead Joe is reluctant to that, Trump will spin it as proof that he and Hunter have something to hide — the same argument Democrats have made repeatedly about his refusal to let the likes of Bolton and Mulvaney testify. What’s the less risky option for Biden, to go answer questions in a deposition and hope that his testimony doesn’t come off as incriminating or to refuse to dignify the accusations (unless subpoenaed) and hope that people don’t conclude from his silence that he’s guilty of something?
Here’s Biden, along with a little bonus from George Conway’s and Rick Wilson’s “Lincoln Project” PAC, turning up the heat on Collins in Maine.


hotair--2020-01-22--American corporations are inadvertently funding Russian propaganda

The NY Times published an opinion piece today which points out that Russian propaganda is getting a helping hand from some US corporations .
Before you tune out , this is not another conspiracy theory about Russia ’ s overwhelming influence on social media .
The author is talking about Kremlin propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik .
RT ( formerly Russia Today ) is such a dumpster fire of Russian propaganda that it was required to register as a foreign agent by the Department of Justice .
This is the network that gave a puff-piece interview to two FSB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in England .
It turns out the network ’ s propaganda is being partly supported by US ads : The top programmatic advertiser on Mr. Putin ’ s Sputnik News site ?
The Oracle of Omaha , Warren Buffett , through ads bought on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway ’ s Geico insurance .
Sputnik News peddles Kremlin propaganda on topics such as Syria and straightfacedly reports Mr. Putin ’ s denials of interfering in other countries ’ elections .
Geico is hardly alone in financing propaganda through what ’ s called “ programmatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automatically by algorithms , without judgment based on the content or journalistic standards of the websites .
Mr. Putin ’ s leading disinformation arm , RT.com , attracted programmatic advertising from 477 companies and brands over a recent six-month period , according to data collected by Moat , an advertising technology service .
Among RT.com ’ s top 20 programmatic advertisers : Amazon , PayPal , Walmart and Kroger .
For Sputnik , its 196 programmatic advertisers in addition to Geico included Best Buy , ETrade and Progressive Insurance .
The piece explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to advertise on RT , this is the outcome of some algorithm which targets ads based upon the audience metrics .
So how much did the sites earn from the ads ?
The author says it ’ s hard to know but “ RT.com earned $ 5.1 million in programmatic revenues over the past six months , with its smaller Kremlin cousin Sputnik News earning less.
” That ’ s total , so we can ’ t say what portion of that came from American companies .
Admittedly , the author has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a company that rates the reliability of news organizations .
Obviously , suggesting companies do more to avoid advertising on RT could result in more companies turning to his firm for help .
Still , I think he makes a good point : Advertisers and ad agencies that limit their programmatic ads to trustworthy news sites do more than keep their brands safe : They also return advertising revenues to news publishers that badly need the support .
If this approach catches on , Mr. Putin will just have to spend more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote its disinformation .
I generally don ’ t support attempts to punish corporations for where and how they advertise , but that only extends to fellow Americans , not to foreign adversaries .
Why would any American company , given a choice , agree to prop up Kremlin-directed outlets designed to discredit America and its allies in the free world .
It shouldn ’ t be that hard to rule out RT when making ad buys on social media sites .

The NY Times published an opinion piece today which points out that Russian propaganda is getting a helping hand from some US corporations. Before you tune out, this is not another conspiracy theory about Russia’s overwhelming influence on social media. The author is talking about Kremlin propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik.
RT (formerly Russia Today) is such a dumpster fire of Russian propaganda that it was required to register as a foreign agent by the Department of Justice. This is the network that gave a puff-piece interview to two FSB agents who attempted to assassinate Sergei Skripal in England. It turns out the network’s propaganda is being partly supported by US ads:
The top programmatic advertiser on Mr. Putin’s Sputnik News site? The Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, through ads bought on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway’s Geico insurance. Sputnik News peddles Kremlin propaganda on topics such as Syria and straightfacedly reports Mr. Putin’s denials of interfering in other countries’ elections. Geico is hardly alone in financing propaganda through what’s called “programmatic advertising,” ads that are placed automatically by algorithms, without judgment based on the content or journalistic standards of the websites. Mr. Putin’s leading disinformation arm, RT.com, attracted programmatic advertising from 477 companies and brands over a recent six-month period, according to data collected by Moat, an advertising technology service. Among RT.com’s top 20 programmatic advertisers: Amazon, PayPal, Walmart and Kroger. For Sputnik, its 196 programmatic advertisers in addition to Geico included Best Buy, ETrade and Progressive Insurance.
The piece explains that none of these companies are choosing to advertise on RT, this is the outcome of some algorithm which targets ads based upon the audience metrics. So how much did the sites earn from the ads? The author says it’s hard to know but “RT.com earned $5.1 million in programmatic revenues over the past six months, with its smaller Kremlin cousin Sputnik News earning less.” That’s total, so we can’t say what portion of that came from American companies.
Admittedly, the author has a horse in this race. He works at a company that rates the reliability of news organizations. Obviously, suggesting companies do more to avoid advertising on RT could result in more companies turning to his firm for help. Still, I think he makes a good point:
Advertisers and ad agencies that limit their programmatic ads to trustworthy news sites do more than keep their brands safe: They also return advertising revenues to news publishers that badly need the support. If this approach catches on, Mr. Putin will just have to spend more of his government’s own money to promote its disinformation.
I generally don’t support attempts to punish corporations for where and how they advertise, but that only extends to fellow Americans, not to foreign adversaries. Why would any American company, given a choice, agree to prop up Kremlin-directed outlets designed to discredit America and its allies in the free world. It shouldn’t be that hard to rule out RT when making ad buys on social media sites.


hotair--2020-01-22--Dems must end this sham impeachment, says ... former Clinton adviser?

Count Mark Penn among those unimpressed by the House Democrats ’ impeachment of Donald Trump .
Penn , who worked as Bill Clinton ’ s pollster during the 1998-9 impeachment and later on Hillary Clinton ’ s Senate and 2008 presidential campaigns , blasts Adam Schiff as a political hitman for Democrats angry over Donald Trump ’ s win in 2016 .
Americans may not like Trump or even the phone call to Volodymyr Zelensky , but Penn argues that it doesn ’ t come close to a reason to reverse an election and remove a president .
In an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Democrats may pay a steep price for their abuse of the system , but that the institutional credibility of Congress will take even more damage : There is definitely something about all this that the American public doesn ’ t like , that reasonable people can judge as wrong , but that is quite different than removing a president from office through a process designed to use impeachment as a political vehicle .
Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) was not a truth-seeker — he is on tape soliciting naked pictures of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump over the last three years .
He was simply a weapon jamming through impeachment and ignoring fair procedure or legal process .
The last few days in the media have underscored this bias with the release of material from Lev Parnas , who — like Christopher Steele and his dossier before him , or like Michael Avenatti , now out on bail — is a questionable character with obviously wild claims for which he has no proof , including claims against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a political dirty trick to release his information and him on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial , and this act alone would have gotten any real prosecutor ’ s case thrown out .
The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is , in my view , wholly without merit .
Despite endless allegations of lawlessness , this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception .
Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts .
President Obama and his attorney general , Eric Holder , frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress , a resolution he promptly ignored .
That is precisely the same point made by Jay Sekulow yesterday during the presentment of the defense case at the Senate trial .
Moreover , Sekulow noted , both Schiff and Jerrold Nadler defended the refusal of Obama and Holder to comply with subpoenas from the House at that time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Furious nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt .
That issue had a body count to go along with it , too , and clear violations of federal gun laws to boot .
Penn warns that we are about to see George Washington ’ s worst nightmare come true if this proceeds : Washington does indeed seem particularly prescient about this moment in history .
While he was at the time concerned by rising factions based on geographical interests rather than ideological or strictly partisan point-scoring , his farewell address warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state , with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations .
Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party , generally .
This spirit , unfortunately , is inseparable from our nature , having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind .
It exists under different shapes in all governments , more or less stifled , controlled , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the popular form , it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy .
The alternate domination of one faction over another , sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension , which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities , is itself a frightful despotism .
But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism .
The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chief of some prevailing faction , more able or more fortunate than his competitors , turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty .
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind ( which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight ) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it .
It serves always to distract the public councils and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms , kindles the animosity of one part against another , foments occasionally riot and insurrection .
It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption , which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions .
Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another .
In my column today at The Week , I argue that we ’ re almost at the debacle Washington predicts here : Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trial outcome is all but certain .
Of more concern , however , should be the damage done to the legislative branch over the last two decades .
This poisonous atmosphere of majoritarian flexing has transformed Congress from a co-equal branch to either the wingman or the executioner of the president .
With this partisan war as context , succeeding House majorities will feel freer to impeach any president of the opposing party on any pretext , especially by launching constant investigations that encroach on the executive ’ s co-equal status and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We will either have parliamentary systems with the executive under the thumb of the House , or presidencies entirely unencumbered by an independent legislature .
At some point , we need leadership on Capitol Hill that restores its own prerogatives while respecting the prerogatives of the executive .
This would benefit both parties in the long run , and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy .
Unfortunately , after two decades in the trenches of the Democrat-Republican war , there doesn ’ t seem to be any leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of demand from anyone else to produce them .
To prevent this outcome , Penn insists that Democrats need to withdraw their articles of impeachment .
Let the voters decide whether Trump ’ s behavior disqualifies him from another term , as setting this precedent would be far more damaging than anything alleged in the impeachment .
This is nothing more than brute-force majoritarianism , and the Senate trial will be more of the same .
If Democrats insist on seeing this through , however , Penn advises that the Senate needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ get back to the business of the country.
” That indeed would be a nice change of pace from the past twelve months .

Count Mark Penn among those unimpressed by the House Democrats’ impeachment of Donald Trump. Penn, who worked as Bill Clinton’s pollster during the 1998-9 impeachment and later on Hillary Clinton’s Senate and 2008 presidential campaigns, blasts Adam Schiff as a political hitman for Democrats angry over Donald Trump’s win in 2016. Americans may not like Trump or even the phone call to Volodymyr Zelensky, but Penn argues that it doesn’t come close to a reason to reverse an election and remove a president.
In an essay for The Hill, Penn argues that Democrats may pay a steep price for their abuse of the system, but that the institutional credibility of Congress will take even more damage:
There is definitely something about all this that the American public doesn’t like, that reasonable people can judge as wrong, but that is quite different than removing a president from office through a process designed to use impeachment as a political vehicle. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was not a truth-seeker — he is on tape soliciting naked pictures of Trump, and he repeatedly exaggerated evidence against Trump over the last three years. He was simply a weapon jamming through impeachment and ignoring fair procedure or legal process. The last few days in the media have underscored this bias with the release of material from Lev Parnas, who — like Christopher Steele and his dossier before him, or like Michael Avenatti, now out on bail — is a questionable character with obviously wild claims for which he has no proof, including claims against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr, whom Parnas has never met. It was a political dirty trick to release his information and him on the eve of the Senate impeachment trial, and this act alone would have gotten any real prosecutor’s case thrown out. The second article of impeachment — obstruction of the House by the assertion of executive privilege — is, in my view, wholly without merit. Despite endless allegations of lawlessness, this administration has implemented every court ruling it has lost without exception. Asserting executive privilege is not the same as paying hush money or suborning perjury, as was alleged in the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts. President Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder, frequently asserted privilege in response to investigations and Holder was even held in contempt of Congress, a resolution he promptly ignored.
That is precisely the same point made by Jay Sekulow yesterday during the presentment of the defense case at the Senate trial. Moreover, Sekulow noted, both Schiff and Jerrold Nadler defended the refusal of Obama and Holder to comply with subpoenas from the House at that time, and called the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt. That issue had a body count to go along with it, too, and clear violations of federal gun laws to boot.
Penn warns that we are about to see George Washington’s worst nightmare come true if this proceeds:
George Washington’s farewell address about the excesses of partisanship was never truer than today. As America’s only truly independent president, Washington predicted that the growth of factionalism would undermine the execution of our laws and that the “alternate domination” of one party over another would lead to efforts to “exact revenge” and “raise false alarms.”
Washington does indeed seem particularly prescient about this moment in history. While he was at the time concerned by rising factions based on geographical interests rather than ideological or strictly partisan point-scoring, his farewell address warning does indeed sound all too accurate:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
In my column today at The Week, I argue that we’re almost at the debacle Washington predicts here:
Given the partisan warfare around the impeachment, the trial outcome is all but certain. Of more concern, however, should be the damage done to the legislative branch over the last two decades. This poisonous atmosphere of majoritarian flexing has transformed Congress from a co-equal branch to either the wingman or the executioner of the president. With this partisan war as context, succeeding House majorities will feel freer to impeach any president of the opposing party on any pretext, especially by launching constant investigations that encroach on the executive’s co-equal status and automatically considering any objection to be obstructive. We will either have parliamentary systems with the executive under the thumb of the House, or presidencies entirely unencumbered by an independent legislature. At some point, we need leadership on Capitol Hill that restores its own prerogatives while respecting the prerogatives of the executive. This would benefit both parties in the long run, and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy. Unfortunately, after two decades in the trenches of the Democrat-Republican war, there doesn’t seem to be any leaders emerging of that quality — nor a lot of demand from anyone else to produce them.
To prevent this outcome, Penn insists that Democrats need to withdraw their articles of impeachment. Let the voters decide whether Trump’s behavior disqualifies him from another term, as setting this precedent would be far more damaging than anything alleged in the impeachment. This is nothing more than brute-force majoritarianism, and the Senate trial will be more of the same.
If Democrats insist on seeing this through, however, Penn advises that the Senate needs to “end this quickly” and “get back to the business of the country.” That indeed would be a nice change of pace from the past twelve months.


hotair--2020-01-22--Scarborough: These Republicans in their Fox News bubble have no idea what's coming in November

Via Mediaite , I feel like the host of the most notoriously inside-the-Beltway chat show on American television should probably tread lightly in accusing others of living in a bubble .
And speaking as someone who almost never watches Fox anymore , I don ’ t know what he means when he says , “ They have no idea what ’ s coming in November.
” What ’ s coming in November , Joe ?
A Trump defeat ?
That ’ s possible .
But the way he says it in the clip below , it sounds like he thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landslide repudiation of Trump and Trumpism .
Which , unless the economy veers off into a recession , just isn ’ t happening .
In fact , while a close election is the likeliest outcome , I ’ d say a comfortable Trump win is as probable at this point as a comfortable Democratic win .
And the nastier the Biden/Bernie/Warren brawl gets , the more likely it is .
I think he ’ s going by the national polls that show Trump routinely trailing most of the Democratic top tier .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning , in fact .
All blue : POTUS looks headed for another defeat in the popular vote .
But what about the vote that actually counts ?
Read the fine print at CNN and you ’ ll see that ’ s a little different : Total toss-up in the battlegrounds right now , with Trump trailing Biden by two points , tied with Bernie at 49 , and ahead of Warren by a point .
If that sounds familiar , it ’ s because the New York Times conducted its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump either barely behind Biden and Sanders in various states or ahead .
Matched up with Elizabeth Warren , he led in five of six states and tied in the sixth .
A subsequent Times poll posted a few weeks later found that swing voters who opted for Trump in 2016 and then switched to Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections were leaning towards switching back to Trump in 2020 .
So who ’ s in a bigger bubble ?
The MAGA fans who ’ ve been led by Fox to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the liberals who look at the national head-to-head polling and think Biden ’ s gaudy advantages mean a Democratic blowout is on the way ?
It ’ s not , not in a gangbusters economy .
Not with Trump enjoying the advantage of incumbency .
Not when Republicans have barely laid a finger on Biden or Bernie yet .
By the way , it may not be Grandpa Joe or Sanders whom Trump is most worried about .
This is interesting : The Times also reported last week that POTUS is watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Bloomberg ’ s case , it ’ s not so much that he fears “ mini-Mike ” will win the nomination , it ’ s that Bloomy ’ s made good on his promise to spend blockbuster amounts of money on the effort .
He ’ s up to a quarter of a billion dollars ( !
! )
already and has vowed to spend big to defeat Trump in the general election whether or not he ’ s the nominee .
Whether he ’ d keep that promise if the socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s less of a question whether he ’ d do it to help Biden .
And a billion dollars spread across 10 or so battleground states is serious influence .
Not only that , but CNBC noticed a few days ago that the Democratic field collectively far outraised Trump in 2019 , something that didn ’ t happen to either Bush or Obama in their reelection bids .
That portends big grassroots fundraising for the eventual nominee during the general election on top of whatever Bloomberg kicks in .
Hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all of that in their favor .
But it ’ s easy to believe Trump might squeak through to a second term in a tight race .

Via Mediaite, I feel like the host of the most notoriously inside-the-Beltway chat show on American television should probably tread lightly in accusing others of living in a bubble.
And speaking as someone who almost never watches Fox anymore, I don’t know what he means when he says, “They have no idea what’s coming in November.” What’s coming in November, Joe? A Trump defeat?
That’s possible. But the way he says it in the clip below, it sounds like he thinks we’re headed for a momentous landslide repudiation of Trump and Trumpism. Which, unless the economy veers off into a recession, just isn’t happening. In fact, while a close election is the likeliest outcome, I’d say a comfortable Trump win is as probable at this point as a comfortable Democratic win. And the nastier the Biden/Bernie/Warren brawl gets, the more likely it is.
I think he’s going by the national polls that show Trump routinely trailing most of the Democratic top tier. CNN was out with a new data set this morning, in fact. All blue:
POTUS looks headed for another defeat in the popular vote. But what about the vote that actually counts? Read the fine print at CNN and you’ll see that’s a little different:
The poll included an oversample of those living in 15 battleground states, defined as those where the race between Clinton and Trump in 2016 was decided by 8 points or fewer. In those states, the poll finds consistently tight races regardless of the nominees, with Democrats ranging from 46% to 49% support and Trump from 47% to 50%. In none of the six tested matchups does either candidate hold a significant advantage.
Total toss-up in the battlegrounds right now, with Trump trailing Biden by two points, tied with Bernie at 49, and ahead of Warren by a point. If that sounds familiar, it’s because the New York Times conducted its own poll of battlegrounds in October and found Trump either barely behind Biden and Sanders in various states or ahead. Matched up with Elizabeth Warren, he led in five of six states and tied in the sixth. A subsequent Times poll posted a few weeks later found that swing voters who opted for Trump in 2016 and then switched to Democrats in the 2018 midterm elections were leaning towards switching back to Trump in 2020.
So who’s in a bigger bubble? The MAGA fans who’ve been led by Fox to believe that Trump will win 40 states next year or the liberals who look at the national head-to-head polling and think Biden’s gaudy advantages mean a Democratic blowout is on the way? It’s not, not in a gangbusters economy. Not with Trump enjoying the advantage of incumbency. Not when Republicans have barely laid a finger on Biden or Bernie yet.
By the way, it may not be Grandpa Joe or Sanders whom Trump is most worried about. This is interesting:
Spoke with a veteran Republican strategist this morning and asked about the 2020 Democratic field/the latest headlines. Dismissed the headlines. Said their entire focus, privately, is on Bloomberg. Said $$ he's spending is the big story, regardless of whether he's the nominee. — Robert Costa (@costareports) January 21, 2020
The Times also reported last week that POTUS is watching Bernie — and Bloomberg — closely. In Bloomberg’s case, it’s not so much that he fears “mini-Mike” will win the nomination, it’s that Bloomy’s made good on his promise to spend blockbuster amounts of money on the effort. He’s up to a quarter of a billion dollars(!!) already and has vowed to spend big to defeat Trump in the general election whether or not he’s the nominee. Whether he’d keep that promise if the socialist Sanders is nominated is in question; there’s less of a question whether he’d do it to help Biden. And a billion dollars spread across 10 or so battleground states is serious influence. Not only that, but CNBC noticed a few days ago that the Democratic field collectively far outraised Trump in 2019, something that didn’t happen to either Bush or Obama in their reelection bids. That portends big grassroots fundraising for the eventual nominee during the general election on top of whatever Bloomberg kicks in. Hard to believe Dems are going to get routed with all of that in their favor. But it’s easy to believe Trump might squeak through to a second term in a tight race.


hotair--2020-01-22--Biden: People make money "clipping coupons on the street"

Joe Biden often says odd things , sometimes daily , out on the campaign trail .
It ’ s hard to understand exactly what is going through his mind as he speaks to his supporters .
Tuesday in Iowa , Biden brought up a reference to clipping coupons as a way to make money .
That would have been enough to make a person question his statement but then he topped it – he said that people are making money “ clipping coupons on the street.
” What is the first thing that comes to mind with that statement ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a pair of scissors in hand and a newspaper supplement , scanning the grocery ads for a good price on chicken or avocados , or maybe a household cleaning product .
I don ’ t think about clipping a coupon to collect interest payments from bonds .
Coupon clipping refers back to a time when these fixed-income securities came printed with coupons on them .
To receive the interest payments , the bondholder would clip off each coupon as its payment came due and redeem it for cash .
These days bond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no need for anyone to actually get the scissors out .
I would say , “ Ok , boomer ” to Uncle Joe but he ’ s older than baby boomers .
It ’ s just Joe being Joe , I guess .
This must be a regular reference for him because he ’ s done it before and did it during a Democrat debate while he was talking about the capital gains tax .
In a clip I watched on Twitter , I saw Biden use the reference while he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks about “ rewarding work , not just wealth ” , which is a line he often uses , but from there it ’ s just a word salad .
The ages of his audience members looks to be mixed so it wasn ’ t just old folks who understood the reference .
I ’ m guessing most of them didn ’ t know what the heck he was talking about , like me .
The “ on the street ” part of the statement is just weird .
A person can see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but coupon clipping isn ’ t one of those things .
This is a blip on the campaign trail , sure , but it goes back to the questions a lot of people have about Joe ’ s mental vitality .
All of the slips and odd statements add up .
Biden has been making campaign speeches for himself and others for more than 40 years .
He should be a lot better at it than he is .
This is 2020 and transactions for investments are handled electronically .
The audience didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was saying , though , so perhaps this kind of incident just goes without saying .
It ’ s expected .
Biden ’ s still leading in most national polls , though he is – for the first time – in second place in the CNN national poll behind Bernie Sanders .
With Bernie and the other senators running for president tied up in Washington for impeachmentpalooza , perhaps he ’ ll be able to change that poll back to a first place showing next time .
There was another gem from Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event in Fort Dodge .
Joe Biden claimed that “ we don ’ t need standing armies ” while talking about cyberwar .
“ The idea that we are going to cut the defense budget , we can cut it some .
We don ’ t need standing armies .
We need to be smarter than we ’ re dealing now.
” Again , he ’ s not the most articulate , but President Trump has increased military spending .
He created the Space Force for satellites and cyber activity .
Biden doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does remind us that the Obama administration in which he served made thousands of drone attacks , though .
Is that what he was going for ?
I don ’ t think progressives were particularly in favor of those at the time .
I think our military members in “ standing armies ” may be surprised to learn that good old Joe doesn ’ t think we need them so much .

Joe Biden often says odd things, sometimes daily, out on the campaign trail. It’s hard to understand exactly what is going through his mind as he speaks to his supporters. Tuesday in Iowa, Biden brought up a reference to clipping coupons as a way to make money. That would have been enough to make a person question his statement but then he topped it – he said that people are making money “clipping coupons on the street.”
What is the first thing that comes to mind with that statement? For me, I envision a person with a pair of scissors in hand and a newspaper supplement, scanning the grocery ads for a good price on chicken or avocados, or maybe a household cleaning product. I don’t think about clipping a coupon to collect interest payments from bonds.
Coupon clipping refers back to a time when these fixed-income securities came printed with coupons on them. To receive the interest payments, the bondholder would clip off each coupon as its payment came due and redeem it for cash. These days bond interest payments are handled electronically, so there is no need for anyone to actually get the scissors out.
I would say, “Ok, boomer” to Uncle Joe but he’s older than baby boomers. It’s just Joe being Joe, I guess. This must be a regular reference for him because he’s done it before and did it during a Democrat debate while he was talking about the capital gains tax. In a clip I watched on Twitter, I saw Biden use the reference while he was talking about tax rates. He talks about “rewarding work, not just wealth”, which is a line he often uses, but from there it’s just a word salad.
Meanwhile on the campaign trial….more "clipping coupons" from "No Malarkey" Joe Biden "…if you make your money by clipping coupons on the street" pic.twitter.com/SbBHbTYxmi — Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) January 22, 2020
The ages of his audience members looks to be mixed so it wasn’t just old folks who understood the reference. I’m guessing most of them didn’t know what the heck he was talking about, like me. The “on the street” part of the statement is just weird. A person can see a lot of things on the street but coupon clipping isn’t one of those things.
This is a blip on the campaign trail, sure, but it goes back to the questions a lot of people have about Joe’s mental vitality. All of the slips and odd statements add up. Biden has been making campaign speeches for himself and others for more than 40 years. He should be a lot better at it than he is. This is 2020 and transactions for investments are handled electronically.
The audience didn’t visually react to what he was saying, though, so perhaps this kind of incident just goes without saying. It’s expected. Biden’s still leading in most national polls, though he is – for the first time – in second place in the CNN national poll behind Bernie Sanders. With Bernie and the other senators running for president tied up in Washington for impeachmentpalooza, perhaps he’ll be able to change that poll back to a first place showing next time.
There was another gem from Tuesday in Iowa – this time during an event in Fort Dodge. Joe Biden claimed that “we don’t need standing armies” while talking about cyberwar. “The idea that we are going to cut the defense budget, we can cut it some. We don’t need standing armies. We need to be smarter than we’re dealing now.” Again, he’s not the most articulate, but President Trump has increased military spending. He created the Space Force for satellites and cyber activity. Biden doesn’t offer anything new. He does remind us that the Obama administration in which he served made thousands of drone attacks, though. Is that what he was going for? I don’t think progressives were particularly in favor of those at the time.
I think our military members in “standing armies” may be surprised to learn that good old Joe doesn’t think we need them so much.