hotair--2020-01-29--It's quarantine time for the WuFlu

It's quarantine time for the WuFlu

After expressing some serious reservations about how seriously our government is taking the rapid spread of the coronavirus , it finally seems as if officials are beginning to try to get out in front of this thing .
The government has begun pulling our diplomats out of our consulate in Wuhan , with 240 of them flying out to California by way of Alaska .
But they aren ’ t going to be facing just the normal screening questions .
Los Angeles International Airport is setting up a quarantine area in its international terminal and taking a variety of sensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airplane evacuating as many as 240 Americans from a Chinese city at the center of a virus outbreak has landed in the U.S .
The U.S. government chartered the plane to fly out diplomats from the U.S. Consulate in Wuhan , where the latest coronavirus outbreak started , and other U.S. citizens .
The plane is making a refueling stop in Alaska , where it landed Tuesday night , before flying on to southern California .
But first , the travelers were to be re-screened in Anchorage for the virus , and hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who may be infected .
Symptoms of the virus include fever , cough , and in more severe cases shortness of breath or pneumonia .
The international terminal is largely closed during the winter so this isn ’ t causing too much of a disruption for regular domestic flights .
And they have plenty of room to work with .
Using a government-chartered flight was also a good call since you can keep close track of the crew and monitor conditions in the cabin more easily .
And that ’ s what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been in the affected areas .
Is that going to cost a lot of money ?
You bet it is .
But we find money for all sorts of non-emergency projects on a regular basis , so if we have to drop a few million into chartered jets it ’ s not exactly going to break the bank .
And if you compare that to the potential cost of thousands or millions of people coming down with the WuFlu it ’ s barely a drop in the bucket .
The problem is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the New York Post reported last night , there are still roughly 1,000 Americans in Wuhan .
Unless they ’ re willing to simply stay put and take their chances , they should all be on charter flights heading for the west coast and remaining in quarantine until the full incubation period for the virus has passed .
One more solid idea has been put on the table by Senator Tom Cotton .
Yesterday he called for a full travel ban to and from the affected areas .
( Free Beacon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ark . )
on Tuesday called for a targeted travel ban on China to prevent the spread of the deadly coronavirus to the United States .
“ I write to urge you to implement a targeted travel ban on China to protect America from the Wuhan coronavirus , ” Cotton wrote .
“ Given the latest developments and the many unknowns about this virus , we ought to follow Benjamin Franklin ’ s maxim : an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
” Cotton makes a lot of sense when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should judge the seriousness of this potential threat by China ’ s actions rather than their words .
The Chinese have quarantined a staggering fifty million people .
School has been canceled indefinitely and all travel from the mainland to Hong Kong has been shut down .
As Cotton wrote , “ These are not the actions of a government in control of the outbreak.
” If the WuFlu morphs into something closer to a worst-case scenario , nobody is going to regret taking every possible precaution .
And even if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good trial run for when something as seriously grave as Captain Trips breaks out .
The CDC has a plan in place for handling pandemics , but it ’ s rather dated .
I would appreciate seeing the Trump administration order a complete review of this plan and update it with detailed disaster prevention models , including funding for multiple charter flights and designated quarantine facilities near all major ports of entry .
To repeat Tom Cotton ’ s warning , an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the cost will be measured in far more than just dollars and cents .

After expressing some serious reservations about how seriously our government is taking the rapid spread of the coronavirus, it finally seems as if officials are beginning to try to get out in front of this thing. The government has begun pulling our diplomats out of our consulate in Wuhan, with 240 of them flying out to California by way of Alaska. But they aren’t going to be facing just the normal screening questions. Los Angeles International Airport is setting up a quarantine area in its international terminal and taking a variety of sensible precautions. (Associated Press)
An airplane evacuating as many as 240 Americans from a Chinese city at the center of a virus outbreak has landed in the U.S. The U.S. government chartered the plane to fly out diplomats from the U.S. Consulate in Wuhan, where the latest coronavirus outbreak started, and other U.S. citizens. The plane is making a refueling stop in Alaska, where it landed Tuesday night, before flying on to southern California. But first, the travelers were to be re-screened in Anchorage for the virus, and hospitals were prepared to treat or quarantine people who may be infected. Symptoms of the virus include fever, cough, and in more severe cases shortness of breath or pneumonia.
The international terminal is largely closed during the winter so this isn’t causing too much of a disruption for regular domestic flights. And they have plenty of room to work with. Using a government-chartered flight was also a good call since you can keep close track of the crew and monitor conditions in the cabin more easily. And that’s what we should be doing for all Americans who have been in the affected areas.
Is that going to cost a lot of money? You bet it is. But we find money for all sorts of non-emergency projects on a regular basis, so if we have to drop a few million into chartered jets it’s not exactly going to break the bank. And if you compare that to the potential cost of thousands or millions of people coming down with the WuFlu it’s barely a drop in the bucket.
The problem is that we need to be moving faster. As the New York Post reported last night, there are still roughly 1,000 Americans in Wuhan. Unless they’re willing to simply stay put and take their chances, they should all be on charter flights heading for the west coast and remaining in quarantine until the full incubation period for the virus has passed.
One more solid idea has been put on the table by Senator Tom Cotton. Yesterday he called for a full travel ban to and from the affected areas. (Free Beacon)
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) on Tuesday called for a targeted travel ban on China to prevent the spread of the deadly coronavirus to the United States. “I write to urge you to implement a targeted travel ban on China to protect America from the Wuhan coronavirus,” Cotton wrote. “Given the latest developments and the many unknowns about this virus, we ought to follow Benjamin Franklin’s maxim: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Cotton makes a lot of sense when he suggests to the Trump administration that we should judge the seriousness of this potential threat by China’s actions rather than their words. The Chinese have quarantined a staggering fifty million people. School has been canceled indefinitely and all travel from the mainland to Hong Kong has been shut down. As Cotton wrote, “These are not the actions of a government in control of the outbreak.”
If the WuFlu morphs into something closer to a worst-case scenario, nobody is going to regret taking every possible precaution. And even if it doesn’t, this is a good trial run for when something as seriously grave as Captain Trips breaks out. The CDC has a plan in place for handling pandemics, but it’s rather dated. I would appreciate seeing the Trump administration order a complete review of this plan and update it with detailed disaster prevention models, including funding for multiple charter flights and designated quarantine facilities near all major ports of entry.
To repeat Tom Cotton’s warning, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And if we fail to act in time, the cost will be measured in far more than just dollars and cents.


hotair--2020-01-29--Round-up: Videos that will make you go hmm... or cringe

Who can deny the value of laughter over a crazy video going viral in social media during the days of impeachment , impeachment , impeachment ?
Tuesday several videos delivered on a welcome distraction from daily political discourse .
Michael Bloomberg provided the most entertainment .
If he continues like this , he will be a strong contender for Joe Biden ’ s top ranking as a source of amusement , or despair , depending on which side of the aisle you are on .
The first one I noticed involves a dog .
He ’ s making friends with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ( or her ? )
snout .
Then he gives the dog some scratches like a normal human being would do .
Fortunately , the dog was ok with this greeting and wagged his tail instead of biting off Bloomberg ’ s hand .
It ’ s not the first time the former Mayor of Gotham has done this , either .
When I first saw the clip , I admit I was surprised to see such a gesture .
Apparently , I ’ m out of the loop on human interaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commenters mentioned that this is not at all unusual – they do it , too .
I watched the clip over and over .
The dog ’ s owner wasn ’ t fazed at all .
My husband had a reaction I thought was germane – he noted that at least Bloomberg didn ’ t try to pick the dog up by his ears .
It ’ s hard to get the image of LBJ doing that to a Bassett Hound out of your mind if you have ever seen it .
Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s cute , a clever move .
There is a stange video up with Bloomberg where he admits he called President Trump after he won the 2016 election .
He said that he got word that Trump wanted to talk to him so he called .
At the end of the clip , Bloomberg admits that Trump was very polite with him and even gave him his personal cell phone number .
Then Bloomberg says he didn ’ t bother to write the number down and hasn ’ t spoken to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is in-between Trump ’ s election and inauguration .
It seems odd to me that someone with a politician-sized ego who is interested in affecting public policy , like Michael Bloomberg , wouldn ’ t want to take advantage of having access to the leader of the free world .
He falls into the category of those who were friends with Trump before Trump was elected president .
Funny how that happens .
Joe Biden had a very Joe Biden moment with a voter in Iowa .
After a campaign event Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is asking a climate change question about ending pipelines , or something .
The guy points his finger at Biden – they are standing very close together – and clearly Biden doesn ’ t appreciate his attitude .
He ends up telling the man to vote for someone else !
Joe even lays a hand on him .
The voter still asks for a picture with Biden , though .
You can hear a staffer trying to end the exchange but Biden ’ s ignoring her .
Though he said he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of being a BernieBro .
Welp .
That ’ s an interesting way to campaign .
As it turns out , the voter , Ed Fallon served in Iowa ’ s general assembly and leads an organization that tackles the issue of climate change .
Steyer answered back to Biden .
Hoo boy .
Biden is looking entitled to the nomination .
He reminds me of the 2016 Hillary Clinton .
Maybe he will form an alliance with Amy Klobuchar to pull himself across the line in Iowa ahead of Bernie Sanders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one from Jon Ossoff .
In a piece by the Daily Wire , Ossoff delivers a message to Republicans – never show your faces in public again .
There ’ s an inclusive Democrat message for you , right ?
You may remember the hype Ossoff got from Democrats and their Hollywood cohorts when he ran in a special election in 2017 for Georgia ’ s 6th congressional district .
He lost .
I ’ ll wrap this up with one more video from Bloomberg .
I don ’ t really know what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a pander to LGBTQ voters .
It shows Bloomberg eating a spoonful of ice cream – Big Gay Ice Cream .
Big Gay Ice Cream is a New-York based ice cream company and I ’ ve never heard of it .
The company name refers to both the two gay men who founded it , as well as a throwback reference to the use of gay to mean happy .
Founded in 2009 as a seasonal food truck , it now has multiple locations in New York and Philadelphia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ began selling ice cream pints in convenience stores and grocery stores outside of New York .
Most likely , it ’ s a rather quirky way of introducing his LGBTQ policy initiatives .
He released that Wednesday on his campaign website .
Bloomberg certainly received attention with the video .
What ’ s next , a Bernie Sanders ad for Ben and Jerry ’ s ?

Who can deny the value of laughter over a crazy video going viral in social media during the days of impeachment, impeachment, impeachment? Tuesday several videos delivered on a welcome distraction from daily political discourse.
Michael Bloomberg provided the most entertainment. If he continues like this, he will be a strong contender for Joe Biden’s top ranking as a source of amusement, or despair, depending on which side of the aisle you are on. The first one I noticed involves a dog. He’s making friends with the dog and reaches down to grab his (or her?) snout. Then he gives the dog some scratches like a normal human being would do.
I regret to inform you that Mike Bloomberg attempted to shake a dog’s mouth. pic.twitter.com/hKsagJ4xAf — Christopher J. Hale (@chrisjollyhale) January 28, 2020
Fortunately, the dog was ok with this greeting and wagged his tail instead of biting off Bloomberg’s hand. It’s not the first time the former Mayor of Gotham has done this, either.
https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1222271858818588674
When I first saw the clip, I admit I was surprised to see such a gesture. Apparently, I’m out of the loop on human interaction with canines, though. Lots of commenters mentioned that this is not at all unusual – they do it, too. I watched the clip over and over. The dog’s owner wasn’t fazed at all. My husband had a reaction I thought was germane – he noted that at least Bloomberg didn’t try to pick the dog up by his ears. It’s hard to get the image of LBJ doing that to a Bassett Hound out of your mind if you have ever seen it.
Bloomberg has a response out this morning. It’s cute, a clever move.
There is a stange video up with Bloomberg where he admits he called President Trump after he won the 2016 election. He said that he got word that Trump wanted to talk to him so he called. At the end of the clip, Bloomberg admits that Trump was very polite with him and even gave him his personal cell phone number. Then Bloomberg says he didn’t bother to write the number down and hasn’t spoken to him since.
Michael Bloomberg tells CBS News about the time Donald Trump sought his advice soon before taking office: "He did give me his private cell phone number, which I didn't bother to write down." https://t.co/8gkajPDFsQ pic.twitter.com/MqyVrXs5bD — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 28, 2020
Keep in mind that this is in-between Trump’s election and inauguration. It seems odd to me that someone with a politician-sized ego who is interested in affecting public policy, like Michael Bloomberg, wouldn’t want to take advantage of having access to the leader of the free world. He falls into the category of those who were friends with Trump before Trump was elected president. Funny how that happens.
https://twitter.com/jww372/status/1221984603487068161
Joe Biden had a very Joe Biden moment with a voter in Iowa. After a campaign event Biden is shown speaking to a man who is asking a climate change question about ending pipelines, or something. The guy points his finger at Biden – they are standing very close together – and clearly Biden doesn’t appreciate his attitude. He ends up telling the man to vote for someone else! Joe even lays a hand on him. The voter still asks for a picture with Biden, though. You can hear a staffer trying to end the exchange but Biden’s ignoring her. Though he said he’s a Steyer supporter, Biden accused him of being a BernieBro.
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1222258335342366721
Welp. That’s an interesting way to campaign.
As it turns out, the voter, Ed Fallon served in Iowa’s general assembly and leads an organization that tackles the issue of climate change. Steyer answered back to Biden. Hoo boy.
Hi @JoeBiden, This is no way to treat an Iowan. He said he'd vote for the Dem in the general b/c he knows how important it is to beat Trump. We need immediate action on climate. If you don't agree, happy to talk @ debate. But don't take it out on voters we need to win in Nov. https://t.co/gG6UTDGL15 — Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) January 28, 2020
Biden is looking entitled to the nomination. He reminds me of the 2016 Hillary Clinton. Maybe he will form an alliance with Amy Klobuchar to pull himself across the line in Iowa ahead of Bernie Sanders.
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1222379140403384320
Another video that caught my eye was one from Jon Ossoff. In a piece by the Daily Wire, Ossoff delivers a message to Republicans – never show your faces in public again. There’s an inclusive Democrat message for you, right? You may remember the hype Ossoff got from Democrats and their Hollywood cohorts when he ran in a special election in 2017 for Georgia’s 6th congressional district. He lost.
WATCH: Democrat Jon Ossoff Says Conservatives Should ‘Never’ Show Faces In Public Again https://t.co/gH1Mcnrimp pic.twitter.com/ufuiUqZ8yT — The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 29, 2020
I’ll wrap this up with one more video from Bloomberg. I don’t really know what to say about it except I guess it’s a pander to LGBTQ voters. It shows Bloomberg eating a spoonful of ice cream – Big Gay Ice Cream. Big Gay Ice Cream is a New-York based ice cream company and I’ve never heard of it. The company name refers to both the two gay men who founded it, as well as a throwback reference to the use of gay to mean happy. Founded in 2009 as a seasonal food truck, it now has multiple locations in New York and Philadelphia, according the website. In 2017 it began selling ice cream pints in convenience stores and grocery stores outside of New York.
Most likely, it’s a rather quirky way of introducing his LGBTQ policy initiatives. He released that Wednesday on his campaign website. Bloomberg certainly received attention with the video. What’s next, a Bernie Sanders ad for Ben and Jerry’s?


hotair--2020-01-29--Question from Collins and Murkowski: Did Trump ever mention Biden corruption towards Ukraine before

Question from Collins and Murkowski: Did Trump ever mention Biden corruption towards Ukraine before Biden entered the presidential race?

Goooood question .
I can think of a guy who spent a lot of time around Trump in foreign-policy contexts in 2018 and 2019 , where this exact subject might reasonably have come up , who might have something to say about it .
Several guys , actually .
Will any of them be called to the stand to shed some light on the matter ?
I ’ ve asked this same question myself in posts .
Trump ’ s core defense until this week was that he had a legitimate public purpose in nudging Ukraine to reopen the Burisma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former U.S. vice president to protect his possibly crooked son .
Democrats countered by accusing him of an illegitimate private purpose , wanting to damage Biden in the expectation that he ’ ll be Trump ’ s Democratic opponent in this fall ’ s election .
Is there any way to discern the truth about the president ’ s motive ?
One way would be to look at the timeline of his interest in the Biden/Burisma matter .
The earlier Trump started inquiring about it , the easier it is to believe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own sake , not because he was trying to get a leg up on 2020 .
Is there any evidence that he asked about it before Biden became a candidate ?
I mean , the Ukraine thing has been front-page news since late September .
We had an impeachment inquiry , testimony by a variety of witnesses , a formal vote to impeach , and now a Senate trial .
You would think at some point some current or former aide would have stepped up and said , “ Oh , sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this in 2017 .
He ’ s always wondered about the Bidens.
” Has anyone made that claim ?
Even a single person , despite the obvious benefits it would have to Trump ’ s defense if it could be established ?
Lindsey Graham has spent the past two weeks insisting that it ’ s high time that someone looked at the Bidens and Burisma , neglecting the fact that his party had total control of Congress for the first two years of Trump ’ s presidency and never made a move in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Philbin , one of Trump ’ s lawyers , made a game attempt to answer the question posed by Collins and Murkowski .
Watch , then read on : There are three parts to his reply : 1 .
He ’ s limited to what ’ s in the House record .
Obviously he can ’ t know everything Trump has said in every conversation since he ’ s been president .
Although , again , Bolton — and Pompeo , and Mulvaney — could illuminate this subject considerably .
2 .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Ukraine ’ s former president , Poroshenko , because Poroshenko was the guy who fired the Ukrainian prosecutor at Joe Biden ’ s urging .
How could POTUS ask for an investigation into corruption from an official who participated in the allegedly corrupt act ?
He had to wait until Zelensky was president to ask .
A smart answer — although Collins ’ s and Murkowski ’ s question also asked whether Trump had raised Biden and Burisma with any of his own advisors .
Did he broach the subject privately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that would suggest that Trump ’ s interest in the subject wasn ’ t piqued by the election .
3 .
In fact , Team Trump was looking at Biden before he formally jumped in .
Giuliani was interested in Biden and Burisma as early as fall 2018 in Philbin ’ s telling .
He was interviewing Ukrainians in January 2019 and passing along his notes to the State Department in March 2019 .
Biden didn ’ t declare his candidacy until April 25 of that year .
QED ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notable story from the Axios archives : Date : July 25 , 2018 , months before Giuliani ’ s Ukraine effort against Biden got going .
Trump was being asked about Biden even before that story appeared , telling CBS a week earlier that Biden would be his “ dream ” opponent .
But of course that ’ s not true , and virtually all of the head-to-head polling this past fall bore it out .
Biden consistently does better against Trump than any other Democratic candidate tested , an outcome Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , just because Biden didn ’ t formally announce until April 25 , 2019 doesn ’ t mean that he wasn ’ t on the White House ’ s radar long before then as a likely candidate and probable nominee .
Politico reported in August 2018 that Biden led Trump by seven points in an early hypothetical match-up .
The AP reported a month later , in September 2018 , that Biden would decide on a run by January , news which may or may not have inspired Rudy to get cracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found Biden leading the Democratic field by 20 points , raising the possibility of an easy primary for Grandpa Joe and a looming match-up with Trump .
Trump had plenty of reason before the fall of 2018 to think Biden was his likeliest opponent .
In case we need one more data point about the timeline and what it says about Trump ’ s and Rudy ’ s intentions , note that the now-famous NYT story in which Giuliani admitted to the whole scheme to pressure Zelensky for Biden info was published exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement .
As soon as Biden was finally in , Rudy was warning the electorate via the country ’ s biggest newspaper to prepare for dirt on dirty , dirty Joe Biden .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s an old clip of Bolton making the rounds today that ’ s supposed to discredit him .
You ’ d better believe I ’ d lie to protect America ’ s national security , he says , citing the specific example of the secret landing spot for D-Day .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can ’ t trust a man who admits he ’ s willing to dissemble , particularly when we know that Bolton considers Trump ’ s dovish foreign policy a threat to national security .
Isn ’ t it possible that he ’ d lie about Trump ’ s Ukraine conduct in hopes of damaging him politically and seeing him defeated this fall ?
Well , sure , but this clip is a poor way to illustrate that since everyone in government would answer the same way , particularly in the context of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to believe that he has ideological motives for criticizing Trump , have at it , but it ’ s goofy to treat a comment as prosaic as this as revelatory .

Goooood question. I can think of a guy who spent a lot of time around Trump in foreign-policy contexts in 2018 and 2019, where this exact subject might reasonably have come up, who might have something to say about it.
Several guys, actually. Will any of them be called to the stand to shed some light on the matter?
I’ve asked this same question myself in posts. Trump’s core defense until this week was that he had a legitimate public purpose in nudging Ukraine to reopen the Burisma probe, exposing possible corruption by a former U.S. vice president to protect his possibly crooked son. Democrats countered by accusing him of an illegitimate private purpose, wanting to damage Biden in the expectation that he’ll be Trump’s Democratic opponent in this fall’s election. Is there any way to discern the truth about the president’s motive? One way would be to look at the timeline of his interest in the Biden/Burisma matter. The earlier Trump started inquiring about it, the easier it is to believe that he was interested in fighting corruption for its own sake, not because he was trying to get a leg up on 2020. Is there any evidence that he asked about it before Biden became a candidate?
I mean, the Ukraine thing has been front-page news since late September. We had an impeachment inquiry, testimony by a variety of witnesses, a formal vote to impeach, and now a Senate trial. You would think at some point some current or former aide would have stepped up and said, “Oh, sure, he was chattering to me about this in 2017. He’s always wondered about the Bidens.”
Has anyone made that claim? Even a single person, despite the obvious benefits it would have to Trump’s defense if it could be established? Lindsey Graham has spent the past two weeks insisting that it’s high time that someone looked at the Bidens and Burisma, neglecting the fact that his party had total control of Congress for the first two years of Trump’s presidency and never made a move in that direction. Why not?
Patrick Philbin, one of Trump’s lawyers, made a game attempt to answer the question posed by Collins and Murkowski. Watch, then read on:
Q: Before Biden entered the 2020 race in April 2019, did Trump mention Joe or Hunter in connection with corruption in Ukraine to former President Poroshenko or other Ukrainian officials, Trump's cabinet officials or top aides or others? If so, what did Trump say to whom and when? pic.twitter.com/63XGPHXptV — POLITICO (@politico) January 29, 2020
There are three parts to his reply:
1. He’s limited to what’s in the House record. Obviously he can’t know everything Trump has said in every conversation since he’s been president. Although, again, Bolton — and Pompeo, and Mulvaney — could illuminate this subject considerably.
2. Trump couldn’t raise the Biden/Burisma issue with Ukraine’s former president, Poroshenko, because Poroshenko was the guy who fired the Ukrainian prosecutor at Joe Biden’s urging. How could POTUS ask for an investigation into corruption from an official who participated in the allegedly corrupt act? He had to wait until Zelensky was president to ask. A smart answer — although Collins’s and Murkowski’s question also asked whether Trump had raised Biden and Burisma with any of his own advisors. Did he broach the subject privately, among his own team? Any evidence of that would suggest that Trump’s interest in the subject wasn’t piqued by the election.
3. In fact, Team Trump was looking at Biden before he formally jumped in. Giuliani was interested in Biden and Burisma as early as fall 2018 in Philbin’s telling. He was interviewing Ukrainians in January 2019 and passing along his notes to the State Department in March 2019. Biden didn’t declare his candidacy until April 25 of that year. QED?
Well, hold on. Here’s a notable story from the Axios archives:
Advisers to President Trump say Joe Biden is the Democrat he most fears running against, and that Pennsylvania is the state he worries most about flipping against him. Trump’s calculation is based partly on how weak he sees other Democratic possibilities, including Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and partly on who’s capable of appealing to his base of working class whites… Trump advisers say Biden, like the president, conveys authenticity, is comfortable in his own skin, can work a crowd, and relishes throwing and returning punches.
Date: July 25, 2018, months before Giuliani’s Ukraine effort against Biden got going. Trump was being asked about Biden even before that story appeared, telling CBS a week earlier that Biden would be his “dream” opponent. But of course that’s not true, and virtually all of the head-to-head polling this past fall bore it out. Biden consistently does better against Trump than any other Democratic candidate tested, an outcome Trump himself foresaw per Axios.
That is to say, just because Biden didn’t formally announce until April 25, 2019 doesn’t mean that he wasn’t on the White House’s radar long before then as a likely candidate and probable nominee. Politico reported in August 2018 that Biden led Trump by seven points in an early hypothetical match-up. The AP reported a month later, in September 2018, that Biden would decide on a run by January, news which may or may not have inspired Rudy to get cracking. In October 2018 a CNN poll found Biden leading the Democratic field by 20 points, raising the possibility of an easy primary for Grandpa Joe and a looming match-up with Trump. Trump had plenty of reason before the fall of 2018 to think Biden was his likeliest opponent.
In case we need one more data point about the timeline and what it says about Trump’s and Rudy’s intentions, note that the now-famous NYT story in which Giuliani admitted to the whole scheme to pressure Zelensky for Biden info was published exactly two weeks after Biden’s formal announcement. As soon as Biden was finally in, Rudy was warning the electorate via the country’s biggest newspaper to prepare for dirt on dirty, dirty Joe Biden.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s an old clip of Bolton making the rounds today that’s supposed to discredit him. You’d better believe I’d lie to protect America’s national security, he says, citing the specific example of the secret landing spot for D-Day. The idea, I guess, is that we can’t trust a man who admits he’s willing to dissemble, particularly when we know that Bolton considers Trump’s dovish foreign policy a threat to national security. Isn’t it possible that he’d lie about Trump’s Ukraine conduct in hopes of damaging him politically and seeing him defeated this fall? Well, sure, but this clip is a poor way to illustrate that since everyone in government would answer the same way, particularly in the context of Bolton’s D-Day example. If you want to believe that he has ideological motives for criticizing Trump, have at it, but it’s goofy to treat a comment as prosaic as this as revelatory.


hotair--2020-01-29--"Extreme action" and "militancy": Another peek into Sanders' South Carolina campaign

One is a fluke .
Two is a coincidence .
What about four Bernie Sanders campaign organizers parroting Marxist-Leninist talking points and pushing “ extreme action ” and “ militancy ” ?
The people captured in this series of Project Veritas videos seem low-level , but it ’ s tough to ignore that it ’ s looking like a pattern rather than an exception .
On the other hand , at least one of them would “ hope to avoid … plenty of excesses in 1917 ” come the Bernie Revolution .
That ’ s progress , I guess : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mason Baird considers “ excesses ” : “ We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property .
At the end of the day , this kind of stuff will come out through practice , through the work and it ’ s hard for me to talk about it in the moment we live in cause I think China today is not what Mao envisioned , right it was through the practice of Chinese people doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , it never – we ’ re never going – I think a lot of the stuff – a lot of these answers are going to come through practice – we ’ re going to try things – things aren ’ t going to work – we ’ re going to move on to the next thing , and we ’ re going to try to be as conscious and intentional about those things , but when you get into a certain level of detail , and depth , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my ‘ cop out ’ , it comes through the work , you know .
The answers come through the work.
” “ It would , it ’ s gon na take , you know , it ’ s gon na take militancy…like a militant labor movement that ’ s willing to…strike , and if necessary , you know , just destroy property and things like that.
” “ A militant labor movement is kind of our last – our last real chance before we try…other means.
” Daniel Taylor , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be necessary even if Sanders wins the election .
You can ’ t deliver a socialist paradise without cracking a few skulls , after all : “ We don ’ t want to scare people off , you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff…You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa , you were talking about , Yellow Vests , all that but we ’ re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now.
” “ We have all this momentum , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome , after it ’ s all over ?
Change won ’ t come easily , regardless .
Even if Bernie is elected , change will not come swiftly or easily , so the connections we make now in the campaign with people , and volunteers , it ’ s important we retain that regardless of the outcome .
It ’ s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action but like I said , they ’ re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her best to get these conversations going to these extremes .
At one point , she tells Baird that change on the scale they want doesn ’ t come easily .
“ So how do you jungle up ?
” she asks , at which point Baird gets reluctant to talk .
“ I just never want to kill anybody , you know ?
” he says at one point .
“ That scares me a lot , ” Baird continues , but not enough to write it off as a possibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence against property as “ extreme action , ” and let it “ snowball ” from there .
Socialism is nothing if not a structured system for wishful thinking at best , but this argument from Baird is downright delusional .
He tells the undercover reporter that mobilizing the people into a violent movement will force everyone else to retreat out of fear : Ahem .
Not only is that incorrect in general , Baird in particular is not the kind of imposing figure who will project fear into anyone ’ s hearts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afraid than bold himself , and certainly afraid of what might happen if he tries to put this plan into action .
As an argument for protecting the Second Amendment , however , this is just golden .
It ’ s probably not news that a crank like Sanders would attract cranks to his campaign , especially of Baird ’ s temperament .
What makes this interesting is that news outlets largely ignore this about Sanders ’ campaign .
Imagine for just a moment if someone caught one Trump campaign organizer advocating violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silence .
We ’ d have wall-to-wall coverage of The Impending Darkness of American Fascism on every channel , with tongues clucking about the frightful example Donald Trump sets in attracting such people to his campaign .
Why aren ’ t they concerned about Sanders doing the same thing ?
Doesn ’ t “ democracy die in darkness , ” fellas ?

One is a fluke. Two is a coincidence. What about four Bernie Sanders campaign organizers parroting Marxist-Leninist talking points and pushing “extreme action” and “militancy”? The people captured in this series of Project Veritas videos seem low-level, but it’s tough to ignore that it’s looking like a pattern rather than an exception.
On the other hand, at least one of them would “hope to avoid … plenty of excesses in 1917” come the Bernie Revolution. That’s progress, I guess:
Well, that could depend on what Mason Baird considers “excesses”:
“We would need a federal government and labor union movement that is working together to strip power away from capitalists and preferably directing violence toward property. At the end of the day, this kind of stuff will come out through practice, through the work and it’s hard for me to talk about it in the moment we live in cause I think China today is not what Mao envisioned, right it was through the practice of Chinese people doing the work to create the China today. So, it never – we’re never going – I think a lot of the stuff – a lot of these answers are going to come through practice – we’re going to try things – things aren’t going to work – we’re going to move on to the next thing, and we’re going to try to be as conscious and intentional about those things, but when you get into a certain level of detail, and depth, it’s like, that’s kind of my ‘cop out’, it comes through the work, you know. The answers come through the work.” “It would, it’s gonna take, you know, it’s gonna take militancy…like a militant labor movement that’s willing to…strike, and if necessary, you know, just destroy property and things like that.” “A militant labor movement is kind of our last – our last real chance before we try…other means.”
Daniel Taylor, on the other hand, says violence will be necessary even if Sanders wins the election. You can’t deliver a socialist paradise without cracking a few skulls, after all:
“We don’t want to scare people off, you first have to feel it out before you get into the crazy stuff…You know we were talking about more extreme organizations like Antifa, you were talking about, Yellow Vests, all that but we’re kinda keeping that on the back-burner for now.” “We have all this momentum, where do we go, regardless of the outcome, after it’s all over? Change won’t come easily, regardless. Even if Bernie is elected, change will not come swiftly or easily, so the connections we make now in the campaign with people, and volunteers, it’s important we retain that regardless of the outcome. It’s unfortunate that we have to make plans for extreme action but like I said, they’re not going to give it to us even if Bernie is elected.”
Again, the PV undercover reporter does her best to get these conversations going to these extremes. At one point, she tells Baird that change on the scale they want doesn’t come easily. “So how do you jungle up?” she asks, at which point Baird gets reluctant to talk. “I just never want to kill anybody, you know?” he says at one point. “That scares me a lot,” Baird continues, but not enough to write it off as a possibility. Baird’s a lot more into violence against property as “extreme action,” and let it “snowball” from there.
Socialism is nothing if not a structured system for wishful thinking at best, but this argument from Baird is downright delusional. He tells the undercover reporter that mobilizing the people into a violent movement will force everyone else to retreat out of fear:
Right, but like these people are motivated by fear, and if we mobilize and make a show of force and show that we’re very strong and we’ve put in work and we’re very powerful now, I think you’ll have a good many people back down, who are going to be so afraid that they’re gonna back down off that position.
Ahem. Not only is that incorrect in general, Baird in particular is not the kind of imposing figure who will project fear into anyone’s hearts. In fact, he seems more afraid than bold himself, and certainly afraid of what might happen if he tries to put this plan into action. As an argument for protecting the Second Amendment, however, this is just golden.
It’s probably not news that a crank like Sanders would attract cranks to his campaign, especially of Baird’s temperament. What makes this interesting is that news outlets largely ignore this about Sanders’ campaign. Imagine for just a moment if someone caught one Trump campaign organizer advocating violence in order to intimidate political opposition into silence. We’d have wall-to-wall coverage of The Impending Darkness of American Fascism on every channel, with tongues clucking about the frightful example Donald Trump sets in attracting such people to his campaign.
Why aren’t they concerned about Sanders doing the same thing? Doesn’t “democracy die in darkness,” fellas?


hotair--2020-01-29--Schumer: It looks unlikely that we'll have enough Republican votes to call witnesses

I think he and the Democrats are fine with either outcome at this point .
They ’ d like to have Bolton testify because it ’ s increasingly clear that Bolton would have unkind things to say about Trump and the Ukraine matter , but it ’ s hard to know for sure just how unkind they ’ d be .
If he stopped short of claiming Trump personally said anything incriminating , his testimony would be a bust .
And that would color public perceptions of the entire Democratic case .
It ’ s also hard to say for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an acquittal after Bolton testified than they would from an acquittal if Republicans blocked him .
If Bolton is called and the GOP declares Trump not guilty anyway , Republicans get to tell the public that they did a diligent job and carefully considered the Democrats ’ “ blockbuster ” testimony before concluding that the quid pro quo just isn ’ t a high crime or misdemeanor .
Whereas if Bolton isn ’ t called and the GOP declares Trump not guilty , Schumer gets to spend the next nine months accusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressing key evidence in the case , very possibly buttressed by John Bolton himself .
The book is coming eventually , and the book tour .
And the guy is clearly eager to speak , per his announcement this month that he ’ d testify if subpoenaed .
At this point , given all the dribbles of damaging info over the past few days , it wouldn ’ t surprise me if he leaked something big tonight for tomorrow ’ s papers , right before the Senate vote on witnesses .
Or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhere tomorrow morning and gave an interview that put the GOP in a box .
Either way , Schumer and the Dems get something out of this no matter how the vote goes down .
And Schumer ’ s right when he says in the clip that the public is on his side on the issue of calling witnesses .
They ’ re not on his side on the broader issue of removal — that ’ s been a 50/50 issue , more or less , from the moment Trump was impeached in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recall a single poll over the last few weeks showing less than majority support for calling witnesses .
Sometimes that support is north of 60 percent ; yesterday Quinnipiac placed it at 75 percent ( ! )
.
The wrinkle for Dems is that at the moment a large minority , sometimes even a plurality , of Republicans is also keen to hear witnesses , hoping to finally be able to grill Hunter Biden and possibly the whistleblower .
If no witnesses end up being called and Trump celebrates that outcome , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support in polling .
But maybe not independents .
There were at 75/18 in favor of calling witnesses in the Quinnipiac data .
That ’ s fertile ground potentially for Democratic “ cover-up !
” talking points .
Senate Republicans have been coy today about where things stand but there were signs this morning that McConnell will get his wish : There was no discussion of witnesses at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Wednesday , which was held a couple hours after McConnell and Murkowski met for about 20 to 30 minutes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses .
Without a vote to hear from witnesses , the trial could end as soon as Friday .
“ We ’ re going to get it done by Friday , hopefully , ” Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-S.D . )
said following the meeting .
Sen. Mike Braun ( R-Ind . )
, emerging from the lunch , said , “ I think I can say the mood is good.
” Murkowski wasn ’ t there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join Collins and Romney in voting yes , but that 51st vote is elusive .
Pat Toomey made pretty clear earlier that he ’ s a no .
Lamar Alexander ’ s not going to cross McConnell .
Former stalwart Trump critics Mike Lee and Ben Sasse ?
Don ’ t make me laugh .
Come to think of it , if we ’ re headed for a 50/50 stalemate , maybe Murkowski will do McConnell a favor and vote no to avoid it .
She won ’ t be punished back home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have the majority leader owe you a favor , especially when you represent a state that receives a lot of federal money .
Besides , Murkowski has crossed Trump before ( e.g.
, Kavanaugh ) and doubtless will again .
It ’ ll be useful to her to have some “ good soldier ” cred to point to the next time it happens .
“ I was with you on impeachment , wasn ’ t I ?
”

I think he and the Democrats are fine with either outcome at this point. They’d like to have Bolton testify because it’s increasingly clear that Bolton would have unkind things to say about Trump and the Ukraine matter, but it’s hard to know for sure just how unkind they’d be. If he stopped short of claiming Trump personally said anything incriminating, his testimony would be a bust. And that would color public perceptions of the entire Democratic case.
It’s also hard to say for sure that Dems would benefit politically more from an acquittal after Bolton testified than they would from an acquittal if Republicans blocked him. If Bolton is called and the GOP declares Trump not guilty anyway, Republicans get to tell the public that they did a diligent job and carefully considered the Democrats’ “blockbuster” testimony before concluding that the quid pro quo just isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor. Whereas if Bolton isn’t called and the GOP declares Trump not guilty, Schumer gets to spend the next nine months accusing them of a sham verdict that involved suppressing key evidence in the case, very possibly buttressed by John Bolton himself. The book is coming eventually, and the book tour. And the guy is clearly eager to speak, per his announcement this month that he’d testify if subpoenaed.
At this point, given all the dribbles of damaging info over the past few days, it wouldn’t surprise me if he leaked something big tonight for tomorrow’s papers, right before the Senate vote on witnesses. Or if he just turned up on the news somewhere tomorrow morning and gave an interview that put the GOP in a box.
Either way, Schumer and the Dems get something out of this no matter how the vote goes down. And Schumer’s right when he says in the clip that the public is on his side on the issue of calling witnesses. They’re not on his side on the broader issue of removal — that’s been a 50/50 issue, more or less, from the moment Trump was impeached in mid-December. But I can’t recall a single poll over the last few weeks showing less than majority support for calling witnesses. Sometimes that support is north of 60 percent; yesterday Quinnipiac placed it at 75 percent(!). The wrinkle for Dems is that at the moment a large minority, sometimes even a plurality, of Republicans is also keen to hear witnesses, hoping to finally be able to grill Hunter Biden and possibly the whistleblower. If no witnesses end up being called and Trump celebrates that outcome, it’ll cool some of the Republican support in polling.
But maybe not independents. There were at 75/18 in favor of calling witnesses in the Quinnipiac data. That’s fertile ground potentially for Democratic “cover-up!” talking points.
Senate Republicans have been coy today about where things stand but there were signs this morning that McConnell will get his wish:
There was no discussion of witnesses at a Senate GOP lunch meeting Wednesday, which was held a couple hours after McConnell and Murkowski met for about 20 to 30 minutes. That was seen as a sign by several senators that Democrats will fail to convince four Republicans to join them in calling for witnesses. Without a vote to hear from witnesses, the trial could end as soon as Friday. “We’re going to get it done by Friday, hopefully,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said following the meeting. Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), emerging from the lunch, said, “I think I can say the mood is good.”
Murkowski wasn’t there. I think she’ll eventually join Collins and Romney in voting yes, but that 51st vote is elusive. Pat Toomey made pretty clear earlier that he’s a no. Lamar Alexander’s not going to cross McConnell. Former stalwart Trump critics Mike Lee and Ben Sasse? Don’t make me laugh.
Come to think of it, if we’re headed for a 50/50 stalemate, maybe Murkowski will do McConnell a favor and vote no to avoid it. She won’t be punished back home either way and it’s nice to have the majority leader owe you a favor, especially when you represent a state that receives a lot of federal money. Besides, Murkowski has crossed Trump before (e.g., Kavanaugh) and doubtless will again. It’ll be useful to her to have some “good soldier” cred to point to the next time it happens. “I was with you on impeachment, wasn’t I?”


hotair--2020-01-30--Schiff floats "compromise": How about we have just a single week of witness depositions?

Not gon na work , although Schiff knows that and doesn ’ t intend this to be a bona fide offer , I think .
Imagine if a group of centrist Republicans took him up on it and Bolton was deposed , and in the course of his deposition he accused Pompeo or Mulvaney or whoever of complicity in the Ukraine quid pro quo .
Does anyone think Schiff would observe his one-week deadline for trying to depose Mulvaney and/or Pompeo ?
“ I wish we could follow up on these explosive leads but it seems we ’ re out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to bolster the messaging Dems are preparing for after the verdict is in , which has already begun to some extent .
The more accommodating Democrats appear before the GOP votes no on witnesses then in theory the more inclined the public will be to view Republicans ’ refusal to call anyone as unreasonable .
Plus , emphasizing that this is “ the Clinton model ” may convince fencesitters that it ’ s fair .
There ’ s precedent .
If he wanted to make things interesting he could scrap the offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-for-one Bolton-for-Biden trade .
No other witnesses , just those two , no matter who else they might implicate once they ’ re under oath .
Depositions could be done in a couple of days .
That would take away the GOP ’ s argument that the trial might last until spring if witnesses start getting called .
Could Schiff and Schumer make that offer ?
They don ’ t want to give in to the Republicans on Biden , especially given how unpredictable his testimony might be and how it might affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire in the next two weeks .
But if they really want to go for broke with Bolton — and they probably don ’ t — then that ’ s the only offer that might make Murkowski and Lamar Alexander say , “ Hmmmm.
” And if the GOP voted against calling witnesses anyway , then Dems would be able to say to Republicans who were interested in hearing Biden ’ s testimony , “ We tried .
We were willing to give him to you ( even though you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him ) .
Your guys were too frightened of what Bolton might say to finally give the president a crack at the Burisma matter under a big spotlight.
” The mystery tonight isn ’ t whether Republicans will accept Schiff ’ s offer , it ’ s whether they ’ re going to torpedo witnesses and then race to a verdict tomorrow night or take an extra day or two .
The timeline isn ’ t inconsequential : If this bleeds into Saturday evening , Bernie , Warren , and Amy Klobuchar will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise have used to campaign in Iowa .
“ People will probably want at some point to put statements in the record about how they came to the conclusion they did and that sort of thing .
Whether or not that requires a bunch of speechifying in the Senate , I don ’ t know , ” Thune said .
“ I can tell you there are a lot of our members … who , if we can prevail on witnesses , want to just move to the final question as quickly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still holding out some hope that Alexander , Murkowski or a surprise Republican will revolt against McConnell and Trump and force deliberation over witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton .
But they are also beginning to discuss a backup plan : forcing more tough votes before acquittal .
Those options could range from proposals for a closed-door session to having more time to deliberate before delivering a verdict .
What do “ deliberations ” amount to in this case ?
Floor speeches , or does the Senate go into closed session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I can ’ t imagine how absurd the “ deliberations ” would be in that last case , with around 96 of the 100 members already mortal locks to vote a certain way .
Does this sound like a person who ’ s open to being persuaded in conversations with fellow jurors ?
Maybe Romney , Manchin , Doug Jones , and Kyrsten Sinema , the four legit undecideds , would go into a room together and try to work something out .
A vote to remove on the “ abuse of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ obstruction of Congress , ” for instance .
Although I don ’ t think Romney has the stones to go that nuclear .
Sounds like Team Mitch is ready to sprint to the finish line tomorrow night : In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s a sneak preview of McConnell ’ s response to Schiff ’ s compromise offer .

Not gonna work, although Schiff knows that and doesn’t intend this to be a bona fide offer, I think. Imagine if a group of centrist Republicans took him up on it and Bolton was deposed, and in the course of his deposition he accused Pompeo or Mulvaney or whoever of complicity in the Ukraine quid pro quo.
Does anyone think Schiff would observe his one-week deadline for trying to depose Mulvaney and/or Pompeo? “I wish we could follow up on these explosive leads but it seems we’re out of time.”
This offer is really designed to bolster the messaging Dems are preparing for after the verdict is in, which has already begun to some extent. The more accommodating Democrats appear before the GOP votes no on witnesses then in theory the more inclined the public will be to view Republicans’ refusal to call anyone as unreasonable. Plus, emphasizing that this is “the Clinton model” may convince fencesitters that it’s fair. There’s precedent.
ADAM SCHIFF: "I will make an offer to opposing counsel: … Let's [cap] the depositions to one week. In the Clinton trial, there was one week of depositions … You want the Clinton model? Let's use the Clinton model." Follow live updates here: https://t.co/aJZMjs4pEQ pic.twitter.com/UWHjjVbcLY — JM Rieger (@RiegerReport) January 30, 2020
If he wanted to make things interesting he could scrap the offer of a timetable and propose a straight-up one-for-one Bolton-for-Biden trade. No other witnesses, just those two, no matter who else they might implicate once they’re under oath. Depositions could be done in a couple of days. That would take away the GOP’s argument that the trial might last until spring if witnesses start getting called.
Could Schiff and Schumer make that offer? They don’t want to give in to the Republicans on Biden, especially given how unpredictable his testimony might be and how it might affect Joe’s chances in Iowa and New Hampshire in the next two weeks. But if they really want to go for broke with Bolton — and they probably don’t — then that’s the only offer that might make Murkowski and Lamar Alexander say, “Hmmmm.” And if the GOP voted against calling witnesses anyway, then Dems would be able to say to Republicans who were interested in hearing Biden’s testimony, “We tried. We were willing to give him to you (even though you don’t actually need Democratic votes to call him). Your guys were too frightened of what Bolton might say to finally give the president a crack at the Burisma matter under a big spotlight.”
The mystery tonight isn’t whether Republicans will accept Schiff’s offer, it’s whether they’re going to torpedo witnesses and then race to a verdict tomorrow night or take an extra day or two. The timeline isn’t inconsequential: If this bleeds into Saturday evening, Bernie, Warren, and Amy Klobuchar will lose a precious day that they might otherwise have used to campaign in Iowa.
“People will probably want at some point to put statements in the record about how they came to the conclusion they did and that sort of thing. Whether or not that requires a bunch of speechifying in the Senate, I don’t know,” Thune said. “I can tell you there are a lot of our members … who, if we can prevail on witnesses, want to just move to the final question as quickly as possible and conclude this.” Democrats are still holding out some hope that Alexander, Murkowski or a surprise Republican will revolt against McConnell and Trump and force deliberation over witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton. But they are also beginning to discuss a backup plan: forcing more tough votes before acquittal. Those options could range from proposals for a closed-door session to having more time to deliberate before delivering a verdict.
What do “deliberations” amount to in this case? Floor speeches, or does the Senate go into closed session? Or does each caucus huddle separately? I can’t imagine how absurd the “deliberations” would be in that last case, with around 96 of the 100 members already mortal locks to vote a certain way. Does this sound like a person who’s open to being persuaded in conversations with fellow jurors?
CJ Roberts just read @SenWarren’s Q: “Does fact that the Chief Justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, #SCOTUS or Constitution?” — Kimberly Atkins (@KimberlyEAtkins) January 30, 2020
Maybe Romney, Manchin, Doug Jones, and Kyrsten Sinema, the four legit undecideds, would go into a room together and try to work something out. A vote to remove on the “abuse of power” count and to acquit on “obstruction of Congress,” for instance. Although I don’t think Romney has the stones to go that nuclear.
Sounds like Team Mitch is ready to sprint to the finish line tomorrow night:
Rep. Conf. Chair Sen. Barrasso lays out potential Friday schedule: -1PM: 4 hours of closing arguments, including debate on witnesses
– Vote on witnesses
– If it fails, move to vote on the articles Senators will "stay until that work is decided and completed Friday evening." — Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) January 30, 2020
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a sneak preview of McConnell’s response to Schiff’s compromise offer.


hotair--2020-01-30--More scenes from New York's bail reform

More scenes from New York's bail reform

The “ year of the perp ” as some New York police are calling it , continues to look like a disaster .
Earlier this month Jazz wrote about a burglary suspect who was arrested , then released ( because authorities couldn ’ t hold him under the new bail law ) , then arrested again a day later after he committed another burglary .
Nearly the same thing happened with a serial bank robber this month .
But the NY Post continued to catalog more examples of this sort of thing in just the past week .
Yesterday the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men caught preparing to distribute millions of dollars of fentanyl : When officers on the task force entered the apartment , they saw the six suspects bundling powder-filled glassine envelopes stamped with the word “ fire , ” the special narcotics prosecutor said in a press release .
Hundreds of thousands of the envelopes packed with the powder were spread across two tables and overflowing from boxes in the apartment , authorities said .
The drugs , which have a street value of about $ 7 million , were believed to be headed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New England , the prosecutor ’ s office said… Despite the volume of the drugs seized , all six suspects were cut loose at their arraignments in Manhattan Criminal Court on Wednesday morning .
I wonder how many people would have died if this stuff had hit the streets ?
No matter , apparently .
When the six men were released they had a cheering squad of supporters .
Today the NY Post published an even worse story about a DWI suspect named Jordan Randolph who was arrested after a fatal crash and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out in a day : Details of the boozy bust were revealed Thursday as Randolph was hit with a 24-count indictment for vehicular manslaughter , aggravated vehicular homicide and a slew of other charges in the crash that killed 27-year-old Jonathan Flores-Maldonado .
“ As Jonathan Flores was left taking his last breaths and dying , this defendant was hurling expletives at both officers and EMTs who were trying to render him aid , ” Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney Jacob DeLauter said during Randolph ’ s arraignment .
“ At one point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collision by stating to police , ‘ F–k you , January 1st the laws changed .
I ’ ll be out tomorrow and I will come find you , ’ ” DeLauter said .
“ He also stated to an EMT that when he gets out , he ’ ll come find her.
” Randolph has 12 prior convictions including three previous DWIs .
He was also arrested on January 1st , just 11 days before the fatal crash that killed Jonathan Flores , but of course he was released after that arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family said the suspect should never have been on the road .
Earlier in the January , Randolph was released with an appearance ticket for allegedly interfering with his ignition interlock device .
A Suffolk judge claimed his hands were tied and released him with no bail despite six felony convictions , six misdemeanor convictions , and five failures to appear in court .
After his release , Randolph allegedly drove drunk again , at speeds of more than 130 mph , and was involved in a crash that claimed the life of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was the one that was mowed down on the damn highway , ” said Lillian Flores , the victim ’ s mother .
Was the idea behind bail reform to allow criminals with long records to continue to create mayhem while they away trial ?
That seems to be what it is accomplishing in a lot of these cases .
As Jazz noted two days ago , this isn ’ t the only problem with the new law , but it ’ s the most visible one .
How long are New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before they demand changes ?

The “year of the perp” as some New York police are calling it, continues to look like a disaster. Earlier this month Jazz wrote about a burglary suspect who was arrested, then released (because authorities couldn’t hold him under the new bail law), then arrested again a day later after he committed another burglary. Nearly the same thing happened with a serial bank robber this month.
But the NY Post continued to catalog more examples of this sort of thing in just the past week. Yesterday the Post reported on the release of six men caught preparing to distribute millions of dollars of fentanyl:
When officers on the task force entered the apartment, they saw the six suspects bundling powder-filled glassine envelopes stamped with the word “fire,” the special narcotics prosecutor said in a press release. Hundreds of thousands of the envelopes packed with the powder were spread across two tables and overflowing from boxes in the apartment, authorities said. The drugs, which have a street value of about $7 million, were believed to be headed onto the streets of New York and New England, the prosecutor’s office said… Despite the volume of the drugs seized, all six suspects were cut loose at their arraignments in Manhattan Criminal Court on Wednesday morning.
I wonder how many people would have died if this stuff had hit the streets? No matter, apparently. When the six men were released they had a cheering squad of supporters.
Today the NY Post published an even worse story about a DWI suspect named Jordan Randolph who was arrested after a fatal crash and told the cops he’d be out in a day:
Details of the boozy bust were revealed Thursday as Randolph was hit with a 24-count indictment for vehicular manslaughter, aggravated vehicular homicide and a slew of other charges in the crash that killed 27-year-old Jonathan Flores-Maldonado. “As Jonathan Flores was left taking his last breaths and dying, this defendant was hurling expletives at both officers and EMTs who were trying to render him aid,” Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney Jacob DeLauter said during Randolph’s arraignment. “At one point, the defendant completely trivialized this deadly collision by stating to police, ‘F–k you, January 1st the laws changed. I’ll be out tomorrow and I will come find you,’” DeLauter said. “He also stated to an EMT that when he gets out, he’ll come find her.”
Randolph has 12 prior convictions including three previous DWIs. He was also arrested on January 1st, just 11 days before the fatal crash that killed Jonathan Flores, but of course he was released after that arrest without bail.
The victim’s family said the suspect should never have been on the road. Earlier in the January, Randolph was released with an appearance ticket for allegedly interfering with his ignition interlock device. A Suffolk judge claimed his hands were tied and released him with no bail despite six felony convictions, six misdemeanor convictions, and five failures to appear in court. After his release, Randolph allegedly drove drunk again, at speeds of more than 130 mph, and was involved in a crash that claimed the life of Flores-Maldonado, a SUNY-Buffalo graduate. “He was the one that was mowed down on the damn highway,” said Lillian Flores, the victim’s mother.
Was the idea behind bail reform to allow criminals with long records to continue to create mayhem while they away trial? That seems to be what it is accomplishing in a lot of these cases. As Jazz noted two days ago, this isn’t the only problem with the new law, but it’s the most visible one. How long are New York residents going to watch this happen before they demand changes?


hotair--2020-01-30--Stop claiming Bolton video proves him a liar, says ... Fox & Friends?

Whatever will their number-one fan have to say about this ?
A fight over credibility and integrity between John Bolton and Donald Trump might have been tough to call in some quarters , but one wouldn ’ t think so about Fox & Friends .
And yet , here ’ s Brian Kilmeade bristling at those calling Bolton a liar over the reported story from his memoirs , including the president : Kilmeade even throws some cold water on the supposed smoking-gun interview that “ proves ” Bolton was lying about his recollections of a quid pro quo .
Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video that Trump tweeted yesterday with the comment “ GAME OVER !
” , but Kilmeade contradicts everyone : KILMEADE : So that is a different take on the meeting .
They were supposed to meet in Warsaw , but I think we had this problem — a natural disaster was looming , so the president sent the vice-president there .
This could have all ended if they ’ d just met in Warsaw , but it wasn ’ t to be .
So John Bolton had a different take there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar .
I don ’ t think — he sat on this couch before , he ’ s not a liar .
They have a differing of opinion , but questioning his credibility ?
I don ’ t think there ’ s — EARHARDT : You ’ re saying the New York Times , maybe whoever reported that , read the book and got something out of it that maybe John Bolton didn ’ t say ?
KILMEADE : I would say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question but not answer a question completely , and he could not be a liar .
This video from August 2019 is a slender reed in any sense .
It ’ s plausible , although arguable , that Bolton may not have been aware of any quid pro quo issues until early September , when the whistleblower emerged .
In this interview , Bolton wouldn ’ t have had an opportunity to deny one existed , because the interviewer wouldn ’ t have known about it at all in August .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out aid had been held up , although as national security adviser , one would think he ’ d have known immediately .
Perhaps at the time he believed Trump ’ s claim that it was about corruption in general , not a trade-off for a probe of the Bidens specifically , a claim which only emerged shortly after this interview with Voice of America took place .
These attacks also have the potential for massively backfiring on Trump and Republicans .
If they keep calling Bolton a liar , Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has quite a few — might join up with his opponents there to allow Bolton to appear to defend himself .
Lindsey Graham issued a warning about this yesterday afternoon , in fact : Kilmeade ’ s brushback should serve as a reminder to Trump that Bolton has many friends on the Right and has been well respected for decades before Trump added him to the team .
One reason Trump did that , recall , is that Bolton was so impressive on television shows like Fox & Friends analyzing national-security issues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republicans are defending Trump now because of a corrupt process that led to a partisan impeachment , but they ’ re not going to trash their friends along the way to get there .
Perhaps that ’ s why Trump hasn ’ t said much about Bolton since his “ GAME OVER !
” tweet yesterday afternoon .

Whatever will their number-one fan have to say about this? A fight over credibility and integrity between John Bolton and Donald Trump might have been tough to call in some quarters, but one wouldn’t think so about Fox & Friends. And yet, here’s Brian Kilmeade bristling at those calling Bolton a liar over the reported story from his memoirs, including the president:
https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1222855654035030016
Kilmeade even throws some cold water on the supposed smoking-gun interview that “proves” Bolton was lying about his recollections of a quid pro quo. Steve Doocy and Ainsley Earhardt appear delighted about the video that Trump tweeted yesterday with the comment “GAME OVER!”, but Kilmeade contradicts everyone:
KILMEADE: So that is a different take on the meeting. They were supposed to meet in Warsaw, but I think we had this problem — a natural disaster was looming, so the president sent the vice-president there. This could have all ended if they’d just met in Warsaw, but it wasn’t to be. So John Bolton had a different take there. Ah, I don’t like the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar. I don’t think — he sat on this couch before, he’s not a liar. They have a differing of opinion, but questioning his credibility? I don’t think there’s — EARHARDT: You’re saying the New York Times, maybe whoever reported that, read the book and got something out of it that maybe John Bolton didn’t say? KILMEADE: I would say that, but he could answer a question but not answer a question completely, and he could not be a liar.
This video from August 2019 is a slender reed in any sense. It’s plausible, although arguable, that Bolton may not have been aware of any quid pro quo issues until early September, when the whistleblower emerged. In this interview, Bolton wouldn’t have had an opportunity to deny one existed, because the interviewer wouldn’t have known about it at all in August. It’s not even clear when Bolton found out aid had been held up, although as national security adviser, one would think he’d have known immediately. Perhaps at the time he believed Trump’s claim that it was about corruption in general, not a trade-off for a probe of the Bidens specifically, a claim which only emerged shortly after this interview with Voice of America took place.
These attacks also have the potential for massively backfiring on Trump and Republicans. If they keep calling Bolton a liar, Bolton’s friends in the Senate — and he has quite a few — might join up with his opponents there to allow Bolton to appear to defend himself. Lindsey Graham issued a warning about this yesterday afternoon, in fact:
Sen. Lindsey Graham Statement on Trump’s tweets on Bolton: “I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness.” pic.twitter.com/c5UXQghK16 — Jason Donner (@jason_donner) January 29, 2020
Kilmeade’s brushback should serve as a reminder to Trump that Bolton has many friends on the Right and has been well respected for decades before Trump added him to the team. One reason Trump did that, recall, is that Bolton was so impressive on television shows like Fox & Friends analyzing national-security issues and talking tough about America’s enemies. Republicans are defending Trump now because of a corrupt process that led to a partisan impeachment, but they’re not going to trash their friends along the way to get there. Perhaps that’s why Trump hasn’t said much about Bolton since his “GAME OVER!” tweet yesterday afternoon.


hotair--2020-01-30--“He will not be acquitted”: Trump can't be vindicated unless witnesses are called, say Pelosi and Sc

“He will not be acquitted”: Trump can't be vindicated unless witnesses are called, say Pelosi and Schiff

An odd argument for Democrats to make in a way , since Trump is sure to be acquitted even if witnesses are called .
Anyway , these are the first official shots in the Democrats ’ “ cover-up !
” messaging war on the GOP that they ’ ve been planning since Trump was impeached .
They were going to fight that war no matter how many witnesses were called so long as Trump was found not guilty , but having Republicans decline to call Bolton despite reports that he might have something important to reveal means Dems will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anticipated .
In fact , says Charles Lipson today in an op-ed today at the Spectator , the Democrats ’ dirty little secret is that they don ’ t really want witnesses to be called .
They don ’ t need Bolton to testify in order to get his story out there , after all .
He ’ s going to handle that for them eventually , whether via his book or TV interviews .
If he has something damning to say about Trump when he finally speaks then their “ cover-up ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has nothing damning to say then Dems can at least take comfort in the fact that they didn ’ t go to the mat to have him testify only for him to blow up their case under oath .
First , the president would assert executive privilege over Bolton ’ s testimony and documents , which would drag out the proceedings until the Supreme Court decided the issue .
While these appeals dragged on , Senators running for president would be stuck in Washington , off the campaign trail .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican-majority Senate is going to permit Democrats to call Bolton unless they can call witnesses of their own .
Remember , the House Democrats called 17 witnesses in their investigation and refused to allow the Republicans to call even one .
The Senate will demand basic fairness , and they will get it .
As the fight over testimony from Bolton and other White House aides drags on in the courts , Democrats will find it nearly impossible to press their advantage with voters on issues such as health care , which helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats would be held responsible for prolonging the impeachment trial , which would serve as a giant campaign poster for the president ’ s attack on the ‘ Do Nothing Democrats ’ .
Dems will get something out of this no matter what happens with Bolton tomorrow , although the outcome of the witness vote looks increasingly clear .
There ’ s only one way at this point that the trial could turn into a disaster for them : That ’ s if Joe Manchin , Doug Jones , or Kyrsten Sinema @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to give the GOP political cover by siding with them on acquittal .
I think Dems would grudgingly tolerate Manchin defecting since everyone understands the reality of politics in West Virginia .
I suspect they ’ d be disappointed if Jones defected even though he has an obvious electoral reason to do so in Alabama since he ’ s unlikely to win reelection this fall no matter how he votes .
But to have Sinema , from purplish Arizona , cross the aisle too would be a catastrophe .
How do you run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when not one , not two , but three Democrats concluded otherwise ?
And ironically , the GOP ’ s refusal to call Bolton has made that result more likely .
No doubt Schumer is telling Manchin , Jones , and Sinema this afternoon that they need to punish Republican obstructionism by sticking with the team , but without Bolton ’ s testimony about a quid pro quo it ’ s harder for them to justify a vote to remove Trump to their Republican constituents back home .
Blocking Bolton will pay off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al .
to say “ we wanted to hear his testimony but since we can ’ t we have no choice but to acquit based on what ’ s in front of us.
” If they ’ re feeling really cheeky , they might even echo the GOP ’ s recurring point that the House should have fought harder to compel Bolton ’ s testimony when it had the chance , even if that meant delaying impeachment .
Pushing impeachment deep into an election year would have created different political problems for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having him on the record incriminating Trump might have paid off by influencing public opinion .
And remember , according to Eliot Engel , they did have reason to believe that Bolton had incriminating information as early as September 23 .
They could have subpoenaed him the next day and maybe forced a ruling by New Year ’ s .
Here are Pelosi and Schiff jumpstarting the “ no vindication ” chatter ahead of tomorrow evening ’ s likely acquittal vote .
Exit question : Is Bolton ultimately to blame for his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he resisted being called by the House but because , per Fiona Hill , he was urging subordinates to warn White House lawyers about some sort of illicit deal with Ukraine being orchestrated by Mulvaney and others as early as July .
If he had told House Democrats about that at the time , the impeachment inquiry may have started much sooner .
Maybe soon enough to have a court battle over compelling Bolton ’ s testimony before it got too late on the political calendar for Pelosi to attempt that .

An odd argument for Democrats to make in a way, since Trump is sure to be acquitted even if witnesses are called.
Anyway, these are the first official shots in the Democrats’ “cover-up!” messaging war on the GOP that they’ve been planning since Trump was impeached. They were going to fight that war no matter how many witnesses were called so long as Trump was found not guilty, but having Republicans decline to call Bolton despite reports that he might have something important to reveal means Dems will be using heavier ordnance than they might have anticipated.
In fact, says Charles Lipson today in an op-ed today at the Spectator, the Democrats’ dirty little secret is that they don’t really want witnesses to be called. They don’t need Bolton to testify in order to get his story out there, after all. He’s going to handle that for them eventually, whether via his book or TV interviews. If he has something damning to say about Trump when he finally speaks then their “cover-up” talking point will get stronger. If he has nothing damning to say then Dems can at least take comfort in the fact that they didn’t go to the mat to have him testify only for him to blow up their case under oath.
First, the president would assert executive privilege over Bolton’s testimony and documents, which would drag out the proceedings until the Supreme Court decided the issue. While these appeals dragged on, Senators running for president would be stuck in Washington, off the campaign trail. Then, too, there is no way a Republican-majority Senate is going to permit Democrats to call Bolton unless they can call witnesses of their own. Remember, the House Democrats called 17 witnesses in their investigation and refused to allow the Republicans to call even one. The Senate will demand basic fairness, and they will get it. As the fight over testimony from Bolton and other White House aides drags on in the courts, Democrats will find it nearly impossible to press their advantage with voters on issues such as health care, which helped them win in 2018. Instead, the Democrats would be held responsible for prolonging the impeachment trial, which would serve as a giant campaign poster for the president’s attack on the ‘Do Nothing Democrats’.
Dems will get something out of this no matter what happens with Bolton tomorrow, although the outcome of the witness vote looks increasingly clear. There’s only one way at this point that the trial could turn into a disaster for them: That’s if Joe Manchin, Doug Jones, or Kyrsten Sinema — or some combination thereof — decide to give the GOP political cover by siding with them on acquittal. I think Dems would grudgingly tolerate Manchin defecting since everyone understands the reality of politics in West Virginia. I suspect they’d be disappointed if Jones defected even though he has an obvious electoral reason to do so in Alabama since he’s unlikely to win reelection this fall no matter how he votes. But to have Sinema, from purplish Arizona, cross the aisle too would be a catastrophe. How do you run around screaming “Republican cover-up!” when not one, not two, but three Democrats concluded otherwise?
And ironically, the GOP’s refusal to call Bolton has made that result more likely. No doubt Schumer is telling Manchin, Jones, and Sinema this afternoon that they need to punish Republican obstructionism by sticking with the team, but without Bolton’s testimony about a quid pro quo it’s harder for them to justify a vote to remove Trump to their Republican constituents back home. Blocking Bolton will pay off big for McConnell if it forces Manchin et al. to say “we wanted to hear his testimony but since we can’t we have no choice but to acquit based on what’s in front of us.” If they’re feeling really cheeky, they might even echo the GOP’s recurring point that the House should have fought harder to compel Bolton’s testimony when it had the chance, even if that meant delaying impeachment. Pushing impeachment deep into an election year would have created different political problems for Pelosi and the Democratic 2020 field but having him on the record incriminating Trump might have paid off by influencing public opinion. And remember, according to Eliot Engel, they did have reason to believe that Bolton had incriminating information as early as September 23. They could have subpoenaed him the next day and maybe forced a ruling by New Year’s.
Here are Pelosi and Schiff jumpstarting the “no vindication” chatter ahead of tomorrow evening’s likely acquittal vote. Exit question: Is Bolton ultimately to blame for his own failure to testify? Not just because he resisted being called by the House but because, per Fiona Hill, he was urging subordinates to warn White House lawyers about some sort of illicit deal with Ukraine being orchestrated by Mulvaney and others as early as July. If he had told House Democrats about that at the time, the impeachment inquiry may have started much sooner. Maybe soon enough to have a court battle over compelling Bolton’s testimony before it got too late on the political calendar for Pelosi to attempt that.
.@pkcapitol asks if Pres. Trump will be chastened or "emboldened because the Senate will have acquitted him?"@SpeakerPelosi: "He will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial. And you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation." pic.twitter.com/HncgBj1PQE — CSPAN (@cspan) January 30, 2020


hotair--2020-01-30--Can Bernie Sanders win the Texas Democrat primary?

The latest polling is out on the Texas Democrat primary .
The Texas Lyceum poll was released Wednesday .
There hasn ’ t been a lot of polling in Texas so far so it ’ s interesting to see what is shaking out now .
The Texas Lyceum is a nonprofit , nonpartisan , statewide leadership organization and generally looked upon as a good indication of where the public stands .
The focus isn ’ t so much on party politics but on future leadership , with the business community in mind .
In other words , it isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a specific tilt to the left or right .
The most interesting finding is in the Democrat primary race .
While it is no surprise that Joe Biden is the top-ranked candidate since he ’ s supposed to be moderate in a field full of socialists , guess who is on his heels ?
Bernie Sanders , that ’ s who .
Biden leads The Texas Lyceum poll by a mere two points .
Biden is at 28 % while Sanders is at 26 % .
The last time a poll was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At that time , Texans Beto O ’ Rourke and Julián Castro were still in the race and the field was larger .
The results then were Biden had 24 % and Sanders , 13 % .
The other candidates were Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( 13 % ) , former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg ( 9 % ) , former South Bend , Ind.
, Mayor Pete Buttigieg ( 6 % ) and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( 3 % ) .
It ’ s Bernie ’ s moment apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when it tested a cavalry charge of two dozen Democrats pursuing the party ’ s presidential nomination , Sanders has vaulted from fourth place in Texas to a close second .
“ Bernie has had a moment here , ” said Joshua Blank of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin , who is the poll ’ s research director .
“ It ’ s certainly great timing – even if it is ‘ the flavor of the moment ’ – because we ’ re going into Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first-in-the-nation votes that will be cast in Iowa Democratic caucuses on Monday night .
For reference , in the March 1 , 2016 , Democrat primary election in Texas , Hillary Clinton easily stomped Bernie – 65.2 % to 33.2 % .
Biden is the Hillary in the 2020 Democrat primary .
He is supposed to be the one who is looked upon as the candidate who can beat Trump , which is the top goal for Democrat primary voters .
So a growing shift from a safe moderate to an avowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to raise eyebrows .
The Sanders campaign has put in time in Texas .
Just yesterday his surrogates were in Houston at The Future of Black America Symposium .
This is an annual event put on by The National Newspaper Publishers Association and The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation , in partnership with The Women ’ s Missionary Society and Connectional Lay Organization of the African Methodist Episcopal Church .
It is open to the public and features speakers like political candidates .
Mike Bloomberg was a speaker , too .
Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concentrating on Super Tuesday states , not the early voting states , and he is here frequently now .
His ads are flooding the airwaves .
The second interesting part of The Texas Lyceum poll is on the general election in November .
It ’ s good news for Trump .
He beats all of the top four candidates currently in the race .
Bernie is closest to him , though , not Biden and that is a new development .
Bloomberg , I ’ ll note , wasn ’ t included in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entry .
In the general election matchups that were tested , Trump leads Sanders , 50 % to 47 % ; Biden , 51 % to 46 % ; Warren , 52 % to 44 % ; and Buttigieg , 51 % to 43 % , the poll found .
Though Bloomberg had promised to spend heavily on ads in Texas and other Super Tuesday states by the time pollsters wrote their questions , Blank said Lyceum officials felt uncomfortable “ jumping him over other candidates to the front of the list ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for very long .
The margin for error for the head to head comparisons was plus or minus 4.3 percentage points .
For the potential Democratic primary voters on who they want to be nominated , the margin of error was plus or minus 4.89 percentage points .
So , yeah , I admit I ’ m surprised by all this on the Democrat side .
Bernie ’ s moment may or may not last but his trending is good so far .
He may find himself able to win the state primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support with Hispanic voters continues .
Beto O ’ Rourke hasn ’ t endorsed anyone yet and if he endorses Bernie , well , that may do it .
Despite the fact that Beto keeps losing , there is a real enthusiasm that he unleashed in Democrats which has given them a renewed hope for turning Texas blue .
That won ’ t happen in 2020 but it does help their get- out- the- vote drives and it keeps the grassroots supporters motivated to block walk and send in donations .
As Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see where Bloomberg ends up in the mix .
As the event yesterday showed , he isn ’ t just flooding the airwaves , he ’ s showing up in Texas , too .
Besides Houston , he was also in San Antonio to launch Hispanic outreach .

The latest polling is out on the Texas Democrat primary. The Texas Lyceum poll was released Wednesday. There hasn’t been a lot of polling in Texas so far so it’s interesting to see what is shaking out now.
The Texas Lyceum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide leadership organization and generally looked upon as a good indication of where the public stands. The focus isn’t so much on party politics but on future leadership, with the business community in mind. In other words, it isn’t known as an organization that polls with a specific tilt to the left or right.
The most interesting finding is in the Democrat primary race. While it is no surprise that Joe Biden is the top-ranked candidate since he’s supposed to be moderate in a field full of socialists, guess who is on his heels? Bernie Sanders, that’s who. Biden leads The Texas Lyceum poll by a mere two points. Biden is at 28% while Sanders is at 26%. The last time a poll was released by the organization was last August. At that time, Texans Beto O’Rourke and Julián Castro were still in the race and the field was larger. The results then were Biden had 24% and Sanders, 13%.
The other candidates were Sen. Elizabeth Warren (13%), former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg (9%), former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (6%) and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar (3%). It’s Bernie’s moment apparently.
Since a Lyceum poll in August, when it tested a cavalry charge of two dozen Democrats pursuing the party’s presidential nomination, Sanders has vaulted from fourth place in Texas to a close second. “Bernie has had a moment here,” said Joshua Blank of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin, who is the poll’s research director. “It’s certainly great timing – even if it is ‘the flavor of the moment’ – because we’re going into Iowa,” Blank said, referring to the first-in-the-nation votes that will be cast in Iowa Democratic caucuses on Monday night.
For reference, in the March 1, 2016, Democrat primary election in Texas, Hillary Clinton easily stomped Bernie – 65.2% to 33.2%. Biden is the Hillary in the 2020 Democrat primary. He is supposed to be the one who is looked upon as the candidate who can beat Trump, which is the top goal for Democrat primary voters. So a growing shift from a safe moderate to an avowed socialist in a Texas primary is enough to raise eyebrows.
The Sanders campaign has put in time in Texas. Just yesterday his surrogates were in Houston at The Future of Black America Symposium. This is an annual event put on by The National Newspaper Publishers Association and The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, in partnership with The Women’s Missionary Society and Connectional Lay Organization of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. It is open to the public and features speakers like political candidates. Mike Bloomberg was a speaker, too. Texas votes on Super Tuesday. Bloomberg is concentrating on Super Tuesday states, not the early voting states, and he is here frequently now. His ads are flooding the airwaves.
The second interesting part of The Texas Lyceum poll is on the general election in November. It’s good news for Trump. He beats all of the top four candidates currently in the race. Bernie is closest to him, though, not Biden and that is a new development. Bloomberg, I’ll note, wasn’t included in the polling since he is a newer entry.
In the general election matchups that were tested, Trump leads Sanders, 50% to 47%; Biden, 51% to 46%; Warren, 52% to 44%; and Buttigieg, 51% to 43%, the poll found. Though Bloomberg had promised to spend heavily on ads in Texas and other Super Tuesday states by the time pollsters wrote their questions, Blank said Lyceum officials felt uncomfortable “jumping him over other candidates to the front of the list” when he hadn’t actually campaigned for very long. The margin for error for the head to head comparisons was plus or minus 4.3 percentage points. For the potential Democratic primary voters on who they want to be nominated, the margin of error was plus or minus 4.89 percentage points.
So, yeah, I admit I’m surprised by all this on the Democrat side. Bernie’s moment may or may not last but his trending is good so far. He may find himself able to win the state primary if young voter enthusiasm continues and his support with Hispanic voters continues. Beto O’Rourke hasn’t endorsed anyone yet and if he endorses Bernie, well, that may do it. Despite the fact that Beto keeps losing, there is a real enthusiasm that he unleashed in Democrats which has given them a renewed hope for turning Texas blue. That won’t happen in 2020 but it does help their get- out- the- vote drives and it keeps the grassroots supporters motivated to block walk and send in donations.
As Super Tuesday gets closer, we’ll see where Bloomberg ends up in the mix. As the event yesterday showed, he isn’t just flooding the airwaves, he’s showing up in Texas, too. Besides Houston, he was also in San Antonio to launch Hispanic outreach.


hotair--2020-01-30--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment game, Guess His Name, Bolton leak blame, Warren's rando gam

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment game, Guess His Name, Bolton leak blame, Warren's rando game, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news @ @ @ @ @ show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and @ @ @ @ @ those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Duane @ @ @ @ @ us up to date on the week ’ s top stories and gives us a @ @ @ @ @ Hugh Hewitt show .
We ’ ve got the latest on impeachment , the witness @ @ @ @ @ leak , plus all the new developments from the presidential race .
Don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
@ @ @ @ @ , and don ’ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook @ @ @ @ @ can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016 ?
Find out in GOING RED , @ @ @ @ @ Forum !

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson brings us up to date on the week’s top stories and gives us a preview of tomorrow’s Hugh Hewitt show. We’ve got the latest on impeachment, the witness vote, the John Bolton leak, plus all the new developments from the presidential race. Don’t miss it!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep winning after 2016? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!