hotair--2020-01-24--Why, yes, the new Space Force logo does look exactly like the Starfleet Command logo

If this is Trump ’ s way of announcing that he ’ s planning to turn Space Force into “ Star Trek ” then he ’ s going to win 45 states next year .
Outside shot at all 50 .
At a minimum it ’ s an ingenious way to recruit .
Every nerd in the country is staring at this tweet this afternoon thinking , “ It ’ s happening.
” I ’ m going to give you three theories for how this happened .
1 .
Trump got pranked .
Some dastardly Never Trumper in the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rip off the Starfleet Command logo and see if he ’ d approve it , expecting that he might be the one person in America among his generation who wouldn ’ t recognize it instantly .
2 .
Trump came up with it .
The president didn ’ t get pranked , he ripped it off “ Star Trek ” himself .
The man watches 22 hours of TV a day and all of his cultural reference points seem to date to no later than 1983 .
You think he doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he sees it ?
C ’ mon .
He may even be under the impression that Space Force actually is some sort of real-life Pentagon attempt at “ Star Trek.
” God help whoever ends up having to explain to him that Vulcans aren ’ t real .
Mick Mulvaney ’ s going to earn his paycheck this week .
3 .
It ’ s not a rip-off of “ Star Trek , ” it ’ s a rip-off of a rip-off .
I say again : Dude .
Clearly the Space Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logo but you ’ ll never convince me that Starfleet Command didn ’ t influence it too .
The circular format , the text layout , the pinpoint stars in the background , and of course that distinctive orbital swoosh around the main cursor/spaceship .
It ’ s all there , buddy .
There ’ s a Trekkie in the Pentagon ’ s design department .
No other plausible explanation .
Here ’ s Trump enemy Justin Amash reacting to the news in GIF form .
Exit question : Didn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kirk ” stand for “ Trump ” ?

If this is Trump’s way of announcing that he’s planning to turn Space Force into “Star Trek” then he’s going to win 45 states next year.
Outside shot at all 50.
At a minimum it’s an ingenious way to recruit. Every nerd in the country is staring at this tweet this afternoon thinking, “It’s happening.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1220821545746141187
Dude, for real:
I’m going to give you three theories for how this happened.
1. Trump got pranked. Some dastardly Never Trumper in the Pentagon bureaucracy thought it’d be funny to rip off the Starfleet Command logo and see if he’d approve it, expecting that he might be the one person in America among his generation who wouldn’t recognize it instantly.
2. Trump came up with it. The president didn’t get pranked, he ripped it off “Star Trek” himself. The man watches 22 hours of TV a day and all of his cultural reference points seem to date to no later than 1983. You think he doesn’t know the Starfleet Command logo when he sees it? C’mon.
He may even be under the impression that Space Force actually is some sort of real-life Pentagon attempt at “Star Trek.” God help whoever ends up having to explain to him that Vulcans aren’t real. Mick Mulvaney’s going to earn his paycheck this week.
3. It’s not a rip-off of “Star Trek,” it’s a rip-off of a rip-off. I say again: Dude.
For those excitedly tweeting that Trump stole the Star Trek logo!!!!, the patch on the left was the existing Air Force Command logo. The same one I wore as a Lieutenant in 2005. pic.twitter.com/mYb60YioBP — John Noonan (@noonanjo) January 24, 2020
Clearly the Space Force logo drew inspiration from the Air Force logo but you’ll never convince me that Starfleet Command didn’t influence it too. The circular format, the text layout, the pinpoint stars in the background, and of course that distinctive orbital swoosh around the main cursor/spaceship. It’s all there, buddy. There’s a Trekkie in the Pentagon’s design department. No other plausible explanation.
Here’s Trump enemy Justin Amash reacting to the news in GIF form. Exit question: Didn’t the “T” in “James T. Kirk” stand for “Trump”?


hotair--2020-01-25--Trans women are men according to trans woman

Oh , dear .
This isn ’ t going to go over well at all and somebody may be losing their key to the executive all-gender bathroom at the next Executive Woke Staff meeting .
Over at National Review , Madeleine Kearns unearths a story out of Great Britain , where science teacher and a transgender activist Debbie Hayton has gone public with some comments that will soon see her barred from the cool kids ’ lunch table .
She ’ s published an opinion piece that dares to call upon people to respect basic medical science and understand the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between men and women .
And yes , she wrote that transgender women are still men .
Debbie Hayton is a British science teacher and a transgender campaigner .
Hayton , who struggles with gender dysphoria , identifies as a trans woman but still acknowledges that trans women are men .
Denying this fact , Hayton argues , is harmful to transgender people since society is unlikely to build trust and respect with a minority group if said group coerces them into denying science and safeguarding provisions .
“ At this very moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law that would allow people to change their legal sex without producing evidence of a psychological need , ” Hayton notes in a recent piece for UnHerd .
It ’ s a rather amazing and refreshing read coming from someone inside the transgender community .
But Hayton doesn ’ t stop with a mere nod to the realities of biology and genetics .
She argues against transgender women being automatically allowed into women ’ s private spaces , noting that some men can present a danger to women and those dressing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility .
Women ’ s spaces are not protected because all men present a hazard , but a few do .
In the same way , we don ’ t lock our doors at night because all passers-by are a hazard .
But in both cases , some people will abuse trust and women need to take precautions just like householders need to take precautions .
The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male , and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present .
Women can no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men .
Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women ’ s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless .
It is a safeguarding nightmare .
Hayton provides a long , well-researched history of gender identity legislation in England , Scotland and the European Union .
It paints a picture of governments who appeared to rush toward a jump into the void once the concept of gender identity as something somehow different from biological sex came into vogue .
Initial efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public or serious debate .
But later , as the conversation caught more attention , responses were broadly negative .
That ’ s the political landscape that Hayton seeks to navigate while trying to ensure equal treatment for people with gender dysphoria without engendering the anger of people holding more traditional , clinical views .
As I noted above , I ’ m not allowing myself any expectation that she will turn the subject around in either Europe or the United States .
More than likely , Hayton will be pilloried by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ island , which is sad .
But it ’ s still a hopeful sign to see someone speaking common sense in the middle of a torrent of madness .

Oh, dear. This isn’t going to go over well at all and somebody may be losing their key to the executive all-gender bathroom at the next Executive Woke Staff meeting.
Over at National Review, Madeleine Kearns unearths a story out of Great Britain, where science teacher and a transgender activist Debbie Hayton has gone public with some comments that will soon see her barred from the cool kids’ lunch table. She’s published an opinion piece that dares to call upon people to respect basic medical science and understand the differences (both physical and social) between men and women. And yes, she wrote that transgender women are still men.
Debbie Hayton is a British science teacher and a transgender campaigner. Hayton, who struggles with gender dysphoria, identifies as a trans woman but still acknowledges that trans women are men. Denying this fact, Hayton argues, is harmful to transgender people since society is unlikely to build trust and respect with a minority group if said group coerces them into denying science and safeguarding provisions. “At this very moment, Scotland is considering a change to the law that would allow people to change their legal sex without producing evidence of a psychological need,” Hayton notes in a recent piece for UnHerd.
It’s a rather amazing and refreshing read coming from someone inside the transgender community. But Hayton doesn’t stop with a mere nod to the realities of biology and genetics. She argues against transgender women being automatically allowed into women’s private spaces, noting that some men can present a danger to women and those dressing as women are not exempt from that frightening possibility.
Women’s spaces are not protected because all men present a hazard, but a few do. In the same way, we don’t lock our doors at night because all passers-by are a hazard. But in both cases, some people will abuse trust and women need to take precautions just like householders need to take precautions. The inconvenient truth is that transwomen are male, and — as a group — we present the same hazard that men present. Women can no more differentiate nice trans from nasty trans than they can distinguish nice men from nasty men. Allowing us to declare ourselves to be trans and then immediately self-identify into women’s spaces makes the boundaries meaningless. It is a safeguarding nightmare.
Hayton provides a long, well-researched history of gender identity legislation in England, Scotland and the European Union. It paints a picture of governments who appeared to rush toward a jump into the void once the concept of gender identity as something somehow different from biological sex came into vogue. Initial efforts were begun with very little input from the public or serious debate. But later, as the conversation caught more attention, responses were broadly negative.
That’s the political landscape that Hayton seeks to navigate while trying to ensure equal treatment for people with gender dysphoria without engendering the anger of people holding more traditional, clinical views. As I noted above, I’m not allowing myself any expectation that she will turn the subject around in either Europe or the United States. More than likely, Hayton will be pilloried by her peers and essentially voted off the island, which is sad. But it’s still a hopeful sign to see someone speaking common sense in the middle of a torrent of madness.


hotair--2020-01-25--AOC campaigns in Iowa for Sanders, doesn't mention his name

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sure has an odd way of campaigning for Bernie Sanders .
She doesn ’ t mention his name .
Last October , Bernie scored the coveted AOC endorsement .
What could be better than a young socialist with a huge following to endorse an old socialist who captured the imagination of the socialist wing of the Democrat Party in 2016 ?
AOC , after all , volunteered for the Sanders campaign back then .
She has a history with him .
Last November he announced that she will fill-in for him on the campaign trail while he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate during the impeachment trial .
AOC is in Iowa for Sanders .
During a campaign event in Iowa City ( home city of the University of Iowa ) , liberal filmmaker and activist Michael Moore joined her to fire up the crowd for Bernie .
Something caught the attention of reporters , though .
AOC never once mentioned Sanders ’ name during her speech .
Moore served as the warm-up act for AOC .
Moore is clearly excited to be serving as a surrogate .
“ I ’ m so excited about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa , ” Moore said .
“ Bernie was in Dubuque a couple of weeks ago and I scribbled this down here – I came to tears watching him say this.
” “ It was a Q-and-A at a big town hall and someone asked him if he thought he was too old to be president of the United States [ and Bernie said ] ‘ I ’ ve been saying for months , I ’ ll tell you what ’ s too old — 40 million people in this country not having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old.
’ ” Moore championed Sanders for his policies on climate change , the minimum wage and his record on civil rights , before claiming Sanders is the only candidate who can defeat President Trump in November .
“ We have to crush Donald J. Trump with the truth and with a candidate who is the opposite of Donald J. Trump , ” he said .
Bernie Sanders may have moved Michael Moore to tears of joy with his socialist agenda but he horrifies the rest of us who do not wish to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our way of life .
Moore has one thing right , though – Sanders is the opposite of Trump , who embraces capitalism and our economy reaps the rewards of Trump ’ s policies .
Moore introduced AOC , the final speaker .
She spoke as Moore did and encouraged the crowd to reject the status quo .
“ It is bold and it is a risk , ” she said .
“ We hedge our bets , we get more of the same .
And the same has not been helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come together …We ’ ve got ten days left , ten days ( until the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3 ) .
” The New York Democrat also called for the abolition of two federal immigration agencies — Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) and Customs and Border Protection ( CBP ) .
She also advocated for Medicare-for-all , and suggested that political leaders craft the nation ’ s environmental policy around “ indigenous wisdom.
” “ This is not just about how we win , it ’ s about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ From our bodies to this land , we are going to need entirely new paradigms of public policy in order to heal.
” I ’ m not sure what AOC means about our bodies ’ healing , but I do know that voters did reject the status quo in 2016 when they voted for Donald Trump .
Compared to Bernie ’ s lifetime career in politics , Trump is still the anti-status quo candidate .
It ’ s just very odd that she doesn ’ t mention his name .
Perhaps it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own district in New York , or maybe it is her own self-involvement .
Whatever the reason , someone should pull her aside and remind her that the crowd is there for Bernie and his name should be used over and over again .
AOC and Moore will do Bernie ’ s bidding Saturday before the candidate is able to get to Iowa due to the impeachment trial schedule .
He will be at a second rally , though , Saturday night .
He groused about calendar conflicts and said that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on missing out on so many events in Iowa this week .
Really ?
Why was the schedule a surprise ?
Anyone interested in the impeachmentpalooza schedule knew about the starting date and schedule in advance .
Boohoo , Bernie .
Democrats should have thought a little further ahead and realized that an impeachment circus would affect the campaign season .
The absence of the senators involved in the trial participation are giving good old Joe and Mayor Pete plenty of time with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire without worrying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The impeachment trial also puts the three senators who have events in Iowa this weekend – Sanders , Warren , and Klobuchar – in a corner about traveling to Iowa .
When the trial adjourns for the day on Saturday , they all have to scramble to fly back to Iowa .
This means chartering private jets .
How does that inconvenient truth square with all the climate change alarmism in the Democrat Party these days ?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sure has an odd way of campaigning for Bernie Sanders. She doesn’t mention his name.
Last October, Bernie scored the coveted AOC endorsement. What could be better than a young socialist with a huge following to endorse an old socialist who captured the imagination of the socialist wing of the Democrat Party in 2016? AOC, after all, volunteered for the Sanders campaign back then. She has a history with him. Last November he announced that she will fill-in for him on the campaign trail while he is doing his day job in the Senate during the impeachment trial.
AOC is in Iowa for Sanders. During a campaign event in Iowa City (home city of the University of Iowa), liberal filmmaker and activist Michael Moore joined her to fire up the crowd for Bernie. Something caught the attention of reporters, though. AOC never once mentioned Sanders’ name during her speech. Moore served as the warm-up act for AOC. Moore is clearly excited to be serving as a surrogate.
“I’m so excited about our possibilities here. Right here in Iowa,” Moore said. “Bernie was in Dubuque a couple of weeks ago and I scribbled this down here – I came to tears watching him say this.” “It was a Q-and-A at a big town hall and someone asked him if he thought he was too old to be president of the United States [and Bernie said] ‘I’ve been saying for months, I’ll tell you what’s too old — 40 million people in this country not having health care. That’s too old.’” Moore championed Sanders for his policies on climate change, the minimum wage and his record on civil rights, before claiming Sanders is the only candidate who can defeat President Trump in November. “We have to crush Donald J. Trump with the truth and with a candidate who is the opposite of Donald J. Trump,” he said.
Bernie Sanders may have moved Michael Moore to tears of joy with his socialist agenda but he horrifies the rest of us who do not wish to see the destruction of the U.S. economy and our way of life. Moore has one thing right, though – Sanders is the opposite of Trump, who embraces capitalism and our economy reaps the rewards of Trump’s policies.
Moore introduced AOC, the final speaker. She spoke as Moore did and encouraged the crowd to reject the status quo.
“It is bold and it is a risk,” she said. “We hedge our bets, we get more of the same. And the same has not been helping. So our job right now is to come together …We’ve got ten days left, ten days (until the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 3).” The New York Democrat also called for the abolition of two federal immigration agencies — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). She also advocated for Medicare-for-all, and suggested that political leaders craft the nation’s environmental policy around “indigenous wisdom.” “This is not just about how we win, it’s about how we heal,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “From our bodies to this land, we are going to need entirely new paradigms of public policy in order to heal.”
I’m not sure what AOC means about our bodies’ healing, but I do know that voters did reject the status quo in 2016 when they voted for Donald Trump. Compared to Bernie’s lifetime career in politics, Trump is still the anti-status quo candidate. It’s just very odd that she doesn’t mention his name. Perhaps it is her lack of experience outside of her own district in New York, or maybe it is her own self-involvement. Whatever the reason, someone should pull her aside and remind her that the crowd is there for Bernie and his name should be used over and over again.
AOC and Moore will do Bernie’s bidding Saturday before the candidate is able to get to Iowa due to the impeachment trial schedule. He will be at a second rally, though, Saturday night. He groused about calendar conflicts and said that he and his campaign didn’t plan on missing out on so many events in Iowa this week. Really? Why was the schedule a surprise? Anyone interested in the impeachmentpalooza schedule knew about the starting date and schedule in advance.
“Obviously, when we were planning out our schedule, trust me, we were not expecting to be in Washington this week,” Sanders said in an interview airing Friday on “CBS Evening News.” “We had set up a number of town meetings all over the state — we usually bring out good crowds — so it is disappointing to me to not be in Iowa talking to the people there,” he added.
Boohoo, Bernie. Democrats should have thought a little further ahead and realized that an impeachment circus would affect the campaign season. The absence of the senators involved in the trial participation are giving good old Joe and Mayor Pete plenty of time with the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire without worrying about competing for time with the senators.
The impeachment trial also puts the three senators who have events in Iowa this weekend – Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar – in a corner about traveling to Iowa. When the trial adjourns for the day on Saturday, they all have to scramble to fly back to Iowa. This means chartering private jets. How does that inconvenient truth square with all the climate change alarmism in the Democrat Party these days?


hotair--2020-01-25--Report: White House, Senate GOP increasingly confident that no witnesses will be called

Romney has said he wants to hear from Bolton and is a bit more immune to Trumpist criticism in a safe seat in Utah than most members of the caucus are .
That ’ s one vote to call witnesses .
Collins has said said she ’ s “ likely ” to support calling witnesses and really has no choice but to feel that way , as she can ’ t afford to make things too easy on Democrats in mounting their “ COVER-UP ” attack on her this fall in Maine .
That ’ s two votes .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Schumer .
If that ’ s all he gets , he loses 51/49 .
Who ’ s the third — and fourth — vote to get him to 51 ?
Lamar Alexander is too much of a McConnell buddy , I think .
Cory Gardner is terrified of his own base .
And Murkowski sounds increasingly grim about what she ’ s seen the past few days .
For McConnell , a 51/49 ( or 52/48 ) vote against calling witnesses would be ideal .
Collins gets to vote in favor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of the caucus lines up to slam-dunk the verdict ASAP , possibly by next weekend in time for the State of the Union on the 4th .
CNN says that ’ s how things are shaping up : Democrats will scream about the trial being a sham if that ’ s the way it goes down , but really it ’ d be the optimal outcome for both sides .
There ’ s no guarantee that John Bolton would say anything particularly damaging about Trump under oath , and if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a devastating blow to the Democrats ’ PR effort .
The media would hype Bolton ’ s testimony relentlessly ; if it ended up as a bust , casual impeachment-watchers would treat it as evidence that the entire Democratic case is weak .
And the odds of it being a bust are certainly higher than the odds of Bolton producing a smoking gun that suddenly makes acquittal a tough vote for Republicans .
So Democrats are better off with Bolton silenced and heralded by the press as the man who wanted to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evil GOP in order to cover up Trump ’ s corrupt scheme .
Especially since Bolton — and others — are destined to talk anyway , on their own terms : Even with the president ’ s impeachment trial racing toward a swift acquittal for Trump , Republicans have seen a drip , drip , drip of information in recent days about Trump ’ s role in pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival .
They liken it to the repeated allegations of misconduct lodged against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re witnessing an election-year repeat… On Jan. 2 , the national security website Just Security published internal emails that indicated Trump personally directed staff to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine .
On Jan. 14 , House Democrats released documents that included photos of an indicted associate of Trump ’ s attorney with Trump ’ s family and top aides .
Two days later , the Government Accountability Office concluded the White House budget office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine .
And the next day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a discussion about the surveillance of the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch… “ Democrats are going to keep releasing to their media friends supposedly ‘ new ’ info to demand more investigation and witnesses anytime the trial is nearly over , ” said a Senate GOP aide , who described it as a “ rolling production.
” I think it ’ ll go on long after the trial ends .
Bolton ’ s book will come out later this year and he ’ ll talk about Ukraine .
If he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pounce and claim that it just goes to show how egregious the GOP ’ s refusal to call him was .
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman may have more information too .
Who knows what Mick Mulvaney might say once he ’ s finally been terminated as chief of staff .
The Democrats ’ goal isn ’ t to win the Senate trial , which is politically impossible , but to make the GOP pay the steepest political price they can for voting “ not guilty.
” The “ trial ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held before the electorate will go on for nine more months .
By the way , I think the harrumphing by Senate Republicans over Schiff ’ s reference last night to their heads being put on metaphorical pikes is one of the most laughably obvious cases of fake outrage I ’ ve ever seen .
*Maybe* the outrage is genuine in Murkowski ’ s case ; she got elected as an independent write-in candidate in 2010 and might treat it as a point of pride that she can ’ t be bullied by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can .
( She declined to vote for Kavanaugh , remember . )
The reason the rest of them are mad at Schiff for acknowledging the intense partisan pressure they ’ re under isn ’ t because what he said is false but because it ’ s true , and so obviously true that we all routinely acknowledge it when chatting about the trial .
Susan Collins is an ironclad vote to acquit Trump and has been since the moment Democrats impeached him , irrespective of how she might view the evidence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Maine would boycott her Senate race if she voted to remove him .
She ’ d be dead on arrival , her head on a metaphorical pike , and it ’ s entirely likely that Trump would encourage it by complaining long and loudly about her betrayal publicly .
We all understand this , as did whichever Trump confidant gave that now famous quote to CBS .
( I still think it ’ s Bannon . )
But Collins and the rest don ’ t like the public being reminded of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , is to make the verdict look as legitimate as possible .
They ’ re not voting to acquit because they ’ ll be unemployed if they don ’ t , they insist .
They ’ re voting to acquit because the Democratic case is just that weak , and how dare Adam Schiff suggest otherwise .
Senate Dems were scoffing at their manufactured outrage last night : “ The most dangerous place in America , maybe in Washington , is to stand by the exit door at the White House because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this president , he lops off your head , throws your body in the snow and buries you in vicious tweets , ” said Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) , the No .
2 Democrat , when asked about the GOP reaction to the line… Asked about the outrage from Republicans , Sen. Jon Tester ( D-Mont . )
, who won reelection in 2018 in a red state , said Schiff ’ s comment wasn ’ t a mistake and that “ in some cases people are just looking for excuses.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ added in a tweet that Republicans were jumping on the line as a distraction to avoid the substance of the allegations against President Trump .
“ Let ’ s be clear – Come hell or high water Republicans were going to find something the House managers said that outraged them , ” Murphy said .
Thought experiment : Imagine that Trump himself made the “ heads on pikes ” point in a tweet .
Make the tweet as colorful or non-colorful as you like in your imagination , as long as it preserves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Any Republican senator who votes to remove based on this partisan witch hunt will quickly find themselves looking for work !
” How would all the Republican voters who are pretend-outraged today at Schiff citing the “ heads on pikes ” comment react ?
They ’ d high-five .
“ G-DDAMNED RIGHT .
These RINOs need to remember who ’ s boss.
” So what ’ s the complaint with Schiff ?
That he had the nerve to frankly acknowledge that Republicans will need to vote a certain way in the end whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the case ?
The proper response to that isn ’ t to huff and puff about his audacity .
It ’ s to point out that most of the Democrats in the chamber are under the same partisan pressure to vote the other way .
You think if Kamala Harris were to vote to acquit that progressives in California wouldn ’ t break out the pikes for her when she runs again ?
It can ’ t be said enough : Impeachment is a political process .
If Schiff devoting one sentence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan elephant in the room is some sort of dealbreaker then his Senate critics are actually proving his point .
They were never really persuadable .
They were looking for reasons to disregard the evidence and they found one .
He insulted me .
In fact , here ’ s something Trump actually tweeted this morning .
As of 12:30 ET , I have yet to hear any indignant clucking from Senate Republicans about the lack of decorum or whatever : He should just tweet “ Vote ‘ not guilty ’ or your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and watch everyone scramble .
That ’ s one of his best qualities , frankly , his ability to expose other people ’ s BS , however inadvertently .
Exit question : If the GOP votes not to call any witnesses , are they guaranteeing that the verdict will be purely party-line ?
I think Joe Manchin wants to vote for acquittal but he ’ s already on record as saying that any trial without John Bolton ’ s testimony would be a sham .
Doug Jones and Kyrsten Sinema will also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting to acquit with their party full-throatedly screaming about a cover-up because witnesses weren ’ t called .
On the other hand , if they think the record is incomplete because Bolton wasn ’ t heard from , how do they turn around and vote to remove based on an incomplete record ?
I think they ’ ll all end up voting “ present ” or something like that .
Whereas if Republicans called Bolton and he didn ’ t have anything terribly incriminating to say , they ’ d get Manchin and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the big vote .

Romney has said he wants to hear from Bolton and is a bit more immune to Trumpist criticism in a safe seat in Utah than most members of the caucus are. That’s one vote to call witnesses. Collins has said said she’s “likely” to support calling witnesses and really has no choice but to feel that way, as she can’t afford to make things too easy on Democrats in mounting their “COVER-UP” attack on her this fall in Maine. That’s two votes.
But two Republican votes isn’t enough for Schumer. If that’s all he gets, he loses 51/49. Who’s the third — and fourth — vote to get him to 51? Lamar Alexander is too much of a McConnell buddy, I think. Cory Gardner is terrified of his own base. And Murkowski sounds increasingly grim about what she’s seen the past few days.
Murkowksi has not yet said how she will vote on witnesses, but she has criticized Ds on three separate occasions this week.
– Nadler ‘coverup’ comments
– House not going to court on subpoenas
– Schiff ‘pike’ comment
Here’s what she said about subpoenas https://t.co/HMBIElkVcG — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 25, 2020
For McConnell, a 51/49 (or 52/48) vote against calling witnesses would be ideal. Collins gets to vote in favor in order to protect herself in Maine and the rest of the caucus lines up to slam-dunk the verdict ASAP, possibly by next weekend in time for the State of the Union on the 4th.
CNN says that’s how things are shaping up:
They are likely to lose two votes initially, but it’s less certain they lose Murkowksi given her comments in recent days critical of Dems. Lamar Alexander continues to play coy, as do others like Shelley Moore Capito. But GOP leaders confident they won’t lose more than three — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 25, 2020
Democrats will scream about the trial being a sham if that’s the way it goes down, but really it’d be the optimal outcome for both sides. There’s no guarantee that John Bolton would say anything particularly damaging about Trump under oath, and if he didn’t, it would be a devastating blow to the Democrats’ PR effort. The media would hype Bolton’s testimony relentlessly; if it ended up as a bust, casual impeachment-watchers would treat it as evidence that the entire Democratic case is weak.
And the odds of it being a bust are certainly higher than the odds of Bolton producing a smoking gun that suddenly makes acquittal a tough vote for Republicans.
So Democrats are better off with Bolton silenced and heralded by the press as the man who wanted to talk but was prevented from doing so by the evil GOP in order to cover up Trump’s corrupt scheme. Especially since Bolton — and others — are destined to talk anyway, on their own terms:
Even with the president’s impeachment trial racing toward a swift acquittal for Trump, Republicans have seen a drip, drip, drip of information in recent days about Trump’s role in pressuring Ukraine to investigate a political rival. They liken it to the repeated allegations of misconduct lodged against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation fight, and fear they’re witnessing an election-year repeat… On Jan. 2, the national security website Just Security published internal emails that indicated Trump personally directed staff to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine. On Jan. 14, House Democrats released documents that included photos of an indicted associate of Trump’s attorney with Trump’s family and top aides. Two days later, the Government Accountability Office concluded the White House budget office violated the law when it froze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. And the next day, House Democrats released newly obtained texts capturing a discussion about the surveillance of the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch… “Democrats are going to keep releasing to their media friends supposedly ‘new’ info to demand more investigation and witnesses anytime the trial is nearly over,” said a Senate GOP aide, who described it as a “rolling production.”
I think it’ll go on long after the trial ends. Bolton’s book will come out later this year and he’ll talk about Ukraine. If he says *anything* critical about Trump, Dems will pounce and claim that it just goes to show how egregious the GOP’s refusal to call him was. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman may have more information too. Who knows what Mick Mulvaney might say once he’s finally been terminated as chief of staff. The Democrats’ goal isn’t to win the Senate trial, which is politically impossible, but to make the GOP pay the steepest political price they can for voting “not guilty.” The “trial” on the Ukraine matter that’s being held before the electorate will go on for nine more months.
By the way, I think the harrumphing by Senate Republicans over Schiff’s reference last night to their heads being put on metaphorical pikes is one of the most laughably obvious cases of fake outrage I’ve ever seen. *Maybe* the outrage is genuine in Murkowski’s case; she got elected as an independent write-in candidate in 2010 and might treat it as a point of pride that she can’t be bullied by Trump and McConnell the way other senators can. (She declined to vote for Kavanaugh, remember.) The reason the rest of them are mad at Schiff for acknowledging the intense partisan pressure they’re under isn’t because what he said is false but because it’s true, and so obviously true that we all routinely acknowledge it when chatting about the trial. Susan Collins is an ironclad vote to acquit Trump and has been since the moment Democrats impeached him, irrespective of how she might view the evidence, because she understands that furious Trump fans in Maine would boycott her Senate race if she voted to remove him. She’d be dead on arrival, her head on a metaphorical pike, and it’s entirely likely that Trump would encourage it by complaining long and loudly about her betrayal publicly.
We all understand this, as did whichever Trump confidant gave that now famous quote to CBS. (I still think it’s Bannon.) But Collins and the rest don’t like the public being reminded of it because their goal here, contra the Democrats, is to make the verdict look as legitimate as possible. They’re not voting to acquit because they’ll be unemployed if they don’t, they insist. They’re voting to acquit because the Democratic case is just that weak, and how dare Adam Schiff suggest otherwise. Senate Dems were scoffing at their manufactured outrage last night:
“The most dangerous place in America, maybe in Washington, is to stand by the exit door at the White House because when you fall out of favor with this president, he lops off your head, throws your body in the snow and buries you in vicious tweets,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 Democrat, when asked about the GOP reaction to the line… Asked about the outrage from Republicans, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who won reelection in 2018 in a red state, said Schiff’s comment wasn’t a mistake and that “in some cases people are just looking for excuses.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) added in a tweet that Republicans were jumping on the line as a distraction to avoid the substance of the allegations against President Trump. “Let’s be clear – Come hell or high water Republicans were going to find something the House managers said that outraged them,” Murphy said.
Thought experiment: Imagine that Trump himself made the “heads on pikes” point in a tweet. Make the tweet as colorful or non-colorful as you like in your imagination, as long as it preserves the central threat. E.g., “Any Republican senator who votes to remove based on this partisan witch hunt will quickly find themselves looking for work!” How would all the Republican voters who are pretend-outraged today at Schiff citing the “heads on pikes” comment react?
They’d high-five. “G-DDAMNED RIGHT. These RINOs need to remember who’s boss.” So what’s the complaint with Schiff? That he had the nerve to frankly acknowledge that Republicans will need to vote a certain way in the end whether or not they’re truly skeptical of the case?
The proper response to that isn’t to huff and puff about his audacity. It’s to point out that most of the Democrats in the chamber are under the same partisan pressure to vote the other way. You think if Kamala Harris were to vote to acquit that progressives in California wouldn’t break out the pikes for her when she runs again? It can’t be said enough: Impeachment is a political process. If Schiff devoting one sentence in a 24-hour presentation to acknowledge the partisan elephant in the room is some sort of dealbreaker then his Senate critics are actually proving his point. They were never really persuadable. They were looking for reasons to disregard the evidence and they found one. He insulted me.
In fact, here’s something Trump actually tweeted this morning. As of 12:30 ET, I have yet to hear any indignant clucking from Senate Republicans about the lack of decorum or whatever:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221079753760833536
He should just tweet “Vote ‘not guilty’ or your head’s going on a pike” and watch everyone scramble. That’s one of his best qualities, frankly, his ability to expose other people’s BS, however inadvertently.
Exit question: If the GOP votes not to call any witnesses, are they guaranteeing that the verdict will be purely party-line? I think Joe Manchin wants to vote for acquittal but he’s already on record as saying that any trial without John Bolton’s testimony would be a sham. Doug Jones and Kyrsten Sinema will also have a hell of a time politically voting to acquit with their party full-throatedly screaming about a cover-up because witnesses weren’t called. On the other hand, if they think the record is incomplete because Bolton wasn’t heard from, how do they turn around and vote to remove based on an incomplete record? I think they’ll all end up voting “present” or something like that. Whereas if Republicans called Bolton and he didn’t have anything terribly incriminating to say, they’d get Manchin and maybe even Sinema to join them on the big vote.


hotair--2020-01-25--Turley to Senate Dems: Kill the obstruction article to save your case

After last night ’ s debacle in closing arguments from Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler , this advice might come too late .
If House Democrats had any tactical inclination last night , they wouldn ’ t have included the uncorroborated rumor of “ head on a pike ” as evidence in their presentation , nor made the laughably absurd accusation of Donald Trump being a “ dictator ” to the Senate Republicans who must decide his fate .
But if Senate Dems do want to salvage any hope of getting four of their votes to reopen the investigation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Washington Post column that they will have to cut their case in half .
First , Turley laid out on CBS even before their closing how they ’ ve probably already lost the case through their unnecessary hyperbole : That problem became even more acute afterward , especially with the angry reaction from the moderate Republicans whose votes they need to get subpoenas issued .
If they want to pursue the case rather than just “ face time on national television , ” Turley writes , then they have to offer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns .
And that , Turley says , is to arrange the demise of the second article of impeachment over obstruction : To put it simply , it may be time to dismiss Article II .
The obstruction-of-Congress article was dead on arrival , but holding a vote to dismiss the article anyway would allow the Senate to go on the record in opposition to the House handling of this impeachment .
It just might be enough to open a path for witnesses on Article I and the abuse-of-power charge .
The House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it made an impeachment by Christmas its overriding priority .
The short period set by the House did not allow the White House to challenge a subpoena and effectively made the seeking of judicial review a “ high crime and misdemeanor.
” … If the House had simply gone to court to enforce a subpoena , it would have forced a review of such privilege questions .
Even before the impeachment vote , Bolton indicated his interest in testifying but it would require a subpoena .
The House , however , refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other reasonable steps to secure evidence because it feared such a move would push the court proceedings into late spring or beyond .
Magnifying this mistake was the decision of the House to withdraw the subpoena issued for Charles Kupperman , Bolton ’ s deputy .
Kupperman indicated he might testify but went to court for review of the subpoena .
Before the court could rule , the House pulled the subpoena .
Judge Richard Leon seemed nonplussed in dismissing Kupperman ’ s case , stating , “ the House clearly has no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is time for Democrats to acknowledge the blunder in the rushed vote .
Note , however , that Turley advises Democrats to offer a dismissal vote , a move that Senate Democrats have resisted all along .
It ’ s not clear , either , that Senate Republicans would agree to a dismissal rather than a deal where a majority of Democrats would join them in acquittal on that article .
Only then would “ the Senate go on the record ” with its disapproval of the House process — along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it would deliver .
After yesterday , it seems difficult to believe that Republicans would settle for anything less .
Besides , a dismissal wouldn ’ t necessarily be a heavy enough precedent to dissuade future Houses from pulling the same stunt .
At this point , though , it ’ s also tough to see why Senate Republicans would feel the need to cut a deal .
Let ’ s not forget that the House has now put forward its full case to the Senate , and at least partially discredited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ head on a pike ” inclusion by Schiff .
That will no doubt have revived the suspicions that Schiff has misrepresented his “ evidence ” in his hearsay case and reinforced the impression that Schiff has turned speculation into substance through partisan alchemy .
And this time , Senate Republicans themselves are the primary defense witnesses that can blow holes in those allegations : But as the night came to a close , Schiff , the House Intelligence chairman , was talking about the complicated politics of the impeachment trial and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from battleground states where GOP senators will soon face voters .
Then as he wrapped up his case and read the quote from a CBS story : That a Trump ally said “ GOP senators were warned … ‘ vote against the president and your head will be on a pike . '
” The mood in the room shifted entirely .
Several Republican senator murmured “ not true ” as soon as Schiff said it .
Collins shook her head and said “ not true ” several times .
Schiff quickly tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know if that ’ s true .
But when I read that , I was struck by the irony , ” Schiff said .
“ I hope it ’ s not true .
I hope it ’ s not true.
” Nonsense .
Schiff obviously not only hoped it was true , he was convinced it was true and hoped that its inclusion would resonate among the allegedly threatened senators .
Schiff , however , didn ’ t take the time to confirm it was true before making part of his case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact , speaks volumes about how Schiff put the abuse-of-power case together , which should now be raising eyebrows among the moderate Republicans in the caucus .
Put that together with Schiff ’ s continued insistence over two years that he had direct evidence of Trump ’ s collusion with Russia right up to the point when Robert Mueller declared that no such evidence exists , and Schiff looks less like a prosecutor and more like Cotton Mather .
Schiff ’ s case is nothing but innuendo , hearsay , and speculation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans last night .
That ’ s why that moment may make Turley ’ s advice moot .
Schiff not only didn ’ t sell the obstruction charge , he also blew up the credibility of the abuse of power charge among the people he most needed to get his investigation re-opened : “ Not only have I never heard the ‘ head on the pike ’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration , ” [ Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought Adam Schiff was doing a pretty good job prosecuting the case against President Donald Trump as he made his opening arguments .
That is , until he read an anonymous quote warning Republican senators to vote with Trump or end up with their “ head on a pike.
” “ I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on a pike .
That ’ s where he lost me … he ’ s a good orator , ” said the Alaska Republican , whose vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push to subpoena new witnesses and documents in the trial .
“ You ’ ve got to give him that .
And he was moving right along with good oratory … it was just unnecessary.
” At this point , Senate Republicans don ’ t have any real reason to cut a deal .
They likely already had 53 votes to acquit anyway , and after Schiff and Nadler finished last night , they probably have at least 51 votes to deny subpoenas to any witnesses .
Why would they prolong this sad @ @ @ @

After last night’s debacle in closing arguments from Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, this advice might come too late. If House Democrats had any tactical inclination last night, they wouldn’t have included the uncorroborated rumor of “head on a pike” as evidence in their presentation, nor made the laughably absurd accusation of Donald Trump being a “dictator” to the Senate Republicans who must decide his fate. But if Senate Dems do want to salvage any hope of getting four of their votes to reopen the investigation of their case, Jonathan Turley advises in a Washington Post column that they will have to cut their case in half.
First, Turley laid out on CBS even before their closing how they’ve probably already lost the case through their unnecessary hyperbole:
That problem became even more acute afterward, especially with the angry reaction from the moderate Republicans whose votes they need to get subpoenas issued. If they want to pursue the case rather than just “face time on national television,” Turley writes, then they have to offer a compromise that will satisfy Senate Republicans’ concerns. And that, Turley says, is to arrange the demise of the second article of impeachment over obstruction:
To put it simply, it may be time to dismiss Article II. The obstruction-of-Congress article was dead on arrival, but holding a vote to dismiss the article anyway would allow the Senate to go on the record in opposition to the House handling of this impeachment. It just might be enough to open a path for witnesses on Article I and the abuse-of-power charge. The House destroyed any chance for an obstruction article when it made an impeachment by Christmas its overriding priority. The short period set by the House did not allow the White House to challenge a subpoena and effectively made the seeking of judicial review a “high crime and misdemeanor.” … If the House had simply gone to court to enforce a subpoena, it would have forced a review of such privilege questions. Even before the impeachment vote, Bolton indicated his interest in testifying but it would require a subpoena. The House, however, refused to issue such a subpoena or take other reasonable steps to secure evidence because it feared such a move would push the court proceedings into late spring or beyond. Magnifying this mistake was the decision of the House to withdraw the subpoena issued for Charles Kupperman, Bolton’s deputy. Kupperman indicated he might testify but went to court for review of the subpoena. Before the court could rule, the House pulled the subpoena. Judge Richard Leon seemed nonplussed in dismissing Kupperman’s case, stating, “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness. It is time for Democrats to acknowledge the blunder in the rushed vote.
Note, however, that Turley advises Democrats to offer a dismissal vote, a move that Senate Democrats have resisted all along. It’s not clear, either, that Senate Republicans would agree to a dismissal rather than a deal where a majority of Democrats would join them in acquittal on that article. Only then would “the Senate go on the record” with its disapproval of the House process — along with the requisite humiliation for Schiff and Nadler that it would deliver. After yesterday, it seems difficult to believe that Republicans would settle for anything less. Besides, a dismissal wouldn’t necessarily be a heavy enough precedent to dissuade future Houses from pulling the same stunt.
At this point, though, it’s also tough to see why Senate Republicans would feel the need to cut a deal. Let’s not forget that the House has now put forward its full case to the Senate, and at least partially discredited it with their last-minute antics over the “head on a pike” inclusion by Schiff. That will no doubt have revived the suspicions that Schiff has misrepresented his “evidence” in his hearsay case and reinforced the impression that Schiff has turned speculation into substance through partisan alchemy. And this time, Senate Republicans themselves are the primary defense witnesses that can blow holes in those allegations:
But as the night came to a close, Schiff, the House Intelligence chairman, was talking about the complicated politics of the impeachment trial and how different his own safe district might be from battleground states where GOP senators will soon face voters. Then as he wrapped up his case and read the quote from a CBS story: That a Trump ally said “GOP senators were warned … ‘vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.'” The mood in the room shifted entirely. Several Republican senator murmured “not true” as soon as Schiff said it. Collins shook her head and said “not true” several times. Schiff quickly tried to recover. “I don’t know if that’s true. But when I read that, I was struck by the irony,” Schiff said. “I hope it’s not true. I hope it’s not true.”
Nonsense. Schiff obviously not only hoped it was true, he was convinced it was true and hoped that its inclusion would resonate among the allegedly threatened senators. Schiff, however, didn’t take the time to confirm it was true before making part of his case to impeach Donald Trump. That, in fact, speaks volumes about how Schiff put the abuse-of-power case together, which should now be raising eyebrows among the moderate Republicans in the caucus. Put that together with Schiff’s continued insistence over two years that he had direct evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia right up to the point when Robert Mueller declared that no such evidence exists, and Schiff looks less like a prosecutor and more like Cotton Mather. Schiff’s case is nothing but innuendo, hearsay, and speculation — and he made that clear to Senate Republicans last night.
That’s why that moment may make Turley’s advice moot. Schiff not only didn’t sell the obstruction charge, he also blew up the credibility of the abuse of power charge among the people he most needed to get his investigation re-opened:
“Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the administration,” [Susan] Collins said. … Lisa Murkowski thought Adam Schiff was doing a pretty good job prosecuting the case against President Donald Trump as he made his opening arguments. That is, until he read an anonymous quote warning Republican senators to vote with Trump or end up with their “head on a pike.” “I thought he was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on a pike. That’s where he lost me … he’s a good orator,” said the Alaska Republican, whose vote is crucial in the Democrat’s push to subpoena new witnesses and documents in the trial. “You’ve got to give him that. And he was moving right along with good oratory … it was just unnecessary.”
At this point, Senate Republicans don’t have any real reason to cut a deal. They likely already had 53 votes to acquit anyway, and after Schiff and Nadler finished last night, they probably have at least 51 votes to deny subpoenas to any witnesses. Why would they prolong this sad circus any further?


hotair--2020-01-25--Schiff blows up GOP support with "head on a pike" reference

Rep. Adam Schiff had one job .
All Schiff and his fellow House managers had to do were to present their case for the impeachment of President Trump before the U.S. Senate , and the American public .
Instead of bringing a few senators onto his side , especially on the idea of calling witnesses , Schiff angered the GOP senators with his reference to the “ heads on a pike ” news story .
As Allahpundit wrote about on Friday , CBS News reported on an alleged story of a confidant of President Trump asserting the threat that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would find their heads on a pike .
The threat was never confirmed with a named source and frankly , it didn ’ t sound real .
Nonetheless , such a threat is a dramatic story for an otherwise really boring impeachment trial .
Schiff included the story – nothing more than a rumor , really – in his closing argument Friday night .
The reaction from Republican senators was immediate and it wasn ’ t good .
Senate Republicans — including potential swing-voters — expressed outrage Friday after lead House Impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his closing remarks at President Trump ’ s Senate impeachment trial to a report that GOP members were told they ’ d face dire consequences if they voted to convict the president .
“ CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned , ‘ Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.
’ I don ’ t know if that ’ s true , ” Schiff said , while trying to persuade his Senate colleagues to vote with “ moral courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Schiff didn ’ t know if it was true or not ( and he didn ’ t ) then why include it in his remarks ?
You know why – it was to deliberately imply that President Trump and his inner circle , his confidants , are corrupt and act like thugs .
Schiff was painting the worst possible picture of Trump ’ s behavior during the trial and this was the icing on top of the cake – he wanted to say that Trump is so evil that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have his back .
The very senators that Schiff was trying to reach were the first to visibly and vocally react .
Those considered as swing votes in the GOP , the ones who might vote in favor of allowing witnesses to testify , shook their heads and said , “ That ’ s not true.
” loud enough for reporters to hear them .
According to Senate rules , the senators are to remain quiet and are instructed not to speak but Senator Susan Collins was among those speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-ME ) , however , it was a lie and no one ever said it .
CNN ’ s Manu Raju revealed after the Senate adjourned that Collins audibly disputed Schiff ’ s quote of the story during the trial .
“ She shook her head and said , ‘ No they didn ’ t .
No , that ’ s not true , ’ ” Raju reported .
Sens .
Tom Cotton ( R-AR ) and Jim Risch ( R-ID ) also denied it was said .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) also said that the report was false .
Murkowski , as a matter of fact , said that Schiff “ lost her ” at that point .
You may remember that during Day One of the impeachment trial , Chief Justice Roberts admonished Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler for their language .
Both men set the tone with unneccesary vitriol in their remarks and that allowed other Democrats to do the same .
The Democrats accused Republican senators and Trump ’ s lawyers of taking part in a cover-up and of lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , Democrats continued with their rhetoric despite Roberts ’ admonishment .
They referred to Trump as a monarch , a king , and during his closing remarks Friday , Rep. Nadler called Trump a dictator .
Imagine that – a dictator .
Nadler let that fly on the floor of the U.S.Senate .
To me , that was more shocking than the stupid head on a pike rumor .
Conservatives were quick to point out to Nadler that if Trump truly is a dictator , Nadler would never have been allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reporter for HuffPo acknowledged the tone-deafness of such a remark .
Senator Marsha Blackburn confirmed the GOP reaction during an interview on Fox and Friends Saturday morning .
The senators feel insulted and you can ’ t blame them .
Schiff , Nadler , and the other Democrats are desperately holding out hope that some of the more moderate Republican senators will go along with their request for testimony from witnesses on their list .
I think all of this overheated hyperbole will prove to be a fatal mistake for them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their case and not sound crazy .
They couldn ’ t do it .
The Democrats succumbed to their worst instincts and let their Trump derangement show through .

Rep. Adam Schiff had one job. All Schiff and his fellow House managers had to do were to present their case for the impeachment of President Trump before the U.S. Senate, and the American public. Instead of bringing a few senators onto his side, especially on the idea of calling witnesses, Schiff angered the GOP senators with his reference to the “heads on a pike” news story.
As Allahpundit wrote about on Friday, CBS News reported on an alleged story of a confidant of President Trump asserting the threat that if Republican senators voted against the president, they would find their heads on a pike. The threat was never confirmed with a named source and frankly, it didn’t sound real.
Nonetheless, such a threat is a dramatic story for an otherwise really boring impeachment trial. Schiff included the story – nothing more than a rumor, really – in his closing argument Friday night. The reaction from Republican senators was immediate and it wasn’t good.
Senate Republicans — including potential swing-voters — expressed outrage Friday after lead House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff, D-Calif., referred in his closing remarks at President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial to a report that GOP members were told they’d face dire consequences if they voted to convict the president. “CBS News reported last night that a Trump confidant said that key senators were warned, ‘Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.’ I don’t know if that’s true,” Schiff said, while trying to persuade his Senate colleagues to vote with “moral courage” rather than in their political self-interest.
If Schiff didn’t know if it was true or not (and he didn’t) then why include it in his remarks? You know why – it was to deliberately imply that President Trump and his inner circle, his confidants, are corrupt and act like thugs. Schiff was painting the worst possible picture of Trump’s behavior during the trial and this was the icing on top of the cake – he wanted to say that Trump is so evil that he’ll make violent threats if the GOP doesn’t have his back.
The very senators that Schiff was trying to reach were the first to visibly and vocally react. Those considered as swing votes in the GOP, the ones who might vote in favor of allowing witnesses to testify, shook their heads and said, “That’s not true.” loud enough for reporters to hear them. According to Senate rules, the senators are to remain quiet and are instructed not to speak but Senator Susan Collins was among those speaking out.
From colleague Jason Donner. GOP ME Sen Collins on Schiff’s comments “Not only have I never heard the ‘head on the pike’ line but also I know of no Republican Senator who has been threatened in any way by anyone in the Administration.” — Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) January 25, 2020
According to Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), however, it was a lie and no one ever said it. CNN’s Manu Raju revealed after the Senate adjourned that Collins audibly disputed Schiff’s quote of the story during the trial. “She shook her head and said, ‘No they didn’t. No, that’s not true,’” Raju reported. Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Jim Risch (R-ID) also denied it was said. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and John Barrasso (R-WY) also said that the report was false.
Murkowski, as a matter of fact, said that Schiff “lost her” at that point.
Republicans are INCENSED about Adam Schiff’s comment about the CBS report that senators had been warned they’d have their “head on a pike” if they convict. “He lost me there,” Lisa Murkowski said. John Barrasso blasted Schiff for “spread falsehoods … on the Senate floor.” — Griffin Connolly (@GriffinConnolly) January 25, 2020
“He was doing fine with moral courage until he got to the head on the pike. That's where he lost me,” Murkowksi said, per @jeffzeleny. “He’s a good orator you got to give him that … He was moving right along …and then he got to a couple places and it was just unnecessary.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 25, 2020
You may remember that during Day One of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts admonished Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler for their language. Both men set the tone with unneccesary vitriol in their remarks and that allowed other Democrats to do the same. The Democrats accused Republican senators and Trump’s lawyers of taking part in a cover-up and of lying. During the course of the three days, Democrats continued with their rhetoric despite Roberts’ admonishment. They referred to Trump as a monarch, a king, and during his closing remarks Friday, Rep. Nadler called Trump a dictator. Imagine that – a dictator. Nadler let that fly on the floor of the U.S.Senate. To me, that was more shocking than the stupid head on a pike rumor.
“He wants to be all powerful,” Nadler said. “He doesn’t want to have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the will of the people.” “Only his will goes,” Nadler added. “He is a dictator. This must not stand and that is another reason he must be removed from office.”
Conservatives were quick to point out to Nadler that if Trump truly is a dictator, Nadler would never have been allowed to make such an accusatory statement. Even a reporter for HuffPo acknowledged the tone-deafness of such a remark.
Exactly what GOP senators want to hear https://t.co/jSTrwSGVoh — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 24, 2020
https://twitter.com/kimpriestap/status/1220904012196851713
Senator Marsha Blackburn confirmed the GOP reaction during an interview on Fox and Friends Saturday morning. The senators feel insulted and you can’t blame them.
Schiff, Nadler, and the other Democrats are desperately holding out hope that some of the more moderate Republican senators will go along with their request for testimony from witnesses on their list. I think all of this overheated hyperbole will prove to be a fatal mistake for them. All they had to do was present their case and not sound crazy. They couldn’t do it. The Democrats succumbed to their worst instincts and let their Trump derangement show through.


hotair--2020-01-25--Worst Girlfriend Ever is out of jail and her victim's family isn't happy

Earlier this month , the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Michelle Carter , the “ worst girlfriend ever , ” seeking to overturn her manslaughter conviction in the death of her boyfriend , Conrad Roy .
This meant that Carter would have to serve out the remainder of her term .
As it turns out , that didn ’ t change much of anything in terms of Carter ’ s incarceration because she ’ s now back out on the street .
Carter was scheduled to be released in March or April anyway , but it seems she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( NY Post ) The early release on Thursday of “ suicide text ” convict Michelle Carter has outraged the family of Conrad Roy — the teen boyfriend she ’ d repeatedly encouraged to kill himself .
“ I ’ m disgusted with the whole system , ” he said Thursday , after Carter , now 23 , was sprung from Bristol County House of Correction in Dartmouth , Massachusetts .
It ’ s totally understandable why the grandfather would be upset .
After the original trial , he had complained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his grandson was too lenient .
Seeing Carter get out three months early no doubt just rubs salt in the wound .
He told reporters that fifteen months was “ nothing ” when compared to a lost lifetime with his grandson .
Carter apparently earned her early release by avoiding any disciplinary issues , doing extra work in the jail ’ s kitchen and garden , and attending classes geared toward rehabilitation .
None of this impressed Conrad Roy ’ s grandfather who showed remarkable restraint by simply saying that she is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t argue with him there .
Michelle Carter is a horrible person .
But given the fact that she had no involvement in Carter Roy ’ s suicide other than sending text messages and making phone calls , she also never should have been behind bars to begin with .
What she was guilty of was speaking .
But now , with this case in the books as precedent , speech can apparently land you in prison .
If Conrad Roy Sr. is looking for any consolation in terms of Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ s paying a heavier price than simply a year or so in jail .
She now has a felony record that will follow her around for the rest of her life .
She ’ s also become a household name across much of the country .
It ’ s difficult to imagine how she will fare out in society when people can immediately access the trail of horrible things she said and texted to her supposed boyfriend , badgering him until he finally killed himself .
But as I said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the Carter and Roy families .
We ’ ve turned what appears to be a disturbing corner in American criminal law .
Now that someone has been sent to jail for saying things and the Supreme Court has basically upheld that decision , you can be sure that other cases will follow .
So mind what you ’ re saying on the phone or sending in DMs or texts .
You might find the police knocking at your door next .

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Michelle Carter, the “worst girlfriend ever,” seeking to overturn her manslaughter conviction in the death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy. This meant that Carter would have to serve out the remainder of her term. As it turns out, that didn’t change much of anything in terms of Carter’s incarceration because she’s now back out on the street. Carter was scheduled to be released in March or April anyway, but it seems she was granted an early release for good behavior. (NY Post)
The early release on Thursday of “suicide text” convict Michelle Carter has outraged the family of Conrad Roy — the teen boyfriend she’d repeatedly encouraged to kill himself. “It sure is a tough day,” Roy’s grandfather, Conrad Roy Sr., told E! News. “I’m disgusted with the whole system,” he said Thursday, after Carter, now 23, was sprung from Bristol County House of Correction in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
It’s totally understandable why the grandfather would be upset. After the original trial, he had complained that the fifteen-month sentence in the death of his grandson was too lenient. Seeing Carter get out three months early no doubt just rubs salt in the wound. He told reporters that fifteen months was “nothing” when compared to a lost lifetime with his grandson.
Carter apparently earned her early release by avoiding any disciplinary issues, doing extra work in the jail’s kitchen and garden, and attending classes geared toward rehabilitation. None of this impressed Conrad Roy’s grandfather who showed remarkable restraint by simply saying that she is “not a good person.”
I certainly won’t argue with him there. Michelle Carter is a horrible person. But given the fact that she had no involvement in Carter Roy’s suicide other than sending text messages and making phone calls, she also never should have been behind bars to begin with. What she was guilty of was speaking. But now, with this case in the books as precedent, speech can apparently land you in prison.
If Conrad Roy Sr. is looking for any consolation in terms of Carter’s punishment, he should realize that she’s paying a heavier price than simply a year or so in jail. She now has a felony record that will follow her around for the rest of her life. She’s also become a household name across much of the country. It’s difficult to imagine how she will fare out in society when people can immediately access the trail of horrible things she said and texted to her supposed boyfriend, badgering him until he finally killed himself.
But as I said above, this story is much bigger than the Carter and Roy families. We’ve turned what appears to be a disturbing corner in American criminal law. Now that someone has been sent to jail for saying things and the Supreme Court has basically upheld that decision, you can be sure that other cases will follow. So mind what you’re saying on the phone or sending in DMs or texts. You might find the police knocking at your door next.


hotair--2020-01-25--ICE to NYC, Denver: "Bring a toothbrush to court"

Last week we looked at a new court maneuver that Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) was bringing against New York City and other so-called “ sanctuary cities.
” The refusal of these places to provide information on criminal illegal aliens who were released from jail with a pending ICE detainer despite having been served with subpoenas has clearly angered the agency .
One ICE official was prompted to inform the leadership in Gotham that the subpoenas were “ not a request , ” but a demand .
Since both New York City and Denver , Colorado have still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ reviewing ” the subpoenas , the acting Director of ICE upped the ante this week .
He ’ s informed both cities that if the subpoenas are not answered promptly he will be taking the responsible persons to district court .
And when they show up , he advised them to “ bring a toothbrush ” because they might not be going home that night .
( Washington Examiner ) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is prepared to go to court with two “ sanctuary cities , ” New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , if they fail to provide personal information on illegal immigrants with criminal records released in each city instead of being transferred to ICE .
“ We expect them to comply ” with subpoenas for the information , said acting ICE Director Matt Albence at a press conference in Washington on Thursday .
“ If they don ’ t comply , we ’ ll be working with DOJ to go to district court to force them to comply with the requirements , ” Albence said , noting the rule in the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The individuals that fail to comply can be held in contempt , ” he said .
“ They can show up to court with a toothbrush because they might not be going home that night .
Because they could be jailed for failure to comply with a lawful order from a judge .
That ’ s the route we ’ re going.
” The self-defeating nature of these sanctuary city policies should be evident to everyone .
To put this issue in perspective , last year ICE issued 7,500 requests to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , asking them to hold known illegal aliens put in local jails for pickup .
Not one of the detainers was honored .
Meanwhile , the recidivism rate among these criminal illegal aliens is disturbingly high , with some going on to commit murder or assault .
What ’ s not yet clear is precisely who would have to answer the summons in each city if they fail to comply .
The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections is Cynthia Brann .
Would she be required to personally show up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given both her age and her position , jail might not be a terribly safe place for her .
It ’ s also unclear how much she would know about the situation since she so rarely shows up for work .
She handed over the reins of her department to an acting commissioner a whopping 151 days in her first two years in office .
Depending on the judges who handle these cases , ICE should have a strong argument to make in court .
By refusing to cooperate and turn over suspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jail , ICE agents are forced to go seek out illegal aliens at their homes or places of illegal employment .
Neither side in this debate benefits from such a result .
The agents potentially face more dangerous confrontations when doing this and if the ICE agents happen to find more illegal aliens in the home or place of business , they ’ ll frequently pick them up as well .
That ’ s how the situation can snowball into impromptu “ raids ” that activists love to complain about .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long time coming and perhaps will provide some clarification for other municipalities going forward .
The first time we see video of a Department of Corrections Commissioner being frog-marched off to a cell in handcuffs , the rest of these sanctuary cities might think twice .

Last week we looked at a new court maneuver that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was bringing against New York City and other so-called “sanctuary cities.” The refusal of these places to provide information on criminal illegal aliens who were released from jail with a pending ICE detainer despite having been served with subpoenas has clearly angered the agency. One ICE official was prompted to inform the leadership in Gotham that the subpoenas were “not a request,” but a demand.
Since both New York City and Denver, Colorado have still done nothing more than to say they are “reviewing” the subpoenas, the acting Director of ICE upped the ante this week. He’s informed both cities that if the subpoenas are not answered promptly he will be taking the responsible persons to district court. And when they show up, he advised them to “bring a toothbrush” because they might not be going home that night. (Washington Examiner)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is prepared to go to court with two “sanctuary cities,” New York City, New York, and Denver, Colorado, if they fail to provide personal information on illegal immigrants with criminal records released in each city instead of being transferred to ICE. “We expect them to comply” with subpoenas for the information, said acting ICE Director Matt Albence at a press conference in Washington on Thursday. “If they don’t comply, we’ll be working with DOJ to go to district court to force them to comply with the requirements,” Albence said, noting the rule in the U.S. Code that he said justified the move. “The individuals that fail to comply can be held in contempt,” he said. “They can show up to court with a toothbrush because they might not be going home that night. Because they could be jailed for failure to comply with a lawful order from a judge. That’s the route we’re going.”
The self-defeating nature of these sanctuary city policies should be evident to everyone. To put this issue in perspective, last year ICE issued 7,500 requests to the New York City Department of Corrections, asking them to hold known illegal aliens put in local jails for pickup. Not one of the detainers was honored. Meanwhile, the recidivism rate among these criminal illegal aliens is disturbingly high, with some going on to commit murder or assault.
What’s not yet clear is precisely who would have to answer the summons in each city if they fail to comply. The Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections is Cynthia Brann. Would she be required to personally show up in court and answer these charges? Given both her age and her position, jail might not be a terribly safe place for her. It’s also unclear how much she would know about the situation since she so rarely shows up for work. She handed over the reins of her department to an acting commissioner a whopping 151 days in her first two years in office.
Depending on the judges who handle these cases, ICE should have a strong argument to make in court. By refusing to cooperate and turn over suspects in the safe, controlled environment of a jail, ICE agents are forced to go seek out illegal aliens at their homes or places of illegal employment. Neither side in this debate benefits from such a result. The agents potentially face more dangerous confrontations when doing this and if the ICE agents happen to find more illegal aliens in the home or place of business, they’ll frequently pick them up as well. That’s how the situation can snowball into impromptu “raids” that activists love to complain about.
This is a showdown that’s been a long time coming and perhaps will provide some clarification for other municipalities going forward. The first time we see video of a Department of Corrections Commissioner being frog-marched off to a cell in handcuffs, the rest of these sanctuary cities might think twice.


hotair--2020-01-25--Hillary: Mark Zuckerberg 'immensely powerful' and 'intends to reelect Trump'

Some powerful figures on the left appear eager to spread the word that Facebook intends to swing the outcome of the 2020 election in Trump ’ s favor .
Speaking at an event in Davos this Thursday , George Soros said , “ Facebook will work together to re-elect Trump , and Trump will work to protect Facebook so that this situation can not be changed and it makes me very concerned about the outcome for 2020.
” Today , Hillary Clinton echoed that concern , comparing Mark Zuckerberg to a foreign power and saying she believes he intends to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton today whether she too sees a Trumpian quality in Zuckerberg ’ s reasoning , she nodded .
“ It ’ s Trumpian , ” she said .
“ It ’ s authoritarian.
” … Clinton ’ s allusions to Zuckerberg as a world leader are fitting .
“ I feel like you ’ re negotiating with a foreign power sometimes , ” she said , referencing conversations she ’ s had “ at the highest levels ” with Facebook .
“ He ’ s immensely powerful , ” she told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has huge influence in ways that we ’ re only beginning to understand.
” Facebook is , in a sense , the world ’ s first technocratic nation-state—a real-time experiment in connecting humans at massive and unprecedented scale , with a population of users that eclipses any actual nation , nearly as big as China and India combined .
It ’ s also an institution with gigantic levers at its disposal to affect the lives of its user-citizens .
Facebook knows this .
It has played with manipulating people ’ s emotions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of an election .
There ’ s good reason to believe , Clinton said , that Facebook is “ not just going to reelect Trump , but intend [ s ] to reelect Trump.
” As I said the other day when I wrote about Soros ’ statement , this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me .
Neither Soros nor Clinton have offered any evidence that Zuckerberg intends to do anything internally to help Trump .
In fact , just a couple of weeks ago a leaked memo from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company could in theory sway an election against Trump the company should resist that urge : To be clear , I ’ m no fan of Trump .
I donated the max to Hillary .
After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I ’ m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me ( I regret that post and deleted shortly after ) … As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment .
Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial and she imagines using the power righteously , at first , but knows it will eventually corrupt her .
As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome , I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear .
Where is Hillary getting the idea that a leading tech company is eager to elect Trump ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming from three specific things .
First , there was the Russian use of Facebook during the 2016 elections .
That spending amounted to a tiny drop in the bucked compared to the money Hillary ’ s campaign spent but Hillary spent months during her book tour flogging the idea that Russian interference ( along with more than a dozen other things ) cost her the election .
So I think despite the reality that this wasn ’ t terribly significant , many Democrats have it in their minds that the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome .
Second , there was a leaked audio in October in which Zuckerberg was heard saying this about Elizabeth Warren , “ if she gets elected president , then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge.
” He added , “ if someone ’ s going to try to threaten something that existential , you go to the mat and you fight.
” I think many on the left hear this and assume Zuckerberg means ‘ We need to use Facebook to ensure Warren loses the election ’ which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair to what he said .
He was talking about fighting any effort to break up the company in court .
Zuckerberg probably has a small army of lawyers and lobbyists he can deploy to fight efforts to break up his company and he ’ s saying he would use them if needed .
But obviously if he were planning to sway the election , he ’ d have no reason to worry about a court fight since it would never come to that .
Third , there has been an ongoing battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in political advertising .
Zuckerberg has refused to say he would remove content with false information .
Instead , he has said he would use fact-checkers to provide additional information to show that content in the ad was false without removing it .
In short , the solution to bad speech is more speech .
That seems like a good approach to me but as you may have noticed many on the left are not as fond of this approach to speech as they used to be .
The problem for political figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Dems in Congress can ’ t pass a law or otherwise order Facebook to do as they wish .
That would be censorship and unconstitutional .
So Dems are in this uncomfortable position where a significant portion of the culture is not completely under their control .
They aren ’ t used to that .
They own Hollywood , television , the music industry , book publishing , the theater , the arts , the news media , universities , etc .
Pretty much everything outside of Fox News and talk radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook isn ’ t playing along and the left does not like it .
What Hillary and many others on the left want , I believe , is for Facebook to aggressively and reflexively dump on their opponents the way Hollywood effectively stamps out most conservative messages .
Since Facebook isn ’ t going along , Zuckerberg is becoming the new Koch brothers , i.e .
a powerful figure the left can point to as an avowed enemy .
Hillary seems to be spurring that along by suggesting Zuckerberg is , essentially , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left will keep ratcheting up the pressure until Zuckerberg caves .
But if you think about it , this isn ’ t a very smart strategy .
If you think Zuckerberg is worried about the far left ( like Warren ) going after his company , then having figures like Clinton and Soros turn him into a cultural outcast probably only proves to him that he was right to be worried .

Some powerful figures on the left appear eager to spread the word that Facebook intends to swing the outcome of the 2020 election in Trump’s favor. Speaking at an event in Davos this Thursday, George Soros said, “Facebook will work together to re-elect Trump, and Trump will work to protect Facebook so that this situation cannot be changed and it makes me very concerned about the outcome for 2020.” Today, Hillary Clinton echoed that concern, comparing Mark Zuckerberg to a foreign power and saying she believes he intends to help reelect Trump:
When I asked Clinton today whether she too sees a Trumpian quality in Zuckerberg’s reasoning, she nodded. “It’s Trumpian,” she said. “It’s authoritarian.”… Clinton’s allusions to Zuckerberg as a world leader are fitting. “I feel like you’re negotiating with a foreign power sometimes,” she said, referencing conversations she’s had “at the highest levels” with Facebook. “He’s immensely powerful,” she told me. “This is a global company that has huge influence in ways that we’re only beginning to understand.” Facebook is, in a sense, the world’s first technocratic nation-state—a real-time experiment in connecting humans at massive and unprecedented scale, with a population of users that eclipses any actual nation, nearly as big as China and India combined. It’s also an institution with gigantic levers at its disposal to affect the lives of its user-citizens. Facebook knows this. It has played with manipulating people’s emotions. It has trumpeted its ability to affect the outcome of an election. There’s good reason to believe, Clinton said, that Facebook is “not just going to reelect Trump, but intend[s] to reelect Trump.”
As I said the other day when I wrote about Soros’ statement, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Neither Soros nor Clinton have offered any evidence that Zuckerberg intends to do anything internally to help Trump. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago a leaked memo from a Facebook executive made the case that while the company could in theory sway an election against Trump the company should resist that urge:
To be clear, I’m no fan of Trump. I donated the max to Hillary. After his election I wrote a post about Trump supporters that I’m told caused colleagues who had supported him to feel unsafe around me (I regret that post and deleted shortly after)… As a committed liberal I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result. So what stays my hand? I find myself thinking of the Lord of the Rings at this moment. Specifically when Frodo offers the ring to Galadrial and she imagines using the power righteously, at first, but knows it will eventually corrupt her. As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear.
Where is Hillary getting the idea that a leading tech company is eager to elect Trump? As far as I can tell this is coming from three specific things. First, there was the Russian use of Facebook during the 2016 elections. That spending amounted to a tiny drop in the bucked compared to the money Hillary’s campaign spent but Hillary spent months during her book tour flogging the idea that Russian interference (along with more than a dozen other things) cost her the election. So I think despite the reality that this wasn’t terribly significant, many Democrats have it in their minds that the Russian campaign on Facebook may have determined the outcome.
Second, there was a leaked audio in October in which Zuckerberg was heard saying this about Elizabeth Warren, “if she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge.” He added, “if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.” I think many on the left hear this and assume Zuckerberg means ‘We need to use Facebook to ensure Warren loses the election’ which is not remotely what he said or fair to what he said. He was talking about fighting any effort to break up the company in court. Zuckerberg probably has a small army of lawyers and lobbyists he can deploy to fight efforts to break up his company and he’s saying he would use them if needed. But obviously if he were planning to sway the election, he’d have no reason to worry about a court fight since it would never come to that.
Third, there has been an ongoing battle over Facebook’s policy on truth in political advertising. Zuckerberg has refused to say he would remove content with false information. Instead, he has said he would use fact-checkers to provide additional information to show that content in the ad was false without removing it. In short, the solution to bad speech is more speech. That seems like a good approach to me but as you may have noticed many on the left are not as fond of this approach to speech as they used to be. The problem for political figures who share Hillary’s concern is that Dems in Congress can’t pass a law or otherwise order Facebook to do as they wish. That would be censorship and unconstitutional.
So Dems are in this uncomfortable position where a significant portion of the culture is not completely under their control. They aren’t used to that. They own Hollywood, television, the music industry, book publishing, the theater, the arts, the news media, universities, etc. Pretty much everything outside of Fox News and talk radio is culturally on the left. But Facebook isn’t playing along and the left does not like it.
What Hillary and many others on the left want, I believe, is for Facebook to aggressively and reflexively dump on their opponents the way Hollywood effectively stamps out most conservative messages. Since Facebook isn’t going along, Zuckerberg is becoming the new Koch brothers, i.e. a powerful figure the left can point to as an avowed enemy. Hillary seems to be spurring that along by suggesting Zuckerberg is, essentially, a foreign dictator. I suspect the left will keep ratcheting up the pressure until Zuckerberg caves.
But if you think about it, this isn’t a very smart strategy. If you think Zuckerberg is worried about the far left (like Warren) going after his company, then having figures like Clinton and Soros turn him into a cultural outcast probably only proves to him that he was right to be worried.


hotair--2020-01-26--Philly residents would like a word about this violent crime spike

The City of Brotherly Love has been a lot less loving over the past year or more , particularly out in the streets .
While still coming nowhere near the disastrous conditions in Baltimore and Chicago , Philadelphia has seen a spike in violent crime after experiencing more than a decade of steady declines in violence .
This has been particularly alarming on the city ’ s south side in the First Police District .
This week , the Philadelphia PD scheduled a town hall so residents could come with their questions , offer suggestions and find out what was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they showed up in force , giving the police officials who hosted the meeting an earful .
( CBS Philadelphia ) Residents packed the 1st Police District in South Philadelphia Tuesday night to express their concerns about crime in their neighborhood — perhaps representing how many people feel throughout the city with the uptick in violent crimes plaguing the city .
“ I can ’ t walk across the street by myself without the fear of — now its guns , ” one person said .
“ It ’ s not knives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those who live within the police department ’ s 1st District gathered to speak with the police captain and community officers who patrol their streets .
The meeting was the first since a disturbing discovery was made last week .
The “ disturbing discovery ” referenced in the article was the body of an 18-year-old male in the basement of a house located in the district .
One neighbor who was at the meeting said that he watches at least “ six drug deals a day ” taking place in front of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the threshold was to call 911 .
He was told he should have already called .
Here ’ s a brief video of some of the action at the meeting .
People seem to be both frightened and angry .
It doesn ’ t take a rocket scientist to piece together what ’ s going on .
Like too many other cities , Philadelphia is seeing a resurgence in gang activity and violence .
It may start with street-level drug dealing in small transactions , but it ramps up from there as gangs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Violence follows close behind .
To inappropriately steal a recent social media meme for some gallows humor here… and then the murders began .
But it ’ s not a joke .
As we ’ ve discussed here previously , 2019 saw the greatest number of murders in a dozen years , with 355 people being killed .
That ’ s ten more than Baltimore , but it ’ s still not nearly as bad of a homicide rate since Philadelphia has literally more than twice as many people .
This year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start .
The city recorded 30 homicides in the first 21 days of the year , continuing to average more than one killing per day .
Other violent crimes , including rape and assault , were up across the board as well .
As we discussed earlier this month , the burden of addressing this violent crime epidemic falls on the shoulders of Mayor Jim Kenney .
He was elected in 2016 on a platform of RESISTing Donald Trump , raising soda taxes , setting up supervised , public drug injection sites and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than improving things , residents have seen the murder rate in the city climb significantly under Kenney ’ s tenure , going from 277 in 2016 to 356 last year .
And what has the Mayor done in response ?
Well , he held a gun turn-in event that produced a whopping total of six firearms of dubious quality that most self-respecting gang bangers wouldn ’ t be seen with in public .
But Mayor Kenney wanted this job and he got it .
Now it ’ s time to do the @ @ @

The City of Brotherly Love has been a lot less loving over the past year or more, particularly out in the streets. While still coming nowhere near the disastrous conditions in Baltimore and Chicago, Philadelphia has seen a spike in violent crime after experiencing more than a decade of steady declines in violence. This has been particularly alarming on the city’s south side in the First Police District.
This week, the Philadelphia PD scheduled a town hall so residents could come with their questions, offer suggestions and find out what was being done to address the problem. And they showed up in force, giving the police officials who hosted the meeting an earful. (CBS Philadelphia)
Residents packed the 1st Police District in South Philadelphia Tuesday night to express their concerns about crime in their neighborhood — perhaps representing how many people feel throughout the city with the uptick in violent crimes plaguing the city. “I can’t walk across the street by myself without the fear of — now its guns,” one person said. “It’s not knives. I can take a beating.” Those who live within the police department’s 1st District gathered to speak with the police captain and community officers who patrol their streets. The meeting was the first since a disturbing discovery was made last week.
The “disturbing discovery” referenced in the article was the body of an 18-year-old male in the basement of a house located in the district. One neighbor who was at the meeting said that he watches at least “six drug deals a day” taking place in front of that house and asked the Police Chief what the threshold was to call 911. He was told he should have already called. Here’s a brief video of some of the action at the meeting. People seem to be both frightened and angry.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to piece together what’s going on. Like too many other cities, Philadelphia is seeing a resurgence in gang activity and violence. It may start with street-level drug dealing in small transactions, but it ramps up from there as gangs compete for territory and market share. Violence follows close behind. To inappropriately steal a recent social media meme for some gallows humor here… and then the murders began.
But it’s not a joke. As we’ve discussed here previously, 2019 saw the greatest number of murders in a dozen years, with 355 people being killed. That’s ten more than Baltimore, but it’s still not nearly as bad of a homicide rate since Philadelphia has literally more than twice as many people.
This year, things are off to an even worse start. The city recorded 30 homicides in the first 21 days of the year, continuing to average more than one killing per day. Other violent crimes, including rape and assault, were up across the board as well.
As we discussed earlier this month, the burden of addressing this violent crime epidemic falls on the shoulders of Mayor Jim Kenney. He was elected in 2016 on a platform of RESISTing Donald Trump, raising soda taxes, setting up supervised, public drug injection sites and getting the police under control. But rather than improving things, residents have seen the murder rate in the city climb significantly under Kenney’s tenure, going from 277 in 2016 to 356 last year.
And what has the Mayor done in response? Well, he held a gun turn-in event that produced a whopping total of six firearms of dubious quality that most self-respecting gang bangers wouldn’t be seen with in public. But Mayor Kenney wanted this job and he got it. Now it’s time to do the right thing.