hotair--2020-02-04--<span class='red'>Live blog: A SOTU of "relentless optimism"

Live blog: A SOTU of "relentless optimism" -- or Trump's revenge?

10:28 — Good speech , no mention of impeachment , but at least a few flashes of sharp partisan points .
For the most part , though , this was a very well-delivered but rather standard State of the Union speech .
It will serve as a good reference as the year ’ s agenda unfolds , but much of this — other than the personal stories and the action in the gallery — will go quickly out of mind .
It ’ s almost surprisingly conventional , perhaps the start of Trump ’ s pitch about his presidential mien @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portion of the speech focused on the economy , about a third of it according to C-SPAN , but perhaps a bit less than one would have predicted .
Republicans have lots of reasons to be pleased with Trump ’ s efforts tonight in the short run .
10:27 — Pelosi ripped up the speech at the dais .
Classy .
10:23 — Not too many Democrats applauding American exceptionalism .
Kyrsten Sinema was one of the few exceptions .
10:21 — Turning into the final theme of the speech .
We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impeachment … yet .
10:19 — Wow — what a great moment to bring back the husband and father of the family who ’ d been invited to show the sacrifice of military families .
That ’ s the best reveal yet .
10:17 — Extends an olive branch to Iran , but let ’ s face it — they ’ re not looking for an olive branch .
10:14 — Another effective moment with the family of a slain American soldier , who was killed in a roadside bomb set by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to Qassem Soleimani and said that he finally ordered an “ end to his evil reign of terror forever .
… Our message to the terrorists is clear : You will never escape American justice .
If you attack our citizens , you forfeit your life !
” Not everyone ’ s cheering this one .
10:09 — Took quite a while , but we ’ re back to foreign policy .
He mentions the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan but only for one sentence , and then switches quickly to the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s parents are in attendance , the girl who got kidnapped and enslaved by Baghdadi .
Trump says Baghdadi murdered her , but I had thought she died in an air strike .
10:08 — This is a line for the campaign — “ As long as I am president , I will always protect your right to keep and bear arms.
” 10:07 — “ And we have many in the pipeline ” Trump says about judicial nominations , which gets a few chuckles .
He then moves to religious liberty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
10:04 — Celebrates the end of “ catch and release ” policies , hails his agreements with Mexico and Central American nations to rapidly cut border crossings .
Introduces a Border Patrol deputy chief to highlight the gains and then asks Congress to work to support stronger legislation on immigration .
Trump wants a merit-based system rather than the “ randomized ” system in place .
Shout out to Mitch McConnell on judicial confirmations .
9:59 — Slams sanctuary cities and highlights a rape-murder case committed by someone New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Also cites a California murder spree by another man released under sanctuary policies .
One of the victim ’ s brothers is in the gallery .
Trump then pushes for legislation allowing victims to sue sanctuary cities/states over these cases .
9:57 — Family-leave policies getting a lot of applause , but it ’ s not necessarily as enthusiastic as the late-term abortion ban .
9:53 — An even more touching moment with an introduction of a girl who survived birth before the 22nd week of gestation .
Trump then calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away and not happy .
9:51 — Surprise !
Melania Trump presents him with the award rather than waiting for a later ceremony .
Not sure that ’ s ever been done before .
Long , sustained applause .
9:50 — Great shout-out to Rush Limbaugh and his battle against cancer .
Very nicely done .
Announces the Medal of Freedom award , and Rush looks taken aback by it , even though he was informed of it earlier .
Very overcome by emotion ; Pelosi remains seated and looking down .
9:49 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AIDS epidemic ” by the end of the decade .
9:47 — Several congresswomen started chanting something in protest , but Trump just rolls over it to talk about the opioid crisis .
9:46 — A quick detour to the wall , then back to health care .
Says a bipartisan bill that lowers prescription drug prices will get his signature immediately .
9:45 — Not pulling any punches with this one : “ If forcing American taxpayers to provide unlimited free healthcare to illegal aliens sounds fair to you , then stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you believe that we should defend American patients and American seniors , then stand with me and pass legislation to prohibit free Government healthcare for illegal aliens !
” 9:43 — Goes frontally against Medicare for All and declares , “ We will never let socialism destroy American health care.
” 9:42 — Moves to health care and his “ iron-clad promise ” to cover pre-existing conditions , and pledges to protect Medicare and Social Security at the same time .
He also suggests that his price-transparency EO will prove to be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pushes for more funding for vocational education , something Rick Santorum tried to move forward in his presidential run in 2012 .
Trump also called for more funding for historically black colleges and universities .
9:37 — Introduces a 4th-grader who got wait-listed for an Opportunity Scholarship , then tells her that her scholarship just came through .
Big smile from the little girl and her mom , but not so much from Pelosi .
Trump then demands that Congress pass his school-choice proposal “ because no parent should be forced to send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9:35 — Now we ’ re turning into the agenda portion of the speech .
First up : school choice .
9:31 — Cheers for the Space Force .
Introduces another guest , a 13-year-old student who wants to go into the Space Force .
Everyone ’ s cheering for Ian .
Then introduces Ian ’ s great-grandfather , a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman .
Huge cheers — a great moment .
9:29 — “ Socialism always destroys nations , but freedom unifies the soul.
” This is an opening to discussing military policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back to this theme .
9:28 — Briefer than expected review of China policy ; Trump is probably being careful not to derail Phase II talks .
Instead , he shifts to Cuba and Venezuela , safer ground .
Trump introduces Juan Guaidó as the “ true president ” of Venezuela , getting lots of cheers across the aisle .
9:24 — Takes a big victory lap on replacing NAFTA .
“ Unlike so many who came before me , ” Trump says , “ we kept our promise.
” Big cheers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reciprocity.
” Not many Democratic cheers , which is puzzling given their support for it .
9:22 — Emphasizing energy and manufacturing expansion .
Trump notes factory losses under “ last two administrations ” ; Pelosi raised an eyebrow at the shot at the Bush administration .
9:21 — Shares credit on criminal justice reform with Congress ; bipartisan applause on that declaration .
9:20 — First guest shout-out to a man who went through recovery through Trump ’ s policies .
Nice story , well done .
9:18 — Very granular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies , gives Tim Scott a shout out regarding implementation of the tax cuts and reinvestment .
9:15 — Pelosi trying to keep a smile on her face , but drops it again when Trump criticizes the welfare expansion of the Obama administration .
Grumbles from Democrats on these economic numbers and criticisms of the previous administration .
9:13 — Democrats groan when Trump cites the reversal of the previous administration ’ s economic policies , and again when he talks about low unemployment in minority communities .
It was the sharpest line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still very mild by Trump ’ s standards .
9:12 — Thus far , it ’ s a more formal version of his rally material , well delivered , and effective , but not too much here we haven ’ t heard from Trump before .
9:09 — Genuinely nice touch by Pelosi to get her microphone out of the shot .
9:08 — “ The years of economic decay are over.
” Big applause .
Trump also scorns “ jobless recoveries ” and excuses for “ American decline.
” 9:07 — Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good reminder of what this speech is really going to be about .
9:06 — Did Trump just leave Pelosi hanging on a handshake ?
9:05 — A short conversation with an uncomfortable looking John Roberts .
9:03 — Trump makes his entrance to massive cheers and applause , lots of handshakes , and the usual pomp .
8:58 — The First Lady enters and joins a very hale-looking Rush Limbaugh .
Tiffany Trump is on hand for tonight ’ s event .
The Cabinet follows immediately afterward .
8:56 — Someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” button , and suddenly I expect Jimmy Carter to make an appearance .
8:53 — The Supreme Court makes its entry , led by John Roberts .
In the 1999 SOTU , Chief Justice Rehnquist declined to appear due to his role as presider in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial .
With everything over but the vote , though , it ’ s not much of a conflict .
Update , 8:46 pm ET : Nancy Pelosi just gaveled the chamber into session and is assigning the escorts to bring Trump into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same with the Senate .
Get ready for the imperial stroll .
Or should that be an and ?
Tonight at 9 pm ET , Donald Trump makes history by becoming the first president in the middle of an impeachment trial in the Senate and a national re-election campaign to deliver a State of the Union Speech to a joint session of Congress .
The surreality of the spectacle won ’ t get fully appreciated until Trump gets called into the chamber and advances to the dais in the quasi-imperial manner of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House managers and their Senate allies have spent the past few weeks accusing Trump of acting like a king or dictator .
The very same chambers will , if they stick with tradition , treat him with more pomp and reverence than a Roman emperor coming home at the head of a triumph .
At that point , we will get a hint of what Trump has in mind with this speech .
Will he attempt to berate Congress while they ’ re captive to his presence by tradition and precedent ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past impeachment and make his big pitch for the upcoming election instead , using the spectacle as his 2020 launching pad : Earlier today , however , Trump told news anchors that he plans to remain disciplined and on-message .
His thoughts on impeachment can wait until after his acquittal , he said : “ Schtick.
” Nice work , Politico , but we ’ ll get back to the socialism issue in a bit .
There actually is a nearly analogous precedent , the Associated Press points out .
Bill Clinton delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , and also avoided the topic altogether .
Clinton used the speech to take credit for a bustling economy , although it would later deflate in the dot-com crash : Yes , and … they were right .
Trump will likely offer a similar theme , perhaps with less grandiosity , pledging to work with Congress to the extent they work on his own agenda .
In that sense , most of tonight ’ s speech will likely be the same as any other SOTU .
It will be a laundry list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a longer laundry list of agenda items still left to be accomplished .
That would make Senate Republicans in particular very , very happy : In the guest competition , Trump will likely have won that before it really get started .
After hearing of the announcement of his cancer diagnosis , Trump made a last-minute invitation to Rush Limbaugh to attend as his guest .
Trump will also announce that he plans to award Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom : That will generate an avalanche of applause and cheers , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That moment alone will make this SOTU worth watching , but our friends at Issues & Insights argue that Trump will make this one notable for another reason .
One of his major themes tonight will be to attack the rise of socialism as a political force in the US : And hopefully that ’ s all the country will hear , too .
The show starts at 9 pm ET , so find C-SPAN on your dish or cable guide and stick with it rather than tune in to the inanities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you can ’ t find them or if you are watching on terrestrial TV alone .
If you can ’ t get it anywhere else , watch it on the Wall Street Journal YouTube stream below .
I ’ ll be live-blogging my thoughts starting just a bit before the speech , so be sure to watch the top of this post for updates in reverse chronological order ( latest on top ) .
Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer drew the short straw and will deliver the Democratic response , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Trump doesn ’ t mention impeachment , Whitmer almost certainly will anyway .

10:28 — Good speech, no mention of impeachment, but at least a few flashes of sharp partisan points. For the most part, though, this was a very well-delivered but rather standard State of the Union speech. It will serve as a good reference as the year’s agenda unfolds, but much of this — other than the personal stories and the action in the gallery — will go quickly out of mind. It’s almost surprisingly conventional, perhaps the start of Trump’s pitch about his presidential mien for the 2020 campaign. The biggest portion of the speech focused on the economy, about a third of it according to C-SPAN, but perhaps a bit less than one would have predicted. Republicans have lots of reasons to be pleased with Trump’s efforts tonight in the short run.
10:27 — Pelosi ripped up the speech at the dais. Classy.
10:23 — Not too many Democrats applauding American exceptionalism. Kyrsten Sinema was one of the few exceptions.
10:21 — Turning into the final theme of the speech. We’re just about done without a mention of impeachment … yet.
10:19 — Wow — what a great moment to bring back the husband and father of the family who’d been invited to show the sacrifice of military families. That’s the best reveal yet.
10:17 — Extends an olive branch to Iran, but let’s face it — they’re not looking for an olive branch.
10:14 — Another effective moment with the family of a slain American soldier, who was killed in a roadside bomb set by Iranian-linked militants in Iraq. Trump linked it to Qassem Soleimani and said that he finally ordered an “end to his evil reign of terror forever. … Our message to the terrorists is clear: You will never escape American justice. If you attack our citizens, you forfeit your life!” Not everyone’s cheering this one.
10:09 — Took quite a while, but we’re back to foreign policy. He mentions the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan but only for one sentence, and then switches quickly to the end of ISIS’ al-Baghdadi. Kayla Mueller’s parents are in attendance, the girl who got kidnapped and enslaved by Baghdadi. Trump says Baghdadi murdered her, but I had thought she died in an air strike.
10:08 — This is a line for the campaign — “As long as I am president, I will always protect your right to keep and bear arms.”
10:07 — “And we have many in the pipeline” Trump says about judicial nominations, which gets a few chuckles. He then moves to religious liberty. “We celebrate faith,” Trump says.
10:04 — Celebrates the end of “catch and release” policies, hails his agreements with Mexico and Central American nations to rapidly cut border crossings. Introduces a Border Patrol deputy chief to highlight the gains and then asks Congress to work to support stronger legislation on immigration. Trump wants a merit-based system rather than the “randomized” system in place. Shout out to Mitch McConnell on judicial confirmations.
9:59 — Slams sanctuary cities and highlights a rape-murder case committed by someone New York City released rather than detain at ICE request. Also cites a California murder spree by another man released under sanctuary policies. One of the victim’s brothers is in the gallery. Trump then pushes for legislation allowing victims to sue sanctuary cities/states over these cases.
9:58 — It’s Infrastructure Week! Democrats are cheering this section pretty enthusiastically.
9:57 — Family-leave policies getting a lot of applause, but it’s not necessarily as enthusiastic as the late-term abortion ban.
9:53 — An even more touching moment with an introduction of a girl who survived birth before the 22nd week of gestation. Trump then calls for a late-term abortion ban; Pelosi looking away and not happy.
9:51 — Surprise! Melania Trump presents him with the award rather than waiting for a later ceremony. Not sure that’s ever been done before. Long, sustained applause.
9:50 — Great shout-out to Rush Limbaugh and his battle against cancer. Very nicely done. Announces the Medal of Freedom award, and Rush looks taken aback by it, even though he was informed of it earlier. Very overcome by emotion; Pelosi remains seated and looking down.
9:49 — Pledges an end to the “AIDS epidemic” by the end of the decade.
9:47 — Several congresswomen started chanting something in protest, but Trump just rolls over it to talk about the opioid crisis.
9:46 — A quick detour to the wall, then back to health care. Says a bipartisan bill that lowers prescription drug prices will get his signature immediately.
9:45 — Not pulling any punches with this one: “If forcing American taxpayers to provide unlimited free healthcare to illegal aliens sounds fair to you, then stand with the radical left. But if you believe that we should defend American patients and American seniors, then stand with me and pass legislation to prohibit free Government healthcare for illegal aliens!”
9:43 — Goes frontally against Medicare for All and declares, “We will never let socialism destroy American health care.”
9:42 — Moves to health care and his “iron-clad promise” to cover pre-existing conditions, and pledges to protect Medicare and Social Security at the same time. He also suggests that his price-transparency EO will prove to be “better than health-care reform.”
9:40 — Pushes for more funding for vocational education, something Rick Santorum tried to move forward in his presidential run in 2012. Trump also called for more funding for historically black colleges and universities.
9:37 — Introduces a 4th-grader who got wait-listed for an Opportunity Scholarship, then tells her that her scholarship just came through. Big smile from the little girl and her mom, but not so much from Pelosi. Trump then demands that Congress pass his school-choice proposal “because no parent should be forced to send their child to a failing school.”
9:35 — Now we’re turning into the agenda portion of the speech. First up: school choice.
9:31 — Cheers for the Space Force. Introduces another guest, a 13-year-old student who wants to go into the Space Force. Everyone’s cheering for Ian. Then introduces Ian’s great-grandfather, a 100-year-old Tuskegee Airman. Huge cheers — a great moment.
9:29 — “Socialism always destroys nations, but freedom unifies the soul.” This is an opening to discussing military policy, but he’s going to come back to this theme.
9:28 — Briefer than expected review of China policy; Trump is probably being careful not to derail Phase II talks. Instead, he shifts to Cuba and Venezuela, safer ground. Trump introduces Juan Guaidó as the “true president” of Venezuela, getting lots of cheers across the aisle.
9:24 — Takes a big victory lap on replacing NAFTA. “Unlike so many who came before me,” Trump says, “we kept our promise.” Big cheers for USMCA mention, emphasizes “fairness and reciprocity.” Not many Democratic cheers, which is puzzling given their support for it.
9:22 — Emphasizing energy and manufacturing expansion. Trump notes factory losses under “last two administrations”; Pelosi raised an eyebrow at the shot at the Bush administration.
9:21 — Shares credit on criminal justice reform with Congress; bipartisan applause on that declaration.
9:20 — First guest shout-out to a man who went through recovery through Trump’s policies. Nice story, well done.
9:18 — Very granular layout of the outcomes of his economic policies, gives Tim Scott a shout out regarding implementation of the tax cuts and reinvestment.
9:15 — Pelosi trying to keep a smile on her face, but drops it again when Trump criticizes the welfare expansion of the Obama administration. Grumbles from Democrats on these economic numbers and criticisms of the previous administration.
9:13 — Democrats groan when Trump cites the reversal of the previous administration’s economic policies, and again when he talks about low unemployment in minority communities. It was the sharpest line thus far in his speech, but still very mild by Trump’s standards.
9:12 — Thus far, it’s a more formal version of his rally material, well delivered, and effective, but not too much here we haven’t heard from Trump before.
9:09 — Genuinely nice touch by Pelosi to get her microphone out of the shot.
9:08 — “The years of economic decay are over.” Big applause. Trump also scorns “jobless recoveries” and excuses for “American decline.”
9:07 — Republicans chant “four more years”, a good reminder of what this speech is really going to be about.
9:06 — Did Trump just leave Pelosi hanging on a handshake?
9:05 — A short conversation with an uncomfortable looking John Roberts.
9:03 — Trump makes his entrance to massive cheers and applause, lots of handshakes, and the usual pomp.
8:58 — The First Lady enters and joins a very hale-looking Rush Limbaugh. Tiffany Trump is on hand for tonight’s event. The Cabinet follows immediately afterward.
8:56 — Someone’s wearing an “ERA Yes” button, and suddenly I expect Jimmy Carter to make an appearance.
8:53 — The Supreme Court makes its entry, led by John Roberts. In the 1999 SOTU, Chief Justice Rehnquist declined to appear due to his role as presider in the Bill Clinton impeachment trial. With everything over but the vote, though, it’s not much of a conflict.
Update, 8:46 pm ET: Nancy Pelosi just gaveled the chamber into session and is assigning the escorts to bring Trump into the chamber. Mike Pence does the same with the Senate. Get ready for the imperial stroll.
Original post follows …
Or should that be an and? Tonight at 9 pm ET, Donald Trump makes history by becoming the first president in the middle of an impeachment trial in the Senate and a national re-election campaign to deliver a State of the Union Speech to a joint session of Congress.
The surreality of the spectacle won’t get fully appreciated until Trump gets called into the chamber and advances to the dais in the quasi-imperial manner of these events. Bear in mind that the House managers and their Senate allies have spent the past few weeks accusing Trump of acting like a king or dictator. The very same chambers will, if they stick with tradition, treat him with more pomp and reverence than a Roman emperor coming home at the head of a triumph.
At that point, we will get a hint of what Trump has in mind with this speech. Will he attempt to berate Congress while they’re captive to his presence by tradition and precedent? The early word was that Trump will look past impeachment and make his big pitch for the upcoming election instead, using the spectacle as his 2020 launching pad:
The White House said last week to look for “can-do optimism in the face of unjustified pessimism we are hearing from some in Congress.” But how will he handle impeachment? White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said he’d seen the speech and “I’ve not seen the word ‘impeachment.’ But, as the president likes to say, we’ll see what happens.” There’s no guarantee that Trump will stick to his speech. The president will be in the same room as his accusers at a moment of impending victory. He has a strong and often-stated sense of grievance and is known for going off-script.
Earlier today, however, Trump told news anchors that he plans to remain disciplined and on-message. His thoughts on impeachment can wait until after his acquittal, he said:
Despite delivering the prime-time address in the same room where House Democrats voted to impeach him on two articles — obstruction of Congress and abuse of power — less than two months ago, Trump said his tone Tuesday night would be “extraordinarily low-key.” Instead of using the stately occasion to air his grievances — something Republican lawmakers privately expressed concern about leading up to State of the Union — Trump said he will wait to speak about impeachment until Wednesday, when he is expected to be acquitted by the Senate. Meanwhile, Trump will use the annual address to contrast his economic policies and the current state of the U.S. economy with the costly policy proposals offered by Democratic presidential candidates. He told news anchors his speech would include a “modified” version of the anti-socialism shtick that’s become a staple of his 2020 campaign rallies.
“Schtick.” Nice work, Politico, but we’ll get back to the socialism issue in a bit. There actually is a nearly analogous precedent, the Associated Press points out. Bill Clinton delivered a SOTU during his Senate trial as well, and also avoided the topic altogether. Clinton used the speech to take credit for a bustling economy, although it would later deflate in the dot-com crash:
Look for Trump, like Clinton, to promote a strong economy. Trump is expected to lead with talk about what the White House calls a “blue-collar boom.” There have been gains in blue-collar wages under Trump, though some of those gains have faded as Trump’s trade war hurt manufacturing. Watch to see if Trump can stick to the high road rhetorically, in his own style. Clinton ended his by asking the nation to envision a State of the Union speech 100 years from that night, from the “mountaintop of the American Century.” “Let it be said of us then that we were thinking not only of our time, but of their time; that we reached as high as our ideals. That we put aside our divisions and found a new hour of healing and hopefulness; that we joined together to serve and strengthen the land we love.” At the time, some said his rhetoric was over the top.
Yes, and … they were right. Trump will likely offer a similar theme, perhaps with less grandiosity, pledging to work with Congress to the extent they work on his own agenda. In that sense, most of tonight’s speech will likely be the same as any other SOTU. It will be a laundry list of achievements over the past year, and a longer laundry list of agenda items still left to be accomplished.
That would make Senate Republicans in particular very, very happy:
Trump will deliver his State of the Union address tonight, on the eve of the final impeachment vote in the Senate. But Republicans are hoping — and praying — that Trump resists the urge to even mention the “I” word during his speech. “We’re not done tomorrow and I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to bring it up,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “He is his own person, obviously he can bring up things as he chooses to … but I’m not coming into that speech to be able to hear more about impeachment.” Instead, Republicans want Trump to focus on — you guessed it — the strong economy and his legislative successes. “My advice would be that in the State of the Union he should move on,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “The president’s got a good record when you look at the economy and lower taxes and fewer regulations and higher incomes and I think he’d be well advised to focus on that and let the impeachment trial speak for itself.” The president has been fairly restrained on Twitter throughout the trial, at least by his own standards. But, as they say: Trump will be Trump.
In the guest competition, Trump will likely have won that before it really get started. After hearing of the announcement of his cancer diagnosis, Trump made a last-minute invitation to Rush Limbaugh to attend as his guest. Trump will also announce that he plans to award Limbaugh the Medal of Freedom:
Trump told network anchors earlier Tuesday that he was saddened by the news of Limbaugh’s diagnosis and had extended a last-minute invitation for him to join the first lady in the gallery at the State of the Union, according to four people familiar with the conversation. The president also said he could award the Medal of Freedom to Limbaugh as soon as next week, adding that his preference would be to do it during the State of the Union, according to two of the people familiar with his comments. One person at Tuesday’s lunch said Trump appeared to be “ shaken up” by the news, and kept mentioning that he and Limbaugh had seen each other in West Palm Beach, Fla. as recently as Dec. 22, when the president was in town for an extended holiday stay and had lunch with Limbaugh, professional golfer Jim Herman and his son Eric Trump. “He said he told Rush, ‘You look great – like you’ve lost weight,’ but that Limbaugh didn’t say anything at the time about his health,” this person said.
That will generate an avalanche of applause and cheers, at least from one side of the chamber. That moment alone will make this SOTU worth watching, but our friends at Issues & Insights argue that Trump will make this one notable for another reason. One of his major themes tonight will be to attack the rise of socialism as a political force in the US:
State of the Union addresses are tedious, pointless, and quite often irksome. But this year’s promises to be none of that. President Donald Trump is going to do what no U.S. president has ever had to do before: He will denounce socialism in America. … Even if we’re talking about the welfare statism or “democratic socialism” of some European nations rather than the socialism of Cuba, East Germany, Venezuela and the retired Soviet Union, the heart of any system based on collectivism still requires coercion, punitive taxation, and a varying disregard for property rights. Its benefits have to be financed by market economies, which are rejected by Sanders, Warren, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and other Democrats in favor of centrally planned economies. Will Trump use strong words rather than watered-down political language to remind America of socialism’s gulags, inherent violence, and forced conformity; of planned economies’ abuse of liberty, smothering bureaucratic traps, and the oppression of the many through the power of a few? It’s not his style to go soft. So it’s likely the country is going to hear what it needs to.
And hopefully that’s all the country will hear, too. The show starts at 9 pm ET, so find C-SPAN on your dish or cable guide and stick with it rather than tune in to the inanities that accompany the event on other channels. If you can’t find them or if you are watching on terrestrial TV alone. If you can’t get it anywhere else, watch it on the Wall Street Journal YouTube stream below.
I’ll be live-blogging my thoughts starting just a bit before the speech, so be sure to watch the top of this post for updates in reverse chronological order (latest on top). Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer drew the short straw and will deliver the Democratic response, so stick around for that, too. If Trump doesn’t mention impeachment, Whitmer almost certainly will anyway.


hotair--2020-02-04--The winner of the Iowa caucuses is ... President Trump

That ’ s right – the real winner coming out of the Iowa caucuses is President Trump .
As Ed wrote earlier , the Trump campaign has a lot to crow about today .
While everyone was focused on the Democrats and the utter disaster they delivered in Iowa , two truths emerged .
First , Republicans pounced , as the press likes to say , on the fact that Democrats can ’ t even count raised hands at a caucus and produce the totals in a timely manner .
They tweaked their procedures and all that backfired on them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that voter turnout wasn ’ t increased but just remained about what the turnout was in 2016 .
What happened to all that enthusiasm we ’ ve been hearing about on the Democrat side to oust Trump from office ?
Second , President Trump won 97.16 % of the GOP caucus votes .
His two primary challengers , Bill Weld and Joe Walsh are running to put a dent into Trump ’ s re-election chances .
They failed miserably .
The Republican caucus saw a turnout that reached record levels .
The last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one with an incumbent president , was in 2004 .
President George W. Bush was in the incumbent and the turnout was about 8,000 Republicans .
The total Monday night was 32,004 .
That number indicates , to me , a lot of enthusiasm .
The challengers garnered 1.27 % ( Weld ) and 1.08 % ( Walsh ) .
There were a few write-ins which totaled 0.47 % .
The Trump campaign pulled out all the stops .
They want Iowa – a usually reliable red state – to vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two of Trump ’ s sons , politicians , and cabinet members stumped for Trump .
No one wants to take anything for granted .
Both Weld and Walsh lacked caucus-goers who were willing to speak for them before the voting took place .
At caucuses , representatives of each candidate are supposed to have a little time to tell the audience why they should vote for that candidate .
In Ames , Trump Jr. was the star of the show , talking for more than 20 minutes about his father ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to which Democrats have subjected Trump and his family .
Jeff Ortiz , the co-chair of the Story County GOP , went from table to table , asking people if anyone would like to make remarks on behalf of Walsh or Weld .
There were no takers .
In the end , out of 449 votes , Trump received 415 , Walsh 20 , and Weld 9 .
There was one write-in each for a disparate group : Vice President Mike Pence , former U.N .
Ambassador Nikki Haley , Nebraska Sen. Ben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One person abstained .
In the end , Ortiz was delighted with a turnout more than four times what he originally expected .
Yes , that was a display of clout by Trump , but it was also an organizational shot in the arm for the local party .
“ It ’ s critical that we get these people to turn out , to sign up for our central committees , to stay involved right up until the end , ” Ortiz said .
“ Because there are no guarantees come November.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not allowed to speak at the caucuses .
The communications director for the Iowa Republican Party says , more or less , that ’ s hogwash .
Fake news .
Maybe Joe ’ s just a sore loser .
Bill Weld is a former two-term Governor of Massachusetts .
He ran as the vice-presidential nominee on the Libertarian ticket in 2016 .
His campaign focus is on limited government and fiscal responsibility .
He often refers to Trump ’ s behavior as that of a king .
“ I ’ m running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president who actually believes in the principles of limited government , free and fair markets , and economic opportunity for all .
Principles that , until recently , were the trademarks of a great political party , ” Weld wrote .
“ I don ’ t believe trillion-dollar deficits are okay .
I believe in markets , not trade wars….We believe in the Rule of Law , and that it applies to everyone , including the President .
We believe the Constitution means what it says , rather than scoffing at its limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government .
And we believe the purpose of foreign policy and our military is to make us safer.
” Joe Walsh , in contrast , focuses on personal attacks on President Trump .
His crowds don ’ t always appreciate Walsh ’ s vitriol .
Weld and Walsh are failing to raise much money for their campaigns .
Fourth-quarter numbers were brutal – $ 411,000 for Weld , $ 245,000 for Walsh , $ 45.98 million for Trump .
“ Weld had just $ 37,000 in the bank at the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , compared to Trump ’ s war chest of $ 195 million.
” Add to all this the fact that Trump ’ s never been more popular with Republicans and Independent voters .
As a matter of fact , his numbers have risen in the midst of the impeachment circus .
Resistance is futile by his primary opponents .
Weld may do a little bit better in New Hampshire , given he is from neighboring Massachusetts , but that remains to be seen .
Some states have canceled their GOP primary elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the imagination of anyone other than some bitter Never Trumpers by now , there ’ s little hope that Weld and Walsh will be around much longer .

That’s right – the real winner coming out of the Iowa caucuses is President Trump. As Ed wrote earlier, the Trump campaign has a lot to crow about today.
While everyone was focused on the Democrats and the utter disaster they delivered in Iowa, two truths emerged. First, Republicans pounced, as the press likes to say, on the fact that Democrats can’t even count raised hands at a caucus and produce the totals in a timely manner. They tweaked their procedures and all that backfired on them. Even more incredible is the fact that voter turnout wasn’t increased but just remained about what the turnout was in 2016. What happened to all that enthusiasm we’ve been hearing about on the Democrat side to oust Trump from office?
Second, President Trump won 97.16% of the GOP caucus votes. His two primary challengers, Bill Weld and Joe Walsh are running to put a dent into Trump’s re-election chances. They failed miserably. The Republican caucus saw a turnout that reached record levels. The last time there was a noncompetitive GOP caucus, one with an incumbent president, was in 2004. President George W. Bush was in the incumbent and the turnout was about 8,000 Republicans. The total Monday night was 32,004. That number indicates, to me, a lot of enthusiasm. The challengers garnered 1.27% (Weld) and 1.08% (Walsh). There were a few write-ins which totaled 0.47%.
The Trump campaign pulled out all the stops. They want Iowa – a usually reliable red state – to vote for Trump as it did in 2016. Two of Trump’s sons, politicians, and cabinet members stumped for Trump. No one wants to take anything for granted. Both Weld and Walsh lacked caucus-goers who were willing to speak for them before the voting took place.
At caucuses, representatives of each candidate are supposed to have a little time to tell the audience why they should vote for that candidate. In Ames, Trump Jr. was the star of the show, talking for more than 20 minutes about his father’s accomplishments and also dwelling on the investigations to which Democrats have subjected Trump and his family. Jeff Ortiz, the co-chair of the Story County GOP, went from table to table, asking people if anyone would like to make remarks on behalf of Walsh or Weld. There were no takers. In the end, out of 449 votes, Trump received 415, Walsh 20, and Weld 9. There was one write-in each for a disparate group: Vice President Mike Pence, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, and Dispatch writer David French. One person abstained. In the end, Ortiz was delighted with a turnout more than four times what he originally expected. Yes, that was a display of clout by Trump, but it was also an organizational shot in the arm for the local party. “It’s critical that we get these people to turn out, to sign up for our central committees, to stay involved right up until the end,” Ortiz said. “Because there are no guarantees come November.”
The Walsh campaign claims his supporters were not allowed to speak at the caucuses.
Walsh shared a message from his campaign manager, who claimed she was receiving reports that “at several precincts across Iowa, including precincts in Urbandale, voters wishing to speak on behalf of Joe Walsh are being turned away/told they may not speak.” Those developments, Walsh wrote, were “Very concerning.”
Like the wanna be dictator he is, Trump almost got 100% of the vote last night. Hell yes, the caucus was rigged. Votes counted in secret, only Trump paraphernalia everywhere, presenters for others candidates denied the right to speak…on and on it went. https://t.co/wAuZviakVr — Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) February 4, 2020
The communications director for the Iowa Republican Party says, more or less, that’s hogwash. Fake news. Maybe Joe’s just a sore loser.
Aaron Britt, the communications director for the Republican Party of Iowa, contradicted the Walsh campaign in a statement, saying that the state party “never received reports on anything like that from anywhere.” “Walsh clearly received votes, and the campaign never seemed to be able to identify a specific precinct where there was an issue,” Britt said. “Seems like intentional misinformation not backed up by any evidence.”
Bill Weld is a former two-term Governor of Massachusetts. He ran as the vice-presidential nominee on the Libertarian ticket in 2016. His campaign focus is on limited government and fiscal responsibility. He often refers to Trump’s behavior as that of a king.
“I’m running to offer the opportunity to elect a president who actually believes in the principles of limited government, free and fair markets, and economic opportunity for all. Principles that, until recently, were the trademarks of a great political party,” Weld wrote. “I don’t believe trillion-dollar deficits are okay. I believe in markets, not trade wars….We believe in the Rule of Law, and that it applies to everyone, including the President. We believe the Constitution means what it says, rather than scoffing at its limits on the power of presidents and the federal government. And we believe the purpose of foreign policy and our military is to make us safer.”
Joe Walsh, in contrast, focuses on personal attacks on President Trump. His crowds don’t always appreciate Walsh’s vitriol.
“If you want four more years of a president who wakes up every morning and makes every day about himself,” Walsh said in Ankeny, Iowa today, “then vote for Donald Trump.” The crowd booed him out of the room.
Weld and Walsh are failing to raise much money for their campaigns. Fourth-quarter numbers were brutal – $411,000 for Weld, $245,000 for Walsh, $45.98 million for Trump. “Weld had just $37,000 in the bank at the end of 2019, Walsh just under $10,000, compared to Trump’s war chest of $195 million.”
Add to all this the fact that Trump’s never been more popular with Republicans and Independent voters. As a matter of fact, his numbers have risen in the midst of the impeachment circus. Resistance is futile by his primary opponents. Weld may do a little bit better in New Hampshire, given he is from neighboring Massachusetts, but that remains to be seen. Some states have canceled their GOP primary elections. If the challengers haven’t captured the imagination of anyone other than some bitter Never Trumpers by now, there’s little hope that Weld and Walsh will be around much longer.


hotair--2020-02-05--UK police prepare for release of 40 convicted terrorists over the next year

There was another terror attack in London last Sunday .
Sudesh Amman stabbed two people before police shot him dead .
He had previously been convicted of terrorism related offenses and , per the current law in Britain , was released after serving just half of his sentence .
That release happened just over a week before the knife attack .
Authorities knew Amman hadn ’ t been rehabilitated in prison and had him under surveillance from the moment he left prison to the time of the attack : Sudesh Amman , 20 , was placed under full surveillance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of his release from Belmarsh prison and within days prompted such concern from counter-terrorism officials that those tailing him were ordered to be armed .
In prison he had declined to engage in programmes to manage his risk , and his behaviour during his sentence for terrorist offences following a 2018 conviction caused concern .
One source with knowledge of the Amman case said : “ He was as much a problem when he came out of prison as when he went in.
” Today , the Times of London reported there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be released over the next year and offered a list describing some of them : Counterterrorism police and the security services have been preparing for the release of about 40 convicted terrorists over the next 12 months after two knife attacks by recently freed extremists… Atiq Ahmed : next month The Islamist from Oldham , Greater Manchester , has been convicted three times for terrorism offences .
He was first jailed for two years and six months over terrorist material .
After his release he received a suspended sentence after telling a school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2018 he was jailed over possession of terrorist material .
Mohammed Khilji : next month The teenager from Brent , northwest London , shared clips in which soldiers were beheaded by Isis .
He posed with a knife in front of an Isis flag and another photo had the message “ going kaffur hunting ” .
He was jailed for five years in June 2018 .
Jamshed Javeed : next month Plotted to join Islamic State in Syria and was jailed for six years in 2015 for preparing acts of terrorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is next month .
Members of Parliament are rushing to pass legislation preventing the early release of convicted terrorists , but it ’ s going to be close : The government will publish emergency laws to end the automatic early release of terrorists halfway through their sentences on Tuesday .
They hope to clear all stages in the Commons before recess on February 13 .
They then plan to push the legislation through the Lords after recess and gain royal assent by February 27 .
One convicted terrorist is due to be released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are due for release in March .
Of course , even if these convicts serve their entire sentences , most of them will still be out in a few years .
The real problem is that it ’ s not easy to deradicalize people who have adopted extremist views .
Usman Khan , the terrorist who carried out a very similar knife attack last November had been previously touted as a success story for Learning Together , the rehabilitation program he participated in .
Obviously he hadn ’ t really changed .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be true for some of the other soon-to-be-released radicals as well .

There was another terror attack in London last Sunday. Sudesh Amman stabbed two people before police shot him dead. He had previously been convicted of terrorism related offenses and, per the current law in Britain, was released after serving just half of his sentence. That release happened just over a week before the knife attack. Authorities knew Amman hadn’t been rehabilitated in prison and had him under surveillance from the moment he left prison to the time of the attack:
Sudesh Amman, 20, was placed under full surveillance from a unit of 30 officers on the day of his release from Belmarsh prison and within days prompted such concern from counter-terrorism officials that those tailing him were ordered to be armed. In prison he had declined to engage in programmes to manage his risk, and his behaviour during his sentence for terrorist offences following a 2018 conviction caused concern. One source with knowledge of the Amman case said: “He was as much a problem when he came out of prison as when he went in.”
Today, the Times of London reported there are 40 more convicted terrorists scheduled to be released over the next year and offered a list describing some of them:
Counterterrorism police and the security services have been preparing for the release of about 40 convicted terrorists over the next 12 months after two knife attacks by recently freed extremists… Atiq Ahmed: next month
The Islamist from Oldham, Greater Manchester, has been convicted three times for terrorism offences. He was first jailed for two years and six months over terrorist material. After his release he received a suspended sentence after telling a school teacher they were an “infidel”. In 2018 he was jailed over possession of terrorist material. Mohammed Khilji: next month
The teenager from Brent, northwest London, shared clips in which soldiers were beheaded by Isis. He posed with a knife in front of an Isis flag and another photo had the message “going kaffur hunting”. He was jailed for five years in June 2018. Jamshed Javeed: next month
Plotted to join Islamic State in Syria and was jailed for six years in 2015 for preparing acts of terrorism. The earliest he could be released is next month.
Members of Parliament are rushing to pass legislation preventing the early release of convicted terrorists, but it’s going to be close:
The government will publish emergency laws to end the automatic early release of terrorists halfway through their sentences on Tuesday. They hope to clear all stages in the Commons before recess on February 13. They then plan to push the legislation through the Lords after recess and gain royal assent by February 27. One convicted terrorist is due to be released the next day, and five more are due for release in March.
Of course, even if these convicts serve their entire sentences, most of them will still be out in a few years. The real problem is that it’s not easy to deradicalize people who have adopted extremist views.
Usman Khan, the terrorist who carried out a very similar knife attack last November had been previously touted as a success story for Learning Together, the rehabilitation program he participated in. Obviously he hadn’t really changed. And, unfortunately, that’s likely to be true for some of the other soon-to-be-released radicals as well.


hotair--2020-02-05--Matthews: Trump set up the fight against Bernie

Matthews: Trump set up the fight against Bernie -- and split the Democrats -- with Guaidó shout-out

Donald Trump ’ s broadside against socialism might not have taken up much of his State of the Union speech , but MSNBC ’ s Chris Matthews believes it could be very , very effective .
Matthews offered general praise for the speech anyway , telling the Rachel Maddow-led panel after the SOTU , “ I think people where I came from will like the speech tonight … because it ’ s all good stuff.
” Introducing Juan Guaidó , Matthews argued , was a masterstroke , especially if Bernie Sanders starts gaining momentum .
The more Trump can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Marxism , the better off Republicans will be — and the more division it will create among Democrats .
One only has to look at Pelosi ’ s reaction to this part of Trump ’ s speech to see the problem Trump is creating , Matthews argues ( transcript via Jeff Dunetz ) : TRUMP : As we restore American leadership throughout the world , we are once again standing up for freedom in our hemisphere .
That is why my Administration reversed the failing policies of the previous administration on Cuba @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cubans , Nicaraguans , and Venezuelans to restore democracy .
The United States is leading a 59-nation diplomatic coalition against the socialist dictator of Venezuela , Nicolás Maduro .
Maduro is an illegitimate ruler , a tyrant who brutalizes his people .
But Maduro ’ s grip of tyranny will be smashed and broken .
Here this evening is a man who carries with him the hopes , dreams , and aspirations of all Venezuelans .
Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate President of Venezuela , Juan Guaidó .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to your homeland .
All Americans are united with the Venezuelan people in their righteous struggle for freedom !
Socialism destroys nations .
But always remember , freedom unifies the soul .
Pelosi was especially loathe to offer any rhetorical support to Trump ’ s speech last night , but she certainly shot of her chair to salute Guaidó .
That signals a clear division within the Democratic Party that will come to the fore if Sanders wins the nomination , Matthews warns , one that Trump is already exploiting .
Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maduro and not just the softer socialists in Western Europe .
“ We don ’ t like those leaders .
And Bernie does , ” Matthews declares .
“ And that ’ s a problem for him.
” CHRIS MATTHEWS : I think people where I came from will like the speech tonight .
I think regular people will — they ’ ll see the schmaltz , the corniness , they ’ ll see it but they ’ ll like it .
Because it ’ s all good stuff , whatever purpose it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really respect her like most of us do .
And I watched very — the way she calibrated when to stand , when to applaud .
It was almost entirely the tributes to people , individual people .
She always felt that was the right thing to do .
Especially Juan Guaido .
I ’ m telling you , Trump set up the fight and he laid down the gauntlet tonight about him and Bernie .
It ’ s as if he was following Bernie ’ s vote in Iowa yesterday .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going after socialism , obviously tying all socialism to the kind we really don ’ t like , the tyrannical socialism of the Latin Americans like Castro .
He ’ s saying , this is going to be my enemy , great , I ’ m ready to fight .
I thought that was interesting .
Pelosi stood up and applauded that .
She knew where this country stands .
We don ’ t like those leaders .
And Bernie does .
And that ’ s a problem for him .
Not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and down a ballot with Bernie at the top .
What do first-term House Democrat incumbents tell their constituents about what will happen if a socialist wins the presidency and Democrats control Congress ?
Bernie ’ s running on radical change , and some of his organizers are talking about violent revolution on the streets , even if he wins .
Even fellow Democrats have grown wary of “ Bernie Bros ” as a political force .
Imagine what voters in the suburbs and middle America will think of that outcome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ five-alarm fire ” mode already .
Trump signaled last night that he ’ s ready to defend America against socialism — and Democrats might end up getting stuck with defending Marxism for allowing a socialist to take over their party .

Donald Trump’s broadside against socialism might not have taken up much of his State of the Union speech, but MSNBC’s Chris Matthews believes it could be very, very effective. Matthews offered general praise for the speech anyway, telling the Rachel Maddow-led panel after the SOTU, “I think people where I came from will like the speech tonight … because it’s all good stuff.”
Introducing Juan Guaidó, Matthews argued, was a masterstroke, especially if Bernie Sanders starts gaining momentum. The more Trump can make 2020 a fight between traditional American values and Marxism, the better off Republicans will be — and the more division it will create among Democrats. One only has to look at Pelosi’s reaction to this part of Trump’s speech to see the problem Trump is creating, Matthews argues (transcript via Jeff Dunetz):
TRUMP: As we restore American leadership throughout the world, we are once again standing up for freedom in our hemisphere. That is why my Administration reversed the failing policies of the previous administration on Cuba. We are supporting the hopes of Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans to restore democracy. The United States is leading a 59-nation diplomatic coalition against the socialist dictator of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, a tyrant who brutalizes his people. But Maduro’s grip of tyranny will be smashed and broken. Here this evening is a man who carries with him the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of all Venezuelans. Joining us in the gallery is the true and legitimate President of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. Mr. President, please take this message back to your homeland. All Americans are united with the Venezuelan people in their righteous struggle for freedom! Socialism destroys nations. But always remember, freedom unifies the soul.
Pelosi was especially loathe to offer any rhetorical support to Trump’s speech last night, but she certainly shot of her chair to salute Guaidó. That signals a clear division within the Democratic Party that will come to the fore if Sanders wins the nomination, Matthews warns, one that Trump is already exploiting. Sanders and his allies embrace socialists like Nicolas Maduro and not just the softer socialists in Western Europe.
“We don’t like those leaders. And Bernie does,” Matthews declares. “And that’s a problem for him.”
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think people where I came from will like the speech tonight. I think regular people will — they’ll see the schmaltz, the corniness, they’ll see it but they’ll like it. Because it’s all good stuff, whatever purpose it had. I watched Pelosi because I really respect her like most of us do. And I watched very — the way she calibrated when to stand, when to applaud. It was almost entirely the tributes to people, individual people. She always felt that was the right thing to do. Especially Juan Guaido. I’m telling you, Trump set up the fight and he laid down the gauntlet tonight about him and Bernie. It’s as if he was following Bernie’s vote in Iowa yesterday. And there he is going after Guaido, going after socialism, obviously tying all socialism to the kind we really don’t like, the tyrannical socialism of the Latin Americans like Castro. He’s saying, this is going to be my enemy, great, I’m ready to fight. I thought that was interesting. Pelosi stood up and applauded that. She knew where this country stands. We don’t like those leaders. And Bernie does. And that’s a problem for him.
Not just for Bernie either, but for Democrats up and down a ballot with Bernie at the top. What do first-term House Democrat incumbents tell their constituents about what will happen if a socialist wins the presidency and Democrats control Congress? Bernie’s running on radical change, and some of his organizers are talking about violent revolution on the streets, even if he wins. Even fellow Democrats have grown wary of “Bernie Bros” as a political force. Imagine what voters in the suburbs and middle America will think of that outcome.
That is why Democrats are in “five-alarm fire” mode already. Trump signaled last night that he’s ready to defend America against socialism — and Democrats might end up getting stuck with defending Marxism for allowing a socialist to take over their party.


hotair--2020-02-05--Meanwhile: Americans' optimism about personal finances surges to all-time high in new Gallup poll

A friendly reminder amid all the impeachment hubbub today that Trump ’ s probably getting reelected and the political shiny object du jour will have little or nothing to do with his odds .
Neither the Reagan era nor the Clinton era , both famous boom times for America , produced quite as much financial optimism as the Trump era has .
Remember that other poll that Gallup released yesterday showing Trump ’ s job approval at a personal best 49 percent ?
Now we know what ’ s driving that number .
With economic enthusiasm like this , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his job approval might be north of 55 percent .
He ’ d be a near-lock for a second term .
But there ’ s more .
Gallup also asked a question with lots of resonance for the 2020 election : Are you better off financially then you were a year ago ?
Nearly six in 10 Americans ( 59 % ) now say they are better off financially than they were a year ago , up from 50 % last year… The current 59 % of Americans who say they are better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago is essentially tied for the all-time high of 58 % in January 1999 .
That was recorded during the dot-com boom , with conditions similar to the current state of the economy — a stock market rocketing to then-record highs and unemployment at multidecade lows — though GDP growth was higher at that time .
In January 2017 , right as Trump was assuming office , 49 percent of Americans said they were better off financially than they ’ d been the year before .
He ’ s added 10 points to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters this fall if they ’ re better off than they were *four* years ago , “ yes ” will be a common reply .
And it ’ s not a purely partisan thing .
Among Democrats , 43 percent say they ’ re better off now than they were last year and 60 percent expect to be better off next year .
Good luck convincing people to change horses in the middle of that stream .
Trump ’ s getting reelected easily , argues Becket Adams today at the Examiner .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d go , but yeah , I wouldn ’ t bet against him at this point .
Especially with Biden starting to circle the drain after Iowa .
Trump has a money advantage , a unified party , excellent polling numbers , and a booming economy .
He commands total loyalty from a fanatically enthusiastic base , and he is a gifted , tireless campaigner .
Most importantly , however , the president ’ s Democratic opposition is hopelessly dysfunctional and incompetent , beset on all sides by bitter infighting , unfocused messaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total unwillingness to understand what motivates the president ’ s support .
Democratic dysfunction , probably more than anything else , is what will win Trump a second term in office .
Their general ineptitude , coupled with the likelihood that Democratic leaders back a creature of the establishment to lead a halfhearted , poorly executed challenge to the president ’ s reelection campaign , will make it such that Trump will have to try to lose in November .
Yeah , but he will try .
That ’ s the thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Trump moments between now and November , possibly one or two on the scale of the Ukraine business , most petty but irksome and damaging in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts way .
In a bad economy , they ’ d be fatal .
In an economy in which people are high-fiving over jobs numbers , probably not .
But the race will be closer than it should be .
Which is not to say it ’ ll be as close as it was last time .
He ’ s at 51 percent odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market as I write this on Wednesday afternoon .
David Frum makes a trenchant point about the new Gallup data , but I don ’ t know if his conclusion follows either : Right , “ historic economic boom ” isn ’ t the political soil you usually think of as optimal for a socialist revolution to flower , but I ’ m trying to imagine the voter who ’ d gamble that boom on something as intangible as “ ethical renewal.
” If we switch to Biden and the economy slides , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relative value of “ norms ” and clean ( er ) government ?
Bernie at least has an argument that the economy , while booming , isn ’ t doing enough for people at the bottom , that gains from growth are captured by the class that least needs them .
Biden ’ s argument is “ we ’ re going back to 2015 , ” which is … not an improvement .
Not economically , at least .

A friendly reminder amid all the impeachment hubbub today that Trump’s probably getting reelected and the political shiny object du jour will have little or nothing to do with his odds.
Neither the Reagan era nor the Clinton era, both famous boom times for America, produced quite as much financial optimism as the Trump era has. Remember that other poll that Gallup released yesterday showing Trump’s job approval at a personal best 49 percent? Now we know what’s driving that number. With economic enthusiasm like this, if Trump were a little less … Trump-y his job approval might be north of 55 percent. He’d be a near-lock for a second term.
But there’s more. Gallup also asked a question with lots of resonance for the 2020 election: Are you better off financially then you were a year ago?
Nearly six in 10 Americans (59%) now say they are better off financially than they were a year ago, up from 50% last year… The current 59% of Americans who say they are better off financially than they were a year ago is essentially tied for the all-time high of 58% in January 1999. That was recorded during the dot-com boom, with conditions similar to the current state of the economy — a stock market rocketing to then-record highs and unemployment at multidecade lows — though GDP growth was higher at that time.
In January 2017, right as Trump was assuming office, 49 percent of Americans said they were better off financially than they’d been the year before. He’s added 10 points to that number. When he inevitably asks voters this fall if they’re better off than they were *four* years ago, “yes” will be a common reply. And it’s not a purely partisan thing. Among Democrats, 43 percent say they’re better off now than they were last year and 60 percent expect to be better off next year. Good luck convincing people to change horses in the middle of that stream.
Trump’s getting reelected easily, argues Becket Adams today at the Examiner. “Easily” is further than I’d go, but yeah, I wouldn’t bet against him at this point. Especially with Biden starting to circle the drain after Iowa.
Trump has a money advantage, a unified party, excellent polling numbers, and a booming economy. He commands total loyalty from a fanatically enthusiastic base, and he is a gifted, tireless campaigner. Most importantly, however, the president’s Democratic opposition is hopelessly dysfunctional and incompetent, beset on all sides by bitter infighting, unfocused messaging, toxic identity politics, and a total unwillingness to understand what motivates the president’s support. Democratic dysfunction, probably more than anything else, is what will win Trump a second term in office. Their general ineptitude, coupled with the likelihood that Democratic leaders back a creature of the establishment to lead a halfhearted, poorly executed challenge to the president’s reelection campaign, will make it such that Trump will have to try to lose in November.
Yeah, but he will try. That’s the thing. There’ll be many “WTF?” Trump moments between now and November, possibly one or two on the scale of the Ukraine business, most petty but irksome and damaging in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts way. In a bad economy, they’d be fatal. In an economy in which people are high-fiving over jobs numbers, probably not. But the race will be closer than it should be.
Which is not to say it’ll be as close as it was last time. He’s at 51 percent odds of reelection in PredictIt’s probability market as I write this on Wednesday afternoon.
David Frum makes a trenchant point about the new Gallup data, but I don’t know if his conclusion follows either:
Right, “historic economic boom” isn’t the political soil you usually think of as optimal for a socialist revolution to flower, but I’m trying to imagine the voter who’d gamble that boom on something as intangible as “ethical renewal.” If we switch to Biden and the economy slides, what lesson will swing voters learn about the relative value of “norms” and clean(er) government? Bernie at least has an argument that the economy, while booming, isn’t doing enough for people at the bottom, that gains from growth are captured by the class that least needs them. Biden’s argument is “we’re going back to 2015,” which is … not an improvement. Not economically, at least.


hotair--2020-02-05--Barnes and Noble cancels publication of 'Diverse Editions,' classic books with diverse covers

Some of the people who have been pushing back on “ American Dirt ” have found a new target for their anger .
That target is a series of 12 classic books which Barnes & Noble planned to release in February in connection with black history month .
The gimmick here is that the books have the same content as always but the covers now feature the characters depicted as black : One cover of “ The Wizard of Oz ” shows Dorothy as an African American girl with her hair in a braid and puffs and a pair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Juliet wears a head scarf on one cover of “ Romeo and Juliet ” , “ Dr .
Jekyll & Mr. Hyde ” wears a turban and Frankenstein ’ s monster is a green-eyed , African American man with bolts in his neck .
The bookseller made new covers for “ Moby Dick , ” “ Emma , ” “ The Secret Garden , ” “ Treasure Island , ” “ Peter Pan , ” “ Alice in Wonderland , ” “ The Count of Monte Cristo ” and “ The Three Musketeers.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ literary blackface ” by African American writer Rod Faulkner in an essay on Medium , and others have said the energy spent making the “ Diverse Editions ” would have been better spent promoting books written by people of color .
I ’ m not sure describing black Frankenstein as “ African American ” makes a lot of sense but it ’ s clear what the publishers were trying to do .
As with American Dirt , the criticism of the project was brutal : It does appear that there were several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depicted : In any case , today Barnes & Noble succumbed to the backlash and agreed to cancel the event : The irony here is that this wasn ’ t an attempt to marginalize black authors .
On the contrary , it was an attempt to make great works of fiction appeal to a diverse audience by suggesting that fictional character don ’ t have to be imagined to be white to enjoy the stories .
According to Publisher ’ s Weekly , the genesis of this project was the casting of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depicted by a white actress .
At the time , it was considered a broad-minded attempt to expand representation of the characters to a wider audience .
The people who led the Diverse Editions appear to have had the same goal .
The effort was led by African-Americans , and the artists who created the covers were described as racially diverse : But none of that seems to matter anymore .
There are always woke scolds ready to denounce everything as problematic .

Some of the people who have been pushing back on “American Dirt” have found a new target for their anger. That target is a series of 12 classic books which Barnes & Noble planned to release in February in connection with black history month. The gimmick here is that the books have the same content as always but the covers now feature the characters depicted as black:
One cover of “The Wizard of Oz” shows Dorothy as an African American girl with her hair in a braid and puffs and a pair of red sneakers slung over her shoulder. Juliet wears a head scarf on one cover of “Romeo and Juliet”, “Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde” wears a turban and Frankenstein’s monster is a green-eyed, African American man with bolts in his neck. The bookseller made new covers for “Moby Dick,” “Emma,” “The Secret Garden,” “Treasure Island,” “Peter Pan,” “Alice in Wonderland,” “The Count of Monte Cristo” and “The Three Musketeers.”… The new covers were called “literary blackface” by African American writer Rod Faulkner in an essay on Medium, and others have said the energy spent making the “Diverse Editions” would have been better spent promoting books written by people of color.
I’m not sure describing black Frankenstein as “African American” makes a lot of sense but it’s clear what the publishers were trying to do. As with American Dirt, the criticism of the project was brutal:
“Diverse Editions” was announced at a time when the publishing industry is already facing scrutiny over the novel “American Dirt” and its depiction of Mexican life and culture. “Absolute TONE-DEAF decision-making,” Mexican-American writer David Bowles, a leading critic of “American Dirt,” tweeted about “Diverse Editions.”
Some examples from Twitter:
What?!? No! Is it really this hard? People sat down & had meetings & put a lot of energy & money into creating covers f/black people on books w/ the same old stories INSTEAD of promoting books written by black authors & featuring black characters?WTF?! 😡 https://t.co/sgGGglaiNu — Tracey Livesay (@tlivesay) February 5, 2020
Can you imagine a young Black girl seeing a cover with someone who looks like her but then finds nothing that reflects her in the pages? No Black girls at all? Y'all that is more than a bait and switch. That's harmful. — Karen Strong (@KarenMusings) February 5, 2020
Good job you managed to make diversity look racist, a real talent of white America! — porochista khakpour (@PKhakpour) February 5, 2020
Oh my God. Please tell me y’all didn’t pull a “choose your marginalized adventure” with these covers. pic.twitter.com/Jd4htwnRPz — Angie Thomas (@angiecthomas) February 5, 2020
It does appear that there were several version of each cover with varying ethnicities depicted:
Barnes & Noble is facing backlash for their Black History Month campaign. They have launched a range of diverse editions to classic novels. #upwith6 pic.twitter.com/UiFERU0WvZ — Heidi Alagha (@Heidialagha) February 5, 2020
In any case, today Barnes & Noble succumbed to the backlash and agreed to cancel the event:
The Diverse Editions event at our @BNFifthAvenue location originally scheduled for this evening has been cancelled. Please see our statement: pic.twitter.com/jGquff9MyM — Barnes & Noble (@BNBuzz) February 5, 2020
The irony here is that this wasn’t an attempt to marginalize black authors. On the contrary, it was an attempt to make great works of fiction appeal to a diverse audience by suggesting that fictional character don’t have to be imagined to be white to enjoy the stories. According to Publisher’s Weekly, the genesis of this project was the casting of an African American actress in a role previously depicted by a white actress.
Diverse Editions was initially conceived to answer the question, “What if your favorite literary characters reflected the diversity of America?” It was in-part inspired by the casting of Noma Dumezweni, who is black, as Hermione Granger in the original stage production of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child.
At the time, it was considered a broad-minded attempt to expand representation of the characters to a wider audience. The people who led the Diverse Editions appear to have had the same goal. The effort was led by African-Americans, and the artists who created the covers were described as racially diverse:
The project involved a collaboration between Barnes & Noble, PRH, and TBWAChiatDay, a prominent advertising agency; the initiative was led by a trio of African-American executives, including Sanyu Dillon, executive v-p and director of marketing strategy and consumer engagement at Penguin Random House; Cal Hunter, manager for business development and the business department of Barnes & Noble 5th Avenue; and Doug Melville, chief diversity officer for TBWA North America. In addition, the seven artists creating the new cover art were also ethnically and racially diverse.
But none of that seems to matter anymore. There are always woke scolds ready to denounce everything as problematic.


hotair--2020-02-05--Wait... Trump can have his impeachment expunged?

Does the House of Representatives have the power to rewrite history ?
That ’ s one of the questions under discussion at the moment .
With the President ’ s approval rating continuing to creep upward and some analysts beginning to suspect that he might actually win a second term , House Republicans are now daring to wonder whether or not they might take back the Speaker ’ s gavel after the elections in November .
And if they manage that feat , one thing on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ’ s agenda may be wiping Donald Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They can do that ?
( NY Post ) As the Senate is set to vote on the removal from office of President Trump Wednesday — with acquittal all but assured — Republicans are already plotting to expunge his impeachment if they retake the House .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taunted that “ impeachment lasts forever , ” but GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , in line to be speaker if Republicans retake the majority in the November election , doesn ’ t agree .
“ This is the fastest , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” McCarthy told The Post Wednesday .
“ I don ’ t think it should stay on the books.
” That certainly does put a new spin on Nancy Pelosi ’ s “ impeachment is forever ” comment .
But can it be done ?
Turns out there ’ s some precedent for it… sort of .
As we discussed here previously when the subject of censuring the President instead of removing him came up , Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 .
But the tidbit from that story that I missed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a House vote in 1837 .
So if you can expunge a censure or other rebuke , I suppose you could hold a vote to expunge an impeachment .
It ’ s also interesting to note , as the Post points out , that Congressman Chaka Fattah ( D-Pa. ) submitted a bill to expunge the impeachment of Bill Clinton , but that never went anywhere .
And Fattah wound up in prison for bribery , money laundering , and fraud , anyway .
But what would it mean in reality ?
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some hypothetical alternate reality where the Senate voted to remove Trump from office today .
As soon as he was out , Mike Pence would be sworn in as the 46th president .
Now let ’ s imagine that Pence wins a full term of his own in November and the GOP takes back the House .
When they convene in January , they could then hold a vote to expunge Trump ’ s impeachment .
But that doesn ’ t mean he ’ s invited back to be President again and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office .
Does it ?
My head is starting to hurt .
Also , when people are referencing Jackson ’ s censure , it may have been expunged three years later , but it ’ s still on the books .
All the records show that Jackson was the only president to be censured .
It ’ s a thing that happened , even if a later Congress decided they didn ’ t like it .
It seems to me that the same thing would apply to this impeachment .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem for me is that this entire process is so unique compared to the normal business taken care of in the legislative branch .
If one Congress passes a new law , a later one ( or even the same one if they ’ re in a rush ) can turn around and repeal the law .
That takes if off the books , but it doesn ’ t change the fact that it had been on the books for a time and prosecutions for violating that law ( if applicable ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , honestly .
But if Donald Trump does wind up winning a second term , voting to expunge his impeachment would certainly keep the new GOP majority on his good side .
As to the long term effects , history will be the judge , I suppose .

Does the House of Representatives have the power to rewrite history? That’s one of the questions under discussion at the moment. With the President’s approval rating continuing to creep upward and some analysts beginning to suspect that he might actually win a second term, House Republicans are now daring to wonder whether or not they might take back the Speaker’s gavel after the elections in November. And if they manage that feat, one thing on Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s agenda may be wiping Donald Trump’s impeachment off the books.
Wait. They can do that? (NY Post)
As the Senate is set to vote on the removal from office of President Trump Wednesday — with acquittal all but assured — Republicans are already plotting to expunge his impeachment if they retake the House. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taunted that “impeachment lasts forever,” but GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in line to be speaker if Republicans retake the majority in the November election, doesn’t agree. “This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history,” McCarthy told The Post Wednesday. “I don’t think it should stay on the books.”
That certainly does put a new spin on Nancy Pelosi’s “impeachment is forever” comment. But can it be done?
Turns out there’s some precedent for it… sort of. As we discussed here previously when the subject of censuring the President instead of removing him came up, Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834. But the tidbit from that story that I missed was that the censure was expunged by a House vote in 1837. So if you can expunge a censure or other rebuke, I suppose you could hold a vote to expunge an impeachment. It’s also interesting to note, as the Post points out, that Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) submitted a bill to expunge the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but that never went anywhere. And Fattah wound up in prison for bribery, money laundering, and fraud, anyway.
But what would it mean in reality? Let’s think about this in terms of some hypothetical alternate reality where the Senate voted to remove Trump from office today. As soon as he was out, Mike Pence would be sworn in as the 46th president. Now let’s imagine that Pence wins a full term of his own in November and the GOP takes back the House. When they convene in January, they could then hold a vote to expunge Trump’s impeachment. But that doesn’t mean he’s invited back to be President again and Pence is booted back to the Veep’s office. Does it? My head is starting to hurt.
Also, when people are referencing Jackson’s censure, it may have been expunged three years later, but it’s still on the books. All the records show that Jackson was the only president to be censured. It’s a thing that happened, even if a later Congress decided they didn’t like it. It seems to me that the same thing would apply to this impeachment. It’s already in the books.
The problem for me is that this entire process is so unique compared to the normal business taken care of in the legislative branch. If one Congress passes a new law, a later one (or even the same one if they’re in a rush) can turn around and repeal the law. That takes if off the books, but it doesn’t change the fact that it had been on the books for a time and prosecutions for violating that law (if applicable) would still be valid.
Beats me, honestly. But if Donald Trump does wind up winning a second term, voting to expunge his impeachment would certainly keep the new GOP majority on his good side. As to the long term effects, history will be the judge, I suppose.


hotair--2020-02-05--<span class='red'>Here we go: Senate to vote on impeachment verdict; Manchin, Sinema to vote to conv

Update , 5:15 — I would have assumed that Trump would have been prepared for an immediate reaction , but he ’ s putting it off until tomorrow : Will Trump keep up his business as usual approach from last night , or attack Democrats in his presser ?
I ’ d guess the latter , especially after holding his tongue all night in the State of the Union speech .
4:32 — Trump is now officially acquitted on the second article , 53/47 , as expected .
The trial will wrap up shortly , and we ’ ll return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal as it gets these days , anyway .
4:19 — Trump is officially acquitted on the first article , 52/48 , as expected .
Will any other Democrats rethink their position on the second article ?
I wouldn ’ t bet much on that , but it ’ s still possible .
Update , 4:06 pm ET — John Roberts gavels the court back into session for the last time .
The first article of impeachment is being read ; the vote will follow shortly .
Like most events in the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After some debate and glowering looks for the cameras , the Senate will acquit Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment by a majority vote .
The biggest potential drama today has already been resolved by Mitt Romney , who announced a couple of hours ago that he ’ d vote to convict on Article I and acquit on Article II .
That still leaves 52 and 53 votes for acquittal , respectively — when 67 votes were needed for conviction .
Even the rest of the drama from Senate Democrats has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would vote to convict on both counts : Slight correction : It will be 53/47 for acquittal on the second article .
Kyrsten Sinema has also announced her position late : Citing her concern for the Constitution as well as the conduct of future presidents , Sen. Kyrsten Sinema will vote Wednesday to convict President Donald Trump on the impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
The decision by Sinema , a moderate Arizona Democrat who was seen as a swing vote , was one of the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment trial .
On both counts , when asked if the president is guilty or not guilty , Sinema will say , “ Guilty.
” All that really leaves is the gnashing of teeth that will follow .
Some gnashing began earlier in the day .
For instance , Washington Post columnist Harry Litman argued that an acquittal would “ kill the impeachment clause ” of the Constitution , especially if voters re-elect him in November : The second pivotal factor is the outcome of November ’ s election .
Republicans have throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide , insisting that removal would preempt the popular will .
If Trump loses , and particularly if senators who voted to acquit lose with him , it could be taken as a higher , popular judgment of condemnation of his behavior — in effect , reinstating the constitutional norm .
Then again , if Trump is reelected , it will be as if the electorate had voiced its support for the acquittal .
In that event , it will be hard to dispute the argument that the impeachment clause has been neutered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Constitution itself will be on the ballot .
Even another razor-thin Trump victory will validate the abominable judgment that the Senate is poised to deliver Wednesday .
Then God help us when the next president decides to follow Trump ’ s corrupt path , because the Constitution won ’ t be able to .
Good grief .
Did Bill Clinton ’ s acquittal after having committed actual statutory felonies neuter the impeachment clause ?
The last five months — and three years , really — make it clear that it didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nomination to return the family to the White House eighteen years later , for that matter .
As we approach this vote , House Democratic leadership is already hinting at a do-over at some point .
Litman confuses political action with legal precedent , part of a larger ignorance over the nature of impeachment .
Impeachment is a political process , and the precedents are entirely political , not legal .
The problem with this impeachment and its obvious partisan intent isn ’ t that we won ’ t have future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve set precedents that will guarantee more of them in the future as partisan mechanisms to cripple presidencies of competing parties .
At any rate , expect few real surprises at this point .
We ’ ll keep track of the vote and live-blog developments in updates at the top of this post in reverse chronological order .
And then , after the Kabuki theater packs up for the last time , the sun will set and rise in its proper manner , the business of the country will continue , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president — as the Constitution sets out .

Here we go: Senate to vote on impeachment verdict; Manchin, Sinema to vote to convict; Update: First article fails 48/52 as expected; Update: Second article fails 47/53 as expected; Update: Trump to speak at noon tomorrow
Update, 5:15 — I would have assumed that Trump would have been prepared for an immediate reaction, but he’s putting it off until tomorrow:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225179058000089090
Will Trump keep up his business as usual approach from last night, or attack Democrats in his presser? I’d guess the latter, especially after holding his tongue all night in the State of the Union speech.
4:32 — Trump is now officially acquitted on the second article, 53/47, as expected. The trial will wrap up shortly, and we’ll return to normal business. Well, as normal as it gets these days, anyway.
4:19 — Trump is officially acquitted on the first article, 52/48, as expected. Will any other Democrats rethink their position on the second article? I wouldn’t bet much on that, but it’s still possible.
Update, 4:06 pm ET — John Roberts gavels the court back into session for the last time. The first article of impeachment is being read; the vote will follow shortly.
Original post follows …
Like most events in the Senate, the outcome is not in doubt. After some debate and glowering looks for the cameras, the Senate will acquit Donald Trump on both articles of impeachment by a majority vote. The biggest potential drama today has already been resolved by Mitt Romney, who announced a couple of hours ago that he’d vote to convict on Article I and acquit on Article II. That still leaves 52 and 53 votes for acquittal, respectively — when 67 votes were needed for conviction.
Even the rest of the drama from Senate Democrats has dissipated. Joe Manchin finally confirmed that he would vote to convict on both counts:
Manchin will vote for both counts This means that the vote will 52-48 with only Mitt Romney breaking ranks “For the reasons above I must vote yes on the articles of impeachment,” Manchin said in statement — Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 5, 2020
Slight correction: It will be 53/47 for acquittal on the second article. Kyrsten Sinema has also announced her position late:
.@kyrstensinema announces she will vote to remove President Trump from office, in favor of both articles. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 5, 2020
Citing her concern for the Constitution as well as the conduct of future presidents, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema will vote Wednesday to convict President Donald Trump on the impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The decision by Sinema, a moderate Arizona Democrat who was seen as a swing vote, was one of the last remaining questions hanging over Trump’s impeachment trial. On both counts, when asked if the president is guilty or not guilty, Sinema will say, “Guilty.”
All that really leaves is the gnashing of teeth that will follow. Some gnashing began earlier in the day. For instance, Washington Post columnist Harry Litman argued that an acquittal would “kill the impeachment clause” of the Constitution, especially if voters re-elect him in November:
The second pivotal factor is the outcome of November’s election. Republicans have throughout the impeachment argued for letting the people decide, insisting that removal would preempt the popular will. If Trump loses, and particularly if senators who voted to acquit lose with him, it could be taken as a higher, popular judgment of condemnation of his behavior — in effect, reinstating the constitutional norm. Then again, if Trump is reelected, it will be as if the electorate had voiced its support for the acquittal. In that event, it will be hard to dispute the argument that the impeachment clause has been neutered. The upshot is that this November, the Constitution itself will be on the ballot. Even another razor-thin Trump victory will validate the abominable judgment that the Senate is poised to deliver Wednesday. Then God help us when the next president decides to follow Trump’s corrupt path, because the Constitution won’t be able to.
Good grief. Did Bill Clinton’s acquittal after having committed actual statutory felonies neuter the impeachment clause? The last five months — and three years, really — make it clear that it didn’t. Neither did Hillary Clinton’s nomination to return the family to the White House eighteen years later, for that matter. As we approach this vote, House Democratic leadership is already hinting at a do-over at some point.
Litman confuses political action with legal precedent, part of a larger ignorance over the nature of impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, and the precedents are entirely political, not legal. The problem with this impeachment and its obvious partisan intent isn’t that we won’t have future impeachments — it’s that we’ve set precedents that will guarantee more of them in the future as partisan mechanisms to cripple presidencies of competing parties.
At any rate, expect few real surprises at this point. We’ll keep track of the vote and live-blog developments in updates at the top of this post in reverse chronological order. And then, after the Kabuki theater packs up for the last time, the sun will set and rise in its proper manner, the business of the country will continue, and voters will indeed get to choose the president — as the Constitution sets out.


hotair--2020-02-05--Biden spokesperson Symone Sanders refuses to say Iowa caucus results are legitimate

With the Iowa caucus results so far showing Joe Biden solidly in fourth place , it ’ s really no surprise that his campaign wanted to cast some shade on the process .
And yesterday Kate Bedingfield , the Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director for the Biden campaign , went on CNN and said , “ We have real concerns about the integrity of the process.
” She added that there were “ significant concerns ” which should “ raise concerns for voters.
” “ If you have a process where you can ’ t be confident that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the votes that people cast last night…that ’ s a real concern , ” Bedingfield said .
Today CNN got another bite at the apple , so to speak , when Biden spokesperson Symone Sanders appeared on Brianna Keilar ’ s show .
Keilar asked Sanders about Bedingfield ’ s statements and when Sanders refused to give a clear answer it quickly spiraled into an on-air battle .
Keilar : Yesterday your comms director Kate Bedingfield was raising concerns about the legitimacy of the results .
Is that a concern you still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand by Kate Bedingfield ’ s comments and I would also underscore that the integrity of this process is very important… Keilar : So you ’ re saying the results that we are currently—Symone , this is very important… Keilar : This is important Symone and we ’ re running out of time… Sanders : If you would allow me to finish… Keilar : The results that we ’ re seeing—No , because you ’ re not answering my question .
Sanders : Brianna , what I ’ m saying is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results .
We do not have all the data but we are moving forward… Keilar : But the data that you have , are you—the data that you have , are you putting that into doubt ?
And that ’ s just the start of this knock-down , drag-out showdown .
After another testy back and forth Keilar just started talking over Sanders saying , “ Do you believe the results ?
Do you believe the data that you ’ re seeing ?
…Do you believe the data is correct ?
Why can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is correct or incorrect ?
” Eventually , Sanders stopped filibustering and Keilar put the question to her again .
Sanders dodged : “ Don ’ t try to paint this as we ’ re trying to say this is some kind of conspiracy theory , okay ?
” Keilar interrupted her again and this time asked producers to play the clip of Bedingfield ’ s statement about the integrity of the results .
After the clip Keilar made a point which I rarely if ever see mentioned on CNN : “ For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including a lot of Democrats , one of their major concerns with him is that he throws into question the legitimacy of institutions , not the least of which is the election process and that appears to be what you are currently doing now by saying—by no saying that we can trust the numbers we ’ re seeing.
” The left-wing of the Democratic party has been openly discussing the need to pack the Supreme Court and get rid of the electoral college .
One of the losing candidates for office in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to admit she had lost the election .
She was celebrated for this by her fellow Democrats .
And that ’ s not even to mention Hillary Clinton who has offered a litany of excuses for her 2016 loss that never seems to end .
It was Russian interference , James Comey , the DNC , and on and on .
Hillary has literally said that Trump is an “ illegitimate president.
” She has also warned that Democrats could have the election “ stolen ” from them in 2020 .
The point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results both past and future and yet it rarely seems to strike the hosts at CNN that maybe the Democratic Party is questioning the legitimacy of institutions .
So kudos to Keilar for at least raising the point .
The point would have been even better if she ’ d mentioned some of these other previous examples .
Eventually , Sanders conceded , “ I guess we ’ ll have to take the Iowa Democratic party at their word , Brianna.
” But it took about six minutes of being hammered relentlessly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the clip ( this was pulled by the Washington Free Beacon ) :

With the Iowa caucus results so far showing Joe Biden solidly in fourth place, it’s really no surprise that his campaign wanted to cast some shade on the process. And yesterday Kate Bedingfield, the Deputy Campaign Manager and Communications Director for the Biden campaign, went on CNN and said, “We have real concerns about the integrity of the process.” She added that there were “significant concerns” which should “raise concerns for voters.” “If you have a process where you can’t be confident that the results that are being reported are reflective of the votes that people cast last night…that’s a real concern,” Bedingfield said.
Today CNN got another bite at the apple, so to speak, when Biden spokesperson Symone Sanders appeared on Brianna Keilar’s show. Keilar asked Sanders about Bedingfield’s statements and when Sanders refused to give a clear answer it quickly spiraled into an on-air battle.
Keilar: Yesterday your comms director Kate Bedingfield was raising concerns about the legitimacy of the results. Is that a concern you still have?
Sanders: Look, I stand by Kate Bedingfield’s comments and I would also underscore that the integrity of this process is very important…
Keilar: So you’re saying the results that we are currently—Symone, this is very important…
Sanders: Brianna. Brianna, if I may…
Keilar: This is important Symone and we’re running out of time…
Sanders: If you would allow me to finish…
Keilar: The results that we’re seeing—No, because you’re not answering my question.
Sanders: Brianna, what I’m saying is that the results that we have seen are partial results. We do not have all the data but we are moving forward…
Keilar: But the data that you have, are you—the data that you have, are you putting that into doubt?
And that’s just the start of this knock-down, drag-out showdown. After another testy back and forth Keilar just started talking over Sanders saying, “Do you believe the results? Do you believe the data that you’re seeing?…Do you believe the data is correct? Why can’t you say if the data is correct or incorrect?”
Eventually, Sanders stopped filibustering and Keilar put the question to her again. Sanders dodged: “Don’t try to paint this as we’re trying to say this is some kind of conspiracy theory, okay?” Keilar interrupted her again and this time asked producers to play the clip of Bedingfield’s statement about the integrity of the results.
After the clip Keilar made a point which I rarely if ever see mentioned on CNN: “For detractors of President Trump, including you, including a lot of Democrats, one of their major concerns with him is that he throws into question the legitimacy of institutions, not the least of which is the election process and that appears to be what you are currently doing now by saying—by no saying that we can trust the numbers we’re seeing.”
The left-wing of the Democratic party has been openly discussing the need to pack the Supreme Court and get rid of the electoral college. One of the losing candidates for office in 2018, Stacy Abrams, repeatedly refused to admit she had lost the election. She was celebrated for this by her fellow Democrats.
And that’s not even to mention Hillary Clinton who has offered a litany of excuses for her 2016 loss that never seems to end. It was Russian interference, James Comey, the DNC, and on and on. Hillary has literally said that Trump is an “illegitimate president.” She has also warned that Democrats could have the election “stolen” from them in 2020.
The point is that Democrats have been questioning election results both past and future and yet it rarely seems to strike the hosts at CNN that maybe the Democratic Party is questioning the legitimacy of institutions. So kudos to Keilar for at least raising the point. The point would have been even better if she’d mentioned some of these other previous examples.
Eventually, Sanders conceded, “I guess we’ll have to take the Iowa Democratic party at their word, Brianna.” But it took about six minutes of being hammered relentlessly to get her to say it. Here’s the clip (this was pulled by the Washington Free Beacon):