hotair--2020-01-29--Momentum: Gardner declares himself a no on further witnesses

So much for the the Pat Toomey option — or even the Joe Manchin option .
Cory Gardner , one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in Senate race this year , told Colorado Politics that he will vote down any attempt to subpoena John Bolton or anyone else .
Seventeen is enough , Gardner declared for the record : “ I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness , ” the Colorado Republican told Colorado Politics in a statement .
“ I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House , which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.
” Gardner had previously been noncommittal about Democrats ’ demands to call more witnesses , including Bolton , who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump told him he withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate Democratic political rival Joe Biden .
It will take 51 votes to call witnesses or subpoena documents , meaning four Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and independents who have said senators should consider more evidence before deciding whether to remove Trump from offices on charges he abused his power and obstructed an ensuing congressional investigation .
Gardner might not have been one of the front-line vulnerable incumbents this year to be on the fence , but he certainly was a target for House Democrats .
They added Rep. Jason Crow ( D-CO ) to the impeachment managers for a reason ; they wanted to pressure Gardner into voting to expand the investigation .
Gardner ’ s decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix , just enough for Chuck Schumer to succeed , but it also puts pressure on safe-seat Republicans like Mitt Romney not to leave Gardner twisting in the wind .
It ’ s a sign that the Bolton leak may have either been nothing or perhaps even backfired .
Earlier today , Toomey told reporters that Democrats who want witnesses called in the Senate trial had better start making deals to allow for relevant defense witnesses as well , including Hunter Biden .
Otherwise , Toomey warned , the Senate GOP is ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress on if is not a coincidence , but we ’ ll get to the “ something dramatic ” in a moment .
His GOP colleague John Barrasso suggests that even that swap might not suffice to secure Republican interest in hearing from witnesses , mainly because everyone ’ s lost interest in this and want the Senate to get it over with .
Look at the ratings , Barrasso hints : That point may well be why Senate Republicans are coming back to the “ momentum ” Barrasso cites .
The hesitation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due in large part from uncertainty over what the former national security adviser had to say .
Now that the cat ’ s out of the bag , Mitch McConnell ’ s caucus realize that it ’ s not as much of an issue for their all-but-telegraphed acquittal votes .
For that reason , I argue in my column for The Week , the leakers might have done Donald Trump a yuuuuuge favor : Bear in mind that the publication date for Bolton ’ s memoir was in less than two months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mid-March one way or the other put Senate Republicans in an extremely uncomfortable position .
If they voted to acquit Trump without knowing what Bolton had to say , the outcome would be widely seen as illegitimate .
It might have even pushed House Democrats to vote a new article of impeachment on the basis of Bolton ’ s memoir and force the Senate back into a trial , but at the very least it would have made for campaign fodder against vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents this fall .
Now , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hook , even if still leaves Trump on it .
Trump may not have told the truth in his outright denials on the quid pro quo allegation , but at least Senate Republicans now know that for certain .
The New York Times leak put the worst possible conclusion from Bolton where they can openly consider it and then still move to the alternate argument .
After all , as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review , there is no need to deny the quid pro quo because it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went without strings attached in the end , and it didn ’ t rise to the “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” bar anyway .
Trump ’ s legal team subtly shifted its presentation to emphasize this point after the leak .
Alan Dershowitz told the Senate on Monday that a “ quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power … based on mixed or sole motives.
” In fact , Dershowitz said , “ nothing in the Bolton revelations — even if true — would rise to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s denials of that might cast him in a poor political light if one believes Bolton , but that , Dershowitz argued , is an issue for elections .
“ Let the public decide , ” Dershowitz concluded .
Republicans appear to have made this calculation as well .
Politico reported late Tuesday that calm had returned to the caucus after a brief period of panic .
A late meeting after the early conclusion of the president ’ s case had produced a solid consensus that “ we ’ ve heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Barasso told reporters .
“ The articles don ’ t rise to the level of impeachable offenses , ” not even with the Bolton account apparently out in the open .
The votes to acquit without witnesses aren ’ t confirmed , but at the end of the day , the big question isn ’ t whether a handful of Republicans would vote with Democrats for a Bolton subpoena .
It ’ s how many Democrats might cross the aisle to join the acquittal that everyone knows is coming anyway .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he might just have Bolton to thank for it .
And sure enough , CNN reports that this is precisely the argument around which consensus is forming : Republicans are arguing that the latest reports — that former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s book manuscript says that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $ 391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens — are likely true but simply confirm what is already known .
And they are saying that new allegation , first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign .
But they say that nothing in there is impeachable — nor does it warrant the hearing from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known , they say .
Yet it still remains to be seen if four Republicans break ranks to support witnesses , giving Democrats enough support that would dramatically change the course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t think anything he says changes the facts , ” South Dakota Sen. John Thune , the majority whip , told CNN .
“ I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is .
… There ’ s already that evidence on the record.
” Sen. Kevin Cramer , a North Dakota Republican , added : “ I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses , frankly .
I don ’ t know that he ’ s got a lot new to add to it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an offer and more of an ultimatum .
Want to call Bolton even though we all know what he ’ ll say ?
Great — then let ’ s find out what the Bidens were really doing in Ukraine .
If not , then Toomey ’ s ready to pack up the circus and get back to business , and he might well have at least 50 other Senators behind him .

So much for the the Pat Toomey option — or even the Joe Manchin option. Cory Gardner, one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents in Senate race this year, told Colorado Politics that he will vote down any attempt to subpoena John Bolton or anyone else. Seventeen is enough, Gardner declared for the record:
“I do not believe we need to hear from an 18th witness,” the Colorado Republican told Colorado Politics in a statement. “I have approached every aspect of this grave constitutional duty with the respect and attention required by law, and have reached this decision after carefully weighing the House managers and defense arguments and closely reviewing the evidence from the House, which included well over 100 hours of testimony from 17 witnesses.” Gardner had previously been noncommittal about Democrats’ demands to call more witnesses, including Bolton, who writes in a forthcoming book that Trump told him he withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure the country to investigate Democratic political rival Joe Biden. It will take 51 votes to call witnesses or subpoena documents, meaning four Republicans will have to join the 47 Senate Democrats and independents who have said senators should consider more evidence before deciding whether to remove Trump from offices on charges he abused his power and obstructed an ensuing congressional investigation.
Gardner might not have been one of the front-line vulnerable incumbents this year to be on the fence, but he certainly was a target for House Democrats. They added Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) to the impeachment managers for a reason; they wanted to pressure Gardner into voting to expand the investigation. Gardner’s decision still leaves four Senate Republicans in the mix, just enough for Chuck Schumer to succeed, but it also puts pressure on safe-seat Republicans like Mitt Romney not to leave Gardner twisting in the wind.
It’s a sign that the Bolton leak may have either been nothing or perhaps even backfired. Earlier today, Toomey told reporters that Democrats who want witnesses called in the Senate trial had better start making deals to allow for relevant defense witnesses as well, including Hunter Biden. Otherwise, Toomey warned, the Senate GOP is ready to vote on the question:
Toomey adds that IF witnesses are called he thinks it’s only fair that both parties get to call them.
He went hard after Hunter Biden; he argued Hunter would be an important witness b/c his job at Bursima offers another explanation (besides corruption) for why Trump withheld aid — Jonathan Tamari (@JonathanTamari) January 29, 2020
Asked if there is a public interest in hearing John Bolton under oath Toomey said the public will learn Bolton’s views from his book and presumably other media appearances — Jonathan Tamari (@JonathanTamari) January 29, 2020
The stress on if is not a coincidence, but we’ll get to the “something dramatic” in a moment. His GOP colleague John Barrasso suggests that even that swap might not suffice to secure Republican interest in hearing from witnesses, mainly because everyone’s lost interest in this and want the Senate to get it over with. Look at the ratings, Barrasso hints:
Barrasso on what’s becoming a common refrain from Senate GOP regarding Bolton: “I think even if everything in the book is true, it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment,” echoing Dershowitz — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 29, 2020
That point may well be why Senate Republicans are coming back to the “momentum” Barrasso cites. The hesitation before the John Bolton memoir leak was due in large part from uncertainty over what the former national security adviser had to say. Now that the cat’s out of the bag, Mitch McConnell’s caucus realize that it’s not as much of an issue for their all-but-telegraphed acquittal votes. For that reason, I argue in my column for The Week, the leakers might have done Donald Trump a yuuuuuge favor:
Bear in mind that the publication date for Bolton’s memoir was in less than two months. The certainty that Bolton would speak out by mid-March one way or the other put Senate Republicans in an extremely uncomfortable position. If they voted to acquit Trump without knowing what Bolton had to say, the outcome would be widely seen as illegitimate. It might have even pushed House Democrats to vote a new article of impeachment on the basis of Bolton’s memoir and force the Senate back into a trial, but at the very least it would have made for campaign fodder against vulnerable Senate Republican incumbents this fall. Now, however, the leak lets Republicans off the hook, even if still leaves Trump on it. Trump may not have told the truth in his outright denials on the quid pro quo allegation, but at least Senate Republicans now know that for certain. The New York Times leak put the worst possible conclusion from Bolton where they can openly consider it and then still move to the alternate argument. After all, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review, there is no need to deny the quid pro quo because it’s a moot point — the aid went without strings attached in the end, and it didn’t rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” bar anyway. Trump’s legal team subtly shifted its presentation to emphasize this point after the leak. Alan Dershowitz told the Senate on Monday that a “quid pro quo alone is not a basis for abuse of power … based on mixed or sole motives.” In fact, Dershowitz said, “nothing in the Bolton revelations — even if true — would rise to the level of an abuse of power.” Trump’s denials of that might cast him in a poor political light if one believes Bolton, but that, Dershowitz argued, is an issue for elections. “Let the public decide,” Dershowitz concluded. Republicans appear to have made this calculation as well. Politico reported late Tuesday that calm had returned to the caucus after a brief period of panic. A late meeting after the early conclusion of the president’s case had produced a solid consensus that “we’ve heard enough,” third-ranking caucus leader Sen. John Barasso told reporters. “The articles don’t rise to the level of impeachable offenses,” not even with the Bolton account apparently out in the open. The votes to acquit without witnesses aren’t confirmed, but at the end of the day, the big question isn’t whether a handful of Republicans would vote with Democrats for a Bolton subpoena. It’s how many Democrats might cross the aisle to join the acquittal that everyone knows is coming anyway. If Trump gets a bipartisan vote to acquit, he might just have Bolton to thank for it.
And sure enough, CNN reports that this is precisely the argument around which consensus is forming:
Republicans are arguing that the latest reports — that former national security adviser John Bolton’s book manuscript says that Trump told him in August that he was withholding $391 million in aid until Ukraine announced a probe into the Bidens — are likely true but simply confirm what is already known. And they are saying that new allegation, first revealed by The New York Times, is consistent with the details laid out by House Democratic managers in their case that Trump used official acts to urge a foreign power to undercut a leading political rival in the 2020 presidential campaign. But they say that nothing in there is impeachable — nor does it warrant the hearing from new witnesses since it confirms what is already known, they say. Yet it still remains to be seen if four Republicans break ranks to support witnesses, giving Democrats enough support that would dramatically change the course of Trump’s trial. “I don’t think anything he says changes the facts,” South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the majority whip, told CNN. “I think people kind of know what the fact pattern is. … There’s already that evidence on the record.” Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, added: “I think he sounds like a lot of the other witnesses, frankly. I don’t know that he’s got a lot new to add to it.”
That makes Toomey’s suggestion less an offer and more of an ultimatum. Want to call Bolton even though we all know what he’ll say? Great — then let’s find out what the Bidens were really doing in Ukraine. If not, then Toomey’s ready to pack up the circus and get back to business, and he might well have at least 50 other Senators behind him.


hotair--2020-01-29--Seattle clears out homeless camp after multiple drug arrests last week

One week ago , Seattle police arrested seven people selling drugs in a homeless encampment under a freeway interchange .
The drug operation was so organized that it had a tent waiting room for customers : Seattle police on Wednesday arrested seven people and seized 19 grams of crack cocaine from a multi-room tent on Dearborn Street , between freeway ramps for Interstate 90 and Interstate 5 .
Police learned individuals in the tent were selling cocaine , heroin , and methamphetamine , and had set up a waiting room for customers inside one partitioned area in the tent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tent for the use of recently-purchased narcotics .
Police have also responded to several reports of gunfire in the area over the past week .
As a result of this bust ( and the news it generated ) the city of Seattle decided to clear out the camp which was home to up to 80 people .
That ’ s been taking place since last night but it ’ s expected to take up to three days to complete .
The encampment , near South Dearborn Street , hosted 75 tents and structures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated as many as 80 people had lived there , in full view of vehicles stuck in commuter traffic , before the city posting notice about the cleanup .
The city said about 30 people remained on site the day the removal began .
Homeless activists who routinely downplay the role that drugs plays in chronic homelessness .
But that connection is not a shock to the people who lived in this camp .
They know better than the activists what is driving the crisis : Chris Thompson , who has been homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the heart of the homeless crisis .
“ I ’ m addicted to drugs I ’ m not ashamed to admit it , it ’ s the main reason and I can look at the camera and say this , the main reason people are out here is drugs , ” Thompson said .
He said with drugs comes other crimes in the encampment referred to by campers we talked to Tuesday as ‘ The Jungle.
” … “ People are out here for drugs cause they like to do them and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause they make a lot of money off them and they sell them quickly , ” said Thompson .
Thompson said he plans to take the offer of a shelter bed but another camp resident , Lyman Kennedy , told KOMO News that he was going to pass on the city ’ s offer of shelter .
“ I ’ m kind of lying to myself really because it ’ s easier ( to stay in an encampment ) in a way , but in the long run it ’ s the hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t spell out why he wanted to find a camp rather than accept a bed but for a lot of homeless people the answer is simple : It ’ s harder to procure and do drugs in a shelter .

One week ago, Seattle police arrested seven people selling drugs in a homeless encampment under a freeway interchange. The drug operation was so organized that it had a tent waiting room for customers:
Seattle police on Wednesday arrested seven people and seized 19 grams of crack cocaine from a multi-room tent on Dearborn Street, between freeway ramps for Interstate 90 and Interstate 5. Police learned individuals in the tent were selling cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, and had set up a waiting room for customers inside one partitioned area in the tent. There was also an area in the tent for the use of recently-purchased narcotics. Police have also responded to several reports of gunfire in the area over the past week.
As a result of this bust (and the news it generated) the city of Seattle decided to clear out the camp which was home to up to 80 people. That’s been taking place since last night but it’s expected to take up to three days to complete.
The encampment, near South Dearborn Street, hosted 75 tents and structures, according to the city. Some estimated as many as 80 people had lived there, in full view of vehicles stuck in commuter traffic, before the city posting notice about the cleanup. The city said about 30 people remained on site the day the removal began.
Homeless activists who routinely downplay the role that drugs plays in chronic homelessness. But that connection is not a shock to the people who lived in this camp. They know better than the activists what is driving the crisis:
Chris Thompson, who has been homeless for four years, insists drugs are at the heart of the homeless crisis. “I’m addicted to drugs I’m not ashamed to admit it, it’s the main reason and I can look at the camera and say this, the main reason people are out here is drugs,” Thompson said. He said with drugs comes other crimes in the encampment referred to by campers we talked to Tuesday as ‘The Jungle.”… “People are out here for drugs cause they like to do them and they’re out here for drugs cause they make a lot of money off them and they sell them quickly,” said Thompson.
Here’s the clip:
Why one homeless man thinks homeless camps exists – Camp considered dangerous near S Dearborn St and I-5 closure began today More at 430/6p #komonews pic.twitter.com/AnUrmEVb8C — Michelle Esteban (@MichelleKOMO) January 29, 2020
Thompson said he plans to take the offer of a shelter bed but another camp resident, Lyman Kennedy, told KOMO News that he was going to pass on the city’s offer of shelter. “I’m kind of lying to myself really because it’s easier (to stay in an encampment) in a way, but in the long run it’s the hard way,” he said. He didn’t spell out why he wanted to find a camp rather than accept a bed but for a lot of homeless people the answer is simple: It’s harder to procure and do drugs in a shelter.


hotair--2020-01-29--There's a proposal to force LA's homeless into treatment programs

The epidemic of homelessness in California shows no signs of abating ( and is arguably continuing to grow worse ) and no viable solutions have been implemented yet .
One person has come up with a very different approach to the problem , however .
Mike Gatto , a former state assemblyman , has drafted a ballot measure that would institute a sort of “ tough love ” approach .
If approved , the measure would direct law enforcement to strictly and aggressively begin enforcing so-called “ quality of life ” crimes such as harassment on public transportation , squatting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets or public urination or defecation .
Those arrested would be evaluated to determine if they are suffering from mental illness or substance abuse issues .
If so , rather than going to jail , they would be forced into treatment programs .
The LA Times editorial board has looked over the proposal and found it to be the wrong approach .
Frankly , it ’ s not humane to have anyone living on the streets .
Their presence amounts to an ongoing crisis that cities and counties have yet to resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mental health and substance abuse treatment are important , we fear Gatto ’ s measure isn ’ t the solution .
His ballot measure may be a well-intentioned push to get help to people who he believes are refusing to help themselves .
But sending them into the criminal justice system and forcing them into treatment — sometimes in secured facilities if they are deemed unlikely to complete the program otherwise — is not a productive approach .
The editorial goes on to list a number of reasons why this probably won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare moment of solidarity , I have to largely agree with the Times editorial board on this one .
The major issue with this concept is the fact that treatment programs are generally not going to help people who do not themselves want help .
People generally have to hit rock bottom and seek out assistance like that on their own , and even then , success rates are disappointing and relapses are all too frequent .
Your only hope for success in a drug or alcohol recovery program is if recovery is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a facility against your will and the only thing on your mind is when you can bust out of there and find enough cash for another bottle of Mad Dog or bag of heroin , your prospects aren ’ t particularly bright .
The same goes for chronic mental illness , and most health experts agree with this .
Also , even if the prospects were much better than they are , where will Los Angeles send all of these people for treatment ?
If they had a sufficient number of beds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , the majority of the homeless would already be in them .
Finding resources and funding for helping the homeless remains the major stumbling block in all large cities , including Los Angeles .
I ’ ll admit that there ’ s a certain appeal to Gatto ’ s idea of going back to strictly enforcing laws against those “ quality of life ” crimes .
But California ’ s Democrats have been fighting to reduce such enforcement of late , along with liberals around the rest of the country .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The streets have turned into toxic cesspools in areas where the homeless congregate in large numbers , with both crime and disease on the rise .
Enforcing these laws is one way to get the homeless to be less brazen about violations .
But if we ’ re being honest , all such enforcement really does is drive the problem into somebody else ’ s neighborhood .
It doesn ’ t eliminate homelessness , drug addiction or mental health issues .
Getting the homeless off the streets in your neighborhood is an obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer the question of where you ’ re going to send them and how they can be transitioned out of homelessness on a permanent basis .

The epidemic of homelessness in California shows no signs of abating (and is arguably continuing to grow worse) and no viable solutions have been implemented yet. One person has come up with a very different approach to the problem, however. Mike Gatto, a former state assemblyman, has drafted a ballot measure that would institute a sort of “tough love” approach. If approved, the measure would direct law enforcement to strictly and aggressively begin enforcing so-called “quality of life” crimes such as harassment on public transportation, squatting in public buildings, drug use on the streets or public urination or defecation.
Those arrested would be evaluated to determine if they are suffering from mental illness or substance abuse issues. If so, rather than going to jail, they would be forced into treatment programs. The LA Times editorial board has looked over the proposal and found it to be the wrong approach.
Frankly, it’s not humane to have anyone living on the streets. Their presence amounts to an ongoing crisis that cities and counties have yet to resolve successfully. However, while we agree that mental health and substance abuse treatment are important, we fear Gatto’s measure isn’t the solution. His ballot measure may be a well-intentioned push to get help to people who he believes are refusing to help themselves. But sending them into the criminal justice system and forcing them into treatment — sometimes in secured facilities if they are deemed unlikely to complete the program otherwise — is not a productive approach.
The editorial goes on to list a number of reasons why this probably won’t work. And in a rare moment of solidarity, I have to largely agree with the Times editorial board on this one. The major issue with this concept is the fact that treatment programs are generally not going to help people who do not themselves want help. People generally have to hit rock bottom and seek out assistance like that on their own, and even then, success rates are disappointing and relapses are all too frequent.
Your only hope for success in a drug or alcohol recovery program is if recovery is your goal. If you are forced into a facility against your will and the only thing on your mind is when you can bust out of there and find enough cash for another bottle of Mad Dog or bag of heroin, your prospects aren’t particularly bright. The same goes for chronic mental illness, and most health experts agree with this.
Also, even if the prospects were much better than they are, where will Los Angeles send all of these people for treatment? If they had a sufficient number of beds and treatment professionals for all of those people, the majority of the homeless would already be in them. Finding resources and funding for helping the homeless remains the major stumbling block in all large cities, including Los Angeles.
I’ll admit that there’s a certain appeal to Gatto’s idea of going back to strictly enforcing laws against those “quality of life” crimes. But California’s Democrats have been fighting to reduce such enforcement of late, along with liberals around the rest of the country. The results have been easy to see. The streets have turned into toxic cesspools in areas where the homeless congregate in large numbers, with both crime and disease on the rise. Enforcing these laws is one way to get the homeless to be less brazen about violations.
But if we’re being honest, all such enforcement really does is drive the problem into somebody else’s neighborhood. It doesn’t eliminate homelessness, drug addiction or mental health issues. Getting the homeless off the streets in your neighborhood is an obvious goal, but you still have to answer the question of where you’re going to send them and how they can be transitioned out of homelessness on a permanent basis.


hotair--2020-01-29--Lindsey Graham: Nothing John Bolton might say could possibly make this an impeachable offense so let

Lindsey Graham: Nothing John Bolton might say could possibly make this an impeachable offense so let's not call him

Hilarious .
Let me remind you again of what he said to Axios in October about the possibility of a quid pro quo : In an interview with “ Axios on HBO , ” Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of President Trump ’ s most vital allies on Capitol Hill , opened the door to changing his mind on impeachment if there turns out to be what he considers a quid pro quo… “ Sure .
I mean … show me something that … is a crime , ” Graham told Axios ’ Jonathan Swan .
“ If you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo , outside the phone call , that would be very disturbing.
” If Graham thought evidence of a quid pro quo was no big deal , at least inasmuch as it wouldn ’ t warrant removing the president from office , that would have been the logical moment to say so .
We now have a report in the country ’ s most well-known newspaper that Trump ’ s own former NSA might be prepared to say under oath that the president told him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Ukraine until they started investigating Biden .
At a minimum , you would think Graham would want to follow up with that official to discover whether the “ disturbing ” scenario he presented in October had come to pass .
But he doesn ’ t .
Go figure .
As shameless as Graham is , the sheer transparency of his shamelessness is almost a redeeming quality .
He ’ ll try to suppress material evidence for Trump , sure , but he won ’ t make much of an effort to disguise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest toady .
At long last , he ’ s arrived at the defense of last resort : “ Bad but not impeachable.
” We don ’ t even need to know what Trump did or didn ’ t do by hearing from Bolton , says Graham , since there ’ s no high crime or misdemeanor regardless .
But that ’ s not necessarily true .
One key reason the GOP doesn ’ t want Bolton on the stand is because they don ’ t know what else he might accuse Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two days ago that Bolton claims in his book that he feared Trump had intervened in a DOJ investigation of Chinese interests in return for China playing ball with him on matters of trade .
If Bolton confirmed that under oath , or went further by accusing Trump of meddling in other Justice Department probes as “ favors ” to foreign powers , what would Senate Republicans do ?
It ’ d be a political nightmare .
Graham wants to skip Bolton not because he knows Bolton has nothing impeachment-worthy to say but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton had was the Ukraine quid pro quo material , Trump himself has made that material relevant by the nature of his defense .
Andy McCarthy has been begging the president in op-eds for months to drop the “ no quid pro quo ” shtick and focus on the defense Graham ’ s now ( very belatedly ) making on his behalf , that there ’ s no high crime here even on the least favorable version of the facts .
But Trump couldn ’ t resist .
And because he couldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may even have weakened his executive privilege claims to block Bolton ’ s testimony : On the other hand , the president has chosen ( foolishly in my view ) to make the quid pro quo question an issue in the trial ; and he and his surrogates have chosen ( foolishly in my view ) to mount public attacks on Bolton ’ s credibility .
Furthermore , legal confidentiality privileges are shields , not swords .
A litigant is not supposed to be able to inject an issue of fact into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quid pro quo ) and then deny the factfinder access to probative evidence on that same issue .
If you want to rely on your privilege , you need to steer clear of the issue .
McCarthy proposes a short four-hour session with Bolton limited to the narrow question of what Trump told him about a quid pro quo , with no questions allowed for the sort of topic I mentioned above that might lead to further bombshell revelations — and with the option for Trump ’ s lawyers to avert Bolton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of denials , that there really was a quid pro quo .
In his statement today Graham also nudges certain persons who shall remain nameless to avoid attacking Bolton ’ s credibility , since a factual dispute between them only strengthens the claim that the Senate should hear from Bolton to try to resolve that dispute .
( I think Graham ’ s also nudging righties to go easy on Bolton because Bolton is a fellow superhawk and he doesn ’ t want the anger from Trump fans at Bolton to further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But those nameless persons can ’ t leave well enough alone : Trump doesn ’ t care that challenging Bolton ’ s credibility increases the pressure to call him .
He expects unthinking loyalty from Senate Republicans no matter how politically uncomfortable this gets for them or else there ’ ll be “ heads on pikes , ” to paraphrase the mystery man who uttered that phrase to CBS last week .
And his expectation is rational .
How can anyone read this Lindsey Graham statement and not come away convinced that Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the interest of wrapping this up ?
If he ’ s willing to go from “ a quid pro quo would be disturbing ” to “ we don ’ t even need to hear firsthand testimony about a quid pro quo ” in three months , he ’ ll say literally anything .
In fact , I gave him too much credit up above in claiming that he ’ s finally landed on the “ bad but not impeachable ” defense .
There ’ s not one syllable in that statement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ bad , ” for the simple reason that Graham knows Trump would go berserk if there was .
So the defense of actual last resort , where we ’ re really going to end up , is “ not impeachable and it doesn ’ t matter whether it was bad — or ‘ disturbing ’ — or not.
” These people are broken .

Hilarious. Let me remind you again of what he said to Axios in October about the possibility of a quid pro quo:
In an interview with “Axios on HBO,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of President Trump’s most vital allies on Capitol Hill, opened the door to changing his mind on impeachment if there turns out to be what he considers a quid pro quo… “Sure. I mean … show me something that … is a crime,” Graham told Axios’ Jonathan Swan. “If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.”
If Graham thought evidence of a quid pro quo was no big deal, at least inasmuch as it wouldn’t warrant removing the president from office, that would have been the logical moment to say so.
We now have a report in the country’s most well-known newspaper that Trump’s own former NSA might be prepared to say under oath that the president told him personally that he wanted to withhold aid from Ukraine until they started investigating Biden. At a minimum, you would think Graham would want to follow up with that official to discover whether the “disturbing” scenario he presented in October had come to pass.
But he doesn’t. Go figure.
As shameless as Graham is, the sheer transparency of his shamelessness is almost a redeeming quality. He’ll try to suppress material evidence for Trump, sure, but he won’t make much of an effort to disguise his motives. He’s an honest toady.
Sen. Lindsey Graham Statement on Trump’s tweets on Bolton: “I am concerned when John Bolton’s credibility is attacked, it makes it more likely some will feel the need to call him as a witness.” pic.twitter.com/c5UXQghK16 — Jason Donner (@jason_donner) January 29, 2020
At long last, he’s arrived at the defense of last resort: “Bad but not impeachable.” We don’t even need to know what Trump did or didn’t do by hearing from Bolton, says Graham, since there’s no high crime or misdemeanor regardless. But that’s not necessarily true. One key reason the GOP doesn’t want Bolton on the stand is because they don’t know what else he might accuse Trump of under oath. The Times reported two days ago that Bolton claims in his book that he feared Trump had intervened in a DOJ investigation of Chinese interests in return for China playing ball with him on matters of trade. If Bolton confirmed that under oath, or went further by accusing Trump of meddling in other Justice Department probes as “favors” to foreign powers, what would Senate Republicans do? It’d be a political nightmare. Graham wants to skip Bolton not because he knows Bolton has nothing impeachment-worthy to say but because he might.
Even if all Bolton had was the Ukraine quid pro quo material, Trump himself has made that material relevant by the nature of his defense. Andy McCarthy has been begging the president in op-eds for months to drop the “no quid pro quo” shtick and focus on the defense Graham’s now (very belatedly) making on his behalf, that there’s no high crime here even on the least favorable version of the facts. But Trump couldn’t resist. And because he couldn’t, McCarthy argues today, he may even have weakened his executive privilege claims to block Bolton’s testimony:
On the other hand, the president has chosen (foolishly in my view) to make the quid pro quo question an issue in the trial; and he and his surrogates have chosen (foolishly in my view) to mount public attacks on Bolton’s credibility. Furthermore, legal confidentiality privileges are shields, not swords. A litigant is not supposed to be able to inject an issue of fact into a case (e.g., there was no quid pro quo) and then deny the factfinder access to probative evidence on that same issue. If you want to rely on your privilege, you need to steer clear of the issue.
McCarthy proposes a short four-hour session with Bolton limited to the narrow question of what Trump told him about a quid pro quo, with no questions allowed for the sort of topic I mentioned above that might lead to further bombshell revelations — and with the option for Trump’s lawyers to avert Bolton’s testimony by *stipulating,* after months of denials, that there really was a quid pro quo. In his statement today Graham also nudges certain persons who shall remain nameless to avoid attacking Bolton’s credibility, since a factual dispute between them only strengthens the claim that the Senate should hear from Bolton to try to resolve that dispute. (I think Graham’s also nudging righties to go easy on Bolton because Bolton is a fellow superhawk and he doesn’t want the anger from Trump fans at Bolton to further poison their views of interventionism.) But those nameless persons can’t leave well enough alone:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222496705763008515
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1222496715422433281
Trump doesn’t care that challenging Bolton’s credibility increases the pressure to call him. He expects unthinking loyalty from Senate Republicans no matter how politically uncomfortable this gets for them or else there’ll be “heads on pikes,” to paraphrase the mystery man who uttered that phrase to CBS last week. And his expectation is rational. How can anyone read this Lindsey Graham statement and not come away convinced that Graham would say anything Trump wanted him to in the interest of wrapping this up? If he’s willing to go from “a quid pro quo would be disturbing” to “we don’t even need to hear firsthand testimony about a quid pro quo” in three months, he’ll say literally anything.
In fact, I gave him too much credit up above in claiming that he’s finally landed on the “bad but not impeachable” defense. There’s not one syllable in that statement that implies that what Trump did here was “bad,” for the simple reason that Graham knows Trump would go berserk if there was. So the defense of actual last resort, where we’re really going to end up, is “not impeachable and it doesn’t matter whether it was bad — or ‘disturbing’ — or not.” These people are broken.


hotair--2020-01-29--Democrats warn that Trump has a big digital advantage heading into the election

An opinion piece in today ’ s NY Times says President Trump ’ s reelection campaign has a serious digital advantage over Democrats heading into the 2020 election .
The headline of the piece says it all : “ Trump ’ s Digital Advantage Is Freaking Out Democratic Strategists.
” When you actually drill down to what it is that Democrats are worried about , it turns out to be campaign memes .
Here ’ s one aimed at Joe Biden which was posted by an anonymous Sanders supporter : Because the people posting these memes are anonymous , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are grassroots supporters or part of a paid operation .
The author of the piece frames this as the equivalent of dark money spending but in the digital space .
But one of the Democratic groups seeking to turn the tide on social media says there is no dark magic to what the Trump campaign is doing : That ’ s very similar to what one of Facebook ’ s executives said about the Trump campaign ’ s 2016 efforts in a recently leaked memo : So this isn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of resources and technology to reach voters who might not otherwise be reached .
That ’ s a point that Trump ’ s digital guru Brad Parscale made in a column for Townhall this week : Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans .
Remarkably , 4,413 attendees didn ’ t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of identified supporters at President Trump ’ s rally in Toledo , Ohio , were Democrats , and another 21 percent were independents .
An astounding 15 percent of identified voters who saw the president speak in Battle Creek , Michigan , has not voted in any of the last four elections .
In Hershey , Pennsylvania , just over 20 percent of identified voters at the rally were Democrats , and 18 percent were non-white .
Obviously it ’ s a powerful advantage to have data like that and to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats or non-voters who are potentially receptive to becoming Trump voters .
An anonymous Democratic strategist working to even the odds in the coming election says there ’ s no doubt the GOP has better data .
He believes the only reason Democrats have a chance at defeating Trump is because he is a flawed candidate : “ There ’ s no question that as a technical matter , the Republicans and the Kochs are spending much more and have better data than Democrats/progressives .
But they also have a much more difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big is Trump ’ s digital advantage ?
“ Big enough to enable him to win the popular vote ?
Almost certainly not .
Big enough to win Wisconsin ?
Frighteningly so , ” the strategist tells the NY Times .
So if you were wondering why Hillary Clinton and George Soros are suddenly spreading conspiracy theories about Facebook handing the election to Trump , this is why they are doing it .
Trump has a digital advantage and Democrats want Facebook to help neutralize it .

An opinion piece in today’s NY Times says President Trump’s reelection campaign has a serious digital advantage over Democrats heading into the 2020 election. The headline of the piece says it all: “Trump’s Digital Advantage Is Freaking Out Democratic Strategists.”
Republicans “have a big advantage this time,” Ben Nuckels, a Democratic media consultant said in a phone interview. “They not only have all the data from 2016 but they have been building this operation into a nonstop juggernaut.”
When you actually drill down to what it is that Democrats are worried about, it turns out to be campaign memes.
Steven Livingston, a professor of media and public affairs and director of the Institute for Data, Democracy and Politics at George Washington University, has been tracking this sub rosa electioneering in the current election cycle. He found that supporters of two candidates, Trump and Bernie Sanders, are the primary practitioners.
Here’s one aimed at Joe Biden which was posted by an anonymous Sanders supporter:
Because the people posting these memes are anonymous, there’s no way of knowing if they are grassroots supporters or part of a paid operation. The author of the piece frames this as the equivalent of dark money spending but in the digital space. But one of the Democratic groups seeking to turn the tide on social media says there is no dark magic to what the Trump campaign is doing:
There’s no digital dark magic being deployed by Brad Parscale and the Trump campaign. They just have near unlimited resources and are spending them wisely to reach their voters where they are — online, and especially on platforms like Facebook.
That’s very similar to what one of Facebook’s executives said about the Trump campaign’s 2016 efforts in a recently leaked memo:
Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work. They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.
So this isn’t a dark art it’s just clever use of resources and technology to reach voters who might not otherwise be reached. That’s a point that Trump’s digital guru Brad Parscale made in a column for Townhall this week:
Out of more than 20,000 identified voters who came to a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 57.9 percent did not have a history of voting for Republicans. Remarkably, 4,413 attendees didn’t even vote in the last election — a clear indication that President Trump is energizing Americans who were previously not engaged in politics… Nearly 22 percent of identified supporters at President Trump’s rally in Toledo, Ohio, were Democrats, and another 21 percent were independents. An astounding 15 percent of identified voters who saw the president speak in Battle Creek, Michigan, has not voted in any of the last four elections. In Hershey, Pennsylvania, just over 20 percent of identified voters at the rally were Democrats, and 18 percent were non-white.
Obviously it’s a powerful advantage to have data like that and to be able to attempt to target the specific Democrats or non-voters who are potentially receptive to becoming Trump voters.
An anonymous Democratic strategist working to even the odds in the coming election says there’s no doubt the GOP has better data. He believes the only reason Democrats have a chance at defeating Trump is because he is a flawed candidate: “There’s no question that as a technical matter, the Republicans and the Kochs are spending much more and have better data than Democrats/progressives. But they also have a much more difficult product to sell: Trump.”
How big is Trump’s digital advantage? “Big enough to enable him to win the popular vote? Almost certainly not. Big enough to win Wisconsin? Frighteningly so,” the strategist tells the NY Times.
So if you were wondering why Hillary Clinton and George Soros are suddenly spreading conspiracy theories about Facebook handing the election to Trump, this is why they are doing it. Trump has a digital advantage and Democrats want Facebook to help neutralize it.


hotair--2020-01-29--Manchin: Why yes, "I really do" think Hunter Biden is a relevant witness

Looks like Pam Bondi made one convert .
As the question of witnesses continues to percolate in the Senate Republican caucus , centrist Democrat Joe Manchin continues to believe that the trial should include testimony from all “ relevant ” witnesses .
And when Manchin says “ all , ” he really means “ all , ” to the apparent surprise of Morning Joe ’ s Willie Geist on MSNBC .
When asked about the John Bolton-for-Hunter Biden swap , Manchin tells Geist he ’ s in favor of it because he “ really ” thinks Biden is a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaction to that answer : The clip is rather short , so let ’ s include the transcript of the overall conversation for better context .
Geist sets up this choice by calling it a “ sucker ’ s deal , ” and points out that Schiff calls it a “ fantasy football draft.
” Geist doesn ’ t offer any arguments in favor of calling Hunter Biden despite Bondi ’ s rather compelling argument on Monday that the Trump administration had ample reason to suspect Hunter got that job to influence then-VP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s probably why Geist offered a puzzled reaction when Manchin essentially ignored Geist ’ s set-up : GEIST : So , what ’ s your view Senator of the idea that ’ s been floated out there in some circles in the Senate by republicans of a one for one trade for witnesses ?
A lot of democrats say that ’ s a sucker ’ s deal .
In other words , we ’ ll give you John Bolton if we get Hunter Biden .
Democrats would say Hunter Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think Adam Schiff said this is not a fantasy football draft , we ’ re not going back and forth with witnesses .
We want to talk to relevant witnesses .
Would you be open to that one for one kind of deal ?
MANCHIN : Let me just say Willie that I believe – you know , I ’ ve never been a juror .
I ’ ve never been on jury duty , never been called in my life on juror duty .
And all of a sudden I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world .
And on that I said , well someone ’ s got to be a referee here .
So , there ’ s only one person , I definitely think there has to be witnesses .
Now , who those witnesses are I would say had to be pertinent to the charges brought against the president .
MANCHIN : Anybody that has pertinent information has to be considered as a witness .
And if it gets out of hand who ’ s calling what , who ’ s playing politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then there has to be somebody .
There ’ s only one John Roberts , the Chief Justice , and they voted that down .
We should vote again if we come to an impasse because they want to play political games and they ’ re not looking at what ’ s relevant to the case .
But you know Willie , I think someone has to ask the question .
Is this a constitutional trial or a political trial ?
MANCHIN : You know , I think so , I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a problem there because this is why we are where we are .
Now , I think that he can clear himself of what I know and what I ’ ve heard .
But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you ’ re a Democrat or a Republican .
And not go home and say , well I protected one who was afraid .
No , if it ’ s relevant then it should be there .
Just having Manchin admit that Hunter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous step for Democrats .
Bondi ’ s argument laid out facts about Burisma and the benefit Mykola Zlochevsky got from Viktor Shokin ’ s firing that may have been public before then but certainly didn ’ t get much attention .
Joe Biden ’ s demand for Shokin ’ s firing wasn ’ t necessarily a step forward for clean government in Ukraine , and the question is whether Biden and the Obama administration were just clueless about that or whether Biden took action to keep his son ’ s salary intact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as Manchin suggests , but do Senate Democrats want to roll those dice ?
Especially facing Trump ’ s attorneys under oath ?
That may be a “ sucker ’ s deal , ” but not in the way Geist thinks — and it might be Manchin ’ s way of pushing this toward a quicker conclusion .

Looks like Pam Bondi made one convert. As the question of witnesses continues to percolate in the Senate Republican caucus, centrist Democrat Joe Manchin continues to believe that the trial should include testimony from all “relevant” witnesses. And when Manchin says “all,” he really means “all,” to the apparent surprise of Morning Joe’s Willie Geist on MSNBC.
When asked about the John Bolton-for-Hunter Biden swap, Manchin tells Geist he’s in favor of it because he “really” thinks Biden is a “relevant witness.” Watch Geist’s reaction to that answer:
.@WillieGeist asks @Sen_JoeManchin if Hunter Biden is a 'relevant witness.' Sen. Manchin responds: "I think so; I really do." pic.twitter.com/ZESiUMWTWc — Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) January 29, 2020
The clip is rather short, so let’s include the transcript of the overall conversation for better context. Geist sets up this choice by calling it a “sucker’s deal,” and points out that Schiff calls it a “fantasy football draft.” Geist doesn’t offer any arguments in favor of calling Hunter Biden despite Bondi’s rather compelling argument on Monday that the Trump administration had ample reason to suspect Hunter got that job to influence then-VP Joe Biden and that it worked. That’s probably why Geist offered a puzzled reaction when Manchin essentially ignored Geist’s set-up:
GEIST: So, what’s your view Senator of the idea that’s been floated out there in some circles in the Senate by republicans of a one for one trade for witnesses? A lot of democrats say that’s a sucker’s deal. In other words, we’ll give you John Bolton if we get Hunter Biden. Democrats would say Hunter Biden’s not a relevant witness here. I think Adam Schiff said this is not a fantasy football draft, we’re not going back and forth with witnesses. We want to talk to relevant witnesses. Would you be open to that one for one kind of deal? MANCHIN: Let me just say Willie that I believe – you know, I’ve never been a juror. I’ve never been on jury duty, never been called in my life on juror duty. And all of a sudden I’m sitting in the most prestigious juror in the world. And on that I said, well someone’s got to be a referee here. So, there’s only one person, I definitely think there has to be witnesses. Now, who those witnesses are I would say had to be pertinent to the charges brought against the president. GEIST: Right. MANCHIN: Anybody that has pertinent information has to be considered as a witness. And if it gets out of hand who’s calling what, who’s playing politics, who’s doing it constitutionally, then there has to be somebody. There’s only one John Roberts, the Chief Justice, and they voted that down. We should vote again if we come to an impasse because they want to play political games and they’re not looking at what’s relevant to the case. But you know Willie, I think someone has to ask the question. Is this a constitutional trial or a political trial? GEIST: Is Hunter Biden a relevant witness, Senator? MANCHIN: You know, I think so, I really do. I don’t have a problem there because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he can clear himself of what I know and what I’ve heard. But being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong no matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. And not go home and say, well I protected one who was afraid. No, if it’s relevant then it should be there.
Just having Manchin admit that Hunter’s relevant to this question is a dangerous step for Democrats. Bondi’s argument laid out facts about Burisma and the benefit Mykola Zlochevsky got from Viktor Shokin’s firing that may have been public before then but certainly didn’t get much attention. Joe Biden’s demand for Shokin’s firing wasn’t necessarily a step forward for clean government in Ukraine, and the question is whether Biden and the Obama administration were just clueless about that or whether Biden took action to keep his son’s salary intact.
Perhaps Hunter can “clear himself,” as Manchin suggests, but do Senate Democrats want to roll those dice? Especially facing Trump’s attorneys under oath? That may be a “sucker’s deal,” but not in the way Geist thinks — and it might be Manchin’s way of pushing this toward a quicker conclusion.


hotair--2020-01-29--Don Lemon: I wasn't laughing at Trump fans in that CNN segment

He wasn ’ t laughing at Trump fans , he was laughing at jokes about Trump fans .
No , seriously , his actual defense is even lamer than that .
I didn ’ t catch everything that was said in the now-famous segment after I started cracking up , Lemon insists in the clip below — implausibly , considering that his guests went on for a full minute or so .
No apology either .
If he disapproves of what was said about Trump fans , it ’ s weird that he didn ’ t use this opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was a joke about Trump , not Trump ’ s fans , that caused him to lose it initially .
( “ Donald Trump couldn ’ t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter ‘ U ’ and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it.
” ) But he kept on going as the punchlines shifted to “ yokel ” fare .
Watch it again : “ I don ’ t believe in belittling people , ” Lemon insisted last night , neglecting to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a segment where others are doing it.
” He ’ s stuck in the twilight zone that his entire network currently finds itself in , caught between its ( sometimes justifiable ) hostility to Trump and its this-is-an-apple pretensions to being the last true unbiased cable news network .
Lemon clearly loathes Trump and Trumpist populism but the nano-thin veneer of impartiality that CNN presents requires him to disavow that .
So he ’ s forced to resort to “ um , I didn ’ t hear what was being said ” nonsense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s noteworthy how many commentators outside the MAGAsphere also found the segment distasteful .
After watching it , WaPo columnist Eugene Scott wrote that it ’ s no wonder rural Americans believe CNN doesn ’ t respect them .
David French , a Never Trumper so hardcore that he nearly jumped into the 2016 primary , also objected : As we say in the South , this is bad y ’ all .
It ’ s bad and stereotypical on its own terms .
I ’ m surrounded here in Franklin , Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , college-educated Trump voters—and that also happens to describe the vast majority of my extended family .
They not only can find Ukraine on a map , they can also recite chapter-and-verse why Elizabeth Warren ’ s health care financing plan simply isn ’ t credible .
In other words , they ’ re intelligent , thoughtful , and really , really tired of the dumb hick stereotype .
And this is where the narrative comes in .
The CNN segment above is just another example of what “ they ” think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the alleged amiable dunce ?
Remember when George W. Bush was a southern idiot ?
While certainly not everyone in the media fosters these stereotypes , enough members of the media ( and cultural elite ) do that virtually everyone in conservative America is aware of their scorn .
Conservatarian Charles Cooke went as far as to call it “ the death of cable news in one clip , ” not because it was so different from what you ’ d find on Fox News but because it wasn ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ channel the clip comes , is perhaps the worst offender of all , having deliberately contrived and cultivated a stable of guests whose defining characteristic is not analytical skill or eloquence or reflexive independence of thought , but rather Possession of a Strong Opinion about Donald Trump .
On CNN , Trump is the North Star .
He is the point around which all must be graphed ; the question to which all others must be subordinated ; the one piece of data that predicts and explains everything else .
Bit by bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a different predilection .
It is Us v. Them , without break .
Lemon could have just owned it in his brief statement last night : Us vs .
Them , an endless war of words between left and right over who the real “ real Americans ” are .
As various Never Trumpers have noted in defense of him and Rick Wilson , Trump and his fans can be and often are waaaaaay more vituperative towards their enemies than Wilson was with his “ yokel ” jabs in the segment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re often derided as “ snowflakes.
” But as I say , Lemon can ’ t be who he is because CNN ’ s sham “ neutrality ” requires him to make a show of respecting his political enemies instead of frankly admitting to loathing them .
Maybe that ’ ll change in Trump ’ s second term .
They can ’ t go on forever pretending to be something that partisans on both sides have by now realized they ’ re not .

He wasn’t laughing at Trump fans, he was laughing at jokes about Trump fans.
No, seriously, his actual defense is even lamer than that. I didn’t catch everything that was said in the now-famous segment after I started cracking up, Lemon insists in the clip below — implausibly, considering that his guests went on for a full minute or so.
No apology either. If he disapproves of what was said about Trump fans, it’s weird that he didn’t use this opportunity to express remorse.
#BREAKING: @DonLemon addressing the now-viral Saturday @CNNTonight segment mocking and showing such venom toward Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, Lemon deflected: "I don't believe in belittling people….In the moment…I didn't catch everything that was said." pic.twitter.com/oI4eNz7rkR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 29, 2020
It’s true that it was a joke about Trump, not Trump’s fans, that caused him to lose it initially. (“Donald Trump couldn’t find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter ‘U’ and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it.”) But he kept on going as the punchlines shifted to “yokel” fare. Watch it again:
The arrogance, the dismissiveness, the smug cackling, the accents. If Donald Trump wins re-election this year, I’ll remember this brief CNN segment late one Saturday night in January as the perfect encapsulation for why it happened. pic.twitter.com/8kQ6zN9AZV — Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) January 28, 2020
“I don’t believe in belittling people,” Lemon insisted last night, neglecting to add “but I’ll happily moderate a segment where others are doing it.” He’s stuck in the twilight zone that his entire network currently finds itself in, caught between its (sometimes justifiable) hostility to Trump and its this-is-an-apple pretensions to being the last true unbiased cable news network. Lemon clearly loathes Trump and Trumpist populism but the nano-thin veneer of impartiality that CNN presents requires him to disavow that. So he’s forced to resort to “um, I didn’t hear what was being said” nonsense in his non-apology apology.
It’s noteworthy how many commentators outside the MAGAsphere also found the segment distasteful. After watching it, WaPo columnist Eugene Scott wrote that it’s no wonder rural Americans believe CNN doesn’t respect them. David French, a Never Trumper so hardcore that he nearly jumped into the 2016 primary, also objected:
As we say in the South, this is bad y’all. It’s bad and stereotypical on its own terms. I’m surrounded here in Franklin, Tennessee, by tens of thousands of intelligent, college-educated Trump voters—and that also happens to describe the vast majority of my extended family. They not only can find Ukraine on a map, they can also recite chapter-and-verse why Elizabeth Warren’s health care financing plan simply isn’t credible. In other words, they’re intelligent, thoughtful, and really, really tired of the dumb hick stereotype. And this is where the narrative comes in. The CNN segment above is just another example of what “they” think of “us.” Remember when Ronald Reagan was the alleged amiable dunce? Remember when George W. Bush was a southern idiot? While certainly not everyone in the media fosters these stereotypes, enough members of the media (and cultural elite) do that virtually everyone in conservative America is aware of their scorn.
Conservatarian Charles Cooke went as far as to call it “the death of cable news in one clip,” not because it was so different from what you’d find on Fox News but because it wasn’t.
CNN, from which “news” channel the clip comes, is perhaps the worst offender of all, having deliberately contrived and cultivated a stable of guests whose defining characteristic is not analytical skill or eloquence or reflexive independence of thought, but rather Possession of a Strong Opinion about Donald Trump. On CNN, Trump is the North Star. He is the point around which all must be graphed; the question to which all others must be subordinated; the one piece of data that predicts and explains everything else. Bit by bit, the channel has become Fox News with a different predilection. It is Us v. Them, without break.
Lemon could have just owned it in his brief statement last night: Us vs. Them, an endless war of words between left and right over who the real “real Americans” are. As various Never Trumpers have noted in defense of him and Rick Wilson, Trump and his fans can be and often are waaaaaay more vituperative towards their enemies than Wilson was with his “yokel” jabs in the segment, and when those enemies object they’re often derided as “snowflakes.” But as I say, Lemon can’t be who he is because CNN’s sham “neutrality” requires him to make a show of respecting his political enemies instead of frankly admitting to loathing them. Maybe that’ll change in Trump’s second term. They can’t go on forever pretending to be something that partisans on both sides have by now realized they’re not.


hotair--2020-01-29--Beto loses again: Special election in Texas goes to GOP

A special election was held Tuesday for Texas House District 28 , Fort Bend County ( Houston area ) .
The election was needed to fill the unexpired term of state Rep. John Zerwas of Richmond .
The Republican victory announced in this race last night is good news for Texas Republicans to celebrate .
Zerwas , a doctor , served in the House since 2007 until he resigned last summer .
He was the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee which writes the state budget .
This special election was touted from the beginning as a bellwether election by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really invested in turning Texas blue and this election was supposed to indicate a Democrat tsunami coming in 2020 .
Republican Gary Gates defeated Democrat Eliz Markowitz .
The vote tally was 17,457 votes for Gates to 12,617 votes for Markowitz – 58 % to 42 % .
Gates roughly doubled the margin of Zerwas ’ victory in 2018 .
Texas Democrats , with the help of Democrats in Washington , D.C. hoped that Markowitz would win and her victory would lead the way for the GOP-controlled Texas House of Representatives to flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve out Zerwas ’ unexpired term and a new election will be held in November with that winner serving a full term .
Democrats pinned their hopes on flipping the nine seats they need to get a majority in the state House .
If they succeed , they will also gain the speakership , with control of redistricting that will be on the legislature ’ s next session .
Democrats are targeting 22 seats in hopes of meeting their goal of 9 victories .
In Fort Bend , Beto O ’ Rourke lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Ted Cruz by 3.14 points .
So , Texas HD28 was number 16 on that list of 22 .
Beto and other Democrats jumped in to help Markowitz and guess what happened ?
It backfired .
Who could have possibly seen that coming ?
Markowitz placed first in the primary race last November but she was the only Democrat running and the Republican vote was split between six Republicans .
This is why the claim that the special election could be a bellwether took hold .
Democrats got fired up at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could turn blue .
In the special election in November , Markowitz placed first with 39.1 % , but she was the lone Democrat facing six Republicans seeking to fill the seat .
Gates was always the favorite to win the runoff .
But his consultant Craig Murphy said that O ’ Rourke ’ s presence , as well as campaign appearances on behalf of Markowitz by former presidential candidate Julián Castro and presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg , and endorsements by two other candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unproductive ways for Democrats .
Murphy said one voter after another would “ say they had enough of these people coming in — all these liberal presidential candidates have thrown their support behind her — telling them what to do .
It was an epic kind of constant refrain.
” Democrats have to learn the same lesson over and over again in Texas .
Texas voters don ’ t appreciate others coming in and telling everyone for whom to vote .
Julian Castro was a natural for Markowitz ’ s campaign endorsements and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are Texans but the others ?
What were the Democrats thinking ?
Bloomberg and Warren ?
C ’ mon on , man .
Of the presidential candidates , Biden made the most sense to endorse her since he ’ s leading in the Texas polls .
Particularly hard hit is Robert Francis O ’ Rourke .
He is all in for the Democrat takeover of the House .
He spent back-to-back weekends campaigning for Markowitz and attended her Election Night party .
Both Markowitz and Gates are going to run for the seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and O ’ Rourke has already pledged his support to Markowitz .
On a Facebook live stream driving back to El Paso from Fort Bend late Tuesday that opened with O ’ Rourke listening to Journey ’ s “ Don ’ t Stop Believin ’ ” on a Houston radio station , O ’ Rourke said that while “ the night ’ s not going the way we would have wanted it to , ” Markowitz , at her election night party , “ turned right around and bucked us all up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November .
She ’ s on the ballot again .
November , of course , is going to have a much higher turnout , which bodes well for her , and she ’ s got this army of volunteers , myself included.
” Beto started a grassroots organization in December to support candidates like Markowitz with the goal of focusing on flipping the Texas House .
It ’ s called Powered by People .
The group is focusing on young voters and people moving into Texas from other states .
The race allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and function again ” after his own spectacular flame-out in politics .
Apparently Beto needs a campaign .
Texas House District 28 filled the void the angst-filled O ’ Rourke had after he stopped running for president .
You can ’ t make this stuff up .
Everything is always about him .
There is no denying Democrat enthusiasm in Texas , especially after the 2018 election results .
My own congressional district fell to a Democrat for the first time ever .
It is still too early , though , for Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and start popping champagne bottles .
Texas Republican voters have no intention of making a flip to blue easy for them .
It won ’ t happen in 2020 .

A special election was held Tuesday for Texas House District 28, Fort Bend County (Houston area). The election was needed to fill the unexpired term of state Rep. John Zerwas of Richmond. The Republican victory announced in this race last night is good news for Texas Republicans to celebrate.
Zerwas, a doctor, served in the House since 2007 until he resigned last summer. He was the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee which writes the state budget. This special election was touted from the beginning as a bellwether election by Democrats and the media. Democrats are really invested in turning Texas blue and this election was supposed to indicate a Democrat tsunami coming in 2020.
Republican Gary Gates defeated Democrat Eliz Markowitz. The vote tally was 17,457 votes for Gates to 12,617 votes for Markowitz – 58% to 42%. Gates roughly doubled the margin of Zerwas’ victory in 2018. Texas Democrats, with the help of Democrats in Washington, D.C. hoped that Markowitz would win and her victory would lead the way for the GOP-controlled Texas House of Representatives to flip to a Democrat majority. Gates will serve out Zerwas’ unexpired term and a new election will be held in November with that winner serving a full term.
Democrats pinned their hopes on flipping the nine seats they need to get a majority in the state House. If they succeed, they will also gain the speakership, with control of redistricting that will be on the legislature’s next session. Democrats are targeting 22 seats in hopes of meeting their goal of 9 victories. In Fort Bend, Beto O’Rourke lost in his 2018 bid to unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz by 3.14 points. So, Texas HD28 was number 16 on that list of 22. Beto and other Democrats jumped in to help Markowitz and guess what happened? It backfired. Who could have possibly seen that coming? Markowitz placed first in the primary race last November but she was the only Democrat running and the Republican vote was split between six Republicans. This is why the claim that the special election could be a bellwether took hold. Democrats got fired up at the possibility that the solidly red state district could turn blue.
In the special election in November, Markowitz placed first with 39.1%, but she was the lone Democrat facing six Republicans seeking to fill the seat. Gates was always the favorite to win the runoff. But his consultant Craig Murphy said that O’Rourke’s presence, as well as campaign appearances on behalf of Markowitz by former presidential candidate Julián Castro and presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, and endorsements by two other candidates — former Vice President Joe Biden and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — nationalized the campaign in unproductive ways for Democrats. Murphy said one voter after another would “say they had enough of these people coming in — all these liberal presidential candidates have thrown their support behind her — telling them what to do. It was an epic kind of constant refrain.”
Democrats have to learn the same lesson over and over again in Texas. Texas voters don’t appreciate others coming in and telling everyone for whom to vote. Julian Castro was a natural for Markowitz’s campaign endorsements and of course, Beto, since they are Texans but the others? What were the Democrats thinking? Bloomberg and Warren? C’mon on, man. Of the presidential candidates, Biden made the most sense to endorse her since he’s leading in the Texas polls.
Particularly hard hit is Robert Francis O’Rourke. He is all in for the Democrat takeover of the House. He spent back-to-back weekends campaigning for Markowitz and attended her Election Night party. Both Markowitz and Gates are going to run for the seat in November to serve a full term and O’Rourke has already pledged his support to Markowitz.
On a Facebook live stream driving back to El Paso from Fort Bend late Tuesday that opened with O’Rourke listening to Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’” on a Houston radio station, O’Rourke said that while “the night’s not going the way we would have wanted it to,” Markowitz, at her election night party, “turned right around and bucked us all up and reminded us that the big election is November. She’s on the ballot again. November, of course, is going to have a much higher turnout, which bodes well for her, and she’s got this army of volunteers, myself included.”
Beto started a grassroots organization in December to support candidates like Markowitz with the goal of focusing on flipping the Texas House. It’s called Powered by People. The group is focusing on young voters and people moving into Texas from other states.
Powered by People will organize grassroots volunteers to do the tough, necessary work that wins elections: registering Texans to vote (especially those that have just moved to Texas and those who are just turning 18), knocking on their doors, making phone calls, and connecting the dots so that we all understand that in order to make progress on the issues we care most about — like gun violence, healthcare and climate — we will have to register, volunteer and vote.
The race allowed O’Rourke to “find purpose and function again” after his own spectacular flame-out in politics. Apparently Beto needs a campaign. Texas House District 28 filled the void the angst-filled O’Rourke had after he stopped running for president. You can’t make this stuff up. Everything is always about him.
“There was a time when we were … wondering just what our purpose was on this planet,” O’Rourke told supporters. “But in doing this for Eliz, and being part of Powered by the People, I really have found that purpose and function again and I’m really hopeful about our country, about this race, about Texas, but just on a very personal level.”
There is no denying Democrat enthusiasm in Texas, especially after the 2018 election results. My own congressional district fell to a Democrat for the first time ever. It is still too early, though, for Democrats to get too far ahead of themselves and start popping champagne bottles. Texas Republican voters have no intention of making a flip to blue easy for them. It won’t happen in 2020.


hotair--2020-01-29--The Sanders-Biden brawl is heating up

The Sanders-Biden brawl is heating up

If you want to see how seriously the Biden and Sanders campaigns are taking each other , look no further than some of the golden oldies the two of them are digging out of the oppo research files .
The AP has a great breakdown of how the two men currently leading in the polls are circling each other .
Let ’ s start with this gem .
Can you guess who said this ?
“ As our population ages , it is clear that we will have to make incremental adjustments in Social Security taxes and benefits — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That was Senator Bernie Sanders in a 1996 op-ed he published in The Burlington Free Press .
But how about this one ?
“ When I argued that we should freeze federal spending , I meant Social Security , as well .
I meant Medicare and Medicaid .
I meant veterans ’ benefits .
… And I not only tried it once , I tried it twice , I tried it a third time and I tried it a fourth time.
” That , ladies and gentlemen , was Joe Biden during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But to hear both sides talking this week , you ’ d think nothing of the sort ever happened .
( Associated Press ) As a congressman in the 1990s , Bernie Sanders expressed an openness to making “ adjustments ” to the tax and benefit structure of Social Security .
He also praised an overhaul of the social safety net program signed into law by President Ronald Reagan that reduced benefits and increased taxes on working families .
Sanders ’ presidential campaign and allies have highlighted similar remarks by Joe Biden to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the explosive charge that Biden was an outspoken proponent of slashing the program .
With Iowa ’ s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses less than a week away , Sanders ’ remarks from decades ago are surfacing as a counterpunch to the criticism of Biden , as the two top candidates in the Democratic race escalate a feud over the nation ’ s most popular entitlement , an issue that has particular reach among older voters .
So what are they saying today ?
Sanders responded to the attacks from the Biden camp by saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposing cuts to the program and has instead supported tax increases or spending reductions to other programs , like military aid.
” When Biden was asked about Social Security at a recent town hall , he told the audience member , “ There will be no compromise on Medicare and Social Security , period .
That ’ s a promise.
” At a separate event , he said : “ What I ’ d do is make sure that we expand Social Security coverage.
” My , how times have changed , eh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is yet another fiscal impossibility .
When Social Security eventually runs out of IOUs to call in , we won ’ t be able to make up the difference by cutting military spending , even if we entirely eliminated our armed forces .
Biden simply avoids talking about the costs and promises to expand benefits .
I ’ m trying to remember the last time we had a presidential election where Social Security wasn ’ t an issue .
It might have been in the seventies .
Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP accuses liberals of being unrealistic in their tax and spending plans to stabilize the system .
That ’ s just standard operating practice .
But when it comes down to a primary battle between rival Democrats , it ’ s just a question of who can promise more and more benefits .
If I ’ m lucky , I won ’ t live long enough to see the system entirely collapse .
But some of you younger people might want to drop a line to these candidates and tell them that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not more pie in the sky promises .

If you want to see how seriously the Biden and Sanders campaigns are taking each other, look no further than some of the golden oldies the two of them are digging out of the oppo research files. The AP has a great breakdown of how the two men currently leading in the polls are circling each other. Let’s start with this gem. Can you guess who said this?
“As our population ages, it is clear that we will have to make incremental adjustments in Social Security taxes and benefits — as Congress has done in the past.”
That was Senator Bernie Sanders in a 1996 op-ed he published in The Burlington Free Press. But how about this one?
“When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security, as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans’ benefits. … And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time and I tried it a fourth time.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, was Joe Biden during a 1995 speech on the Senate floor.
But to hear both sides talking this week, you’d think nothing of the sort ever happened. (Associated Press)
As a congressman in the 1990s, Bernie Sanders expressed an openness to making “adjustments” to the tax and benefit structure of Social Security. He also praised an overhaul of the social safety net program signed into law by President Ronald Reagan that reduced benefits and increased taxes on working families. Sanders’ presidential campaign and allies have highlighted similar remarks by Joe Biden to attack the former vice president and make the explosive charge that Biden was an outspoken proponent of slashing the program. With Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses less than a week away, Sanders’ remarks from decades ago are surfacing as a counterpunch to the criticism of Biden, as the two top candidates in the Democratic race escalate a feud over the nation’s most popular entitlement, an issue that has particular reach among older voters.
So what are they saying today? Sanders responded to the attacks from the Biden camp by saying he has “a lengthy record of opposing cuts to the program and has instead supported tax increases or spending reductions to other programs, like military aid.”
When Biden was asked about Social Security at a recent town hall, he told the audience member, “There will be no compromise on Medicare and Social Security, period. That’s a promise.” At a separate event, he said: “What I’d do is make sure that we expand Social Security coverage.”
My, how times have changed, eh? Of course, what Sanders proposes is yet another fiscal impossibility. When Social Security eventually runs out of IOUs to call in, we won’t be able to make up the difference by cutting military spending, even if we entirely eliminated our armed forces. Biden simply avoids talking about the costs and promises to expand benefits.
I’m trying to remember the last time we had a presidential election where Social Security wasn’t an issue. It might have been in the seventies. Democrats constantly accuse Republicans of wanting to cut people’s benefits and the GOP accuses liberals of being unrealistic in their tax and spending plans to stabilize the system. That’s just standard operating practice. But when it comes down to a primary battle between rival Democrats, it’s just a question of who can promise more and more benefits.
If I’m lucky, I won’t live long enough to see the system entirely collapse. But some of you younger people might want to drop a line to these candidates and tell them that the country needs a practical solution, not more pie in the sky promises.


hotair--2020-01-29--Hard nope. Palestinian response to peace plan is "a thousand no's"

Pretty much as predicted yesterday , the Palestinians have started weighing in on the Trump administration ’ s proposed Middle East peace deal and it sounds like a non-starter for them .
On the plus side , Israel has officially accepted the plan , but that ’ s not going to mean very much in the long run if they don ’ t have a viable partner on the other side willing to work with them .
Israeli leaders have agreed to a framework for a Palestinian state that would see the new country more than double in size with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to information provided by the White House .
The Trump administration unveiled on Tuesday its long-anticipated plan to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians .
The plan , which White House officials say has already been agreed to by Israel , would see the Jewish state freezing for four years all construction in contested territories that could be used to form a new Palestinian state .
As more details rolled out , the plan really does appear far more generous on the part of Israel than I ’ d expected .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects in contested areas and more than doubling the land currently considered as Palestinian territory should have been enough to tempt any reasonable person .
But as I said yesterday , we ’ re not dealing with reasonable people here .
No matter how generous the terms , there are too many terrorists mixed in with the Palestinians who will never agree to go along with any plan that leaves Israel in place as a sovereign nation .
Mahmoud Abbas delivered “ a thousand no ’ s ” and described the deal as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said “ a thousand no ’ s ” Tuesday to the Mideast peace plan announced by President Donald Trump , which strongly favors Israel .
“ After the nonsense that we heard today we say a thousand no ’ s to the Deal of The Century , ” Abbas said at a press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah , where the Western-backed Palestinian Authority is headquartered .
He said the Palestinians remain committed to ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a state with its capital in east Jerusalem .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan it wouldn ’ t have mattered anyway .
There are too many factions among the Palestinians and even the ones who might be interested in a lasting peace have no control over the rest of them .
This has been the problem all along , really .
You can ’ t negotiate with “ the government of Palestine ” because there is no actual government and there is no Palestine , at least if you ’ re using the definition of a single people represented by a single governmental entity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to insist that his people were committed to establishing a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem .
Um… that ’ s exactly what Israel just offered you .
But the Palestinian counteroffer was completely ridiculous .
Abbas is once again touting the same line used by many of the most radical Palestinian elements .
They want the entire West Bank , plus full control of the portions of East Jerusalem lost during the 1967 war .
In other words , they want the pre-1967 borders reestablished .
And that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the terrorist attacks that would obviously continue regardless of any signed agreement .
We should offer full props to Netanyahu and his team for being willing to put so much on the table in an effort to cut a deal .
But , yet again , they have no honest broker on the other side to make a deal with .
This entire effort seems to have been doomed from the start .

Pretty much as predicted yesterday, the Palestinians have started weighing in on the Trump administration’s proposed Middle East peace deal and it sounds like a non-starter for them. On the plus side, Israel has officially accepted the plan, but that’s not going to mean very much in the long run if they don’t have a viable partner on the other side willing to work with them.
Israeli leaders have agreed to a framework for a Palestinian state that would see the new country more than double in size with its capital located in Eastern Jerusalem, according to information provided by the White House. The Trump administration unveiled on Tuesday its long-anticipated plan to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The plan, which White House officials say has already been agreed to by Israel, would see the Jewish state freezing for four years all construction in contested territories that could be used to form a new Palestinian state.
As more details rolled out, the plan really does appear far more generous on the part of Israel than I’d expected. A four year freeze on all construction projects in contested areas and more than doubling the land currently considered as Palestinian territory should have been enough to tempt any reasonable person.
But as I said yesterday, we’re not dealing with reasonable people here. No matter how generous the terms, there are too many terrorists mixed in with the Palestinians who will never agree to go along with any plan that leaves Israel in place as a sovereign nation. Mahmoud Abbas delivered “a thousand no’s” and described the deal as “nonsense.”
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said “a thousand no’s” Tuesday to the Mideast peace plan announced by President Donald Trump, which strongly favors Israel. “After the nonsense that we heard today we say a thousand no’s to the Deal of The Century,” Abbas said at a press conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where the Western-backed Palestinian Authority is headquartered. He said the Palestinians remain committed to ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
Even if Abbas had expressed some support for the plan it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. There are too many factions among the Palestinians and even the ones who might be interested in a lasting peace have no control over the rest of them. This has been the problem all along, really. You can’t negotiate with “the government of Palestine” because there is no actual government and there is no Palestine, at least if you’re using the definition of a single people represented by a single governmental entity.
The irony here is that Abbas went on to insist that his people were committed to establishing a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem. Um… that’s exactly what Israel just offered you. But the Palestinian counteroffer was completely ridiculous. Abbas is once again touting the same line used by many of the most radical Palestinian elements.
They want the entire West Bank, plus full control of the portions of East Jerusalem lost during the 1967 war. In other words, they want the pre-1967 borders reestablished. And that would leave Israel virtually unable to defend itself from the terrorist attacks that would obviously continue regardless of any signed agreement.
We should offer full props to Netanyahu and his team for being willing to put so much on the table in an effort to cut a deal. But, yet again, they have no honest broker on the other side to make a deal with. This entire effort seems to have been doomed from the start.


hotair--2020-01-29--Right on time: RNC drops new campaign ad off CNN elitist faceplant

What took them so long ?
I kid , I kid… Practically everyone who watched this jaw-dropping CNN segment from Saturday night ridiculing Donald Trump supporters knew it would get made into an ad .
The RNC just needed enough time to string together a few more contributions from leading Democrats to make it into a compelling theme .
Behold the new GOP ad , “ They Think You ’ re a Joke.
” Fact check : Devastatingly true .
RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel has already rolled it out as a fundraiser , the Daily Wire reported last night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times ’ Wajahat Ali and winless carnival barker and scam PAC artist Rick Wilson let everyday Americans know what the establishment thinks about them : President Trump ’ s supporters are just a bunch of illiterate idiots deserving of the elites ’ smug derision , ” RNC Spokesman Steve Guest told The Daily Wire in a statement .
“ In a matter of seconds , CNN summed up the elite left ’ s disdain for half of America.
” Guest added , “ Reminder for voters : As Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders campaign across the South for your vote , Lemon , Ali , and Wilson just summarized what these candidates really think of you as they shake your hand and pose for selfies.
” In an email to voters , RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said that she was “ absolutely disgusted ” by the segment , which was viewed well over ten million times on Twitter in under 24 hours .
“ The other night on CNN , Don Lemon and his liberal friends laid their cards on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of everyday Americans who support President Trump , ” McDaniel said in the fundraising email .
“ These radical hacks painted conservative voters as illiterate hillbillies on national television because they DESPISE President Trump and they DESPISE you.
” The inclusion of Hillary Clinton ’ s “ basket of deplorables ” was a no-brainer , but the RNC did a good job of finding more recent examples from this year ’ s field , too .
Both Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden call Trump supporters racists , while on the competing progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re idiots .
The RNC isn ’ t exaggerating this point ; if anything they might be understating it .
Get ready for more iterations on this theme , because these claims will only get more and more prevalent as we get closer to November .
The Democratic convention in July will likely have their video editors busy for weeks cutting new versions of this ad .
By that time , the fact that both Democrats and the media haven ’ t learned that calling people idiots and racists isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough about the true issues of mental capacity in this market .

What took them so long? I kid, I kid… Practically everyone who watched this jaw-dropping CNN segment from Saturday night ridiculing Donald Trump supporters knew it would get made into an ad. The RNC just needed enough time to string together a few more contributions from leading Democrats to make it into a compelling theme.
Behold the new GOP ad, “They Think You’re a Joke.” Fact check: Devastatingly true.
RNC chair Ronna Romney McDaniel has already rolled it out as a fundraiser, the Daily Wire reported last night:
“CNN anchor Don Lemon, The New York Times’ Wajahat Ali and winless carnival barker and scam PAC artist Rick Wilson let everyday Americans know what the establishment thinks about them: President Trump’s supporters are just a bunch of illiterate idiots deserving of the elites’ smug derision,” RNC Spokesman Steve Guest told The Daily Wire in a statement. “In a matter of seconds, CNN summed up the elite left’s disdain for half of America.” Guest added, “Reminder for voters: As Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders campaign across the South for your vote, Lemon, Ali, and Wilson just summarized what these candidates really think of you as they shake your hand and pose for selfies.” In an email to voters, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said that she was “absolutely disgusted” by the segment, which was viewed well over ten million times on Twitter in under 24 hours. “The other night on CNN, Don Lemon and his liberal friends laid their cards on the table and made it obvious what ELITES think of everyday Americans who support President Trump,” McDaniel said in the fundraising email. “These radical hacks painted conservative voters as illiterate hillbillies on national television because they DESPISE President Trump and they DESPISE you.”
The inclusion of Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” was a no-brainer, but the RNC did a good job of finding more recent examples from this year’s field, too. Both Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden call Trump supporters racists, while on the competing progressive network, Chris Matthews also suggests they’re idiots. The RNC isn’t exaggerating this point; if anything they might be understating it.
Get ready for more iterations on this theme, because these claims will only get more and more prevalent as we get closer to November. The Democratic convention in July will likely have their video editors busy for weeks cutting new versions of this ad. By that time, the fact that both Democrats and the media haven’t learned that calling people idiots and racists isn’t an effective selling point will be revealing enough about the true issues of mental capacity in this market.