hotair--2020-01-14--ABC News's chief political analyst: If Bernie's not a sexist, why does he keep trying to deny women

ABC News's chief political analyst: If Bernie's not a sexist, why does he keep trying to deny women the Democratic nomination?

Via Andrew Stiles , a tantalizing taste of how stupid things could get tonight on social media if Bernie and Elizabeth Warren end up throwing down over sexism at the Democratic debate .
Well , probably not this stupid .
Matthew Dowd ’ s hot takes about women politicians run hot even by the standards of Twitter .
As Stiles notes , Dowd ’ s logic leads us inescapably to the sad conclusion that Obama 2008 was one of the most sexist campaigns in American history .
Maybe O gets a pass because he ran against a woman only once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for chasing his ambition by daring to compete with a female for the same job .
But if he does it twice , then you can fault the s*** out of him .
This tweet , using the Netflix film “ Marriage Story ” to summarize the Bernie/Warren dispute , made me laugh : BuzzFeed is reporting this afternoon that Team Warren is backing away from this fight , with staffers nudging fans to de-escalate with Berniebros ahead of the debate .
Thus are our worst/most sexist suspicions confirmed : Women aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next morning , hours before Warren and Sanders were expected to address the conflict in Des Moines at Tuesday ’ s Democratic debate , the campaign official followed up to caution supporters against accusing Sanders of sexism , saying that the line of questioning would be “ really bad news for us.
” “ I would be careful with the ‘ sexism ’ angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually — that ’ s not what this is about and I think it ’ ll be really bad news for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ( i.e .
press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist ) , ” the staffer told the group .
“ Is that what this is about broadly ?
Absolutely .
But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist ( regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic ) .
” … At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning , the Warren staffer ’ s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders ’ s description than Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman can ’ t win/flagging that she ’ ll receive sexist attacks is something many , many people feel , ” the campaign official wrote .
The confounding thing about yesterday ’ s leak is that it was obviously orchestrated by Warren and her campaign but also obviously carried more potential downside than upside for her .
For the “ Bernie ’ s a sexist ” attack to work , progressive voters first need to be convinced that Sanders , a lifelong socialist , actually said it to her .
Then they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something more nefarious than “ Trump ’ s going to weaponize sexism , reducing a woman candidate ’ s chances of winning , ” an opinion which many of them no doubt find defensible .
And then they need to be convinced that Bernie ’ s sexist sin here justifies supporting Warren over him even though they might prefer him on balance on the issues .
All of that needs to happen to help her pick up votes .
Meanwhile , the only thing that needs to happen to cost her votes — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via Bernie fans boycotting the general if she ’ s the nominee — is progressives concluding that this was a dirty hit at the last minute borne of desperation as she ’ s declined in the polls .
She ’ d impugn a good man and hero to the cause for no grander reason than that he ’ s standing in her way .
That entire calculus was clear to her and her advisors , I ’ m sure , but they followed through on the leak anyway .
And now she either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the debate and compound the potential offense to Bernie voters or back way off and look cowardly to everyone .
It ’ s a strategic master stroke .

Via Andrew Stiles, a tantalizing taste of how stupid things could get tonight on social media if Bernie and Elizabeth Warren end up throwing down over sexism at the Democratic debate.
Well, probably not this stupid. Matthew Dowd’s hot takes about women politicians run hot even by the standards of Twitter.
As Stiles notes, Dowd’s logic leads us inescapably to the sad conclusion that Obama 2008 was one of the most sexist campaigns in American history.
You know one clear way to demonstrate that you believe a woman can and should be president? Don’t try to defeat a woman running for President. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) January 14, 2020
What I find fascinating is that he keeps trying to defeat women running for president. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) January 14, 2020
Maybe O gets a pass because he ran against a woman only once? Can’t fault a man for chasing his ambition by daring to compete with a female for the same job.
But if he does it twice, then you can fault the s*** out of him.
This tweet, using the Netflix film “Marriage Story” to summarize the Bernie/Warren dispute, made me laugh:
pic.twitter.com/K3s5KieJJX — Only men want to live on the moon 🌿 (@AliceFromQueens) January 14, 2020
BuzzFeed is reporting this afternoon that Team Warren is backing away from this fight, with staffers nudging fans to de-escalate with Berniebros ahead of the debate. Thus are our worst/most sexist suspicions confirmed: Women aren’t tough enough to be president.
The next morning, hours before Warren and Sanders were expected to address the conflict in Des Moines at Tuesday’s Democratic debate, the campaign official followed up to caution supporters against accusing Sanders of sexism, saying that the line of questioning would be “really bad news for us.” “I would be careful with the ‘sexism’ angle when it comes to the Bernie/Warren exchange individually — that’s not what this is about and I think it’ll be really bad news for us if that becomes what this is about (i.e. press asking her if she thinks Bernie is sexist),” the staffer told the group. “Is that what this is about broadly? Absolutely. But no one here is actually claiming Bernie himself is sexist (regardless of your own personal beliefs on that topic).”… At one point in a lengthy DM to the Twitter group on Tuesday morning, the Warren staffer’s description of the controversy hewed closer to Sanders’s description than Warren’s. “Claiming you’re worried a woman can’t win/flagging that she’ll receive sexist attacks is something many, many people feel,” the campaign official wrote.
The confounding thing about yesterday’s leak is that it was obviously orchestrated by Warren and her campaign but also obviously carried more potential downside than upside for her. For the “Bernie’s a sexist” attack to work, progressive voters first need to be convinced that Sanders, a lifelong socialist, actually said it to her. Then they need to be convinced that he meant something more nefarious than “Trump’s going to weaponize sexism, reducing a woman candidate’s chances of winning,” an opinion which many of them no doubt find defensible. And then they need to be convinced that Bernie’s sexist sin here justifies supporting Warren over him even though they might prefer him on balance on the issues. All of that needs to happen to help her pick up votes. Meanwhile, the only thing that needs to happen to cost her votes — either right now in the primary or via Bernie fans boycotting the general if she’s the nominee — is progressives concluding that this was a dirty hit at the last minute borne of desperation as she’s declined in the polls. She’d impugn a good man and hero to the cause for no grander reason than that he’s standing in her way.
That entire calculus was clear to her and her advisors, I’m sure, but they followed through on the leak anyway. And now she either has to double down on it at the debate and compound the potential offense to Bernie voters or back way off and look cowardly to everyone. It’s a strategic master stroke.
Here’s a timely ad from Team Bernie.


hotair--2020-01-14--DNC chair to Booker: We set a "frankly low bar" to promote diversity, you know

There might be an answer to Cory Booker ’ s complaints about a lack of diversity on tonight ’ s debate stage , but this ain ’ t it , chief .
Earlier today , the erstwhile Democratic presidential contender told CBS This Morning in a debate preview that he remains “ very concerned ” about the monochromatic line-up for tonight ’ s debate .
Not even Andrew Yang will make an appearance among the six candidates who qualified under the DNC ’ s rules .
“ We have got to find a way as a party , as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urged , “ to understand that we are a diverse nation.
” While he complimented his fellow Democrats in the race , he said he is “ very concerned ” about the lack of diversity in the remaining candidates .
There are now 12 people running for the Democratic nomination for president , and the smallest field yet of Democratic presidential candidates will take the stage in Des Moines Tuesday night in a critical debate before the Iowa caucuses .
All six candidates who will be in the debate — Former Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar , former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire executive Tom Steyer — are white .
“ I still remember the reaction when Kamala Harris dropped off the stage , amongst black women in my life .
It was almost like , ‘ Wait a minute , here ’ s a woman that won in California twice , who has been extraordinary , and she couldn ’ t even get to Iowa .
How could we have a situation that is creating that kind of dynamic ? '
” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a way as a party , as a nation , both parties , to understand that we are a diverse nation.
” This complaint is nothing new from Booker , who warned at the time he first struggled to qualify with the DNC ’ s slowly increasing thresholds that the party was sacrificing diversity for efficiency .
These complaints started by implication in September , but after Harris ’ by-then-expected departure in December , he began explicitly ringing the bell on “ diversity.
” Now that he ’ s had to drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s got even more reason to complain — and having one more billionaire on stage than a person of color tonight certainly doesn ’ t help matters in a party obsessed with identity politics .
It ’ s even four men versus only two women , for that matter .
Anticipating this , DNC chair Tom Perez made an appearance on CNN ’ s New Day earlier this morning to defend his organization ’ s debate thresholds .
John Berman pressed Perez to explain “ what ’ s wrong with this picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party bent over backwards to ensure diversity , saying that they set a “ frankly low bar ” to ensure it : But in an interview with CNN ’ s John Berman on “ New Day , ” Perez said the party can not change its rules to ensure minority candidates don ’ t drop out before the nominating process begins , a day after one of the field ’ s most prominent black candidates suspended his campaign after not qualifying for the debate .
“ We ’ ve set a really remarkably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaigns … and I ’ m proud of that , ” Perez said .
“ And as a result of that , we did have the most diverse field in American history .
And what we ’ ve said every month was that the closer we got to Iowa we would do what we ’ ve always done , which is raise the bar.
” He continued : “ But we made the rules , they were very transparent , they ’ re very inclusive , and we can ’ t change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a candidate that I wish were on but didn ’ t make the debate stage.
” Oof .
Perez is kinda-sorta on the right track here , at least in defending the way the rules were structured , but claiming to have set “ a frankly low bar ” in defense of one ’ s efforts on diversity is not going to go over well .
He ’ s correct in that these aren ’ t particularly strenuous tests , especially at this stage of the primaries , and cites candidates in previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But by implication , Perez is arguing that a low bar is necessary for diversity , at least in this cycle .
Expect this to be yet another reason why Perez is heading for the dustbin of DNC chairs sooner rather than later .
Another reason still is that Perez misses the point on the debates .
The reason why the DNC uses these metrics is to try reducing fringe candidates so that voters can hear more from those who are rationally still potential winners .
They wouldn ’ t need to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rational debate system , or at least the need would be lessened .
Putting even six people on stage for two hours with three or four moderators and commercial breaks means splitting time down to an average of about ten minutes , broken up by questions , responses , audience reactions , etc .
It would be far more effective to pair up two candidates for twenty minutes and one moderator posing the same issue arenas to each pairing , and would give candidates more room to be themselves rather than game-show contestants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate gets the same amount of time , and then the polling and donor metrics might have a more rational connection to performance .
Make no mistake about it , though — Democrats will have a tough time explaining the blinding paleness of tonight ’ s debate to a party which they themselves have defined by identity politics .
Discussion of “ low bars ” won ’ t help , either .

There might be an answer to Cory Booker’s complaints about a lack of diversity on tonight’s debate stage, but this ain’t it, chief. Earlier today, the erstwhile Democratic presidential contender told CBS This Morning in a debate preview that he remains “very concerned” about the monochromatic line-up for tonight’s debate. Not even Andrew Yang will make an appearance among the six candidates who qualified under the DNC’s rules. “We have got to find a way as a party, as a nation, both parties,” Booker urged, “to understand that we are a diverse nation.”
Sen. @CoryBooker discusses the lack of diversity in the current Democratic field of presidential candidates: “We are a better nation when we bring hidden figures together” https://t.co/DNRPWa8RS2 pic.twitter.com/knpQW24YL8 — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 14, 2020
While he complimented his fellow Democrats in the race, he said he is “very concerned” about the lack of diversity in the remaining candidates. There are now 12 people running for the Democratic nomination for president, and the smallest field yet of Democratic presidential candidates will take the stage in Des Moines Tuesday night in a critical debate before the Iowa caucuses. All six candidates who will be in the debate — Former Vice President Joe Biden, senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and billionaire executive Tom Steyer — are white. “I still remember the reaction when Kamala Harris dropped off the stage, amongst black women in my life. It was almost like, ‘Wait a minute, here’s a woman that won in California twice, who has been extraordinary, and she couldn’t even get to Iowa. How could we have a situation that is creating that kind of dynamic?'” he said. “We have got to find a way as a party, as a nation, both parties, to understand that we are a diverse nation.”
This complaint is nothing new from Booker, who warned at the time he first struggled to qualify with the DNC’s slowly increasing thresholds that the party was sacrificing diversity for efficiency. These complaints started by implication in September, but after Harris’ by-then-expected departure in December, he began explicitly ringing the bell on “diversity.” Now that he’s had to drop out after missing two debates, Booker’s got even more reason to complain — and having one more billionaire on stage than a person of color tonight certainly doesn’t help matters in a party obsessed with identity politics. It’s even four men versus only two women, for that matter.
Anticipating this, DNC chair Tom Perez made an appearance on CNN’s New Day earlier this morning to defend his organization’s debate thresholds. John Berman pressed Perez to explain “what’s wrong with this picture?” Perez claims that the Democratic Party bent over backwards to ensure diversity, saying that they set a “frankly low bar” to ensure it:
But in an interview with CNN’s John Berman on “New Day,” Perez said the party cannot change its rules to ensure minority candidates don’t drop out before the nominating process begins, a day after one of the field’s most prominent black candidates suspended his campaign after not qualifying for the debate. “We’ve set a really remarkably inclusive, and frankly low bar throughout the campaigns … and I’m proud of that,” Perez said. “And as a result of that, we did have the most diverse field in American history. And what we’ve said every month was that the closer we got to Iowa we would do what we’ve always done, which is raise the bar.”
He continued: “But we made the rules, they were very transparent, they’re very inclusive, and we can’t change the rules midstream because there’s a candidate that I wish were on but didn’t make the debate stage.”
Oof. Perez is kinda-sorta on the right track here, at least in defending the way the rules were structured, but claiming to have set “a frankly low bar” in defense of one’s efforts on diversity is not going to go over well. He’s correct in that these aren’t particularly strenuous tests, especially at this stage of the primaries, and cites candidates in previous cycles who did better than Booker. But by implication, Perez is arguing that a low bar is necessary for diversity, at least in this cycle. Expect this to be yet another reason why Perez is heading for the dustbin of DNC chairs sooner rather than later.
Another reason still is that Perez misses the point on the debates. The reason why the DNC uses these metrics is to try reducing fringe candidates so that voters can hear more from those who are rationally still potential winners. They wouldn’t need to use such metrics if they had a more rational debate system, or at least the need would be lessened. Putting even six people on stage for two hours with three or four moderators and commercial breaks means splitting time down to an average of about ten minutes, broken up by questions, responses, audience reactions, etc. It would be far more effective to pair up two candidates for twenty minutes and one moderator posing the same issue arenas to each pairing, and would give candidates more room to be themselves rather than game-show contestants. At least that way, each candidate gets the same amount of time, and then the polling and donor metrics might have a more rational connection to performance.
Make no mistake about it, though — Democrats will have a tough time explaining the blinding paleness of tonight’s debate to a party which they themselves have defined by identity politics. Discussion of “low bars” won’t help, either.


hotair--2020-01-14--Manchester police knew a ring of Pakistani men were abusing young girls and did nothing (Update)

In 2017 Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham commissioned a report on the police response to the abuse of young girls in the early 2000s .
Mayor Burnham was inspired by a BBC special called The Betrayed Girls ( see below ) which focused , in part , on the death of 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia .
Victoria had died of a drug overdose in 2003 after complaining that she was being abused and drugged by a group of Pakistani men .
The report , which was released today , found that Manchester police launched an investigation into the situation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 100 suspects but funding for the effort was pulled and almost no one involved was ever punished .
After Victoria ’ s death , [ Greater Manchester Police ] launched Operation Augusta , which subsequently identified at least 57 children “ as potential victims ” and up to 97 “ persons of interest ” involved in the crimes against them .
The report found the operation was ultimately “ prematurely closed down… before it could complete its work ” , a decision that was driven by a desire to “ remove the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a sound understanding that all lines of inquiry had been successfully completed or exhausted ” .
“ The authorities knew that many [ children ] were being subjected to the most profound abuse and exploitation but did not protect them from the perpetrators , ” it said .
The report ’ s authors , childcare expert Malcolm Newsam and former Det Supt Gary Ridgeway , considered a “ sample ” of cases from Operation Augusta and in each , found that they “ can not offer any assurance ” that alleged offences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or MCC ” .
They also found eight men identified in the investigation had gone on to commit serious sexual offences , including rapes of girls aged both under and over 16 , after the operation was ended and that one suspect vehicle uncovered in the initial investigation was linked to a GMP officer , who was later dismissed from the force .
So why didn ’ t the police and social workers do more to stop this ?
Because the crimes were considered racially sensitive .
Local Labour MP Ann Cryer did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mothers came to beg her help .
She went first to a local Pakistani community leader but her concerns were brushed off .
She then tried to bring attention to the story by going directly to the media .
Andrew Malcolm , a reporter for the London Times , saw the press release written by Cryer but ultimately decided not to write about the story because he didn ’ t want to provide fodder for the British National Party , which was gaining support at the time .
“ To my shame @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succor and credence to the British National Party to act as a break on actually doing my job , ” Malcolm told the BBC .
Cryer , the Labour MP , said that some members of her party offered support but others began whispering that perhaps she was a racist .
Here ’ s the BBC documentary which inspired the report .
This is about 90 minutes long but worth a look if you have time .
Update : Here ’ s a Channel 4 story from today about the Manchester report .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this you might recognize Cathy Newman as the host who did such a spectacularly bad job interviewing Jordan Peterson nearly two years ago .
She does a bit better here , though I think she lets Nazir Afsal wiggle out the question about whether or not political correctness played a role here .

In 2017 Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham commissioned a report on the police response to the abuse of young girls in the early 2000s. Mayor Burnham was inspired by a BBC special called The Betrayed Girls (see below) which focused, in part, on the death of 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia. Victoria had died of a drug overdose in 2003 after complaining that she was being abused and drugged by a group of Pakistani men. The report, which was released today, found that Manchester police launched an investigation into the situation. The investigation identified dozens of other victims and nearly 100 suspects but funding for the effort was pulled and almost no one involved was ever punished.
After Victoria’s death, [Greater Manchester Police] launched Operation Augusta, which subsequently identified at least 57 children “as potential victims” and up to 97 “persons of interest” involved in the crimes against them. The report found the operation was ultimately “prematurely closed down… before it could complete its work”, a decision that was driven by a desire to “remove the resources”, rather than by having “a sound understanding that all lines of inquiry had been successfully completed or exhausted”. “The authorities knew that many [children] were being subjected to the most profound abuse and exploitation but did not protect them from the perpetrators,” it said. The report’s authors, childcare expert Malcolm Newsam and former Det Supt Gary Ridgeway, considered a “sample” of cases from Operation Augusta and in each, found that they “cannot offer any assurance” that alleged offences were “appropriately addressed by either GMP or MCC”. They also found eight men identified in the investigation had gone on to commit serious sexual offences, including rapes of girls aged both under and over 16, after the operation was ended and that one suspect vehicle uncovered in the initial investigation was linked to a GMP officer, who was later dismissed from the force.
So why didn’t the police and social workers do more to stop this? Because the crimes were considered racially sensitive. Local Labour MP Ann Cryer did try to do something after a group of mothers came to beg her help. She went first to a local Pakistani community leader but her concerns were brushed off. She then tried to bring attention to the story by going directly to the media.
Andrew Malcolm, a reporter for the London Times, saw the press release written by Cryer but ultimately decided not to write about the story because he didn’t want to provide fodder for the British National Party, which was gaining support at the time. “To my shame I allowed my liberal fear about giving succor and credence to the British National Party to act as a break on actually doing my job,” Malcolm told the BBC.
Cryer, the Labour MP, said that some members of her party offered support but others began whispering that perhaps she was a racist.
Here’s the BBC documentary which inspired the report. This is about 90 minutes long but worth a look if you have time.
Update: Here’s a Channel 4 story from today about the Manchester report. If you stick around to the end of this you might recognize Cathy Newman as the host who did such a spectacularly bad job interviewing Jordan Peterson nearly two years ago. She does a bit better here, though I think she lets Nazir Afsal wiggle out the question about whether or not political correctness played a role here.


hotair--2020-01-14--McConnell: The trial will probably begin next Tuesday

McConnell: The trial will probably begin next Tuesday -- and, no, Mr. President, there'll be no motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment

Two days later , I ’ m still trying to figure out if this tweet was an empty pander to MAGA Nation or if Trump really meant it .
Because if he meant it , he and McConnell are waaay far apart on the optimal outcome from this trial .
If POTUS was serious about that then he ’ s viewing the trial as — what else ?
— an opportunity to own the libs .
He ’ ll accept owning them quickly , via a hasty motion to dismiss the articles , or owning them slowly , by calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma if the trial proceeds .
But one way or another , he gets his revenge starting next Tuesday .
McConnell couldn ’ t care less about Trump ’ s revenge or owning the libs .
His goal here is achingly simple : Do whatever needs to be done to maximize the chances of Republicans holding the Senate next November .
Literally every decision he makes will serve that end .
That means putting the electoral interests of Susan Collins , Cory Gardner , and Martha McSally , the three most endangered purple-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other considerations in plotting a way forward .
Would it serve the interests of Collins et al .
to pass a quickie motion to dismiss ?
Uh , no .
It would gift-wrap the Democrats ’ talking point that the trial was a sham and a cover-up because Republicans never really wanted to look at the evidence .
It ’ d be the absolute best-case scenario for Pelosi and Schumer since it would have achieved their lone remaining goal in this process , delegitimizing the Senate ’ s eventual “ not guilty ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a real trial , the more legitimate the verdict will appear to voters .
The more it looks perfunctory and partisan , the less so .
Collins and Gardner are straining to boost the legitimacy factor here knowing that they ’ re going to have to piss off some swing voters in the end by voting to acquit .
So here ’ s Trump encouraging them to … blow up the trial by passing an immediate motion to dismiss ?
What ?
Does he not care about protecting his Senate majority or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just tweet-farting idly to try to convince fans that he favors the idea of a nuclear strike on impeachment even though he really doesn ’ t ?
Eh .
Speaking of Democrats trying to delegitimize the verdict , they have a new complaint : They want to play video at the trial , as was done during Clinton ’ s impeachment 20 years ago , but they need a majority of the Senate to vote to approve that first .
My instinct when I first heard of that was that they were trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can claim that the process is a sham if McConnell doesn ’ t give them what they want .
There were no moments of high drama during Schiff ’ s hearings that can ’ t be captured well enough with a transcript , after all .
But there actually are a few clips out there that didn ’ t come from the impeachment process that might be helpful to them in winning the PR fight if they ’ re played at the trial in front of 40 million people or whatever .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ clip of Trump on the White House lawn urging Ukraine and China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden , as well as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney ’ s combative press conference in which he said Trump withheld military aid to bend Ukraine to his will , before later walking it back .
“ It ’ s certainly better for the Senate jurors and the American people to hear the president directly soliciting foreign interference in an election and Mick Mulvaney saying , ‘ that ’ s just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the House recounting it , ” said Rep. Ted Deutch ( D-Fla. ) , a member of the House Judiciary Committee .
Yeah , that Trump clip is not great .
I ’ m curious to see what Collins and Gardner have to say about video evidence , given that letting that clip be played will make their acquittal vote look worse instead of better .
Maybe they ’ ll allow video from the House proceedings to be admitted but not anything else .
That seems like a fine “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of ” compromise .
Here ’ s McConnell dismissing the idea of a dismissal and offering next Tuesday , January 21 , as the tentative date for the trial to begin .
Remember that the State of the Union will be held on February 4 .
Senate Republicans will have just 13 business days to finish if they want Trump to walk into the House chamber that night as a newly acquitted man .
Otherwise he ’ s going to have to deliver the speech while still under suspicion .
Which could @ @ @ @ @ @

Two days later, I’m still trying to figure out if this tweet was an empty pander to MAGA Nation or if Trump really meant it. Because if he meant it, he and McConnell are waaay far apart on the optimal outcome from this trial.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216448547777908737
If POTUS was serious about that then he’s viewing the trial as — what else? — an opportunity to own the libs. He’ll accept owning them quickly, via a hasty motion to dismiss the articles, or owning them slowly, by calling witnesses like Hunter Biden and digging into Burisma if the trial proceeds. But one way or another, he gets his revenge starting next Tuesday.
McConnell couldn’t care less about Trump’s revenge or owning the libs. His goal here is achingly simple: Do whatever needs to be done to maximize the chances of Republicans holding the Senate next November. Literally every decision he makes will serve that end. That means putting the electoral interests of Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, and Martha McSally, the three most endangered purple-state members of the caucus, above all other considerations in plotting a way forward.
Would it serve the interests of Collins et al. to pass a quickie motion to dismiss? Uh, no. It would gift-wrap the Democrats’ talking point that the trial was a sham and a cover-up because Republicans never really wanted to look at the evidence. It’d be the absolute best-case scenario for Pelosi and Schumer since it would have achieved their lone remaining goal in this process, delegitimizing the Senate’s eventual “not guilty” verdict. The more the trial looks like a real trial, the more legitimate the verdict will appear to voters. The more it looks perfunctory and partisan, the less so. Collins and Gardner are straining to boost the legitimacy factor here knowing that they’re going to have to piss off some swing voters in the end by voting to acquit.
So here’s Trump encouraging them to … blow up the trial by passing an immediate motion to dismiss? What?
Does he not care about protecting his Senate majority or, as I say, is he just tweet-farting idly to try to convince fans that he favors the idea of a nuclear strike on impeachment even though he really doesn’t?
Eh. Speaking of Democrats trying to delegitimize the verdict, they have a new complaint: They want to play video at the trial, as was done during Clinton’s impeachment 20 years ago, but they need a majority of the Senate to vote to approve that first. My instinct when I first heard of that was that they were trying to manufacture some new grievance so that they can claim that the process is a sham if McConnell doesn’t give them what they want. There were no moments of high drama during Schiff’s hearings that can’t be captured well enough with a transcript, after all. But there actually are a few clips out there that didn’t come from the impeachment process that might be helpful to them in winning the PR fight if they’re played at the trial in front of 40 million people or whatever.
Democrats are particularly interested in playing the clip of Trump on the White House lawn urging Ukraine and China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s combative press conference in which he said Trump withheld military aid to bend Ukraine to his will, before later walking it back. “It’s certainly better for the Senate jurors and the American people to hear the president directly soliciting foreign interference in an election and Mick Mulvaney saying, ‘that’s just the way things work’ than to hear members of the House recounting it,” said Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Yeah, that Trump clip is not great. I’m curious to see what Collins and Gardner have to say about video evidence, given that letting that clip be played will make their acquittal vote look worse instead of better. Maybe they’ll allow video from the House proceedings to be admitted but not anything else. That seems like a fine “I’m taking this trial seriously, kind of” compromise.
Here’s McConnell dismissing the idea of a dismissal and offering next Tuesday, January 21, as the tentative date for the trial to begin. Remember that the State of the Union will be held on February 4. Senate Republicans will have just 13 business days to finish if they want Trump to walk into the House chamber that night as a newly acquitted man. Otherwise he’s going to have to deliver the speech while still under suspicion. Which could make for a wild speech.


hotair--2020-01-14--Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment heat, McConnell entreats, Iran's street, Warren retreats, a

Today's hot topics on #TEMS: Impeachment heat, McConnell entreats, Iran's street, Warren retreats, and more!

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show ( 4 pm ET ) , we have another great lineup for the news @ @ @ @ @ show will be streamed on Hot Air ’ s Facebook page and embedded here and @ @ @ @ @ those who are not on Facebook .
Join us as we welcome : • Andrew @ @ @ @ @ with us today , as he is “ on assignment.
” Instead , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ Chat and talk about today ’ s hottest topics with Facebook and chat-room viewers .
@ @ @ @ @ whatever ’ s on your mind , so be sure to join us !
The @ @ @ @ @ dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page .
Be sure to join @ @ @ @ @ t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page , too !
@ @ @ @ @ keep the momentum going ?
Find out in GOING RED , published in April from @ @ @

Today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), we have another great lineup for the news of the day! The show will be streamed on Hot Air’s Facebook page and embedded here and on the show page for those who are not on Facebook.
Join us as we welcome:
Andrew Malcolm can’t be with us today, as he is “on assignment.” Instead, we’ll do a Face the Chat and talk about today’s hottest topics with Facebook and chat-room viewers. We’ll talk about whatever’s on your mind, so be sure to join us!
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page. Be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
How can Republicans and conservatives keep the momentum going? Find out in GOING RED, published in April from Crown Forum!


hotair--2020-01-14--Pelosi prepares to send articles of impeachment to Senate, speculates about Mitch McConnell's Russia

Pelosi prepares to send articles of impeachment to Senate, speculates about Mitch McConnell's Russia connections

After weeks of delay , Nancy Pelosi is planning to finally send the articles of impeachment to the Senate tomorrow .
Pelosi ’ s strategy on withholding the articles from the Senate was to force McConnell to negotiate but McConnell didn ’ t have to negotiate and eventually even Senate Democrats began saying this was a losing strategy .
As you can see in statement above , Pelosi is calling the decision to dismiss the charges “ a pure political cover-up.
” But in a private meeting with Democrats she went beyond this , suggesting that the Senate Majority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foreign power : Pelosi raised concerns to her caucus at the closed-door meeting about the Russian hack into Burisma , the Ukrainian energy company that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate over the hiring of Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son Hunter .
Pelosi said the Gang of Eight was not briefed on the matter and that she learned about it through news reports , according to multiple sources .
The sources also said Pelosi laid into McConnell , saying , as she ’ s said before , that he is acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections , the sources said .
Mollie Hemingway referred to this as “ worrisome behavior.
” This does seem pretty out of touch with reality .
It ’ s almost as if Pelosi didn ’ t get the message from the Mueller report and now she ’ s ready to spread the collusion smear to new partisan targets .
Perhaps she could get the FISA Court to approve some surveillance of McConnell ’ s associates ?
All she needs is some salacious rumors from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably push it through three or four times .
It ’ s not like the FISA Court was serious about reforming the process .
I realize Russia , Russia , Russia was good for ratings at CNN and MSNBC and for Democrats who made a cottage industry out of media appearances , but it ’ s time to move on .
Yes , Russia is still our adversary and Putin is still up to no good and yes they would like to sow more chaos in the coming election but the Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCarthyism from Democrats is doing more damage than any Russian Facebook posts ever could .
It ’ s long past time to knock it off .

After weeks of delay, Nancy Pelosi is planning to finally send the articles of impeachment to the Senate tomorrow.
The House upheld its duty to #DefendOurDemocracy by passing two articles of impeachment against the President. Tomorrow, we will transmit those articles & name impeachment managers. The Senate must choose between the Constitution & a cover-up. https://t.co/tcPdHeMUGp pic.twitter.com/ebqA3Z1oBi — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 14, 2020
Pelosi’s strategy on withholding the articles from the Senate was to force McConnell to negotiate but McConnell didn’t have to negotiate and eventually even Senate Democrats began saying this was a losing strategy.
As you can see in statement above, Pelosi is calling the decision to dismiss the charges “a pure political cover-up.” But in a private meeting with Democrats she went beyond this, suggesting that the Senate Majority Leader might be secretly working on behalf of a foreign power:
Pelosi raised concerns to her caucus at the closed-door meeting about the Russian hack into Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate over the hiring of Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Pelosi said the Gang of Eight was not briefed on the matter and that she learned about it through news reports, according to multiple sources. The sources also said Pelosi laid into McConnell, saying, as she’s said before, that he is acting like a rogue Senate leader. She mused that sometimes she wonders whether McConnell has Russian connections, the sources said.
Mollie Hemingway referred to this as “worrisome behavior.”
Seriously — is she OK? This is worrisome behavior. And unfortunately, too much of our media enable and contribute to this type of spiraling and delusional thinking. https://t.co/9tWzevAxWq — Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 14, 2020
This does seem pretty out of touch with reality. It’s almost as if Pelosi didn’t get the message from the Mueller report and now she’s ready to spread the collusion smear to new partisan targets. Perhaps she could get the FISA Court to approve some surveillance of McConnell’s associates? All she needs is some salacious rumors from a partisan source and the FBI will probably push it through three or four times. It’s not like the FISA Court was serious about reforming the process.
I realize Russia, Russia, Russia was good for ratings at CNN and MSNBC and for Democrats who made a cottage industry out of media appearances, but it’s time to move on. Yes, Russia is still our adversary and Putin is still up to no good and yes they would like to sow more chaos in the coming election but the Senate Majority Leader is not involved. This casual McCarthyism from Democrats is doing more damage than any Russian Facebook posts ever could. It’s long past time to knock it off.


hotair--2020-01-14--First "red flag" gun confiscation request denied in Colorado

On January 1st , Colorado ’ s new “ red flag ” gun confiscation law went into effect .
This hasn ’ t resulted in the immediate stampede of requests that some gun owners feared , but there have been a handful of them processed already .
Three such requests , including two in Denver , were approved .
A fourth request coming from the town of Limon in Lincoln County , however , was denied by the judge hearing the petition .
This represents the first such denial of a red flag complaint against a gun owner in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judge denied a woman ’ s request to take away a man ’ s guns under Colorado ’ s new “ Red Flag ” law .
The Limon woman claimed the man , who she had a relationship with , had threatened her with a gun .
Since the law took effect , the Red Flag law has had many gun owners seeing red .
At least four requests have been filed since the first of the year ; two in Denver , one in Larimer and one in Lincoln County .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despise it .
“ Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners , ” he said .
Colorado ’ s new law faced a lot of opposition compared to some other states where such laws have been enacted .
It ’ s not as broad in scope as the ones in New York and the District of Columbia , for example .
Requests for gun confiscations can only come from law enforcement , family members of the gun owner or people “ in a relationship ” with them .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case .
Due to privacy concerns , the names of both the gun owner and the woman bringing the complaint have not been released .
But she ’ s identified as someone who either is or was in “ a relationship ” with the man .
She claims that they had been in arguments where she was receiving “ verbal and physical threats ” with a handgun .
Further , she claimed that the man had issues with both alcohol and marijuana .
There is no mention of any previous law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the couple .
That ’ s where we run into trouble with these cases .
Perhaps the woman is telling the truth and has a credible fear of violence .
But at the same time , we ’ ve long known that couples or spouses in tumultuous relationships or in the process of divorcing or breaking up sometimes exaggerate things or make them up entirely out of whole cloth to cause trouble for the other person .
This is particularly true when children are involved and custody issues arise .
How are we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valid claim ?
How is the judge supposed to know ?
If there was some previous record of violence in the home and law enforcement intervention it should have been an easy call to make .
But if this accusation just surfaced out of the blue , it ’ s a he-says , she-says dilemma .
The way the Colorado law works isn ’ t entirely clear either .
Once a complaint is made , if a judge approves the confiscation , the owner is ordered to surrender their firearms .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can attempt to disprove the claims , after which the judge must decide to either return their property or extend the order for another year .
One unresolved issue is the fact that law enforcement was given no guidelines as to how they should handle a person receiving such an order who refuses to surrender their weapons .
That ’ s apparently been left up to each law enforcement department to decide on their own .
For the record , Lincoln County is one of the areas where the Sheriff had indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new red flag law .
It ’ s further unclear where this particular judge stood on the matter , but hopefully , each case is being handled in a fair and candid fashion for both of the parties involved .

On January 1st, Colorado’s new “red flag” gun confiscation law went into effect. This hasn’t resulted in the immediate stampede of requests that some gun owners feared, but there have been a handful of them processed already. Three such requests, including two in Denver, were approved. A fourth request coming from the town of Limon in Lincoln County, however, was denied by the judge hearing the petition. This represents the first such denial of a red flag complaint against a gun owner in the state. (CBS Denver)
A judge denied a woman’s request to take away a man’s guns under Colorado’s new “Red Flag” law. The Limon woman claimed the man, who she had a relationship with, had threatened her with a gun. Since the law took effect, the Red Flag law has had many gun owners seeing red. At least four requests have been filed since the first of the year; two in Denver, one in Larimer and one in Lincoln County. Many gun owners, like Jak Gruenberg, despise it. “Red flag laws just allow for harassment of legal gun owners,” he said.
Colorado’s new law faced a lot of opposition compared to some other states where such laws have been enacted. It’s not as broad in scope as the ones in New York and the District of Columbia, for example. Requests for gun confiscations can only come from law enforcement, family members of the gun owner or people “in a relationship” with them. That last category brought up the original issue in this case.
Due to privacy concerns, the names of both the gun owner and the woman bringing the complaint have not been released. But she’s identified as someone who either is or was in “a relationship” with the man. She claims that they had been in arguments where she was receiving “verbal and physical threats” with a handgun. Further, she claimed that the man had issues with both alcohol and marijuana. There is no mention of any previous law enforcement activity at the home or involving the couple.
That’s where we run into trouble with these cases. Perhaps the woman is telling the truth and has a credible fear of violence. But at the same time, we’ve long known that couples or spouses in tumultuous relationships or in the process of divorcing or breaking up sometimes exaggerate things or make them up entirely out of whole cloth to cause trouble for the other person. This is particularly true when children are involved and custody issues arise.
How are we supposed to know whether this was a valid claim? How is the judge supposed to know? If there was some previous record of violence in the home and law enforcement intervention it should have been an easy call to make. But if this accusation just surfaced out of the blue, it’s a he-says, she-says dilemma.
The way the Colorado law works isn’t entirely clear either. Once a complaint is made, if a judge approves the confiscation, the owner is ordered to surrender their firearms. There is then a fourteen-day period where the owner can attempt to disprove the claims, after which the judge must decide to either return their property or extend the order for another year. One unresolved issue is the fact that law enforcement was given no guidelines as to how they should handle a person receiving such an order who refuses to surrender their weapons. That’s apparently been left up to each law enforcement department to decide on their own.
For the record, Lincoln County is one of the areas where the Sheriff had indicated that they didn’t plan on enforcing the new red flag law. It’s further unclear where this particular judge stood on the matter, but hopefully, each case is being handled in a fair and candid fashion for both of the parties involved.


hotair--2020-01-14--Hmmm: Russian hackers breach Burisma for some reason ... maybe

Gee , whatever might have interested the Russians in Burisma ?
In all likelihood several reasons , but not the least of which is the link it has to American politics at the moment and the grand opportunity to play the Merry Prankster role once again .
A security firm that works with the Ukrainian energy company , on whose board Hunter Biden once sat , got successfully penetrated by the GRU : Russian military spies have hacked a Ukrainian gas company that is at the heart of an impeachment trial of President Trump , who sought last year to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its links to Joe Biden ’ s son , according to a cybersecurity firm .
Beginning in early November , the Russian spy agency known as the GRU launched a cyber “ phishing ” campaign against Burisma Holdings to trick unsuspecting employees into giving up their email credentials so the hackers could gain access to their email accounts — once again entangling Moscow in domestic U.S. politics , according to Area 1 Security , a Redwood City , Calif. , company .
The operation ’ s launch coincided with a congressional impeachment inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office by seeking to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing a probe of Burisma and Hunter Biden — an action that conceivably would aid Trump ’ s reelection bid .
That ’ s certainly one possibility , and one which can ’ t be discounted .
Another is that the penetration itself might have been intended to intensify calls for Trump ’ s impeachment .
The timing of the attack might lend itself to that interpretation too , as congressional hearings into Ukraine-Gate and Burisma were underway at the time .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destabilize the American political system than to goose impeachment even more ?
Democrats are already calling this a “ deeply disturbing ” development , especially because the intel communities didn ’ t give them a heads-up on it before the Washington Post and New York Times reported it .
Adam Schiff already went on television to at least imply that it ’ s part of a Trump-approved effort by Russia to get him re-elected : SCHIFF : And I think the other thing that ’ s apparent from this , if this reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin has gotten is not to stay out of American elections , but “ you ’ re welcome to get involved in American elections as long as it helps Donald Trump.
” That seems to be the message that President Trump has conveyed , and at least the message that Vladimir Putin has received .
So we ’ re going to start by finding out what our intel agencies know about this .
I have to say , Rachel , I ’ m a bit distressed to see this for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intel community is aware of this , that should have been brought to our attention by now .
But I don ’ t find it surprising , I do find it deeply disturbing , and I would hope that maybe both parties can get out ahead of this , even if the president won ’ t , and condemn any Russian effort to influence the next election .
Er … did our intel agencies know about this ?
It ’ s not exactly clear why they would .
Burisma isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re already penetrating Burisma for our own purposes , why would we know about it ?
The Russians are at war with Ukraine on at least a low-level basis , so targeting a critical part of their infrastructure isn ’ t necessarily even related to the US or the election .
It ’ s fascinating , however , to watch the House Intel chair leap to several conclusions even before he asks to be briefed on the development .
It ’ s not just Schiff , either , as the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The attacks were successful , ” said Oren Falkowitz , a co-founder of Area 1 , who previously served at the National Security Agency .
Mr. Falkowitz ’ s firm maintains a network of sensors on web servers around the globe — many known to be used by state-sponsored hackers — which gives the firm a front-row seat to phishing attacks , and allows them to block attacks on their customers .
“ The timing of the Russian campaign mirrors the G.R.U .
hacks we saw in 2016 against the D.N.C .
and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chairman , Mr. Falkowitz said .
“ Once again , they are stealing email credentials , in what we can only assume is a repeat of Russian interference in the last election.
” The Justice Department indicted seven officers from the same military intelligence unit in 2018 .
The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens , according to an American security official , who spoke on the condition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spies , the official said , are trying to penetrate Burisma and working sources in the Ukrainian government in search of emails , financial records and legal documents .
Worth noting , in the political-connections sense : Area 1 and Falkowitz work with Democrats already .
And so far , Falkowitz isn ’ t answering too many questions , Eddie Scarry notes : Before we break out the rocket launchers in response to reports that Russian hackers have targeted the Ukrainian gas company Burisma , let ’ s consider the source of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose founder is a Democrat and who won ’ t say anything about how he knows that the hacking actually happened .
… Nowhere in the New York Times story nor the Washington Post ’ s is it mentioned that Falkowitz is providing services to Democrats running for president at no charge .
He told me on the phone that Area 1 is charging any candidate $ 1,337 per year , but campaign donation records show that he donated that exact same amount to the presidential campaigns of Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy and Republicans Will Hurd and John Kasich , though both Kasich and Hurd have been Trump critics . )
Maybe Russians really have breached Burisma ’ s internal systems .
But I ’ m not going to take it as fact on the word of a single U.S.-based Democrat-run security firm which , for all we know , might have created this controversy as a publicity stunt .
Let ’ s say for the sake of argument that the GRU did penetrate Burisma .
Again , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US and the upcoming elections , but it would be nice to get some actual evidence of that first before setting our hair on fire all over again .
Russians have been hacking and interfering with our elections for decades now , but have rarely gotten as much mileage out of it as they did in 2016 with such a minimal investment in their strategy .
People lost their minds over a $ 25 million disinformation campaign on social media without ever asking whether it impacted any voting decisions at all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory ( several of them , in fact ) relating to the DNC hack that all but paralyzed Congress last year .
And none of them panned out , which is why Schiff had to shift his impeachment ambitions to Ukraine-Gate .
The fact that this purported hack plays right into that narrative seems like an awfully convenient coincidence , at the very least .
If the Russians want to undermine confidence in our elections , Schiff and his colleagues certainly have provided a playbook for it .
Hack into a politically connected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then let the Americans tear themselves to shreds over it , even if the hack itself produces nothing of ultimate value .
It ’ s practically a Twilight Zone episode of Cold War paranoia on a constant rerun cycle .

Gee, whatever might have interested the Russians in Burisma? In all likelihood several reasons, but not the least of which is the link it has to American politics at the moment and the grand opportunity to play the Merry Prankster role once again. A security firm that works with the Ukrainian energy company, on whose board Hunter Biden once sat, got successfully penetrated by the GRU:
Russian military spies have hacked a Ukrainian gas company that is at the heart of an impeachment trial of President Trump, who sought last year to pressure Ukraine to investigate the company and its links to Joe Biden’s son, according to a cybersecurity firm. Beginning in early November, the Russian spy agency known as the GRU launched a cyber “phishing” campaign against Burisma Holdings to trick unsuspecting employees into giving up their email credentials so the hackers could gain access to their email accounts — once again entangling Moscow in domestic U.S. politics, according to Area 1 Security, a Redwood City, Calif., company. The operation’s launch coincided with a congressional impeachment inquiry into Trump and whether he abused his office by seeking to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing a probe of Burisma and Hunter Biden — an action that conceivably would aid Trump’s reelection bid.
That’s certainly one possibility, and one which can’t be discounted. Another is that the penetration itself might have been intended to intensify calls for Trump’s impeachment. The timing of the attack might lend itself to that interpretation too, as congressional hearings into Ukraine-Gate and Burisma were underway at the time. What better way to stoke more paranoia and destabilize the American political system than to goose impeachment even more?
Democrats are already calling this a “deeply disturbing” development, especially because the intel communities didn’t give them a heads-up on it before the Washington Post and New York Times reported it. Adam Schiff already went on television to at least imply that it’s part of a Trump-approved effort by Russia to get him re-elected:
"I have to say, Rachel, I'm a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report. If the intel community is aware of this, that should have been brought to our attention by now." -Rep. Adam Schiff on new NYT reporting on Russian hacking pic.twitter.com/mQ7p07fQBn — Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) January 14, 2020
SCHIFF: And I think the other thing that’s apparent from this, if this reporting is correct, is the message that Vladimir Putin has gotten is not to stay out of American elections, but “you’re welcome to get involved in American elections as long as it helps Donald Trump.” That seems to be the message that President Trump has conveyed, and at least the message that Vladimir Putin has received. So we’re going to start by finding out what our intel agencies know about this. I have to say, Rachel, I’m a bit distressed to see this for the first time in a newspaper report. If the intel community is aware of this, that should have been brought to our attention by now. But I don’t find it surprising, I do find it deeply disturbing, and I would hope that maybe both parties can get out ahead of this, even if the president won’t, and condemn any Russian effort to influence the next election.
Er … did our intel agencies know about this? It’s not exactly clear why they would. Burisma isn’t an American company, so unless we’re already penetrating Burisma for our own purposes, why would we know about it? The Russians are at war with Ukraine on at least a low-level basis, so targeting a critical part of their infrastructure isn’t necessarily even related to the US or the election. It’s fascinating, however, to watch the House Intel chair leap to several conclusions even before he asks to be briefed on the development.
It’s not just Schiff, either, as the New York Times notes in its report:
“The attacks were successful,” said Oren Falkowitz, a co-founder of Area 1, who previously served at the National Security Agency. Mr. Falkowitz’s firm maintains a network of sensors on web servers around the globe — many known to be used by state-sponsored hackers — which gives the firm a front-row seat to phishing attacks, and allows them to block attacks on their customers. “The timing of the Russian campaign mirrors the G.R.U. hacks we saw in 2016 against the D.N.C. and John Podesta,” the Clinton campaign chairman, Mr. Falkowitz said. “Once again, they are stealing email credentials, in what we can only assume is a repeat of Russian interference in the last election.” The Justice Department indicted seven officers from the same military intelligence unit in 2018. The Russian attacks on Burisma appear to be running parallel to an effort by Russian spies in Ukraine to dig up information in the analog world that could embarrass the Bidens, according to an American security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. The spies, the official said, are trying to penetrate Burisma and working sources in the Ukrainian government in search of emails, financial records and legal documents.
Worth noting, in the political-connections sense: Area 1 and Falkowitz work with Democrats already. And so far, Falkowitz isn’t answering too many questions, Eddie Scarry notes:
Before we break out the rocket launchers in response to reports that Russian hackers have targeted the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, let’s consider the source of that information: a single cybersecurity start-up, whose founder is a Democrat and who won’t say anything about how he knows that the hacking actually happened. … Nowhere in the New York Times story nor the Washington Post’s is it mentioned that Falkowitz is providing services to Democrats running for president at no charge. He told me on the phone that Area 1 is charging any candidate $1,337 per year, but campaign donation records show that he donated that exact same amount to the presidential campaigns of Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker. (Falkowitz also gave money to Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy and Republicans Will Hurd and John Kasich, though both Kasich and Hurd have been Trump critics.) Maybe Russians really have breached Burisma’s internal systems. But I’m not going to take it as fact on the word of a single U.S.-based Democrat-run security firm which, for all we know, might have created this controversy as a publicity stunt.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the GRU did penetrate Burisma. Again, it’s certainly possible that this could related to the US and the upcoming elections, but it would be nice to get some actual evidence of that first before setting our hair on fire all over again. Russians have been hacking and interfering with our elections for decades now, but have rarely gotten as much mileage out of it as they did in 2016 with such a minimal investment in their strategy. People lost their minds over a $25 million disinformation campaign on social media without ever asking whether it impacted any voting decisions at all, then came up with an unfounded conspiracy theory (several of them, in fact) relating to the DNC hack that all but paralyzed Congress last year. And none of them panned out, which is why Schiff had to shift his impeachment ambitions to Ukraine-Gate. The fact that this purported hack plays right into that narrative seems like an awfully convenient coincidence, at the very least.
If the Russians want to undermine confidence in our elections, Schiff and his colleagues certainly have provided a playbook for it. Hack into a politically connected org that has its shields down and then let the Americans tear themselves to shreds over it, even if the hack itself produces nothing of ultimate value. It’s practically a Twilight Zone episode of Cold War paranoia on a constant rerun cycle.


hotair--2020-01-14--Jessica Yaniv attacked reporter outside courthouse

Yesterday , Canadian transwoman Jessica Yaniv was in court on weapons charges stemming from a YouTube interview .
During the interview , Yaniv pulled out a taser and demonstrated that it worked .
Tasers are not legal for the public to own in Canada so Yaniv was arrested .
Waiting outside the courthouse yesterday were reporters for Rebel Media .
One of them went inside and asked if Yaniv would be pleading guilty .
Police approached the reporter and accused him of taking photos inside the courthouse ( which is not allowed in Canada ) .
While the reporter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slipped out of the courtroom .
The reporter got up and followed : When Yaniv made a second attempt to leave , the same reporter was waiting and asked the same question .
That ’ s when Yaniv got aggressive and threw punches , one of which allegedly connected with the reporter ’ s head .
Some very NSFW language in this clip : The last moments of this were captured from another angle : Yaniv tweeted this about the incident : I don ’ t claim to understand the law in Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is assault .
You don ’ t get to assault reporters in a public space even if you don ’ t like them or the questions they are asking .
Before the trouble with the law over the taser , Yaniv was best known for filing a series of charges with Canada ’ s human rights court over the refusal of multiple estheticians to provide a Brazillian wax of Yaniv ’ s male anatomy .
Last October , Yaniv lost that case .
The court found that Yaniv had filed the complaints in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money from the businesses in question : In 10 out of her 13 waxing complaints , Ms. Yaniv initially sought the same remedy : an apology and $ 3,000 in damages… Overall , Ms. Yaniv ’ s comments about settlement and her behaviour throughout the process supports that she targeted small businesses , manufactured the conditions for a human rights complaint , and then leveraged that complaint to pursue a financial settlement from parties who were unsophisticated and unlikely to mount a proper defence .
The court also concluded that Yaniv appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women who worked as beauticians .
Yaniv was ordered to pay $ 2,000 each to three different women targeted in the scheme .
But as Jazz pointed out last month , Yaniv seemed to have moved on to a new scheme , tweeting outrage that a gynecologist was refusing service to a transwoman with male anatomy .
Yaniv has since deleted the tweets but I wonder what a gynecologist was supposed to do in this situation ?

Yesterday, Canadian transwoman Jessica Yaniv was in court on weapons charges stemming from a YouTube interview. During the interview, Yaniv pulled out a taser and demonstrated that it worked. Tasers are not legal for the public to own in Canada so Yaniv was arrested.
Waiting outside the courthouse yesterday were reporters for Rebel Media. One of them went inside and asked if Yaniv would be pleading guilty. Police approached the reporter and accused him of taking photos inside the courthouse (which is not allowed in Canada). While the reporter was showing the police his phone, Yaniv slipped out of the courtroom. The reporter got up and followed:
BC Courthouse Sheriffs prioritize a predator's (J. Yaniv) ego over a reporter's right to be in – and report on – an open courtroom of international significance. Yaniv is currently seeking a publication ban, and the sheriffs are happy to assist with that, even in public places. pic.twitter.com/uP523kjO4n — Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 13, 2020
When Yaniv made a second attempt to leave, the same reporter was waiting and asked the same question. That’s when Yaniv got aggressive and threw punches, one of which allegedly connected with the reporter’s head. Some very NSFW language in this clip:
J. Yaniv just punched me in the back of the head. Just spoke to police. Luckily there are two security cameras directly overhead at the courthouse. I need an advil. pic.twitter.com/3hfm2CfYhq — Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) January 14, 2020
The last moments of this were captured from another angle:
Managed to catch this clip from the car of @TheRealKeean being charged at by Yaniv outside of the courtroom. Not very great quality. pic.twitter.com/kJnkLj4aEV — Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) January 14, 2020
Yaniv tweeted this about the incident:
https://twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1217095354023235584
I don’t claim to understand the law in Canada but in the US, punching someone is assault. You don’t get to assault reporters in a public space even if you don’t like them or the questions they are asking.
Before the trouble with the law over the taser, Yaniv was best known for filing a series of charges with Canada’s human rights court over the refusal of multiple estheticians to provide a Brazillian wax of Yaniv’s male anatomy. Last October, Yaniv lost that case. The court found that Yaniv had filed the complaints in bad faith as a way to extort money from the businesses in question:
In 10 out of her 13 waxing complaints, Ms. Yaniv initially sought the same remedy: an apology and $3,000 in damages… Overall, Ms. Yaniv’s comments about settlement and her behaviour throughout the process supports that she targeted small businesses, manufactured the conditions for a human rights complaint, and then leveraged that complaint to pursue a financial settlement from parties who were unsophisticated and unlikely to mount a proper defence.
The court also concluded that Yaniv appeared to have racial animus toward the mostly Asian women who worked as beauticians. Yaniv was ordered to pay $2,000 each to three different women targeted in the scheme.
But as Jazz pointed out last month, Yaniv seemed to have moved on to a new scheme, tweeting outrage that a gynecologist was refusing service to a transwoman with male anatomy. Yaniv has since deleted the tweets but I wonder what a gynecologist was supposed to do in this situation?


hotair--2020-01-14--California jumps on the "ban virginity testing" bandwagon

Back in December , we discussed a proposed bill in New York State that would ban the practice of what ’ s known as “ virginity testing ” by doctors .
This came up after liberal outrage followed a claim by rapper TI that he had the procedure done on his daughter on an annual basis .
That law still hasn ’ t come up for a vote ( though Governor Cuomo has said he would support it ) , but state legislators in California are already looking to follow suit .
( CBS Los Angeles ) Despite calls from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no federal or state law stopping it .
“ There is something very … um … 1890s and a little outdated about trying to check a woman ’ s chastity , ” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez .
To that end , Gonzalez wants a newly introduced bill to pave the way for the rest of the nation by putting a stop to virginity testing .
Rather than a criminal penalty , this bill would see doctors agreeing to do such tests facing professional sanctions and punishment by the state medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given for putting such a ban in place are all rather specious .
Assemblywoman Gonzalez is quoted as saying that “ if it was anybody but a doctor ( performing this procedure ) they ’ d go to jail.
” That ’ s certainly true for the most part , but doctors perform all sorts of procedures that nobody else is allowed to do .
If you took it upon yourself to try to remove someone ’ s tonsils to save them a trip to the hospital , I imagined you ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional standards for doctors precisely because they do things few other people are qualified to do for us .
Proponents of the ban are also citing the fact that both the United Nations and the World Health Organization have called for a global ban on the practice .
Of course , neither of those bodies are responsible for crafting United States law .
The real question here is whether or not this is something the government ( at any level ) should be getting involved in .
People are free to criticize parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like , and there are valid reasons for such criticism .
For one thing , girls regularly rupture their hymens through activities other than sex , including various athletic events .
Also , a small percentage of women are born without hymens , so the test isn ’ t particularly useful .
But the usefulness of the test isn ’ t the issue here .
The question is whether or not the test is dangerous or violates the rule of primum non nocere ( “ first do no harm ” ) in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re left with the question of what to do about patients or parents who actually want a test like this done for whatever reason .
If the patient objects ( even if they are underage ) the doctor should be able to refuse to do the test , obviously .
But if a female patient actually requests it and there ’ s no negative health outcome , why should the doctor be forbidden from doing it ?
Who is the “ victim ” in that scenario justifying the need for a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather silly to many people when viewed through the lens of 21st-century perspectives .
But it all comes back to the issue of when and how the government should be interfering with the rights of the individual .
And this one doesn ’ t seem to pass muster as far as I ’ m concerned .

Back in December, we discussed a proposed bill in New York State that would ban the practice of what’s known as “virginity testing” by doctors. This came up after liberal outrage followed a claim by rapper TI that he had the procedure done on his daughter on an annual basis. That law still hasn’t come up for a vote (though Governor Cuomo has said he would support it), but state legislators in California are already looking to follow suit. (CBS Los Angeles)
A California lawmaker wants to ban so-called “virginity” testing. Despite calls from around the world to end this practice, there is no federal or state law stopping it. “There is something very … um … 1890s and a little outdated about trying to check a woman’s chastity,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. To that end, Gonzalez wants a newly introduced bill to pave the way for the rest of the nation by putting a stop to virginity testing.
Rather than a criminal penalty, this bill would see doctors agreeing to do such tests facing professional sanctions and punishment by the state medical board.
Of course, the reasons given for putting such a ban in place are all rather specious. Assemblywoman Gonzalez is quoted as saying that “if it was anybody but a doctor (performing this procedure) they’d go to jail.” That’s certainly true for the most part, but doctors perform all sorts of procedures that nobody else is allowed to do. If you took it upon yourself to try to remove someone’s tonsils to save them a trip to the hospital, I imagined you’d wind up behind bars. We have professional standards for doctors precisely because they do things few other people are qualified to do for us.
Proponents of the ban are also citing the fact that both the United Nations and the World Health Organization have called for a global ban on the practice. Of course, neither of those bodies are responsible for crafting United States law.
The real question here is whether or not this is something the government (at any level) should be getting involved in. People are free to criticize parents who wish to do this if they like, and there are valid reasons for such criticism. For one thing, girls regularly rupture their hymens through activities other than sex, including various athletic events. Also, a small percentage of women are born without hymens, so the test isn’t particularly useful.
But the usefulness of the test isn’t the issue here. The question is whether or not the test is dangerous or violates the rule of primum non nocere (“first do no harm”) in the Hippocratic oath. If not, we’re left with the question of what to do about patients or parents who actually want a test like this done for whatever reason. If the patient objects (even if they are underage) the doctor should be able to refuse to do the test, obviously. But if a female patient actually requests it and there’s no negative health outcome, why should the doctor be forbidden from doing it? Who is the “victim” in that scenario justifying the need for a new law?
This whole question probably seems rather silly to many people when viewed through the lens of 21st-century perspectives. But it all comes back to the issue of when and how the government should be interfering with the rights of the individual. And this one doesn’t seem to pass muster as far as I’m concerned.


hotair--2020-01-14--WaPo: Our sources say Warren's fibbing about Sanders' comment

Wait , what ?
Elizabeth Warren isn ’ t telling the whole truth about something in her past ?
Get .
Out .
Of .
Here .
Either that or the Bernie Bros have mobilized enough to convince the Washington Post that there was far less to the December 2018 conversation than Warren has claimed , and which CNN reported yesterday .
When Warren finally commented for the record , she corroborated the CNN report that said Sanders flat-out told her a woman couldn ’ t beat Donald Trump , which John noted last night : But wait !
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sean Sullivan .
According to two sources , Sanders never said a woman couldn ’ t win .
Sanders instead said that Trump would use “ nefarious tactics ” to make misogyny part of his campaign if the nominee was a woman .
Or perhaps either way : Sanders admitted that much in his initial response to the CNN story .
“ What I did say that night , ” Sanders wrote , “ was that Donald Trump is a sexist , a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking that a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump , which is why he brought up Hillary Clinton as part of his response .
He cited Clinton ’ s final tally as having bested Trump by “ 3 million votes in 2016 ” despite those efforts , even if Clinton came up short in the states that mattered .
Is this a case of just two people hearing different messages out of the same words ?
It ’ s possible to read that kind of a warning from Sanders as discouragement , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what you ’ ll be in for if you get the nomination.
” That ’ s still a far cry from the claim Warren made , however , that Sanders explicitly told her that a woman couldn ’ t win at all .
But wait !
, write the New York Times ’ Astead Herndon and Jonathan Martin .
Their sources say that Sanders actually did say a woman couldn ’ t win under Trump ’ s misogynistic artillery fire .
Note , however , the context in which these sources came by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 meeting , who were briefed on it shortly after it took place but were not authorized to speak publicly , said Mr. Sanders offered the comment while giving his assessment of the coming race .
In relaying to Ms. Warren the challenges he thought her campaign would face , he said not only that President Trump would weaponize sexism , but also that such attacks would preclude a woman from being elected , according to the private accounts .
So whose sources are better on this — those with Team Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s what ’ s going on here , and what ’ s been going on since CNN broke the story .
All of these sources appear to have been briefed about the meeting after it took place rather than being in the meeting itself .
They may not be lying about it , either , but merely recounting what they were told by each candidate .
Sanders might have told his team what the conversation sounded like from his perspective , and Warren might have done the same with her team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t running for president , and the fact remains that one of the two candidates is lying .
Either Sanders explicitly said a woman couldn ’ t beat Donald Trump , as Warren and her sources are claiming , or he didn ’ t , as Sanders and his sources explicitly deny .
Which is it ?
It ’ s almost impossible to choose , isn ’ t it ?
This is a classic he said/she said , with no easy resolution outside of an abject confession .
Oh , I have my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record on honesty and scrupulous integrity regarding claims of sexism in particular , but there ’ s only one thing certain about this — both sides lose in this fight .
And we get to pass lots and lots of popcorn as long as it continues .

Wait, what? Elizabeth Warren isn’t telling the whole truth about something in her past? Get. Out. Of. Here. Either that or the Bernie Bros have mobilized enough to convince the Washington Post that there was far less to the December 2018 conversation than Warren has claimed, and which CNN reported yesterday.
When Warren finally commented for the record, she corroborated the CNN report that said Sanders flat-out told her a woman couldn’t beat Donald Trump, which John noted last night:
But wait!, write Washington Post reporters Annie Linskey and Sean Sullivan. According to two sources, Sanders never said a woman couldn’t win. Sanders instead said that Trump would use “nefarious tactics” to make misogyny part of his campaign if the nominee was a woman. Or perhaps either way:
Two people with knowledge of the conversation at the 2018 dinner at Warren’s home told The Washington Post that Warren brought up the issue by asking Sanders whether he believed a woman could win. One of the people with knowledge of the conversation said Sanders did not say a woman couldn’t win but rather that Trump would use nefarious tactics against the Democratic nominee.
Sanders admitted that much in his initial response to the CNN story. “What I did say that night,” Sanders wrote, “was that Donald Trump is a sexist, a racist and a liar who would weaponize whatever he could.” Sanders vehemently denies saying or even thinking that a woman couldn’t beat Trump, which is why he brought up Hillary Clinton as part of his response. He cited Clinton’s final tally as having bested Trump by “3 million votes in 2016” despite those efforts, even if Clinton came up short in the states that mattered.
Is this a case of just two people hearing different messages out of the same words? It’s possible to read that kind of a warning from Sanders as discouragement, as in “you don’t know what you’ll be in for if you get the nomination.” That’s still a far cry from the claim Warren made, however, that Sanders explicitly told her that a woman couldn’t win at all.
“I thought a woman could win; he disagreed,” she said, adding: “I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.”
But wait!, write the New York Times’ Astead Herndon and Jonathan Martin. Their sources say that Sanders actually did say a woman couldn’t win under Trump’s misogynistic artillery fire. Note, however, the context in which these sources came by this knowledge:
The people familiar with the 2018 meeting, who were briefed on it shortly after it took place but were not authorized to speak publicly, said Mr. Sanders offered the comment while giving his assessment of the coming race. In relaying to Ms. Warren the challenges he thought her campaign would face, he said not only that President Trump would weaponize sexism, but also that such attacks would preclude a woman from being elected, according to the private accounts.
So whose sources are better on this — those with Team Warren, or those with Team Sanders? That’s what’s going on here, and what’s been going on since CNN broke the story. All of these sources appear to have been briefed about the meeting after it took place rather than being in the meeting itself. They may not be lying about it, either, but merely recounting what they were told by each candidate. Sanders might have told his team what the conversation sounded like from his perspective, and Warren might have done the same with her team.
However, the sources aren’t running for president, and the fact remains that one of the two candidates is lying. Either Sanders explicitly said a woman couldn’t beat Donald Trump, as Warren and her sources are claiming, or he didn’t, as Sanders and his sources explicitly deny. Which is it?
It’s almost impossible to choose, isn’t it? This is a classic he said/she said, with no easy resolution outside of an abject confession. Oh, I have my suspicions, given Warren’s track record on honesty and scrupulous integrity regarding claims of sexism in particular, but there’s only one thing certain about this — both sides lose in this fight. And we get to pass lots and lots of popcorn as long as it continues.


hotair--2020-01-14--Mitt Romney: Sure, I'd like to hear from John Bolton at Trump's impeachment trial

A morning shot of political caffeine for all of our populist readers .
Nothing gets the day started with some pep quite like hatin ’ on Mitt does .
He said the same thing a week ago but it got lost in the shuffle of the news about Soleimani ’ s killing and Iran ’ s retaliation .
People are paying attention now , though .
“ I have no words for Mitt Romney , ” said an exasperated Laura Ingraham last night on Fox .
“ I supported him in 2012 .
I like Mitt Romney .
I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To which Gregg Jarrett replied , “ Romney belongs to the Romney party.
” I suspect Romney sincerely does believe he has a duty to find facts as part of a fact-finding exercise like a trial but he ’ s also providing some cover to Susan Collins and Cory Gardner by taking this position .
I won ’ t bore you again with the arguments for why centrist Republicans who are facing reelection next fall might ( reluctantly ) prefer to have a witness or two ; you can read this post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The bottom line is that they want to put on a good show at the trial to make it less credible when Democrats inevitably attack them for participating in a “ sham ” or a “ cover up.
” If Bolton says he ’ s willing to testify and McConnell manages to block his testimony anyway , the “ sham ” attacks on Collins and Gardner get easier — even if they themselves vote with Democrats to call Bolton .
Romney , in other words , may be willingly providing them with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His is an extra vote towards getting to 51 .
And his outspokenness about hearing from Bolton makes him a lightning rod for Trump fans , possibly shielding Collins and Gardner from some populist heat when they end up sharing his position .
Plus , don ’ t forget the data in yesterday ’ s Quinnipiac poll on calling Bolton : Not only do two-thirds of Americans support it , so do a plurality of Republicans ( 39/35 ) .
Whether that ’ s because populists think Bolton will end up clearing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think Bolton might incriminate him ( or both ) is unclear , but the polls thus far in favor of calling new witnesses are strongly in favor and he ’ s the most obvious new witness to call .
Collins and Gardner need to reckon with that ahead of tough reelection bids .
The question isn ’ t whether they ’ re going to try to call Bolton , the question is what sort of concessions they might have to make to Trump to compensate for that .
There ’ s no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only witness called .
If the Dems get new testimony , Trump gets some too .
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tom Cotton and Jim Inhofe this morning and proposed a one-for-one trade in which the defense gets to call a new witness for each new prosecution witness called .
Neither senator would absolutely commit to that but both told Hewitt that they can ’ t imagine a scenario in which Bolton is the only new witness to testify .
Rand Paul was even more explicit in a tweet last night about the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ted Cruz went further in his own interview with Hewitt this morning , suggesting that Trump should have the right to call whichever witnesses he wants irrespective of what the prosecution ends up doing : “ If the Senate wants to call Hunter Biden , if the Senate wants to call the whistleblower , due process dictates that he have the opportunity to present his defense.
” Collins and Gardner aren ’ t going to let that happen — they want a semblance of a thorough process but not one so thorough that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exposing them to further political risk — but fairness to Trump is a major consideration for them in approaching this subject .
One new witness apiece for House Dems and for Trump feels like the most probable compromise .
I hope Hunter Biden ’ s calendar is clear this month .
Here ’ s the White House via Hogan Gidley accommodating itself to the reality that Bolton ’ s going to be called .

A morning shot of political caffeine for all of our populist readers. Nothing gets the day started with some pep quite like hatin’ on Mitt does.
He said the same thing a week ago but it got lost in the shuffle of the news about Soleimani’s killing and Iran’s retaliation. People are paying attention now, though. “I have no words for Mitt Romney,” said an exasperated Laura Ingraham last night on Fox. “I supported him in 2012. I like Mitt Romney. I have no words for him. Just none.” To which Gregg Jarrett replied, “Romney belongs to the Romney party.”
I suspect Romney sincerely does believe he has a duty to find facts as part of a fact-finding exercise like a trial but he’s also providing some cover to Susan Collins and Cory Gardner by taking this position. I won’t bore you again with the arguments for why centrist Republicans who are facing reelection next fall might (reluctantly) prefer to have a witness or two; you can read this post or this one from yesterday for that. The bottom line is that they want to put on a good show at the trial to make it less credible when Democrats inevitably attack them for participating in a “sham” or a “cover up.” If Bolton says he’s willing to testify and McConnell manages to block his testimony anyway, the “sham” attacks on Collins and Gardner get easier — even if they themselves vote with Democrats to call Bolton.
Romney, in other words, may be willingly providing them with cover by agreeing to call Bolton. His is an extra vote towards getting to 51. And his outspokenness about hearing from Bolton makes him a lightning rod for Trump fans, possibly shielding Collins and Gardner from some populist heat when they end up sharing his position. Plus, don’t forget the data in yesterday’s Quinnipiac poll on calling Bolton: Not only do two-thirds of Americans support it, so do a plurality of Republicans (39/35). Whether that’s because populists think Bolton will end up clearing Trump when he testifies or because Trump-skeptical GOPers think Bolton might incriminate him (or both) is unclear, but the polls thus far in favor of calling new witnesses are strongly in favor and he’s the most obvious new witness to call. Collins and Gardner need to reckon with that ahead of tough reelection bids.
The question isn’t whether they’re going to try to call Bolton, the question is what sort of concessions they might have to make to Trump to compensate for that. There’s no way MAGA Nation will stand for Bolton being the only witness called. If the Dems get new testimony, Trump gets some too. Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tom Cotton and Jim Inhofe this morning and proposed a one-for-one trade in which the defense gets to call a new witness for each new prosecution witness called. Neither senator would absolutely commit to that but both told Hewitt that they can’t imagine a scenario in which Bolton is the only new witness to testify. Rand Paul was even more explicit in a tweet last night about the potential cost to Democrats in calling Bolton:
My colleagues can’t have it both ways. Calling for some, while blocking others. If we are going to give a platform to witnesses the Dems demand, I look forward to forcing votes to call Hunter Biden and many more! https://t.co/hrOzVyiG9x — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 14, 2020
Ted Cruz went further in his own interview with Hewitt this morning, suggesting that Trump should have the right to call whichever witnesses he wants irrespective of what the prosecution ends up doing: “If the Senate wants to call Hunter Biden, if the Senate wants to call the whistleblower, due process dictates that he have the opportunity to present his defense.” Collins and Gardner aren’t going to let that happen — they want a semblance of a thorough process but not one so thorough that it ends up dragging the trial out and exposing them to further political risk — but fairness to Trump is a major consideration for them in approaching this subject. One new witness apiece for House Dems and for Trump feels like the most probable compromise. I hope Hunter Biden’s calendar is clear this month.
Here’s the White House via Hogan Gidley accommodating itself to the reality that Bolton’s going to be called.