hotair--2020-01-10--Too bad to check: Iran bulldozing Flight 752 crash site?

What better way to get to the bottom of a controversial airplane crash than , er , to ensure all the evidence gets to the bottom of a ditch ?
New images , some unverified , of the Iranian effort to investigate Ukrainian International Flight 752 show an unusual piece of equipment in the debris field — a large bulldozer .
In at least one image , this one retweeted by US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell , the bulldozer is moving debris around , which would hardly be an effort to preserve evidence : Another image , taken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be verified as authentic and taking place during the investigation .
Business Insider ’ s Lauren Frias notes that a bulldozer running through the debris field would make it “ next to impossible ” to determine what happened to Flight 752 : Iran has used bulldozers to move around pieces of debris from a crashed Ukrainian passenger jet , possibly destroying evidence that could help prove what happened to the doomed flight .
Images and reports from the crash site , just outside the Iranian capital , Tehran , show at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site , where the Boeing 737-800 crashed Wednesday morning , killing all 176 people on board .
… Giancarlo Fiorella , a researcher for the investigative website Bellingcat , shared a thread of photos that he said showed heavy machinery at work .
“ I find these photos distressing because this could potentially be the scene of a crime , ” Fiorella told Channel 4 News .
“ If this was a shoot-down event , you don ’ t want to disturb the crash site before a thorough investigation can be conducted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one has been conducted.
” Bellingcat had done some key open-source investigative work in the wake of another anti-aircraft shootdown of a passenger jet , the Malaysia Air crash in Ukraine in July 2014 .
The Australian news outlet News.com.au interviewed Fiorella as well , and reports that Bellingcat claims to have verified the images that Fiorella has been pushing out on social media , including the one tweeted by Grenell , as having at least been “ geo-located ” to the crash site : Open source investigation website Bellingcat , whose painstaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2014 , said it had verified images of a bulldozer clearing a debris field in Shahedshahr on the outskirts of Tehran .
There are now concerns evidence has been compromised , contaminated , or worse , destroyed , and the truth about how and why the aircraft crashed may never be known .
“ Those images ( of the bulldozer ) we were able to geolocate to the crash site , ” Bellingcat investigator Giancarlo Fiorella told Channel 4 News .
“ I found them to be really distressing because this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If this was a shoot-down event , you don ’ t want to disturb the crash site before a thorough investigation can be conducted and I ’ m not sure one had been conducted .
“ The presence of heavy machinery at the site and the bulldozing is very distressing.
” Are they really bulldozing the debris ?
The Ukrainians apparently think so , although it has been only lightly reported thus far and might require more verification itself .
A Ukrainian journalist reports that a source on the country ’ s investigative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been using bulldozers to pile up the debris in an assembly area , which will eradicate most of the usefulness of reassembly : Yuriy Butusov , journalist and editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian publication Censor.NET , wrote on Facebook , citing a source in the Ukraine ’ s State Investigative Commission , that the plane wreckage at the crash site is being bulldozed , and expressed doubt that Iran is interested in thorough investigation into what happened .
According to Butusov , at 12.00 pm , his source informed that the Ukrainian experts were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to Iran ’ s air traffic control center to inspect the radar footage .
“ Is Iran interested in a thorough investigation ?
It ’ s not clear .
Wreckage of the aircraft is continued to be bulldozed and delivered to the assembly site .
There is a crowd of different people in uniforms and without uniforms at the crash site , hundreds of people collect and carry away fragments of the plane , this process is not under any control , ” the source said .
The Ukrainian expert reports from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dumped indiscriminately in the pile , from which experts need to extract the pieces and lay out the remains of the hull .
So are we sure that ’ s what ’ s going on ?
Well , it ’ s not as if anyone expected a thorough and credible investigation from Tehran anyway .
Earlier today they categorically ruled out the most obvious answer to the mystery , which is that their anti-aircraft personnel overreacted and shot the flight down by mistake .
The initial photos from the scene tended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the fuselage riddled with holes , just as with the Malaysia Air flight shot down by a similar system six years ago .
And what purpose would a bulldozer serve at the crash site at all , when the evidence requires careful handling for the reassembly and later analysis ?
Just the presence of the bulldozer raises serious questions about the intent of its use .
Still , however , we are only getting dribs and drabs of this .
Even Fiorella isn ’ t quite ready to call this a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very concerned— both about the crash itself , and the propensity of people to jump to conclusions .
Wait for the evidence to get verified , Fiorella advises : That ’ s good advice under any circumstances , but perhaps particularly so in these .

What better way to get to the bottom of a controversial airplane crash than, er, to ensure all the evidence gets to the bottom of a ditch? New images, some unverified, of the Iranian effort to investigate Ukrainian International Flight 752 show an unusual piece of equipment in the debris field — a large bulldozer. In at least one image, this one retweeted by US Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the bulldozer is moving debris around, which would hardly be an effort to preserve evidence:
No one knows how to clean up a site before the inspectors come better than the Iranians. #PS752 https://t.co/PBOFzwDnYL — Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) January 9, 2020
Another image, taken by the Associated Press, does appear to be verified as authentic and taking place during the investigation. Business Insider’s Lauren Frias notes that a bulldozer running through the debris field would make it “next to impossible” to determine what happened to Flight 752:
Iran has used bulldozers to move around pieces of debris from a crashed Ukrainian passenger jet, possibly destroying evidence that could help prove what happened to the doomed flight. Images and reports from the crash site, just outside the Iranian capital, Tehran, show at least one bulldozer working in the debris at the site, where the Boeing 737-800 crashed Wednesday morning, killing all 176 people on board. … Giancarlo Fiorella, a researcher for the investigative website Bellingcat, shared a thread of photos that he said showed heavy machinery at work. “I find these photos distressing because this could potentially be the scene of a crime,” Fiorella told Channel 4 News. “If this was a shoot-down event, you don’t want to disturb the crash site before a thorough investigation can be conducted, and I’m not sure that one has been conducted.”
Bellingcat had done some key open-source investigative work in the wake of another anti-aircraft shootdown of a passenger jet, the Malaysia Air crash in Ukraine in July 2014. The Australian news outlet News.com.au interviewed Fiorella as well, and reports that Bellingcat claims to have verified the images that Fiorella has been pushing out on social media, including the one tweeted by Grenell, as having at least been “geo-located” to the crash site:
(Deleted previous tweet to clarify terminology) Images of heavy machinery in use at the #PS752 crash site: right (35.561029, 51.104018) and left (35.559296, 51.104630) Sources: https://t.co/FKfLwnbePQhttps://t.co/n8nUUT75SH pic.twitter.com/rJmGdsYsg8 — Giancarlo Fiorella (@gianfiorella) January 9, 2020
Open source investigation website Bellingcat, whose painstaking work linked downed MH17 to Russia back in 2014, said it had verified images of a bulldozer clearing a debris field in Shahedshahr on the outskirts of Tehran. There are now concerns evidence has been compromised, contaminated, or worse, destroyed, and the truth about how and why the aircraft crashed may never be known. “Those images (of the bulldozer) we were able to geolocate to the crash site,” Bellingcat investigator Giancarlo Fiorella told Channel 4 News. “I found them to be really distressing because this is potentially the scene of a crime. If this was a shoot-down event, you don’t want to disturb the crash site before a thorough investigation can be conducted and I’m not sure one had been conducted. “The presence of heavy machinery at the site and the bulldozing is very distressing.”
Are they really bulldozing the debris? The Ukrainians apparently think so, although it has been only lightly reported thus far and might require more verification itself. A Ukrainian journalist reports that a source on the country’s investigative team tells him that the Iranians have been using bulldozers to pile up the debris in an assembly area, which will eradicate most of the usefulness of reassembly:
Yuriy Butusov, journalist and editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian publication Censor.NET, wrote on Facebook, citing a source in the Ukraine’s State Investigative Commission, that the plane wreckage at the crash site is being bulldozed, and expressed doubt that Iran is interested in thorough investigation into what happened. According to Butusov, at 12.00 pm, his source informed that the Ukrainian experts were at the crash site. Another group went to Iran’s air traffic control center to inspect the radar footage. “Is Iran interested in a thorough investigation? It’s not clear. Wreckage of the aircraft is continued to be bulldozed and delivered to the assembly site. There is a crowd of different people in uniforms and without uniforms at the crash site, hundreds of people collect and carry away fragments of the plane, this process is not under any control,” the source said. The Ukrainian expert reports from Iran that the fragments of the plane are dumped indiscriminately in the pile, from which experts need to extract the pieces and lay out the remains of the hull.
So are we sure that’s what’s going on? Well, it’s not as if anyone expected a thorough and credible investigation from Tehran anyway. Earlier today they categorically ruled out the most obvious answer to the mystery, which is that their anti-aircraft personnel overreacted and shot the flight down by mistake. The initial photos from the scene tended to support that thesis, showing larger pieces of the fuselage riddled with holes, just as with the Malaysia Air flight shot down by a similar system six years ago. And what purpose would a bulldozer serve at the crash site at all, when the evidence requires careful handling for the reassembly and later analysis? Just the presence of the bulldozer raises serious questions about the intent of its use.
Still, however, we are only getting dribs and drabs of this. Even Fiorella isn’t quite ready to call this a case of cover-up, but he’s very concerned— both about the crash itself, and the propensity of people to jump to conclusions. Wait for the evidence to get verified, Fiorella advises:
That’s good advice under any circumstances, but perhaps particularly so in these.


hotair--2020-01-10--Video: Russian ship 'aggressively approached' US destroyer in Arabian Sea

Yesterday a Russian Navy ship approached a US destroyer in the Arabian Sea .
The US Navy released video of the incident today on Twitter which shows the Russian ship intentionally moving closer .
As you can hear in the top clip , the US destroyer “ sounded five short blasts ” to signal danger of a collision : There was a similar incident last June when a Russian Navy ship came within 100 feet of the USS Chancellorsville as a helicopter was preparing to land on the US ship : The Fleet said a helicopter that was operating at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chancellorsville , which was traveling on a steady course , when the Russian destroyer , traveling behind the U.S. ship , sped up and approached as close as 50 to 100 feet… Adm. John Richardson , the Chief of Naval Operations , blamed the Russian navy for the near collision .
Earlier in the week , a U.S. Navy surveillance plane was buzzed by a Russian warplane .
“ The behavior by the captain of the Russian destroyer in the Philippine Sea was irresponsible and reckless , ” Richardson tweeted .
In that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.
” But the Russians had a very different story , claiming the Chancellorsville had moved into the path of the Russian destroyer , not the other way around .
Lying is just what Russia does .
Here ’ s a news report from June about that previous near miss :

Yesterday a Russian Navy ship approached a US destroyer in the Arabian Sea. The US Navy released video of the incident today on Twitter which shows the Russian ship intentionally moving closer. As you can hear in the top clip, the US destroyer “sounded five short blasts” to signal danger of a collision:
Farragut sounded five short blasts, the international maritime signal for danger of a collision, and requested the Russian ship alter course in accordance with international rules of the road. pic.twitter.com/OGCeAGKOy3 — U.S. 5th Fleet (@US5thFleet) January 10, 2020
While the Russian ship took action, the initial delay in complying with international rules while it was making an aggressive approach increased the risk of collision. The U.S. Navy continues to remain vigilant and is trained to act in a professional manner. — U.S. 5th Fleet (@US5thFleet) January 10, 2020
There was a similar incident last June when a Russian Navy ship came within 100 feet of the USS Chancellorsville as a helicopter was preparing to land on the US ship:
The Fleet said a helicopter that was operating at sea was preparing to land on the Chancellorsville, which was traveling on a steady course, when the Russian destroyer, traveling behind the U.S. ship, sped up and approached as close as 50 to 100 feet… Adm. John Richardson, the Chief of Naval Operations, blamed the Russian navy for the near collision. Earlier in the week, a U.S. Navy surveillance plane was buzzed by a Russian warplane. “The behavior by the captain of the Russian destroyer in the Philippine Sea was irresponsible and reckless,” Richardson tweeted.
In that instance the Chancellorsville had to “execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.” But the Russians had a very different story, claiming the Chancellorsville had moved into the path of the Russian destroyer, not the other way around. Lying is just what Russia does. Here’s a news report from June about that previous near miss:


hotair--2020-01-10--Buttigieg scores major endorsement - and it's not a celebrity

Pete Buttigieg scored his biggest endorsement yet Thursday and it isn ’ t even a celebrity .
Move over , Kevin Costner , there is a bigger endorsement to talk about today .
U.S. Rep. Anthony Brown of Maryland announced that Buttigieg is his choice in the 2020 Democrat primary .
The importance of this endorsement rests on identity politics .
Rep. Brown is African-American and , most importantly , a member of the Congressional Black Caucus .
As we know , the narrative about Buttigieg is that he doesn ’ t have support among black voters .
Brown wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a unifying force focusing on the country ’ s shared values .
This is an impressive “ get ” for the Buttigieg campaign .
Brown is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland , a former colonel of the U.S. Army Reserve and currently serves as the vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee .
He will become the campaign ’ s first national co-chair .
The Buttigieg campaign released a statement from the candidate : How does this play among black voters back home in Indiana ?
According to Cordelia Lewis-Burks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a Democratic National Committee member who could vote on the second round of balloting at a contested convention , it ’ s all good .
She is described as the most powerful African-American woman in Indianapolis politics and she likes Mayor Pete .
She likes to point out that she still calls him that , despite the fact that he is no longer the Mayor of South Bend .
It is also important to note that she describes herself as a moderate Democrat and was the first Indiana super delegate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 .
Lewis-Burks says she is being pursued by the Biden campaign for an endorsement of good old Joe .
Ms. Lewis-Burks was quoted in a New York Times piece on Buttigieg ’ s lack of support from the African-American community last November .
She spoke of her difficulty in securing Buttigieg as a keynote speaker for an N.A.A.C.P .
dinner – the Greater Indianapolis NAACP ’ s 50th Freedom Fund Banquet .
She now says her quotes were taken out of context by the New York Times .
That would certainly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
The newspaper piece was spreading the narrative about Buttigieg ’ s lack of support from black voters .
She says she was tired of the narrative and invited him to speak at the banquet .
She knew the press coverage of the event would garner a lot of publicity for the candidate and potential voters could hear from him .
As it turned out , he did speak at the banquet and according to Lewis-Burks , it was the biggest turnout the dinner has ever had .
She asks a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to the media trashing Buttigieg for his lack of black voter support – why haven ’ t they focused on Cory Booker ?
Why didn ’ t they focus on Kamala Harris when she was in the primary race ?
Neither has been reported to have an abundance of black support .
For now , though , Lewis-Burks is keeping her powder dry .
She ’ s waiting until the Iowa caucuses to see how Buttigieg does there .
She says that Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving toward winning the nomination .
She ’ s isn ’ t going to endorse anyone early and noted that Buttigieg hasn ’ t really campaigned much in Indiana since that state ’ s primary isn ’ t until May .
The campaign , though , is regularly keeping her updated on their events and actions , along with his positions on issues .
Clearly , her endorsement would be important to Buttigieg moving forward .
Buttigieg is experiencing good polling news in early states .
He and Bernie Sanders are maintaining an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the top four , Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden , continue to stall and decline in polls .
There is time for that to change but so far Buttigieg should be pleased .
While Biden remains at the top in national polling , his support continues to be shaky on a state by state basis .
A lot rides on the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire , where Buttigieg is well-positioned .
Biden can look to South Carolina for a win , most likely , and from there it is just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meantime , Buttigieg can hope now that he can bring on other black public officials to check that identity box for the Democrats who depend upon identity politics .

Pete Buttigieg scored his biggest endorsement yet Thursday and it isn’t even a celebrity. Move over, Kevin Costner, there is a bigger endorsement to talk about today.
U.S. Rep. Anthony Brown of Maryland announced that Buttigieg is his choice in the 2020 Democrat primary. The importance of this endorsement rests on identity politics. Rep. Brown is African-American and, most importantly, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. As we know, the narrative about Buttigieg is that he doesn’t have support among black voters. Brown wants to focus on Buttigieg’s ability to be a unifying force focusing on the country’s shared values.
Our country needs a president who can heal our divides and restore decency to our nation’s highest office,” Brown said in the release. “Pete’s message is not defined by exclusion but welcomes everyone into the fight to tackle our nation’s greatest challenges. As we fight for the future of the soul of our country here at home, we also remain entangled in endless wars abroad and the threats to American lives and interests around the world have increased.”
This is an impressive “get” for the Buttigieg campaign. Brown is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, a former colonel of the U.S. Army Reserve and currently serves as the vice-chair of the House Armed Services Committee. He will become the campaign’s first national co-chair.
The Buttigieg campaign released a statement from the candidate:
“As a veteran of the Iraq War, Congressman Brown understands firsthand the gravity of the decisions that are made in Washington,” Buttigieg said in a release. “Congressman Brown has been a leader in rejecting the political warfare we have come to expect from Washington, focused on keeping our nation safe while working to end endless wars, boosting workforce development, and make sure we have an economy that works for everyone.”
How does this play among black voters back home in Indiana? According to Cordelia Lewis-Burks, vice-chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, and a Democratic National Committee member who could vote on the second round of balloting at a contested convention, it’s all good. She is described as the most powerful African-American woman in Indianapolis politics and she likes Mayor Pete. She likes to point out that she still calls him that, despite the fact that he is no longer the Mayor of South Bend. It is also important to note that she describes herself as a moderate Democrat and was the first Indiana super delegate to back Barack Obama’s candidacy in 2008.
Lewis-Burks says she is being pursued by the Biden campaign for an endorsement of good old Joe.
Ms. Lewis-Burks was quoted in a New York Times piece on Buttigieg’s lack of support from the African-American community last November. She spoke of her difficulty in securing Buttigieg as a keynote speaker for an N.A.A.C.P. dinner – the Greater Indianapolis NAACP’s 50th Freedom Fund Banquet. She now says her quotes were taken out of context by the New York Times. That would certainly be a normal complaint, wouldn’t it? The newspaper piece was spreading the narrative about Buttigieg’s lack of support from black voters. She says she was tired of the narrative and invited him to speak at the banquet. She knew the press coverage of the event would garner a lot of publicity for the candidate and potential voters could hear from him. As it turned out, he did speak at the banquet and according to Lewis-Burks, it was the biggest turnout the dinner has ever had. She asks a question that many of us do when it comes to the media trashing Buttigieg for his lack of black voter support – why haven’t they focused on Cory Booker? Why didn’t they focus on Kamala Harris when she was in the primary race? Neither has been reported to have an abundance of black support.
For now, though, Lewis-Burks is keeping her powder dry. She’s waiting until the Iowa caucuses to see how Buttigieg does there. She says that Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008 and it’s an important indicator for her about moving toward winning the nomination. She’s isn’t going to endorse anyone early and noted that Buttigieg hasn’t really campaigned much in Indiana since that state’s primary isn’t until May. The campaign, though, is regularly keeping her updated on their events and actions, along with his positions on issues. Clearly, her endorsement would be important to Buttigieg moving forward.
Buttigieg is experiencing good polling news in early states. He and Bernie Sanders are maintaining an upward trajectory while the other two candidates in the top four, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, continue to stall and decline in polls. There is time for that to change but so far Buttigieg should be pleased. While Biden remains at the top in national polling, his support continues to be shaky on a state by state basis. A lot rides on the outcomes in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Buttigieg is well-positioned. Biden can look to South Carolina for a win, most likely, and from there it is just too early to tell. In the meantime, Buttigieg can hope now that he can bring on other black public officials to check that identity box for the Democrats who depend upon identity politics.


hotair--2020-01-10--<span class=red>Breaking: Pelosi caves, tells House Dems that she'll transmit articles of impeachmen

Breaking: Pelosi caves, tells House Dems that she'll transmit articles of impeachment next week

Thus endeth one of the most inexplicable , self-inflicted political embarrassments in recent memory .
Days after it became clear that no one could figure out what Nancy Pelosi thought she ’ d gain by delaying the transmission of articles of impeachment , the House Speaker has finally caved to the reality that she has no leverage over a Senate trial : That ’ s a rather abrupt reversal .
Earlier in the day , Pelosi had been more defiant and less inclined to discuss the matter .
She told CNN ’ s Haley Byrd that she wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t commit to sending them at all : At this point , Bloomberg reports , no one ’ s clear as to why Pelosi kept delaying the transmission of the articles — not even her fellow Democrats .
Her allies on Capitol Hill are “ stumped ” as to what Pelosi thinks she ’ s gaining out of the delay : Lawmakers expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will soon end her delay of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial without any notable concessions from Senate Republicans , leaving her allies stumped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senior Democrats in the House insisted publicly that the speaker has given them no hints on timing for sending the two articles of impeachment over to the Republican-controlled Senate , the step that would trigger an immediate opening of the historic impeachment trial .
Amid speculation about her rationale and expressions of exasperation from Democrats in the House and Senate — delivered almost exclusively on condition of anonymity — Pelosi offered only cryptic clues .
Rep. Gerald Connolly ( D-VA ) suggested that maybe impeachment is enough : What is Connolly saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate ?
What about the fierce urgency of now in dealing with Trump ?
If that ’ s the plan , then House Democrats should have simply dealt with this in the upcoming presidential election .
The longer this goes , the more ridiculous that argument becomes , which is probably why Senate Democrats are so mystified about Pelosi ’ s intent at the moment .
That leads to another interpretation of Connolly ’ s observation would be that the delay has made voters aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along .
That makes impeachment look like just another Beltway partisan point-scoring exercise , in an environment where voters have already tired of establishment self-absorption .
Even Democratic constituents are losing interest in impeachment and a Senate trial , at least if one credits Connolly ’ s observation as meaningful .
Pelosi must have finally figured out that even her public leverage was dissipating .
The Guardian ’ s Thomas Meaney writes that the delay is only making Trump stronger , and making Democrats look weaker and more partisan : Either way , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even if they are armed with court orders to make crucial witnesses appear , the Democrats can not deny Trump his favourite resource – sensational television – for much longer without wearying the public ’ s patience and taking the sting out of their original intent to remove him .
In 2001 , the historian Perry Anderson argued that critics of US empire should have embraced the impeachment of Bill Clinton : any body blow against the imperial presidency was surely something good for the rest of the world .
Today , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will at least weaken the forward march of Trumpism , much as Clinton ’ s impeachment supposedly hobbled his chosen successor , Al Gore .
The trouble is that the impeachment of Clinton resulted in the opposite of presidential impairment : his approval reached an all-time postwar high of 73 % during his Senate trial .
… Trump may not enjoy a popularity bump like Clinton ’ s during his own Senate carnival , even with McConnell as ringmaster .
But however much less mystique Americans attach to their presidents since Nixon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aura .
For the Democrats to set themselves against it , instead of concentrating their fire on an electoral victory in November , could further inflate the executive .
So what made her change her mind today ?
Mitch McConnell just threatened to set the timer on her delay strategy by signing onto Josh Hawley ’ s proposed rule change : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) is backing a resolution to change the Senate ’ s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Josh Hawley ( R-Mo . )
announced on Thursday that McConnell has signed on as a co-sponsor to the resolution , which he introduced earlier this week .
… Changing the rules would either require a two-thirds vote or for Republicans to deploy the “ nuclear ” option .
The resolution would give the House 25 days to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate .
After that , a senator could offer a motion to dismiss “ with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Hawley ’ s proposal .
The “ nuclear ” option is no longer as nuclear as it used to be , thanks to Harry Reid ’ s deployment of it in 2013 .
It is now precedential , allowing the majority to change the rules on the minority at whim .
McConnell would likely prefer not to use this option — Republicans can vote for dismissal at the end of the presentment under the existing rules anyway — but this is a reminder that McConnell has all the leverage in this situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no matter what she ’ s telling her caucus these days .
And now she ’ s finally figured it out .
Be prepared to read a lot about how Pelosi somehow made a point with this stunt , but if she did , it wasn ’ t the one she intended .
Her own colleagues are still scratching their heads over this one .

Thus endeth one of the most inexplicable, self-inflicted political embarrassments in recent memory. Days after it became clear that no one could figure out what Nancy Pelosi thought she’d gain by delaying the transmission of articles of impeachment, the House Speaker has finally caved to the reality that she has no leverage over a Senate trial:
Pelosi sent out a dear colleagues letter saying they will appoint impeachment managers (the Democratic reps who will get the high-profile gig of making the case against Trump during a senate trial) next week. She’ll consult with her caucus during a Tuesday meeting on next steps. — Paul McLeod (@pdmcleod) January 10, 2020
BREAKING: In letter to colleagues, Speaker Pelosi says she has asked Chairman Nadler "to be prepared to bring to the" US House floor "next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate." https://t.co/kdrUxk2XiK — NBC News (@NBCNews) January 10, 2020
That’s a rather abrupt reversal. Earlier in the day, Pelosi had been more defiant and less inclined to discuss the matter. She told CNN’s Haley Byrd that she wouldn’t send them over today, and wouldn’t commit to sending them at all:
And Pelosi makes if official. She tells reporters NO vote on naming impeachment managers today.
“No,” she said, per @byrdinator Asked about when she will make announcement about sending articles, Pelosi says: “I’ll be communicating with my members, and perhaps we’ll see that.” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 10, 2020
At this point, Bloomberg reports, no one’s clear as to why Pelosi kept delaying the transmission of the articles — not even her fellow Democrats. Her allies on Capitol Hill are “stumped” as to what Pelosi thinks she’s gaining out of the delay:
Lawmakers expect House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will soon end her delay of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial without any notable concessions from Senate Republicans, leaving her allies stumped about her strategy in the three-week standoff. Senior Democrats in the House insisted publicly that the speaker has given them no hints on timing for sending the two articles of impeachment over to the Republican-controlled Senate, the step that would trigger an immediate opening of the historic impeachment trial. Amid speculation about her rationale and expressions of exasperation from Democrats in the House and Senate — delivered almost exclusively on condition of anonymity — Pelosi offered only cryptic clues.
Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) suggested that maybe impeachment is enough:
“I can honestly say that I was inundated for the last six to eight months with demands that I vote to impeach,” said Representative Gerald Connolly of Virginia, a House Foreign Affairs Committee member. But he added, “I did not have a single constituent in the last two and one-half weeks approach me and say you have to deliver those articles of impeachment.”
What is Connolly saying — that Pelosi may have never planned on sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate? What about the fierce urgency of now in dealing with Trump? If that’s the plan, then House Democrats should have simply dealt with this in the upcoming presidential election. The longer this goes, the more ridiculous that argument becomes, which is probably why Senate Democrats are so mystified about Pelosi’s intent at the moment.
That leads to another interpretation of Connolly’s observation would be that the delay has made voters aware that the urgency argument was nonsense all along. That makes impeachment look like just another Beltway partisan point-scoring exercise, in an environment where voters have already tired of establishment self-absorption. Even Democratic constituents are losing interest in impeachment and a Senate trial, at least if one credits Connolly’s observation as meaningful.
Pelosi must have finally figured out that even her public leverage was dissipating. The Guardian’s Thomas Meaney writes that the delay is only making Trump stronger, and making Democrats look weaker and more partisan:
Either way, the circling tactic appears doomed to fail. Even if they are armed with court orders to make crucial witnesses appear, the Democrats cannot deny Trump his favourite resource – sensational television – for much longer without wearying the public’s patience and taking the sting out of their original intent to remove him. In 2001, the historian Perry Anderson argued that critics of US empire should have embraced the impeachment of Bill Clinton: any body blow against the imperial presidency was surely something good for the rest of the world. Today, liberals and legal scholars argue that impeachment will at least weaken the forward march of Trumpism, much as Clinton’s impeachment supposedly hobbled his chosen successor, Al Gore. The trouble is that the impeachment of Clinton resulted in the opposite of presidential impairment: his approval reached an all-time postwar high of 73% during his Senate trial. … Trump may not enjoy a popularity bump like Clinton’s during his own Senate carnival, even with McConnell as ringmaster. But however much less mystique Americans attach to their presidents since Nixon and Clinton, the office still retains an aura. For the Democrats to set themselves against it, instead of concentrating their fire on an electoral victory in November, could further inflate the executive.
So what made her change her mind today? Mitch McConnell just threatened to set the timer on her delay strategy by signing onto Josh Hawley’s proposed rule change:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is backing a resolution to change the Senate’s rules to allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Thursday that McConnell has signed on as a co-sponsor to the resolution, which he introduced earlier this week. … Changing the rules would either require a two-thirds vote or for Republicans to deploy the “nuclear” option. The resolution would give the House 25 days to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate. After that, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss “with prejudice for failure by the House of Representatives to prosecute such articles” with a simple majority vote, according to Hawley’s proposal.
The “nuclear” option is no longer as nuclear as it used to be, thanks to Harry Reid’s deployment of it in 2013. It is now precedential, allowing the majority to change the rules on the minority at whim. McConnell would likely prefer not to use this option — Republicans can vote for dismissal at the end of the presentment under the existing rules anyway — but this is a reminder that McConnell has all the leverage in this situation, and Pelosi has none at all, no matter what she’s telling her caucus these days.
And now she’s finally figured it out. Be prepared to read a lot about how Pelosi somehow made a point with this stunt, but if she did, it wasn’t the one she intended. Her own colleagues are still scratching their heads over this one.


hotair--2020-01-10--Report: Trump furious over House vote to limit his war powers against Iran

I don ’ t know why .
The resolution means virtually nothing .
Pelosi ’ s not even offering it as a traditional bill , knowing that it would end up being nuked on Trump ’ s desk .
She ’ s offering it as a concurrent resolution , which doesn ’ t have the force of law .
It ’ s a minor embarrassment to the president if it passes both houses of Congress , which seems likely , but he ’ s been rebuked by Congress before on war powers in the context of Yemen .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s using Obama as a yardstick against which to measure himself and remembers the hallelujahs that followed the killing of Bin Laden in 2011 .
Where are his hallelujahs now ?
Why does Obama get bouquets flung at him while Trump gets a disapproving resolution from Congress warning him not to go further without approval ?
The ironic answer is that his operation against Soleimani was far more consequential potentially than O ’ s operation against Osama .
Soleimani was an immensely powerful military and political figure within the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bin Laden was largely an inspirational figure to Sunni jihadis by the time we got him .
Plus , major escalation with Al Qaeda was a risk we had accepted long before Bin Laden was killed .
When you knock down American skycrapers , the gloves come off and they stay off .
The risk of killing Soleimani hadn ’ t been similarly weighed and accepted until Trump acted .
Kill Osama and you ’ ve won a battle in an already raging war with thousands of Salafist terrorists scattered around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially at war with a nation of 80 million people possessing a sophisticated arsenal and an extant nuclear program .
So , yeah , go figure that Congress is skittish .
But the president is reportedly annoyed regardless .
Via Raw Story , Times reporter Maggie Haberman told CNN this morning that Trump allegedly resents that the attack isn ’ t being seen as a “ unifying event ” : “ President Trump is reportedly furious over the House vote on the Iran War powers resolution , ” host Camerota began .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have spoken with him .
The House voted last night to approve the measure to restrain the president ’ s ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval .
Maggie , the president we hear is angry .
Was he surprised that the house took that vote ?
” “ He actually was surprised this was not more of a unifying event for the country which is what he expected it was going to be , ” Haberman replied .
“ Something like what you saw around the Iraq war leadup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive attack on U.S. soil and it ’ s not remotely the same.
” “ That speech from Matt Gaetz , the Republican who supports the president on the floor yesterday was very , very important , ” Haberman explained , adding , “ so that speech hit him where it hurts .
Another thing here is that advisers say it ’ s not clear that the president understands that the fallout here will take weeks to fully understand.
” He ’ s also annoyed , I suspect , that three House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Normally he might shrug that off but one of those Republicans was MAGA favorite Matt Gaetz , whose wariness of escalation with Iran trumped his usual duties to serve the president .
Trump and other Republicans have been hammering the point this week ahead of next year ’ s election that Democrats are Iran sympathizers because of their skepticism towards last week ’ s missile strike .
Gaetz ’ s support for the resolution momentarily complicates that message .
The theme echoed across conservative circles and airwaves over the last 24 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s most ardent supporters .
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and governor of South Carolina , Nikki Haley , said on Fox News that “ the only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates , ” while White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said on the same channel that President Barack Obama designated Soleimani a terrorist but then did nothing… Heading into the 2020 election , both the president ’ s moves in Iran and the impending impeachment trial are providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a tough guy .
In addition to fighting off the Democratic investigations and the two articles of impeachment , he is also now talking tough on Iran — which he has long viewed as a country that President Barack Obama and George W. Bush went too easy on .
Gaetz ’ s vote yesterday and Tucker Carlson ’ s nightly commentary over the past week were an attempt to remind Trump that he got elected preaching skepticism of Middle Eastern entanglements and that he shouldn ’ t abandon that skepticism for reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look tough ” or “ Obama never would have had the stones to do this.
” That ’ s another reason why he might be annoyed by yesterday ’ s vote , because Gaetz — and the Democrats — got to show Americans that they ’ re more reluctant to spend U.S. blood and treasure on another major war than Trump is .
But there ’ s a simpler reason too .
On some level , I think , he hasn ’ t yet accepted that everything he does as president will necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way out of that .
He has something like six percent approval among Democrats at a moment when the economy ’ s been roaring for three years , an almost unfathomable reality .
You can sense him thinking , “ What do I have to do to unify more people behind me ?
Is killing the world ’ s worst terrorist — two worst terrorists , actually , after al-Baghdadi — enough ?
” Nothing ’ s going to be enough .
Here ’ s Gaetz ’ s floor speech yesterday , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at pains here and later in an interview with Carlson to stress that there was nothing “ anti-Trump ” or “ pro-Soleimani ” about the resolution , that he supports the strike , but that he ’ s worried about escalation .
I don ’ t think that ’ ll cut it for Trump .
He just won ’ t understand , as a matter of civic principle , why any “ friend ” would attempt to limit his power for any reason .

I don’t know why. The resolution means virtually nothing. Pelosi’s not even offering it as a traditional bill, knowing that it would end up being nuked on Trump’s desk. She’s offering it as a concurrent resolution, which doesn’t have the force of law. It’s a minor embarrassment to the president if it passes both houses of Congress, which seems likely, but he’s been rebuked by Congress before on war powers in the context of Yemen.
He’s probably mad because, as usual, he’s using Obama as a yardstick against which to measure himself and remembers the hallelujahs that followed the killing of Bin Laden in 2011. Where are his hallelujahs now? Why does Obama get bouquets flung at him while Trump gets a disapproving resolution from Congress warning him not to go further without approval?
The ironic answer is that his operation against Soleimani was far more consequential potentially than O’s operation against Osama. Soleimani was an immensely powerful military and political figure within the government of a major Middle Eastern state. Bin Laden was largely an inspirational figure to Sunni jihadis by the time we got him. Plus, major escalation with Al Qaeda was a risk we had accepted long before Bin Laden was killed. When you knock down American skycrapers, the gloves come off and they stay off. The risk of killing Soleimani hadn’t been similarly weighed and accepted until Trump acted. Kill Osama and you’ve won a battle in an already raging war with thousands of Salafist terrorists scattered around the world; kill Soleimani and you’re potentially at war with a nation of 80 million people possessing a sophisticated arsenal and an extant nuclear program.
So, yeah, go figure that Congress is skittish. But the president is reportedly annoyed regardless. Via Raw Story, Times reporter Maggie Haberman told CNN this morning that Trump allegedly resents that the attack isn’t being seen as a “unifying event”:
“President Trump is reportedly furious over the House vote on the Iran War powers resolution,” host Camerota began. “This is according to multiple people who have spoken with him. The House voted last night to approve the measure to restrain the president’s ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval. Maggie, the president we hear is angry. Was he surprised that the house took that vote?” “He actually was surprised this was not more of a unifying event for the country which is what he expected it was going to be,” Haberman replied. “Something like what you saw around the Iraq war leadup. However, that leadup came after a massive attack on U.S. soil and it’s not remotely the same.” “That speech from Matt Gaetz, the Republican who supports the president on the floor yesterday was very, very important,” Haberman explained, adding, “so that speech hit him where it hurts. Another thing here is that advisers say it’s not clear that the president understands that the fallout here will take weeks to fully understand.”
He’s also annoyed, I suspect, that three House Republicans joined Pelosi in supporting the resolution. Normally he might shrug that off but one of those Republicans was MAGA favorite Matt Gaetz, whose wariness of escalation with Iran trumped his usual duties to serve the president. Trump and other Republicans have been hammering the point this week ahead of next year’s election that Democrats are Iran sympathizers because of their skepticism towards last week’s missile strike. Gaetz’s support for the resolution momentarily complicates that message.
The theme echoed across conservative circles and airwaves over the last 24 hours, thanks to the talking points of Trump’s most ardent supporters. The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, said on Fox News that “the only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates,” while White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said on the same channel that President Barack Obama designated Soleimani a terrorist but then did nothing… Heading into the 2020 election, both the president’s moves in Iran and the impending impeachment trial are providing Trump an opportunity to pump himself up as a tough guy. In addition to fighting off the Democratic investigations and the two articles of impeachment, he is also now talking tough on Iran — which he has long viewed as a country that President Barack Obama and George W. Bush went too easy on.
Gaetz’s vote yesterday and Tucker Carlson’s nightly commentary over the past week were an attempt to remind Trump that he got elected preaching skepticism of Middle Eastern entanglements and that he shouldn’t abandon that skepticism for reasons as facile as “I need to look tough” or “Obama never would have had the stones to do this.” That’s another reason why he might be annoyed by yesterday’s vote, because Gaetz — and the Democrats — got to show Americans that they’re more reluctant to spend U.S. blood and treasure on another major war than Trump is.
But there’s a simpler reason too. On some level, I think, he hasn’t yet accepted that everything he does as president will necessarily be polarizing and there’s no way out of that. He has something like six percent approval among Democrats at a moment when the economy’s been roaring for three years, an almost unfathomable reality. You can sense him thinking, “What do I have to do to unify more people behind me? Is killing the world’s worst terrorist — two worst terrorists, actually, after al-Baghdadi — enough?” Nothing’s going to be enough.
Here’s Gaetz’s floor speech yesterday, for which he deserves credit. He was at pains here and later in an interview with Carlson to stress that there was nothing “anti-Trump” or “pro-Soleimani” about the resolution, that he supports the strike, but that he’s worried about escalation. I don’t think that’ll cut it for Trump. He just won’t understand, as a matter of civic principle, why any “friend” would attempt to limit his power for any reason.


hotair--2020-01-10--Iraqi PM to US: Show us your plans to leave, please. US to Abdul-Mahdi: <i>Naah</i>

The best laid plans of Iraqi operations will oft go awry , and … this will be no exception .
Outgoing prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has asked Mike Pompeo to craft plans for a US withdrawal from Iraq , in reaction to a parliamentary vote last weekend requesting it .
However , the caretaker PM doesn ’ t have the authority to execute it , and the US is not inclined to leave at the moment either : Iraq has asked the United States to begin the process of planning the withdrawal of its troops from the country , five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the longstanding American military presence there in the wake of the U.S. killing of Iran ’ s Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said in a statement Friday that he had asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a phone call “ to send a delegation to Iraq to put a mechanism [ in place ] for implementing the Iraqi parliament decision to safely withdraw troops from Iraq.
” This was , he said , because “ Iraq is keen to keep the best relations with its neighbors and friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect foreign representations and interests and all those present on Iraqi soil.
” Correction : This is because Abdul-Mahdi is an Iranian tool , and even Iraqi Shi ’ ites have tired of him .
He only remains in office until the Iraqi parliament can choose a new government , and the Shi ’ ites that once hoisted Abdul-Mahdi to power no longer want Iran dictating their internal politics .
In that sense , the US did them a favor by removing the top Iranian enforcer , Qassem Soleimani , and served notice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the US would not hesitate to go after command-and-control assets , even Iranian ones , if they kill US personnel or attack our embassy again .
At any rate , the US is not inclined to deal with Abdul-Mahdi any longer : In other words , the US is willing to discuss strategy and tactics , but not withdrawal .
Especially not with Abdul-Mahdi .
CBS ’ Holly Williams noted that the parliamentary vote was “ non-binding , ” albeit “ hugely symbolic , ” and that the demand wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want US units training Iraqi security services to stay , for instance , and only want a pullback of combat units .
Williams wonders whether the Iraqis are serious , or just “ going through the motions.
” Best guess : going through the motions .
If the Iranians want to distance themselves from Tehran , they will need the US to stick around a little longer as a counterweight .
The next time we really do pack up and leave , we won ’ t come back , and they know it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security forces , no logistical command , and little organizing theory except along sectarian lines .
The Kurds will likely object to that in the strongest possible terms and might be tempted again to play with a declaration of independence in the north , and the Sunnis in the west will likely throw back in with various Sunni extremist forces rather than allow themselves to be subjugated to the Shi ’ ites .
It ’ ll be an open invitation for ISIS to return , in one form or another , and this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqis ’ anger is not irrational , although it seems doubtful that it ’ s really about Soleimani .
They ’ re angry over the targeting and killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , an Iraqi commander of an Iranian-allied militia , in the same strike as Soleimani .
That ’ s also behind the threat from similarly Iranian-backed Iraqi militias to attack US forces in reprisal , although notably not the embassy this time .
If it had just been Soleimani in the car , this might not have even risen to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required Iraq to bar Soleimani from entry in the first place .
The US could just as well demand that Abdul-Mahdi show us his plans for complying with UN-imposed sanctions on Iran as part of an exchange .
Prediction : Abdul-Mahdi will be long gone before American troops are in Iraq .
And the Iraqis will be happier to see him leave than American troops , although they won ’ t dare admit it publicly .

The best laid plans of Iraqi operations will oft go awry, and … this will be no exception. Outgoing prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has asked Mike Pompeo to craft plans for a US withdrawal from Iraq, in reaction to a parliamentary vote last weekend requesting it. However, the caretaker PM doesn’t have the authority to execute it, and the US is not inclined to leave at the moment either:
Iraq has asked the United States to begin the process of planning the withdrawal of its troops from the country, five days after the Iraqi Parliament voted to end the longstanding American military presence there in the wake of the U.S. killing of Iran’s Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said in a statement Friday that he had asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a phone call “to send a delegation to Iraq to put a mechanism [in place] for implementing the Iraqi parliament decision to safely withdraw troops from Iraq.” This was, he said, because “Iraq is keen to keep the best relations with its neighbors and friends within the international community, and to protect foreign representations and interests and all those present on Iraqi soil.”
Correction: This is because Abdul-Mahdi is an Iranian tool, and even Iraqi Shi’ites have tired of him. He only remains in office until the Iraqi parliament can choose a new government, and the Shi’ites that once hoisted Abdul-Mahdi to power no longer want Iran dictating their internal politics. In that sense, the US did them a favor by removing the top Iranian enforcer, Qassem Soleimani, and served notice to the various militias that Soleimani controlled that the US would not hesitate to go after command-and-control assets, even Iranian ones, if they kill US personnel or attack our embassy again.
At any rate, the US is not inclined to deal with Abdul-Mahdi any longer:
#BREAKING US says won't discuss troop withdrawal with Iraq after PM request pic.twitter.com/gBohLzmKgo — AFP News Agency (@AFP) January 10, 2020
Statement on the US-Iraq discussions from the State Dept’s Morgan Ortagus: pic.twitter.com/bgIdJxcst2 — Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) January 10, 2020
In other words, the US is willing to discuss strategy and tactics, but not withdrawal. Especially not with Abdul-Mahdi.
CBS’ Holly Williams noted that the parliamentary vote was “non-binding,” albeit “hugely symbolic,” and that the demand wasn’t applicable to all US troops. They want US units training Iraqi security services to stay, for instance, and only want a pullback of combat units. Williams wonders whether the Iraqis are serious, or just “going through the motions.”
Iraq called on the U.S. to prepare for troop withdrawal. How serious are Iraqi politicians about asking U.S. troops to leave? @HollyMAWilliams reports https://t.co/Ubt1nKO9Ic pic.twitter.com/W9iKqhdzUS — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 10, 2020
Best guess: going through the motions. If the Iranians want to distance themselves from Tehran, they will need the US to stick around a little longer as a counterweight. The next time we really do pack up and leave, we won’t come back, and they know it. That means no support for their security forces, no logistical command, and little organizing theory except along sectarian lines. The Kurds will likely object to that in the strongest possible terms and might be tempted again to play with a declaration of independence in the north, and the Sunnis in the west will likely throw back in with various Sunni extremist forces rather than allow themselves to be subjugated to the Shi’ites. It’ll be an open invitation for ISIS to return, in one form or another, and this time to actually sack Baghdad.
The Iraqis’ anger is not irrational, although it seems doubtful that it’s really about Soleimani. They’re angry over the targeting and killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi commander of an Iranian-allied militia, in the same strike as Soleimani. That’s also behind the threat from similarly Iranian-backed Iraqi militias to attack US forces in reprisal, although notably not the embassy this time. If it had just been Soleimani in the car, this might not have even risen to this level, especially since UN travel sanctions required Iraq to bar Soleimani from entry in the first place. The US could just as well demand that Abdul-Mahdi show us his plans for complying with UN-imposed sanctions on Iran as part of an exchange.
Prediction: Abdul-Mahdi will be long gone before American troops are in Iraq. And the Iraqis will be happier to see him leave than American troops, although they won’t dare admit it publicly.


hotair--2020-01-10--A tight Christmas: US adds only 145,000 jobs in December

So much for the Thanksgiving goose to job-creation numbers .
The number of jobs added in December dropped by over one hundred thousand to 145,000 , according to today ’ s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics .
Wage growth dropped off a bit as well , although the unemployment rate remained steady at 3.5 % : Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 145,000 in December , and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent , the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today .
Notable job gains occurred in retail trade and health care , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the unemployment rate held at 3.5 percent , and the number of unemployed persons was unchanged at 5.8 million .
A year earlier , the jobless rate was 3.9 percent , and the number of unemployed persons was 6.3 million .
( See table A-1 . )
Among the major worker groups , the unemployment rates for adult men ( 3.1 percent ) , adult women ( 3.2 percent ) , teenagers ( 12.6 percent ) , Whites ( 3.2 percent ) , Blacks ( 5.9 percent ) , Asians ( 2.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent ) showed little or no change in December .
( See tables A-1 , A-2 , and A-3 . )
The number of long-term unemployed ( those jobless for 27 weeks or more ) , at 1.2 million , was unchanged in December and accounted for 20.5 percent of the unemployed .
( See table A-12 . )
The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 63.2 percent in December .
The employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the fourth consecutive month but was up by 0.4 percentage point over the year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This was a swing and a miss on several levels .
First , revisions to the previous two months shaved 14,000 jobs off the previous estimates .
Economists had predicted a slowdown after November ’ s adjusted 256,000 addition , but they had predicted at least 160,000 jobs added .
The wage growth was expected to hold at 3.1 % annualized , but instead it came in at 2.9 % , a potential sign that the labor markets are beginning to tilt a little less healthily .
In fact , as CNBC points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage growth in 18 months .
However , they also see some reason for optimism in other measures : In addition to the slow payroll growth , average hourly earnings rose by just 2.9 % , below the 3.1 % projection .
December marked the first time that wage gains were below 3 % on a year-over-year basis since July 2018 .
… On the upside , a separate , more encompassing measure that includes discouraged and underemployed workers fell to 6.7 % , the lowest it ’ s ever been in records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came amid a drop of 140,000 in people working part-time for economic reasons .
The labor force participation rate held steady at 63.2 % as the labor force rose by 209,000 to 164.6 million and those considered out of the labor force fell by 48,000 to 95.6 million .
The total employment level rose to 158.8 million , also a fresh high .
However , the unemployment rate for African-Americans rose 0.3 percentage points to 5.9 % .
One other issue , especially for Donald Trump ’ s in his re-election efforts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That key sector shed 12,000 jobs in December and has only gained 46,000 in 2019 .
The BLS notes that the gain in 2018 was 264,000 , almost six times greater than in 2019 .
That will catch the attention of those who oppose Trump ’ s trade policies and especially his trade war with China .
The overall view doesn ’ t look rosy either .
In 2019 , the US economy added 600,000 fewer jobs than it did in 2018 .
That could be explained by hitting a level near the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but if we were near that , wages would be rising faster than they are now .
This suggests that while we ’ re done dealing with the overhang of discouraged workers from the Great Recession of 2008-9 , we ’ re still dealing with some drags on job creation — which might well be the trade wars , or could still be in tax and regulatory policy that keeps capital on the sidelines .
Whatever it is , the Trump administration will need to identify it and craft policy to address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t get it passed , they need a good argument for a second term .
It ’ s not too early to begin considering it .

So much for the Thanksgiving goose to job-creation numbers. The number of jobs added in December dropped by over one hundred thousand to 145,000, according to today’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Wage growth dropped off a bit as well, although the unemployment rate remained steady at 3.5%:
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 145,000 in December, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in retail trade and health care, while mining lost jobs. … In December, the unemployment rate held at 3.5 percent, and the number of unemployed persons was unchanged at 5.8 million. A year earlier, the jobless rate was 3.9 percent, and the number of unemployed persons was 6.3 million. (See table A-1.) Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.1 percent), adult women (3.2 percent), teenagers (12.6 percent), Whites (3.2 percent), Blacks (5.9 percent), Asians (2.5 percent), and Hispanics (4.2 percent) showed little or no change in December. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.) The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 1.2 million, was unchanged in December and accounted for 20.5 percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.) The labor force participation rate was unchanged at 63.2 percent in December. The employment-population ratio was 61.0 percent for the fourth consecutive month but was up by 0.4 percentage point over the year. (See table A-1.)
This was a swing and a miss on several levels. First, revisions to the previous two months shaved 14,000 jobs off the previous estimates. Economists had predicted a slowdown after November’s adjusted 256,000 addition, but they had predicted at least 160,000 jobs added. The wage growth was expected to hold at 3.1% annualized, but instead it came in at 2.9%, a potential sign that the labor markets are beginning to tilt a little less healthily.
In fact, as CNBC points out, it’s the lowest wage growth in 18 months. However, they also see some reason for optimism in other measures:
In addition to the slow payroll growth, average hourly earnings rose by just 2.9%, below the 3.1% projection. December marked the first time that wage gains were below 3% on a year-over-year basis since July 2018. … On the upside, a separate, more encompassing measure that includes discouraged and underemployed workers fell to 6.7%, the lowest it’s ever been in records going back to 1994. The decline came amid a drop of 140,000 in people working part-time for economic reasons. The labor force participation rate held steady at 63.2% as the labor force rose by 209,000 to 164.6 million and those considered out of the labor force fell by 48,000 to 95.6 million. The total employment level rose to 158.8 million, also a fresh high. However, the unemployment rate for African-Americans rose 0.3 percentage points to 5.9%.
One other issue, especially for Donald Trump’s in his re-election efforts for a second term, is manufacturing. That key sector shed 12,000 jobs in December and has only gained 46,000 in 2019. The BLS notes that the gain in 2018 was 264,000, almost six times greater than in 2019. That will catch the attention of those who oppose Trump’s trade policies and especially his trade war with China.
The overall view doesn’t look rosy either. In 2019, the US economy added 600,000 fewer jobs than it did in 2018. That could be explained by hitting a level near the mythical status of “full employment,” but if we were near that, wages would be rising faster than they are now. This suggests that while we’re done dealing with the overhang of discouraged workers from the Great Recession of 2008-9, we’re still dealing with some drags on job creation — which might well be the trade wars, or could still be in tax and regulatory policy that keeps capital on the sidelines.
Whatever it is, the Trump administration will need to identify it and craft policy to address it. Even if they can’t get it passed, they need a good argument for a second term. It’s not too early to begin considering it.


hotair--2020-01-10--Iran: Hey, we didn't shoot down the Ukraine passenger jet

Missiles ?
What missiles ?
The head of Iran ’ s civil aviation bureau claimed today that the cause of the explosion of a Ukrainian passenger jet and the deaths of 176 people on board is still not known .
However , Ali Abedzadeh insisted that they definitely knew no missile hit the plane .
“ This claim , ” Abedzadeh said , “ was made by American politicians , ” and challenged them to report their findings in public : Iran has strongly denied that a Ukraine International Airlines jetliner that crashed in Iran shortly after takeoff earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ downed by an Iranian missile by mistake .
“ What is obvious for us , and what we can say with certainty , is that no missile hit the plane , ” Ali Abedzadeh , head of Iran ’ s Civil Aviation Organization , said on Friday .
Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei , also speaking Friday according to Iran ’ s Press TV , accused the U.S. of “ adding insult to the injury of the bereaved families ” by publicly stating the plan was brought down by an Iranian missile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a big lie once it is known that the claim is fraudulent , ” he said .
That ’ s a cute claim , but the Iranians seem to be the ones clamping down on information .
Rather than turn over the black boxes to an independent investigating agency — including the one cited by Abedzadeh in this statement — they have starting issuing their own read-outs from the data .
As NBC ’ s Today analyst Tom Costello notes , this hardly stokes confidence in Iranian credibility on this point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Iranians have tampered with the debris field : Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky apparently finds Iran less than credible , too .
Overnight , Zelensky asked Western countries to share their intelligence on the downing of Ukraine International Flight 752 , which would mean especially the American intelligence : Ukraine ’ s leader pleaded Friday for Western leaders to share with him intelligence that they said suggested Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was brought down by an Iranian missile , possibly fired by mistake .
… “ Given the recent statements by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we call on all international partners , especially the governments of the United States , Canada and the United Kingdom , to provide data and evidence relating to the disaster to the commission investigating the causes , ” Zelensky said in a statement on Facebook .
That process has already begun , according to one of Zelensky ’ s ministers , but not everyone was immediately in the loop : The Ukrainian leader is expected to speak with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday , and Zelensky spokeswoman Iuliia Mendel wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vadym Prystaiko met with U.S. officials and “ received important data that will be studied ” by Ukraine ’ s specialists .
… A Ukrainian official , speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly , said that Zelensky made the public request for evidence about the crash because the United States had not yet shared with Ukraine its intelligence about the missile Thursday .
“ The theory that the plane was hit by a missile is not ruled out , but it is not confirmed so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Danilov , secretary of Ukraine ’ s National Security and Defense Council , wrote on Facebook that his team was considering a variety of possible causes but wanted to search for possible debris from a Tor air-defense missile , after seeing online reports about the discovery of possible fragments of one near the crash site .
The Iranians are digging themselves a big hole with this explicit denial .
Videos strongly suggest some sort of missile struck the plane , and tell-tale holes in the debris certainly underscore that interpretation even without any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to withhold their satellite data for long ; we will probably try to degrade it for public release at some point , but the Ukrainians will get the full benefit of it , as will the Canadians .
It would have been better for Tehran to admit to an error and settle the civil claims rather than attempt total denials , but this is a characteristic of totalitarian systems based on fear and the perception of omnipotence .
The mullahs in Iran have taken two big body blows to that perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Qassem Soleimani and this idiotic anti-aircraft accident .
Their inability to process this rationally speaks to how fragile the mullahs might perceive themselves to be at the moment .

Missiles? What missiles? The head of Iran’s civil aviation bureau claimed today that the cause of the explosion of a Ukrainian passenger jet and the deaths of 176 people on board is still not known. However, Ali Abedzadeh insisted that they definitely knew no missile hit the plane. “This claim,” Abedzadeh said, “was made by American politicians,” and challenged them to report their findings in public:
Iran has strongly denied that a Ukraine International Airlines jetliner that crashed in Iran shortly after takeoff earlier this week, killing 176 people, was downed by an Iranian missile by mistake. “What is obvious for us, and what we can say with certainty, is that no missile hit the plane,” Ali Abedzadeh, head of Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization, said on Friday. Iranian government spokesman Ali Rabiei, also speaking Friday according to Iran’s Press TV, accused the U.S. of “adding insult to the injury of the bereaved families” by publicly stating the plan was brought down by an Iranian missile. “No one will assume responsibility for such a big lie once it is known that the claim is fraudulent,” he said.
That’s a cute claim, but the Iranians seem to be the ones clamping down on information. Rather than turn over the black boxes to an independent investigating agency — including the one cited by Abedzadeh in this statement — they have starting issuing their own read-outs from the data. As NBC’s Today analyst Tom Costello notes, this hardly stokes confidence in Iranian credibility on this point. Costello also says that suspicions are rising that the Iranians have tampered with the debris field:
“Iran has already started to read out the black boxes without Western observers there to see the process… There are already some concerns about whether the wreckage field has in any way been moved or tampered with.” @tomcostellonbc on Iran plane crash pic.twitter.com/K2ighZ6Ixg — TODAY (@TODAYshow) January 10, 2020
Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky apparently finds Iran less than credible, too. Overnight, Zelensky asked Western countries to share their intelligence on the downing of Ukraine International Flight 752, which would mean especially the American intelligence:
Ukraine’s leader pleaded Friday for Western leaders to share with him intelligence that they said suggested Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was brought down by an Iranian missile, possibly fired by mistake. … “Given the recent statements by the heads of state in the media, we call on all international partners, especially the governments of the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, to provide data and evidence relating to the disaster to the commission investigating the causes,” Zelensky said in a statement on Facebook.
That process has already begun, according to one of Zelensky’s ministers, but not everyone was immediately in the loop:
The Ukrainian leader is expected to speak with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday, and Zelensky spokeswoman Iuliia Mendel wrote on Twitter that Zelensky and Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko met with U.S. officials and “received important data that will be studied” by Ukraine’s specialists. … A Ukrainian official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, said that Zelensky made the public request for evidence about the crash because the United States had not yet shared with Ukraine its intelligence about the missile Thursday. “The theory that the plane was hit by a missile is not ruled out, but it is not confirmed so far,” Zelensky added. Oleksiy Danilov, secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, wrote on Facebook that his team was considering a variety of possible causes but wanted to search for possible debris from a Tor air-defense missile, after seeing online reports about the discovery of possible fragments of one near the crash site.
The Iranians are digging themselves a big hole with this explicit denial. Videos strongly suggest some sort of missile struck the plane, and tell-tale holes in the debris certainly underscore that interpretation even without any recourse to intelligence. The US is not going to withhold their satellite data for long; we will probably try to degrade it for public release at some point, but the Ukrainians will get the full benefit of it, as will the Canadians.
It would have been better for Tehran to admit to an error and settle the civil claims rather than attempt total denials, but this is a characteristic of totalitarian systems based on fear and the perception of omnipotence. The mullahs in Iran have taken two big body blows to that perception in the past week — the death of Qassem Soleimani and this idiotic anti-aircraft accident. Their inability to process this rationally speaks to how fragile the mullahs might perceive themselves to be at the moment.


hotair--2020-01-10--Vermont bill would ban cell phones until age 21

Since Vermont is the home of socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders , I suppose it ’ s only natural that it ’ s also the source for one of the silliest , most pointless pieces of legislation proposed in recent memory .
One member of the state senate has put forward a bill that would ban the possession of cell phones for anyone under the age of 21 .
Yes , you read that correctly .
But the bill wasn ’ t proposed as a serious piece of legislation .
The author is just trying to make a point .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to come up for a vote .
( Times Argus ) A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to use or possess a cellphone .
The bill , S.212 , would make such possession or use a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of a year behind bars and a $ 1,000 fine .
It said cellphone use while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers .
It also said young people use cellphones frequently to bully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been linked to suicides .
The bill ’ s author , Sen. John Rodgers , says that cell phones are used to “ radicalize and recruit terrorists , fascists , and other extremists.
” They are also employed by mass shooters who want to research previous shootings .
And if you ’ re not mature enough at age 18 to smoke cigarettes or purchase a firearm ( both of which have a minimum age of 21 in Vermont ) , you shouldn ’ t be trusted with a cell phone either .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rodgers ’ comments before realizing that he only introduced the bill to highlight a recent trend in Vermont governmental regulations .
( He said he wouldn ’ t even vote for it himself . )
Rodgers is a supporter of the Second Amendment and he ’ s trying to point out that the state is infantilizing people under the age of 21 , to say nothing of depriving them of their Second Amendment rights .
Cell phones and “ screen time ” in general have clearly caused a lot of problems in modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way we do with alcohol wouldn ’ t be any sort of solution .
But what Rodgers is pointing out is a question we ’ ve addressed here on multiple occasions .
How old do you have to be in order to be considered an adult ?
You can enlist in the military and be sent off to war at 18 .
( Seventeen with parental permission . )
You can get married and start a family .
You can work a full-time job without needing parental consent .
You can vote and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the leader of the free world .
But somehow , according to our government , you ’ re not mature enough to make decisions about smoking , drinking alcohol or ( in some states ) legally purchasing a firearm .
The more I reflect on this question , the more I being to suspect that we ’ re approaching it from the wrong angle .
Let ’ s face it… not everyone matures at the same rate .
I ’ ve known some fifteen-year-olds who were working part-time , saving money and acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are plenty of 21-year-olds ( and let ’ s be honest here… even some sixty-year-olds ) who remain hopelessly immature .
So does that mean we should just eliminate all minimum age laws entirely ?
No , that ’ s not what I ’ m saying .
We don ’ t need children in elementary school strolling into the convenience store and ordering a pack of Marlboros .
Each state has to decide for themselves at what age you transition from being a child requiring parental guidance to an adult who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But having settled on that age , it should just be the minimum age for everything we restrict children from doing .
Should that include cell phones ?
Probably not , if only because that ’ s the fastest way to get help in an emergency .
But there should probably be more options for parental controls on phones given to kids .

Since Vermont is the home of socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, I suppose it’s only natural that it’s also the source for one of the silliest, most pointless pieces of legislation proposed in recent memory. One member of the state senate has put forward a bill that would ban the possession of cell phones for anyone under the age of 21. Yes, you read that correctly. But the bill wasn’t proposed as a serious piece of legislation. The author is just trying to make a point. And it’s probably not even going to come up for a vote. (Times Argus)
A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to use or possess a cellphone. The bill, S.212, would make such possession or use a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of a year behind bars and a $1,000 fine. It said cellphone use while driving is one of the leading killers of teenagers. It also said young people use cellphones frequently to bully and threaten each other, something that has been linked to suicides.
The bill’s author, Sen. John Rodgers, says that cell phones are used to “radicalize and recruit terrorists, fascists, and other extremists.” They are also employed by mass shooters who want to research previous shootings. And if you’re not mature enough at age 18 to smoke cigarettes or purchase a firearm (both of which have a minimum age of 21 in Vermont), you shouldn’t be trusted with a cell phone either.
You have to read through most of Rodgers’ comments before realizing that he only introduced the bill to highlight a recent trend in Vermont governmental regulations. (He said he wouldn’t even vote for it himself.) Rodgers is a supporter of the Second Amendment and he’s trying to point out that the state is infantilizing people under the age of 21, to say nothing of depriving them of their Second Amendment rights.
Cell phones and “screen time” in general have clearly caused a lot of problems in modern society, but simply regulating them the way we do with alcohol wouldn’t be any sort of solution. But what Rodgers is pointing out is a question we’ve addressed here on multiple occasions. How old do you have to be in order to be considered an adult? You can enlist in the military and be sent off to war at 18. (Seventeen with parental permission.) You can get married and start a family. You can work a full-time job without needing parental consent. You can vote and help determine your own elected representatives and the leader of the free world.
But somehow, according to our government, you’re not mature enough to make decisions about smoking, drinking alcohol or (in some states) legally purchasing a firearm. The more I reflect on this question, the more I being to suspect that we’re approaching it from the wrong angle. Let’s face it… not everyone matures at the same rate. I’ve known some fifteen-year-olds who were working part-time, saving money and acting in a fairly responsible fashion. But there are plenty of 21-year-olds (and let’s be honest here… even some sixty-year-olds) who remain hopelessly immature.
So does that mean we should just eliminate all minimum age laws entirely? No, that’s not what I’m saying. We don’t need children in elementary school strolling into the convenience store and ordering a pack of Marlboros. Each state has to decide for themselves at what age you transition from being a child requiring parental guidance to an adult who is responsible for their own choices in life. But having settled on that age, it should just be the minimum age for everything we restrict children from doing. Should that include cell phones? Probably not, if only because that’s the fastest way to get help in an emergency. But there should probably be more options for parental controls on phones given to kids.


hotair--2020-01-10--The great Canadian "Family Feud" fail

The great Canadian "Family Feud" fail

There are more important things to write about but it ’ s been a long week and the collective palate needs cleansing .
So enjoy one of the dumber game-show flubs in modern history , punctuated by the contestant breaking into a swaggering celebratory dance because she ’ s convinced she just won the game for her family .
Strong Kelly Bundy energy from this one .
No , really , though , this clip makes sense when you remember that all Canadians are stupid : In fairness to her , if Popeye had ever had the chance to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be his favorite food .
Allegedly , in the tension of the moment and the pressure to be the first to buzz in , she misheard the question as “ What ’ s the most famous thing to eat at Popeyes ?
” I can … sort of buy that .
Or rather , I could have if not for the fact that she was also asked in this same sudden-death round to “ name something you might see in the sky on a clear night ” and answered “ helicopter.
” Contacted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , her mother told a newspaper that she ’ s taking it in good humor .
“ At least I ’ m pretty , ” she supposedly said .
Strong Kelly Bundy energy .
In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s another one from Canada that ’ s going around today .
It ’ s months old but only broke big online this past week .
The two T-Rexes in the foreground are children waiting to prank their grandmother at the airport gate upon her arrival in Victoria , British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees them !
But wait .

There are more important things to write about but it’s been a long week and the collective palate needs cleansing. So enjoy one of the dumber game-show flubs in modern history, punctuated by the contestant breaking into a swaggering celebratory dance because she’s convinced she just won the game for her family.
Strong Kelly Bundy energy from this one.
No, really, though, this clip makes sense when you remember that all Canadians are stupid:
This is amazing. Never change, Canada! pic.twitter.com/GUvPx9sFvy — Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) January 10, 2020
In fairness to her, if Popeye had ever had the chance to try Popeyes chicken sandwich, chicken really would be his favorite food.
Allegedly, in the tension of the moment and the pressure to be the first to buzz in, she misheard the question as “What’s the most famous thing to eat at Popeyes?” I can … sort of buy that. Or rather, I could have if not for the fact that she was also asked in this same sudden-death round to “name something you might see in the sky on a clear night” and answered “helicopter.”
Helicopter.
Contacted about the viral popularity of the clip, her mother told a newspaper that she’s taking it in good humor. “At least I’m pretty,” she supposedly said. Strong Kelly Bundy energy.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s another one from Canada that’s going around today. It’s months old but only broke big online this past week. The two T-Rexes in the foreground are children waiting to prank their grandmother at the airport gate upon her arrival in Victoria, British Columbia. Imagine her surprise when she sees them! But wait.


hotair--2020-01-10--Susan Collins: I'm in talks with a "small group" of fellow Republicans about calling new witnesses a

Susan Collins: I'm in talks with a "small group" of fellow Republicans about calling new witnesses at Trump's trial

I bet we ’ d all have some pretty good guesses at this point about who ’ s in that “ fairly small group.
” Some righties were high-fiving earlier this week when McConnell announced that he had the votes to proceed with a Clinton-style rules package , in which the Senate would postpone any decision on witnesses until after each side has presented its prima facie case at the trial .
The celebration was understandable since that amounted to checkmate against Pelosi .
Her dumb “ impeach and withhold ” strategy , aimed at pressuring ( somehow ) McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had failed .
As it was always destined to do .
But the fact that Collins , Murkowski , Gardner , Romney , and McSally weren ’ t willing to agree in advance to call new witnesses doesn ’ t mean they won ’ t allow it once the trial is under way .
Bolton ’ s announcement this week that he ’ s willing to testify put them on the spot by depriving them of an obvious reason not to try to call him .
If they couldn ’ t force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court battle , then they could just say that it ’ s not worth bothering .
( That ’ s what House Democrats did , right ? )
But if they can get him to appear just by issuing a subpoena , with Bolton promising to show , it ’ s harder to explain declining to issue that subpoena .
If the goal in this civic pageant is simply to show their constituents that they took the trial seriously before inevitably voting “ not guilty , ” they ’ re arguably stuck calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting that she ’ s discussing the subject of new witnesses with a select group of colleagues .
Speaking to reporters on Friday at the end of a visit to the Fruit Street School in Bangor , Collins said she had been working all week with a “ fairly small group ” of Republican senators and party leaders to ensure trial rules would allow House impeachment managers and Trump ’ s lawyers to call witnesses .
Collins declined to say how large the group was , but she said “ we should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for both the House and the president ’ s counsel if they choose to do so , ” she said .
For political reasons , that ’ s how this will have to work in practice — if Democrats get to call Bolton , the president gets to own the libs by calling a witness of his own like Hunter Biden .
Maybe Collins is hoping McConnell will twist Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy on the GOP caucus by not sending them down that path .
( If so , she ’ s kidding herself .
Trump ’ s going to relish his opportunity to play offense . )
Or maybe she thinks the “ small group ” she ’ s working with could get away with gritting their teeth and voting against calling individual witnesses like Biden or the whistleblower whom the president really wants to put on the stand .
He ’ s entitled to witnesses in principle , per Collins ; he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants .
The thinking in that case would be that , although MAGA Nation will be pissed off that the RINOs aren ’ t letting Trump put on the case he wants , all will be forgiven when they cast the vote to acquit him .
Which is probably true .
Collins and the rest can afford to show a tiny bit of favoritism towards Democrats on procedural matters knowing that they ’ re going to nuke the Democratic case in the end .
It ’ s a form of bet-hedging with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a third possibility , one which I raised yesterday : Maybe Collins is counting on Trump to provide her with a pretext to not bother calling Bolton after all .
Trump was asked about that today in an interview with Laura Ingraham and clarified that , oh yes , he ’ ll be invoking executive privilege to try to shut Bolton down .
In an interview with Laura Ingraham set to air Friday night , the Fox News host asked Trump : “ Why not call Bolton ?
Why not allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bogus .
Why not allow Bolton to testify ?
” “ No problem other than one thing , ” Trump replied .
“ You can ’ t be in the White House as president , future , I ’ m talking about future — any future presidents — and have a security advisor , anybody having to do with security , and legal and other things but especially — ” “ Are you going to invoke executive privilege ?
” Ingraham asked .
“ Well I think you have to for the sake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How ’ s that going to work at the trial if/when Bolton shows up ?
No one knows .
Which may be all the excuse Collins needs to say , “ Let ’ s not bother .
Too messy.
” In lieu of an exit question , a fun tidbit about “ impeach and withhold ” backfiring on Pelosi : I ’ m looking forward to Amy Klobuchar complaining that Pelosi wrecked her last best chance of a surge in Iowa by holding the articles of impeachment too long , right into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m really looking forward to Bernie fanatics blaming Pelosi if he flames out in Iowa and New Hampshire because he ’ s stuck in Washington attending the trial at a moment when he should be campaigning like a demon .
If the great socialist hope ends up underperforming , lefties will be frantic to find scapegoats among the Democratic establishment .
Pelosi ’ s handing them a reason to scapegoat her on a silver platter .

A “fairly small group,” she called it.
I bet we’d all have some pretty good guesses at this point about who’s in that “fairly small group.”
Some righties were high-fiving earlier this week when McConnell announced that he had the votes to proceed with a Clinton-style rules package, in which the Senate would postpone any decision on witnesses until after each side has presented its prima facie case at the trial. The celebration was understandable since that amounted to checkmate against Pelosi. Her dumb “impeach and withhold” strategy, aimed at pressuring (somehow) McConnell to make concessions on witnesses up front, had failed. As it was always destined to do.
But the fact that Collins, Murkowski, Gardner, Romney, and McSally weren’t willing to agree in advance to call new witnesses doesn’t mean they won’t allow it once the trial is under way. Bolton’s announcement this week that he’s willing to testify put them on the spot by depriving them of an obvious reason not to try to call him. If they couldn’t force him to appear without fighting a long court battle, then they could just say that it’s not worth bothering. (That’s what House Democrats did, right?) But if they can get him to appear just by issuing a subpoena, with Bolton promising to show, it’s harder to explain declining to issue that subpoena. If the goal in this civic pageant is simply to show their constituents that they took the trial seriously before inevitably voting “not guilty,” they’re arguably stuck calling Bolton now.
So here comes Collins admitting that she’s discussing the subject of new witnesses with a select group of colleagues.
Speaking to reporters on Friday at the end of a visit to the Fruit Street School in Bangor, Collins said she had been working all week with a “fairly small group” of Republican senators and party leaders to ensure trial rules would allow House impeachment managers and Trump’s lawyers to call witnesses. Collins declined to say how large the group was, but she said “we should be completely open to calling witnesses.” “I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for both the House and the president’s counsel if they choose to do so,” she said.
For political reasons, that’s how this will have to work in practice — if Democrats get to call Bolton, the president gets to own the libs by calling a witness of his own like Hunter Biden. Maybe Collins is hoping McConnell will twist Trump’s arm and convince him to make things easy on the GOP caucus by not sending them down that path. (If so, she’s kidding herself. Trump’s going to relish his opportunity to play offense.) Or maybe she thinks the “small group” she’s working with could get away with gritting their teeth and voting against calling individual witnesses like Biden or the whistleblower whom the president really wants to put on the stand. He’s entitled to witnesses in principle, per Collins; he’s not necessarily entitled to any witness he wants. The thinking in that case would be that, although MAGA Nation will be pissed off that the RINOs aren’t letting Trump put on the case he wants, all will be forgiven when they cast the vote to acquit him.
Which is probably true. Collins and the rest can afford to show a tiny bit of favoritism towards Democrats on procedural matters knowing that they’re going to nuke the Democratic case in the end. It’s a form of bet-hedging with swing voters back home.
But there’s a third possibility, one which I raised yesterday: Maybe Collins is counting on Trump to provide her with a pretext to not bother calling Bolton after all. Trump was asked about that today in an interview with Laura Ingraham and clarified that, oh yes, he’ll be invoking executive privilege to try to shut Bolton down.
In an interview with Laura Ingraham set to air Friday night, the Fox News host asked Trump: “Why not call Bolton? Why not allow him to testify? This thing is bogus. Why not allow Bolton to testify?” “No problem other than one thing,” Trump replied. “You can’t be in the White House as president, future, I’m talking about future — any future presidents — and have a security advisor, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things but especially —” “Are you going to invoke executive privilege?” Ingraham asked. “Well I think you have to for the sake of the office,” Trump said.
How’s that going to work at the trial if/when Bolton shows up? No one knows. Which may be all the excuse Collins needs to say, “Let’s not bother. Too messy.”
In lieu of an exit question, a fun tidbit about “impeach and withhold” backfiring on Pelosi:
A trial throws a wrench into prep for the next debate: "I don’t think they’ll cancel it outright. I think they’ll reschedule." And the biggest blow could be to second-tier candidates like @amyklobuchar, because "they need a huge performance here right before the caucuses." — Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) January 10, 2020
I’m looking forward to Amy Klobuchar complaining that Pelosi wrecked her last best chance of a surge in Iowa by holding the articles of impeachment too long, right into the home stretch before Iowa. And I’m really looking forward to Bernie fanatics blaming Pelosi if he flames out in Iowa and New Hampshire because he’s stuck in Washington attending the trial at a moment when he should be campaigning like a demon. If the great socialist hope ends up underperforming, lefties will be frantic to find scapegoats among the Democratic establishment. Pelosi’s handing them a reason to scapegoat her on a silver platter.