hotair--2020-01-14--Trudeau: If not for escalation between the U.S. and Iran, those jet passengers would still be alive

We shouldn ’ t be surprised .
This position is shared by North American liberals of all stripes , after all .
The defense will be that Trudeau was making a statement of straightforward fact .
“ I think if there were no tensions , if there was no escalation recently in the region , those Canadians would be right now home with their families , ” he tells a reporter from the Global Post in the clip below .
True enough .
As a matter of basic causation , if there ’ s no assault by Iranian militias on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no strike on Soleimani .
If there ’ s no strike on Soleimani then there ’ s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq .
If there ’ s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq then Iranian missile defenses don ’ t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack .
And if Iranian missile defenses don ’ t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack then there ’ s no mistaken shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger jet .
But watch the clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the U.S. specifically bears some blame before giving that answer .
This isn ’ t a banal statement about the sequence of events in Iran to the effect of “ bad things happen in war ( or near-war ) , ” it ’ s an attribution of moral culpability , clearly .
And so we return to the question that neither Pete Buttigieg nor Tulsi Gabbard nor every other lefty who ’ s laid the shootdown at the feet of the U.S. has had to answer .
Is there any action America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the various rocket attacks by Iranian-backed militias , one of which killed an American contractor , that would have absolved it from blame for Iran ’ s catastrophic fark-up with a jet in its own airspace ?
If we bear blame for their recklessness for the simple reason that it takes two to escalate , presumably any response by the U.S. that led to a shootdown would have left us partially culpable for that disaster .
Or is culpability triggered only if , as lefties believe , the act of killing Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions ?
It ’ s hard to shake the suspicion that any act of self-defense by the U.S. would allegedly put us on the hook morally for whatever insane thing Iran chose to do in response , especially coming from someone with Gabbard ’ s views on foreign policy .
The subtext of this debate , after all , is whether America should be aggressive in responding to Iran and run an increased risk of war or whether it should be passive about Iranian provocations and run an increased risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with impunity .
If you believe any risk of war is unacceptable , even as part of a strategy of deterrence , then naturally any U.S. response to Iran is unacceptable .
And one way to try to discourage those responses is to make Trump and the administration morally culpable not just for what we do but for what Iran does too , even if what Iran did in this case happens to be “ not taking rudimentary precautions against blowing up passenger jets.
” As many as 10 Republican senators are considering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would limit his ability to take military action against Iran… GOP Sens .
Mike Lee ( Utah ) and Rand Paul ( Ky. ) have already voiced their support for the measure , and Kaine says about eight more Republicans , including Sens .
Susan Collins ( Maine ) , Lisa Murkowski ( Alaska ) , Todd Young ( Ind . )
and Mitt Romney ( Utah ) , are reviewing it… Lee said fellow Republicans should view the Kaine-sponsored resolution as a “ completely noncontroversial measure ” that restates the Constitution ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to declare war… Kaine has agreed to accept Republican amendments that remove specific reference to Trump or might be construed as forcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from areas where Iranian proxies are present .
I ’ d be surprised if it ’ s 10 .
It ’ s a low-risk vote on the merits since Trump will surely veto any sort of legislation on this point that ends up on his desk and neither the House nor the Senate has the votes needed for an override .
But Senate Republicans must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president turning his back on Matt Gaetz after Gaetz surprised everyone by supporting the House version of this same bill .
The president ’ s clearly treating the debate as something of a loyalty test .
He might not hold a grudge against Lee or Rand Paul since he knows they ’ re prone to dovishness but anyone on whom he normally depends for “ loyalty ” will be forced to stay away from it .
Are there 10 Republicans in the Senate willing to risk chillier relations with the White House as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters won ’ t remember 20 minutes after it ’ s cast ?
Here ’ s Trudeau .
Watch a few minutes to get the full flavor .

We shouldn’t be surprised. This position is shared by North American liberals of all stripes, after all.
The defense will be that Trudeau was making a statement of straightforward fact. “I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families,” he tells a reporter from the Global Post in the clip below. True enough. As a matter of basic causation, if there’s no assault by Iranian militias on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad then there’s no strike on Soleimani. If there’s no strike on Soleimani then there’s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq. If there’s no Iranian missile attack on U.S. bases in Iraq then Iranian missile defenses don’t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack. And if Iranian missile defenses don’t end up on high alert for a U.S. counterattack then there’s no mistaken shootdown of a Ukrainian passenger jet.
But watch the clip. Trudeau is asked (twice) whether the U.S. specifically bears some blame before giving that answer. This isn’t a banal statement about the sequence of events in Iran to the effect of “bad things happen in war (or near-war),” it’s an attribution of moral culpability, clearly. And so we return to the question that neither Pete Buttigieg nor Tulsi Gabbard nor every other lefty who’s laid the shootdown at the feet of the U.S. has had to answer. Is there any action America could have taken after the embassy assault and the various rocket attacks by Iranian-backed militias, one of which killed an American contractor, that would have absolved it from blame for Iran’s catastrophic fark-up with a jet in its own airspace? If we bear blame for their recklessness for the simple reason that it takes two to escalate, presumably any response by the U.S. that led to a shootdown would have left us partially culpable for that disaster.
Or is culpability triggered only if, as lefties believe, the act of killing Soleimani was disproportionate as a reprisal to Iran’s actions?
It’s hard to shake the suspicion that any act of self-defense by the U.S. would allegedly put us on the hook morally for whatever insane thing Iran chose to do in response, especially coming from someone with Gabbard’s views on foreign policy. The subtext of this debate, after all, is whether America should be aggressive in responding to Iran and run an increased risk of war or whether it should be passive about Iranian provocations and run an increased risk of Iran thinking it can push the envelope with impunity. If you believe any risk of war is unacceptable, even as part of a strategy of deterrence, then naturally any U.S. response to Iran is unacceptable. And one way to try to discourage those responses is to make Trump and the administration morally culpable not just for what we do but for what Iran does too, even if what Iran did in this case happens to be “not taking rudimentary precautions against blowing up passenger jets.”
Meanwhile, in Washington:
As many as 10 Republican senators are considering bucking President Trump on a resolution that would limit his ability to take military action against Iran… GOP Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.) have already voiced their support for the measure, and Kaine says about eight more Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Todd Young (Ind.) and Mitt Romney (Utah), are reviewing it… Lee said fellow Republicans should view the Kaine-sponsored resolution as a “completely noncontroversial measure” that restates the Constitution’s declaration that Congress shall have sole power to declare war… Kaine has agreed to accept Republican amendments that remove specific reference to Trump or might be construed as forcing the withdrawal of U.S. troops from areas where Iranian proxies are present.
I’d be surprised if it’s 10. It’s a low-risk vote on the merits since Trump will surely veto any sort of legislation on this point that ends up on his desk and neither the House nor the Senate has the votes needed for an override. But Senate Republicans must have read the news stories about the president turning his back on Matt Gaetz after Gaetz surprised everyone by supporting the House version of this same bill. The president’s clearly treating the debate as something of a loyalty test. He might not hold a grudge against Lee or Rand Paul since he knows they’re prone to dovishness but anyone on whom he normally depends for “loyalty” will be forced to stay away from it. Are there 10 Republicans in the Senate willing to risk chillier relations with the White House as the price of a meaningless vote which voters won’t remember 20 minutes after it’s cast?
Here’s Trudeau. Watch a few minutes to get the full flavor.


hotair--2020-01-14--<span color='red'>The last Democratic debate before Iowa: Two communists enter, one communist leaves

Live at 9 p.m .
ET on CNN .
A month ago it looked like the central suspense of this debate would be whether Pete Buttigieg could build on his surge in Iowa and lock the state down with a command performance .
A month later the central suspense is whether a progressive civil war is going to break out onstage before our eyes .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s claim that Bernie Sanders once told her that a woman nominee can ’ t defeat Trump is obviously the elephant ( donkey ? )
in the room tonight .
The question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderators , Bernie , or Warren herself .
Sanders doesn ’ t want to talk about it for obvious reasons and Warren doesn ’ t want to look any more aggressive than she needs to .
Berniebros are already furious that she ’ d accuse him of sexism on the eve of the first big vote ; if she takes it upon herself to force the subject in order to put him on the spot , it ’ ll make her look that much more cutthroat .
Besides , the whole point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to CNN yesterday was to tee up the debate moderators to ask about it , no ?
Now that the left is in an uproar about it , the topic must be raised .
Quite possibly as the very first question of the night , which will set the mood for the two hours that follow .
My guess is that both Sanders and Warren will be conciliatory about it , with Bernie claiming that he doesn ’ t remember saying that a woman can ’ t win but allowing that he thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Trump and Warren claiming that Bernie did say it but that he meant it as a criticism of the president , not to discourage her .
Then they ’ ll each say something about supporting whoever the eventual nominee is , how the left must remain united , blah blah .
The more interesting question is whether either Warren or the moderators will remind the audience that Team Bernie allegedly threw the first punch by telling its volunteers to question Warren ’ s electability while canvassing for him .
That may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him by leaking their private conversation about woman candidates .
Bernie ’ s volunteers allegedly told people that Warren won ’ t motivate casual voters to register and turn out the way Sanders , the grassroots favorite , will ; maybe that critique reminded Warren of the earlier reason he once gave her privately to question her electability .
She needs to not come off as the bad guy tonight .
Emphasizing that the Sanders campaign started this is one way to do that .
The Sanders/Warren tension should be brief , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a delicate subject for both of them but because some lefties don ’ t want to see the movement divided and will resent whichever candidate appears more willing to let that happen .
Besides , they have a common enemy tonight .
That would be the new frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire , Joe Biden , whose … troubled foreign-policy record will be litigated thanks to the rising possibility of war with Iran .
“ I think he ’ s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” wrote former SecDef Robert Gates in his memoir about Biden a few years back , not incorrectly .
And yet : The more nervous Democratic voters get about international relations , the more apt they may be to turn to the guy with 50 years ’ experience in government on the incorrect assumption that he must have learned something from being around the issues for so long .
Sanders and Warren are out to correct that assumption tonight , starting of course with Biden ’ s vote for war with Iraq in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Kerry , has been trying to pre-spin that for him to unpersuasive effect : “ The fact is that we were promised by a president , by an administration , that they were going to do it as a last resort after exhausting diplomacy , that if they have to go to war it would be with a coalition that they built broadly , and that they would do it only in conjunction with our allies , ” Kerry said Friday .
“ It didn ’ t have to happen ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a mistake to have trusted them , I guess , and we paid a high price for it , ” Kerry added .
“ But that was not voting for the war.
” Looking forward to Biden claiming that he didn ’ t really vote for war when he voted for war .
Meanwhile , he needs to figure out a way to impugn Sanders ’ s own foreign-policy judgment that doesn ’ t involve calling him too dovish , as that would be an unfortunate critique at a moment when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit Trump ’ s authority to wage war on Iran .
Does Joe dare try to accuse America ’ s favorite socialist of being too hawkish himself ?
NBC remembered this detail from Bernie ’ s past today : Sanders voted for the resolution that authorized the war in Afghanistan , which remains far more open-ended than the Iraq resolution .
In a subsequent debate , he said he was “ wrong ” to have voted for the resolution that authorized the Afghanistan war but has given no quarter to Biden on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has called a mistake .
He also voted repeatedly for a U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq , including when he backed the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998 and again when President Bill Clinton launched airstrikes a few months later , as pointed to by a Democrat familiar with Sanders ’ record .
“ Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be overthrown , and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be eliminated , ” Sanders said on the House floor , even as he expressed reservations about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brief military campaign .
I don ’ t know if “ the far-leftist is too warlike ” will fly , particularly in light of Biden ’ s own record .
Something to watch for is how much the candidates bicker over their reactions to the Soleimani strike and the aftermath , as Biden took some heat from progressives for his tactful but muted response to Iran ’ s missile attack last Tuesday night .
Real liberals were supposed to seize that moment to immediately start shouting from the rooftops that Trump wants war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How can he call himself a real liberal ?
Here ’ s your thread to comment .
While we wait , enjoy “ The View ” going off on Bernie for allegedly telling Warren that a woman can ’ t beat Trump .

Live at 9 p.m. ET on CNN. A month ago it looked like the central suspense of this debate would be whether Pete Buttigieg could build on his surge in Iowa and lock the state down with a command performance.
A month later the central suspense is whether a progressive civil war is going to break out onstage before our eyes.
Elizabeth Warren’s claim that Bernie Sanders once told her that a woman nominee can’t defeat Trump is obviously the elephant (donkey?) in the room tonight. The question is who acknowledges it first, the moderators, Bernie, or Warren herself. Sanders doesn’t want to talk about it for obvious reasons and Warren doesn’t want to look any more aggressive than she needs to. Berniebros are already furious that she’d accuse him of sexism on the eve of the first big vote; if she takes it upon herself to force the subject in order to put him on the spot, it’ll make her look that much more cutthroat.
Besides, the whole point of leaking the conversation between Sanders and Warren to CNN yesterday was to tee up the debate moderators to ask about it, no? Now that the left is in an uproar about it, the topic must be raised. Quite possibly as the very first question of the night, which will set the mood for the two hours that follow. My guess is that both Sanders and Warren will be conciliatory about it, with Bernie claiming that he doesn’t remember saying that a woman can’t win but allowing that he thinks a woman opponent will face special nastiness from Trump and Warren claiming that Bernie did say it but that he meant it as a criticism of the president, not to discourage her. Then they’ll each say something about supporting whoever the eventual nominee is, how the left must remain united, blah blah.
The more interesting question is whether either Warren or the moderators will remind the audience that Team Bernie allegedly threw the first punch by telling its volunteers to question Warren’s electability while canvassing for him. That may have convinced Team Warren to go negative on him by leaking their private conversation about woman candidates. Bernie’s volunteers allegedly told people that Warren won’t motivate casual voters to register and turn out the way Sanders, the grassroots favorite, will; maybe that critique reminded Warren of the earlier reason he once gave her privately to question her electability. She needs to not come off as the bad guy tonight. Emphasizing that the Sanders campaign started this is one way to do that.
The Sanders/Warren tension should be brief, not just because the elephant in the room is a delicate subject for both of them but because some lefties don’t want to see the movement divided and will resent whichever candidate appears more willing to let that happen. Besides, they have a common enemy tonight. That would be the new frontrunner in Iowa and New Hampshire, Joe Biden, whose … troubled foreign-policy record will be litigated thanks to the rising possibility of war with Iran. “I think he’s been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” wrote former SecDef Robert Gates in his memoir about Biden a few years back, not incorrectly. And yet:
2020 Democratic White House hopefuls have drilled into foreign policy as U.S. tensions with Iran bubble, and a new poll suggests more primary voters put their faith in Joe Biden to navigate the crisis. About a third, or 32%, of Democratic primary voters most trust the former vice president to handle foreign relations, according to a Morning Consult survey released Monday night. Another 20% of respondents have the most confidence in Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to address the topic.
The more nervous Democratic voters get about international relations, the more apt they may be to turn to the guy with 50 years’ experience in government on the incorrect assumption that he must have learned something from being around the issues for so long. Sanders and Warren are out to correct that assumption tonight, starting of course with Biden’s vote for war with Iraq in 2002. Biden’s pal, John Kerry, has been trying to pre-spin that for him to unpersuasive effect:
“The fact is that we were promised by a president, by an administration, that they were going to do it as a last resort after exhausting diplomacy, that if they have to go to war it would be with a coalition that they built broadly, and that they would do it only in conjunction with our allies,” Kerry said Friday. “It didn’t have to happen; it was a war of choice.” “It was a mistake to have trusted them, I guess, and we paid a high price for it,” Kerry added. “But that was not voting for the war.”
Looking forward to Biden claiming that he didn’t really vote for war when he voted for war. Meanwhile, he needs to figure out a way to impugn Sanders’s own foreign-policy judgment that doesn’t involve calling him too dovish, as that would be an unfortunate critique at a moment when the Democratic Party has mobilized behind trying to limit Trump’s authority to wage war on Iran. Does Joe dare try to accuse America’s favorite socialist of being too hawkish himself? NBC remembered this detail from Bernie’s past today:
Sanders voted for the resolution that authorized the war in Afghanistan, which remains far more open-ended than the Iraq resolution. In a subsequent debate, he said he was “wrong” to have voted for the resolution that authorized the Afghanistan war but has given no quarter to Biden on the Iraq War vote, which Biden has called a mistake. He also voted repeatedly for a U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq, including when he backed the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998 and again when President Bill Clinton launched airstrikes a few months later, as pointed to by a Democrat familiar with Sanders’ record. “Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be eliminated,” Sanders said on the House floor, even as he expressed reservations about civilian casualties and the efficacy of the brief military campaign.
I don’t know if “the far-leftist is too warlike” will fly, particularly in light of Biden’s own record. Something to watch for is how much the candidates bicker over their reactions to the Soleimani strike and the aftermath, as Biden took some heat from progressives for his tactful but muted response to Iran’s missile attack last Tuesday night. Real liberals were supposed to seize that moment to immediately start shouting from the rooftops that Trump wants war and must be stopped. Biden declined. How can he call himself a real liberal?
Here’s your thread to comment. While we wait, enjoy “The View” going off on Bernie for allegedly telling Warren that a woman can’t beat Trump.


hotair--2020-01-14--Too dumb to check: Did police really threaten to arrest national-champion team for smoking celebrato

Too dumb to check: Did police really threaten to arrest national-champion team for smoking celebratory cigars?

“ Smoke ’ em if you got ’ em !
” yelled one victorious member of the NCAA football national champion Louisiana State Tigers .
If you do , however , don ’ t let the police catch you .
One overeager officer threatened to arrest several players for their celebratory stogies , a threat which fortunately never materialized : A police officer threw water on the party when telling the national champions they could not smoke the cigars that burned for easily 15 minutes after beating Clemson .
In fact , the officer announced to the players any smoking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to arrest .
Several players holding stogies laughed at the warning like it was a joke but the cop wasn ’ t smiling .
Another officer tried to tell them it was OK to celebrate with a smoke in the locker room but he insisted his commander told him it was a no-go .
In fact , no one seemed bothered by the threat , as the video below demonstrates .
Starting QB Joe Burrow , whose next destination might well be Cincinnati in the NFL draft , soaked up the winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some fine cigar smoke .
And he wasn ’ t the only one , either : The Tigers had just steamrolled Clemson in the national championship game , ending that program ’ s 29-game winning streak and capping off a record season that starred Heisman Trophy winner Joe Burrow .
So a celebration was in order .
One that included victory cigars in the locker room .
Except at least one police officer at the Superdome wasn ’ t in on the party , threatening to arrest those lighting up .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding their stogies .
The police may have responded to complaints about the smoke from others inside and just outside the locker room .
Twitchy notes that a handful of reporters complained about the “ unbelievably smoky ” atmosphere , calling it “ suffocating.
” Undoubtably the facility has a no-smoking policy backed by either state or local ordinance ; few places in the country lack either or both .
Technically speaking , the police were correct to notify the players of that violation .
But still , to quote Sigmund Freud ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just a cigar .
Police could simply have issued a summons for an infraction if they wanted to enforce that regulation rather than tell a group of celebrating players that they might haul them off to the hoosegow over it .
There is a grand tradition of celebrating accomplishments with cigars amongst one ’ s comrades , and one cigar never killed anyone .
( And it beats another alternative , alcohol , which occasionally does . )
Enforcing the law means doing so in a manner which brings it credibility rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer did know the difference between the two .
So smoke ’ em if you got ’ em , gentlemen .
And try not to think too hard about the NFL draft order coming up in the spring .

“Smoke ’em if you got ’em!” yelled one victorious member of the NCAA football national champion Louisiana State Tigers. If you do, however, don’t let the police catch you. One overeager officer threatened to arrest several players for their celebratory stogies, a threat which fortunately never materialized:
A police officer threw water on the party when telling the national champions they could not smoke the cigars that burned for easily 15 minutes after beating Clemson. In fact, the officer announced to the players any smoking cigars in the locker room would be subject to arrest. Several players holding stogies laughed at the warning like it was a joke but the cop wasn’t smiling. Another officer tried to tell them it was OK to celebrate with a smoke in the locker room but he insisted his commander told him it was a no-go. Nobody was arrested.
In fact, no one seemed bothered by the threat, as the video below demonstrates. Starting QB Joe Burrow, whose next destination might well be Cincinnati in the NFL draft, soaked up the winning atmosphere while he still can, along with some fine cigar smoke. And he wasn’t the only one, either:
https://twitter.com/NewCuIture/status/1216978190826078208
You can’t blame LSU for feeling a bit untouchable late Monday night. The Tigers had just steamrolled Clemson in the national championship game, ending that program’s 29-game winning streak and capping off a record season that starred Heisman Trophy winner Joe Burrow. So a celebration was in order. One that included victory cigars in the locker room. Except at least one police officer at the Superdome wasn’t in on the party, threatening to arrest those lighting up. According to AL.com, several players laughed while holding their stogies.
The police may have responded to complaints about the smoke from others inside and just outside the locker room. Twitchy notes that a handful of reporters complained about the “unbelievably smoky” atmosphere, calling it “suffocating.” Undoubtably the facility has a no-smoking policy backed by either state or local ordinance; few places in the country lack either or both. Technically speaking, the police were correct to notify the players of that violation.
But still, to quote Sigmund Freud (perhaps apocryphally), sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Police could simply have issued a summons for an infraction if they wanted to enforce that regulation rather than tell a group of celebrating players that they might haul them off to the hoosegow over it. There is a grand tradition of celebrating accomplishments with cigars amongst one’s comrades, and one cigar never killed anyone. (And it beats another alternative, alcohol, which occasionally does.) Enforcing the law means doing so in a manner which brings it credibility rather than disrepute, and at least one officer did know the difference between the two.
So smoke ’em if you got ’em, gentlemen. And try not to think too hard about the NFL draft order coming up in the spring.


hotair--2020-01-14--Uh-oh! Time to cancel Stephen King after he suggests art should be judged on quality, not diversity

Author Stephen King is a member of the resistance in good standing : But some of his progressive fans were shaken today when King suggested that “ diversity ” shouldn ’ t play a role in “ matters of art ” only the quality of the work : As you can see , that statement was liked more than 32,000 times , but it also brought a strong reaction from thousands of people who felt that King was speaking from privilege : A couple of hours after his initial tweets , King offered a clarification : That wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gay writes that King ’ s statement “ implies that diversity and quality can not be synonymous ” I think I get what she ’ s saying .
There are plenty of talented people of every race so there ’ s no reason you can ’ t have both diversity and quality .
Fair enough .
But I don ’ t think King was saying they can ’ t be synonymous only that a judgment of quality shouldn ’ t involve any judgment of race .
Let ’ s not forget the context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cream of the crop and once again this year the awards ( and the Oscar voters ) are being accused of not nominating enough people of color .
The suggestion being made is that the largely white Oscar voters are too biased ( perhaps unconsciously ) to be fair .
And in response to this accusation which is making the rounds on social media , King is saying that he tries to judge the quality of work , not the diversity of the creator .
In other words , he ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they are a minority , just as he wouldn ’ t give anyone points for being part of the white majority .
I think it ’ s fair to say , as King does , that it ’ s important to try to ensure a level playing field which certainly hasn ’ t always existed for people of color in Hollywood and elsewhere .
However , as a voter at the Oscars this year what is King supposed to do about this ?
Is he supposed to judge what ’ s presented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he supposed to favor someone based on their perceived opportunities ?
As a judge , King still needs to look at what ’ s out there fairly .
Self-conscious bias for one group is no improvement on unconscious bias for another .
Equal opportunity is important but making that a reality can ’ t all be placed at the feet of Oscar voters .
So as much as I don ’ t enjoy Stephen King ’ s political commentary what he said about judging quality apart from diversity isn ’ t backwards .

Author Stephen King is a member of the resistance in good standing:
Truth is to Trump what kryptonite is to Superman. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 10, 2020
But some of his progressive fans were shaken today when King suggested that “diversity” shouldn’t play a role in “matters of art” only the quality of the work:
As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. For me, the diversity issue–as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway–did not come up. That said… — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
…I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
As you can see, that statement was liked more than 32,000 times, but it also brought a strong reaction from thousands of people who felt that King was speaking from privilege:
With all due respect, I'm afraid that a meritocracy could work only if the game weren't rigged. — Laura Lippman (@LauraMLippman) January 14, 2020
https://twitter.com/MorganJerkins/status/1217060644530401280
Sir, respectfully saying you as a white man can’t really say that. You had more advantages and opportunities than a person of color would have. They have been wrongfully held back in so many ways just because of their color skin. — David Weissman (@davidmweissman) January 14, 2020
As a fan, this is painful to read from you. It implies that diversity and quality cannot be synonymous. They are not separate things. Quality is everywhere but most industries only believe in quality from one demographic. And now, here you are. — roxane gay (@rgay) January 14, 2020
Hugo award winning author Nora Jemisin had a similar take:
Damn, Stephen. Damn. I thought you were better than this. It should be obvious that diversity and quality *aren't separate qualities,* or in opposition to each other — except in the minds of bigots. Damn. — N. K. Jemisin (@nkjemisin) January 14, 2020
Director Ava DuVernay called the tweet “backward and ignorant.”
When you wake up, meditate, stretch, reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant you want to go back to bed. https://t.co/nPXOeAebkb — Ava DuVernay (@ava) January 14, 2020
A couple of hours after his initial tweets, King offered a clarification:
The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
That wasn’t good enough for Jemisin:
I don't think it's a nice save at all. He's still treating diversity as "that feel-good thing privileged people maybe do on the side" but extraneous to writing quality characters or worlds. It's horseshit. — N. K. Jemisin (@nkjemisin) January 14, 2020
When Roxanne Gay writes that King’s statement “implies that diversity and quality cannot be synonymous” I think I get what she’s saying. There are plenty of talented people of every race so there’s no reason you can’t have both diversity and quality. Fair enough. But I don’t think King was saying they can’t be synonymous only that a judgment of quality shouldn’t involve any judgment of race.
Let’s not forget the context here. The Oscars are judging the cream of the crop and once again this year the awards (and the Oscar voters) are being accused of not nominating enough people of color. The suggestion being made is that the largely white Oscar voters are too biased (perhaps unconsciously) to be fair. And in response to this accusation which is making the rounds on social media, King is saying that he tries to judge the quality of work, not the diversity of the creator. In other words, he’s not giving anyone a bonus in his estimation because they are a minority, just as he wouldn’t give anyone points for being part of the white majority.
I think it’s fair to say, as King does, that it’s important to try to ensure a level playing field which certainly hasn’t always existed for people of color in Hollywood and elsewhere. However, as a voter at the Oscars this year what is King supposed to do about this? Is he supposed to judge what’s presented to him on quality alone or is he supposed to favor someone based on their perceived opportunities?
As a judge, King still needs to look at what’s out there fairly. Self-conscious bias for one group is no improvement on unconscious bias for another. Equal opportunity is important but making that a reality can’t all be placed at the feet of Oscar voters. So as much as I don’t enjoy Stephen King’s political commentary what he said about judging quality apart from diversity isn’t backwards.


hotair--2020-01-15--San Francisco's sad homeless merry go round

This morning the San Francisco Chronicle published a story about a bus line called SamTrans which appeared to be dumping homeless people in the city late at night .
A pair of private security guards who work in the area near the city ’ s new homeless Navigation Center started noticing a late influx of homeless people .
By chance they came across a bus Sam Trans bus stop and heard the bus driver telling everyone they had to get out because it was the end of the line .
Most of the people who got out appeared to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus service from the Peninsula to San Francisco ’ s Embarcadero appears to be doing double duty as a late-night homeless shuttle that regularly drops those with nowhere to go onto city streets and parks at the end of the line .
Some of those homeless people may be coming from San Francisco International Airport , where San Francisco police hand out free bus tokens to keep them out of the terminals at night .
This at a time when the city just opened a $ 4 million Navigation Center not far away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s unconscionable that agencies are playing what appears to be musical chairs with the homeless , ” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin , whose district includes the Drumm Street block where the SamTrans line terminates… “ This is just the type of homeless dumping that we sued the state of Nevada over a few years back , ” Peskin said , refering to the 2015 “ Greyhound therapy case ” that found the state of Nevada was giving unwanted psychiatric patients one-way tickets .
But it turns out the situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ homeless dumping.
” As the story mentions , many of the people on the SamTrans bus had been given tokens by authorities at San Francisco International Airport .
In fact , the Chronicle reported this was happening last year .
And it just happens that the stop near the Embarcadero is the end of the line , so that ’ s where most of the people with nowhere else to go wind up .
But as you ’ ll see in the story below , the SamTrans spokesman says they aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He believes many of the homeless who ride the bus from the airport wound up in the airport by riding BART trains from the city .
Last September I wrote about the increasing problems on BART trains which resulted from a “ blitz ” to clear the homeless from BART stations .
Forbidden from crashing in the stations , many of the homeless simply got onto the trains where they can ride until late at night .
Many wind up at the airport and from there back onto the bus heading north @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily homeless migration pattern .
Or maybe it ’ s the world ’ s saddest merry go round .
Either way , the people in the region are paying for it all .

This morning the San Francisco Chronicle published a story about a bus line called SamTrans which appeared to be dumping homeless people in the city late at night. A pair of private security guards who work in the area near the city’s new homeless Navigation Center started noticing a late influx of homeless people. By chance they came across a bus Sam Trans bus stop and heard the bus driver telling everyone they had to get out because it was the end of the line. Most of the people who got out appeared to be homeless:
The new, expanded SamTrans bus service from the Peninsula to San Francisco’s Embarcadero appears to be doing double duty as a late-night homeless shuttle that regularly drops those with nowhere to go onto city streets and parks at the end of the line. Some of those homeless people may be coming from San Francisco International Airport, where San Francisco police hand out free bus tokens to keep them out of the terminals at night. This at a time when the city just opened a $4 million Navigation Center not far away to deal with homelessness along the waterfront. “It’s unconscionable that agencies are playing what appears to be musical chairs with the homeless,” said Supervisor Aaron Peskin, whose district includes the Drumm Street block where the SamTrans line terminates… “This is just the type of homeless dumping that we sued the state of Nevada over a few years back,” Peskin said, refering to the 2015 “Greyhound therapy case” that found the state of Nevada was giving unwanted psychiatric patients one-way tickets.
But it turns out the situation isn’t quite as simple as “homeless dumping.” As the story mentions, many of the people on the SamTrans bus had been given tokens by authorities at San Francisco International Airport. In fact, the Chronicle reported this was happening last year. And it just happens that the stop near the Embarcadero is the end of the line, so that’s where most of the people with nowhere else to go wind up.
But as you’ll see in the story below, the SamTrans spokesman says they aren’t packing the homeless into San Francisco. He believes many of the homeless who ride the bus from the airport wound up in the airport by riding BART trains from the city.
Last September I wrote about the increasing problems on BART trains which resulted from a “blitz” to clear the homeless from BART stations. Forbidden from crashing in the stations, many of the homeless simply got onto the trains where they can ride until late at night. Many wind up at the airport and from there back onto the bus heading north again. It’s like a daily homeless migration pattern. Or maybe it’s the world’s saddest merry go round. Either way, the people in the region are paying for it all.
Here’s a local report on the SamTrans buses:


hotair--2020-01-15--What's on those Top Secret Navy UFO slides?

We recently looked at the admission from the Office of Naval Intelligence ( ONI ) that they had at least one other video of the Nimitz UFO encounter that was classified Secret and a set of slides that are “ correctly ” marked Top Secret .
The latter was described as having the potential to cause “ exceptionally grave damage ” to the national security of the United States if the documents were released to the public .
There are , of course , legitimate reasons for the government and the military to hold certain information close to the vest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this revelation set a lot of tongues to wagging .
What was this information ?
And what does it have to do with UFOs ?
Over at the Washington Examiner , Tom Rogan ( who has been doing yeoman ’ s work on the entire UFO/UAP subject ) has spent some time researching this question .
He obviously doesn ’ t have a copy of the highly classified slides , but he believes we can make some fairly reliable guesses as to where they came from and what sort of information they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ONI .
First , Tom concludes that those slides are probably the ones used to brief both the President and senior congressional leaders last year on all of the Navy UFO information that had been floating around .
But what is it about the information that could undermine U.S.intelligence activities , sources and methods ?
Here , the ONI is almost certainly referring to active UFO research and analysis programs undertaken by the Navy and other government agencies .
Former U.S. government officials involved in those programs have asserted that the UFO research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have spoken to other well-informed individuals who assert the same .
And , considering that these programs are attempting to ascertain how some UFOs use anti-gravity-enabled means of propulsion to instantaneously accelerate to hypersonic speeds , with little , and sometimes zero , optical/sensor visibility , it ’ s understandable that the ONI would want to keep their research hidden .
Tom goes on to opine that the “ sources and methods ” in question are probably some of our most advanced sensor systems .
If showing their cards meant exposing how our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its capabilities , that would be of intense interest to our terrestrial adversaries like Russia and China , no matter whether the UFOs belong to us , them , or somebody… out there .
I can ’ t really argue with that .
It makes perfect sense .
That ’ s also why they intentionally degraded and clipped some of the UFO videos we ’ ve seen .
You don ’ t want to show your hand unless there ’ s no avoiding it .
But ONI also mentioned protecting “ scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” What ’ s that about ?
More from Tom .
Here ’ s where Tom and I will probably disagree , at least to a certain extent .
Anyone who ’ s been following this topic for a while is aware of the stories from many countries about UFOs seemingly taking a great interest in nuclear power generation and – even more so – nuclear weapons .
But it ’ s hardly a secret anymore than most of our carriers and other large navy ships are nuclear powered and our fleet has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Talking about the UFOs themselves wouldn ’ t require mentioning whether or not there were any tactical weapons onboard at the time .
( For example , there almost certainly weren ’ t any nukes with the Nimitz carrier battle group during the 2004 incident because they were out on a brief training mission prior to deployment .
They didn ’ t even have conventional missiles loaded on the fighter jets ) Tom concludes with the really big question .
If these slides are indeed from the briefings given to Trump and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UFOs , what they are and where they came from ?
Tom ’ s guess is that Congress was told that these objects are most likely “ non-U.S. , intelligently operated vehicles of unidentified origin , which are judged with high confidence not to be under control of a foreign state or non-state actor.
” In other words , if you rule out the United States , Russia , and China , they were probably made by extraterrestrials of some sort .
That ’ s the answer I ’ d like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us a bit closer to some sort of formal admission from the government that we ’ re dealing with something totally foreign .
And not “ foreign ” in terms of Europe or Asia , but foreign to the Earth .
But even if that ’ s true , we have no way of knowing whether our military is sitting on a lot more proof that makes such a conclusion less than hypothetical .
And even if they are , I remain unconvinced that they would empty the bag entirely for either the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d love to be wrong about that , but we ’ ve been beating our heads against the wall of government secrecy for far too long for me to suddenly become an optimist .

We recently looked at the admission from the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) that they had at least one other video of the Nimitz UFO encounter that was classified Secret and a set of slides that are “correctly” marked Top Secret. The latter was described as having the potential to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security of the United States if the documents were released to the public. There are, of course, legitimate reasons for the government and the military to hold certain information close to the vest when national security is concerned, but this revelation set a lot of tongues to wagging. What was this information? And what does it have to do with UFOs?
Over at the Washington Examiner, Tom Rogan (who has been doing yeoman’s work on the entire UFO/UAP subject) has spent some time researching this question. He obviously doesn’t have a copy of the highly classified slides, but he believes we can make some fairly reliable guesses as to where they came from and what sort of information they would contain to justify such a description from ONI.
First, Tom concludes that those slides are probably the ones used to brief both the President and senior congressional leaders last year on all of the Navy UFO information that had been floating around. But what is it about the information that could undermine U.S.intelligence activities, sources and methods?
Here, the ONI is almost certainly referring to active UFO research and analysis programs undertaken by the Navy and other government agencies. Former U.S. government officials involved in those programs have asserted that the UFO research effort is active and growing. I have spoken to other well-informed individuals who assert the same. And, considering that these programs are attempting to ascertain how some UFOs use anti-gravity-enabled means of propulsion to instantaneously accelerate to hypersonic speeds, with little, and sometimes zero, optical/sensor visibility, it’s understandable that the ONI would want to keep their research hidden.
Tom goes on to opine that the “sources and methods” in question are probably some of our most advanced sensor systems. If showing their cards meant exposing how our best sensor equipment operates and the limits of its capabilities, that would be of intense interest to our terrestrial adversaries like Russia and China, no matter whether the UFOs belong to us, them, or somebody… out there. I can’t really argue with that. It makes perfect sense. That’s also why they intentionally degraded and clipped some of the UFO videos we’ve seen. You don’t want to show your hand unless there’s no avoiding it.
But ONI also mentioned protecting “scientific and technological matters related to national security.” What’s that about? More from Tom.
Well, I would confidently venture that this is the nuclear-related UFO concern. Specifically, the proven and sustaining interest in and the ability of some UFOs to detect and interdict nuclear-powered and/or armed U.S. military platforms. The government assesses that this nuclear factor is primarily why the Navy’s nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered/nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines interact with UFOs at a far greater rate than other military platforms.
Here’s where Tom and I will probably disagree, at least to a certain extent. Anyone who’s been following this topic for a while is aware of the stories from many countries about UFOs seemingly taking a great interest in nuclear power generation and – even more so – nuclear weapons. But it’s hardly a secret anymore than most of our carriers and other large navy ships are nuclear powered and our fleet has the ability to deploy nuclear weapons. Talking about the UFOs themselves wouldn’t require mentioning whether or not there were any tactical weapons onboard at the time. (For example, there almost certainly weren’t any nukes with the Nimitz carrier battle group during the 2004 incident because they were out on a brief training mission prior to deployment. They didn’t even have conventional missiles loaded on the fighter jets)
Tom concludes with the really big question. If these slides are indeed from the briefings given to Trump and to Congress, what do they say about the UFOs, what they are and where they came from? Tom’s guess is that Congress was told that these objects are most likely “non-U.S., intelligently operated vehicles of unidentified origin, which are judged with high confidence not to be under control of a foreign state or non-state actor.”
In other words, if you rule out the United States, Russia, and China, they were probably made by extraterrestrials of some sort. That’s the answer I’d like to think they got because it may push us a bit closer to some sort of formal admission from the government that we’re dealing with something totally foreign. And not “foreign” in terms of Europe or Asia, but foreign to the Earth.
But even if that’s true, we have no way of knowing whether our military is sitting on a lot more proof that makes such a conclusion less than hypothetical. And even if they are, I remain unconvinced that they would empty the bag entirely for either the White House or Congress. I’d love to be wrong about that, but we’ve been beating our heads against the wall of government secrecy for far too long for me to suddenly become an optimist.


hotair--2020-01-15--Bad news from Bloomberg: The debate kind of stank, you know

Is this sour grapes or insightful analysis ?
Probably a bit of both , and even Michael Bloomberg subtly admits it in his interview today on ABC ’ s The View .
When Joy Behar asks what he thought of last night ’ s debate , Bloomberg dryly quips , “ The best debate in 2020 , ” which takes a moment to sink in with the panel .
It was “ good theater , ” Bloomberg sniffs , but it “ didn ’ t address the issues ” but rather focused on the sniping between the candidates .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bloomberg continues , but just forums for “ pre-canned sound bites ” intended to generate “ pre-scripted ” phony controversies .
When one host says she still would have liked to see Bloomberg on stage the night before , he suddenly changes his tune , however : Don ’ t knock good theater , in other words .
In fairness , Bloomberg ’ s correct about getting the visibility , although he ’ s best positioned to deal with that issue .
He ’ s spending tens of millions of dollars from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his messaging , so visibility isn ’ t really his problem .
As much as it pains to admit it , he ’ s also correct about the debates , but it ’ s hardly earthshaking to say that they ’ re pointless .
Democrats have been having the same debate since June , and no one ’ s getting any more insight from them than in the first .
Perhaps if it got down to two or three candidates on stage rather than 6 , 12 , or 20 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something more substantive to emerge .
For the moment , though , the only thing that these debates actually produce is “ visibility.
” It ’ s far too late for the DNC to fix its debate format issues this cycle .
The RNC , on the other hand , has three years to figure out a solution to the game-show degradation this format creates .

Is this sour grapes or insightful analysis? Probably a bit of both, and even Michael Bloomberg subtly admits it in his interview today on ABC’s The View. When Joy Behar asks what he thought of last night’s debate, Bloomberg dryly quips, “The best debate in 2020,” which takes a moment to sink in with the panel.
It was “good theater,” Bloomberg sniffs, but it “didn’t address the issues” but rather focused on the sniping between the candidates. “They’re not really debates,” Bloomberg continues, but just forums for “pre-canned sound bites” intended to generate “pre-scripted” phony controversies.
When one host says she still would have liked to see Bloomberg on stage the night before, he suddenly changes his tune, however:
2020 candidate @MikeBloomberg says he "didn't learn anything" from last night's #DemDebate, calling it a "he said, she said." "I suppose it's good theatre, but it didn't address the issues of the country and what they would do." https://t.co/f8u2wbJuik pic.twitter.com/TtYTnYoOH3 — The View (@TheView) January 15, 2020
Don’t knock good theater, in other words. In fairness, Bloomberg’s correct about getting the visibility, although he’s best positioned to deal with that issue. He’s spending tens of millions of dollars from his own pocket to blanket the airwaves with his messaging, so visibility isn’t really his problem.
As much as it pains to admit it, he’s also correct about the debates, but it’s hardly earthshaking to say that they’re pointless. Democrats have been having the same debate since June, and no one’s getting any more insight from them than in the first. Perhaps if it got down to two or three candidates on stage rather than 6, 12, or 20, there might be room in this format for something more substantive to emerge. For the moment, though, the only thing that these debates actually produce is “visibility.”
It’s far too late for the DNC to fix its debate format issues this cycle. The RNC, on the other hand, has three years to figure out a solution to the game-show degradation this format creates.


hotair--2020-01-15--Report: McConnell open to "witness reciprocity" for Trump and House Dems at impeachment trial

Ted Cruz is getting credit for floating this idea to Cocaine Mitch but a one-for-one deal on witnesses between the two sides was unavoidable .
Or at least it was once John Bolton cleared his throat and told the world he ’ d testify if subpoenaed .
Until that moment I think McConnell was still holding out hope of having a trial with no witnesses .
House Dems would present their case based on the evidence gathered during Schiff ’ s hearings , then Trump ’ s lawyers would present a defense , and then the Senate would hold a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Result : Nope , no witnesses .
They ’ re done .
Time to issue a verdict .
The Susan Collins contingent would have gone along with that , I suspect , on grounds that there was no way to expeditiously compel Bolton and other Trump aides like Mick Mulvaney to testify while the president was asserting “ absolute immunity.
” But everything changed once Bolton said he ’ d ignore “ absolute immunity ” and show up .
Suddenly the Collins crowd faced real pressure to call him .
If their goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters that they did their jobs diligently as jurors before voting “ not guilty ” then declining to call a witness as significant as Bolton after he ’ d promised to testify would have made that very hard .
They ’ d have to call him , to McConnell ’ s chagrin .
So now he ’ s embracing the back-up plan , ensuring that House Dems and the president get the same number of witnesses .
That will help Collins et al .
convince voters on both sides that they were scrupulously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from demanding to hear from the likes of Lev Parnas , knowing that that would mean granting Trump a second witness too .
During the 30-minute session , Cruz pitched McConnell on the idea of witness reciprocity — if Democrats want to hear from former Trump national security adviser John Bolton on the Ukraine scandal , then Republicans get to hear from Hunter Biden .
McConnell was open to that message , said a source familiar with the discussion .
Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) later raised the strategy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial , ” McConnell told reporters [ later ] .
“ And I think it ’ s certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses if they wanted to hear from them .
So if you get to that issue , I can ’ t imagine that only the witnesses our Democratic colleagues want to call will be called.
” McConnell ’ s dream here is deterrence .
He wants Pelosi and Schumer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and decide that it ’ s more important to stop Hunter Biden from testifying than to force Bolton to do so .
If that happened , with Dems refusing to play ball , Collins et al .
would suddenly have political cover to say , “ To hell with it , we ’ re not calling any witnesses then .
If the Democrats aren ’ t interested in getting to the full truth here then there ’ s no reason to proceed further .
Trial over.
” But Bolton ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has put Democratic leaders in a jam too .
Before he said that , I think Dem leaders would have carefully considered whether the risk to Joe Biden next fall in what Hunter might say ( or at least might be accused of on national television ) outweighed the value of forcing Bolton to take the stand .
Remember , the trial ’ s outcome is assured no matter what Bolton claims .
If Dems “ win ” now by getting him to testify and the Senate acquits Trump anyway , and meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a gigantic audience to feed suspicions about Burisma and possible corruption by his father , Joe Biden could end up more damaged by this process than Trump is .
The election could depend on it .
But , thanks to Bolton , the question is now academic : Lefties are salivating at the thought of having him testify at long last and Pelosi and Schumer can ’ t deny them that gratification .
They ’ re going to have to call him — even if it means calling Hunter Biden too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Dems succeed in calling *two* witnesses , say , Bolton and Lev Parnas ( which is unlikely ) , who are the two who get called by Trump ?
Hunter is one , obviously .
But who ’ s the other ?
I don ’ t think the Collins crew will go for any of those other witnesses .
The whistleblower is old news by now and Senate Republicans don ’ t want to start playing games with the other chamber by putting House Dems on the stand .
Otherwise Senate GOPers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on various matters .
Calling Joe Biden would make sense in the context of a defense focused on Burisma but McConnell would be deathly afraid of Biden turning his testimony into an opportunity to grandstand against Trump and to forcefully assert his own innocence .
Remember , Cocaine Mitch wants as little risk from this trial as possible .
Putting the would-be Democratic nominee on television knowing that a good performance might help propel him not just to the nomination but to the presidency would be the highest possible risk .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second witness .
Someone from Ukraine , maybe ?
Does Trump dare roll the dice on the credibility of a Ukrainian official ?
Question two : Are we sure there are four Republicans in the Collins crew who are willing to join Schumer in calling witnesses ?
Four is what he needs to get to a majority of 51 and he seems likely to get Collins , Murkowski , and Romney .
But what about Cory Gardner , the presumptive fourth vote ?
The Times notes that he ’ s caught in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the hole in disappointing the GOP base by agreeing to call witnesses during the trial is the fact that he ’ ll surely atone in the end by voting for acquittal .
Not only that but “ witness reciprocity ” gives him an opportunity to gratify MAGA fans during the procedural phase of the trial by handing Trump as many witnesses as Dems get .
I think he ’ ll be the fourth vote .
And even if he isn ’ t , it ’ s possible that Schumer only needs three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses .
Presumably any 50/50 split on calling someone would be resolved by John Roberts , who I assume would lean in favor of calling obviously relevant players like Bolton in the name of gathering more facts .
That ’ s the best reason for Gardner to consider voting against calling Bolton , in fact — Roberts will probably bail him out , in which case Gardner can go home and tell Republicans that he stuck with Trump the whole way and tell Democrats that the trial was fair because , after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t they ?
Here ’ s Ted Cruz yesterday on Fox talking about witness reciprocity and how the trial is likely to play out .

Ted Cruz is getting credit for floating this idea to Cocaine Mitch but a one-for-one deal on witnesses between the two sides was unavoidable. Or at least it was once John Bolton cleared his throat and told the world he’d testify if subpoenaed. Until that moment I think McConnell was still holding out hope of having a trial with no witnesses. House Dems would present their case based on the evidence gathered during Schiff’s hearings, then Trump’s lawyers would present a defense, and then the Senate would hold a vote on whether to call witnesses. Result: Nope, no witnesses. They’re done. Time to issue a verdict. The Susan Collins contingent would have gone along with that, I suspect, on grounds that there was no way to expeditiously compel Bolton and other Trump aides like Mick Mulvaney to testify while the president was asserting “absolute immunity.”
But everything changed once Bolton said he’d ignore “absolute immunity” and show up. Suddenly the Collins crowd faced real pressure to call him. If their goal in all this is to show swing voters that they did their jobs diligently as jurors before voting “not guilty” then declining to call a witness as significant as Bolton after he’d promised to testify would have made that very hard. They’d have to call him, to McConnell’s chagrin.
So now he’s embracing the back-up plan, ensuring that House Dems and the president get the same number of witnesses. That will help Collins et al. convince voters on both sides that they were scrupulously fair. And it might discourage Dems from demanding to hear from the likes of Lev Parnas, knowing that that would mean granting Trump a second witness too.
During the 30-minute session, Cruz pitched McConnell on the idea of witness reciprocity — if Democrats want to hear from former Trump national security adviser John Bolton on the Ukraine scandal, then Republicans get to hear from Hunter Biden. McConnell was open to that message, said a source familiar with the discussion. Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) later raised the strategy to the broader Senate Republican Conference… “We’ll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial,” McConnell told reporters [later]. “And I think it’s certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses if they wanted to hear from them. So if you get to that issue, I can’t imagine that only the witnesses our Democratic colleagues want to call will be called.”
McConnell’s dream here is deterrence. He wants Pelosi and Schumer to digest the idea of “witness reciprocity” and decide that it’s more important to stop Hunter Biden from testifying than to force Bolton to do so. If that happened, with Dems refusing to play ball, Collins et al. would suddenly have political cover to say, “To hell with it, we’re not calling any witnesses then. If the Democrats aren’t interested in getting to the full truth here then there’s no reason to proceed further. Trial over.”
But Bolton’s announcement that he’s willing to testify has put Democratic leaders in a jam too. Before he said that, I think Dem leaders would have carefully considered whether the risk to Joe Biden next fall in what Hunter might say (or at least might be accused of on national television) outweighed the value of forcing Bolton to take the stand. Remember, the trial’s outcome is assured no matter what Bolton claims. If Dems “win” now by getting him to testify and the Senate acquits Trump anyway, and meanwhile “witness reciprocity” forces Hunter Biden before a gigantic audience to feed suspicions about Burisma and possible corruption by his father, Joe Biden could end up more damaged by this process than Trump is. The election could depend on it. But, thanks to Bolton, the question is now academic: Lefties are salivating at the thought of having him testify at long last and Pelosi and Schumer can’t deny them that gratification. They’re going to have to call him — even if it means calling Hunter Biden too.
Anyway, two questions. One: If Dems succeed in calling *two* witnesses, say, Bolton and Lev Parnas (which is unlikely), who are the two who get called by Trump? Hunter is one, obviously. But who’s the other?
I love @tedcruz’s plan of witness reciprocity. The American people want to hear from #wheresHunter Biden, #sleepyJoe Biden, #fullofschiff, the phony “whistleblower” etc. much more than they do anyone on our side especially since the house had free reign of witnesses for months. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 15, 2020
I don’t think the Collins crew will go for any of those other witnesses. The whistleblower is old news by now and Senate Republicans don’t want to start playing games with the other chamber by putting House Dems on the stand. Otherwise Senate GOPers will soon be hauled into House hearings on various matters. Calling Joe Biden would make sense in the context of a defense focused on Burisma but McConnell would be deathly afraid of Biden turning his testimony into an opportunity to grandstand against Trump and to forcefully assert his own innocence. Remember, Cocaine Mitch wants as little risk from this trial as possible. Putting the would-be Democratic nominee on television knowing that a good performance might help propel him not just to the nomination but to the presidency would be the highest possible risk.
They’re going to need to find a second witness. Someone from Ukraine, maybe? Does Trump dare roll the dice on the credibility of a Ukrainian official?
Question two: Are we sure there are four Republicans in the Collins crew who are willing to join Schumer in calling witnesses? Four is what he needs to get to a majority of 51 and he seems likely to get Collins, Murkowski, and Romney. But what about Cory Gardner, the presumptive fourth vote? The Times notes that he’s caught in a political vise:
“This is Cory’s problem, or challenge: There’s a very restless Republican base in Colorado and Cory cannot afford to alienate that base because he cannot afford any defections from the base in a general election,” said Richard Wadhams, a Republican strategist in Colorado who is close to Mr. Gardner. “He’s in a very vulnerable position right now in the Senate election,” Mr. Wadhams added, “but believe me, it is much more dangerous for him to appear not to be supporting Trump than it is to be supporting McConnell and the president in Colorado.”
Gardner’s ace in the hole in disappointing the GOP base by agreeing to call witnesses during the trial is the fact that he’ll surely atone in the end by voting for acquittal. Not only that but “witness reciprocity” gives him an opportunity to gratify MAGA fans during the procedural phase of the trial by handing Trump as many witnesses as Dems get. I think he’ll be the fourth vote. And even if he isn’t, it’s possible that Schumer only needs three votes, not four, to call witnesses. Presumably any 50/50 split on calling someone would be resolved by John Roberts, who I assume would lean in favor of calling obviously relevant players like Bolton in the name of gathering more facts. That’s the best reason for Gardner to consider voting against calling Bolton, in fact — Roberts will probably bail him out, in which case Gardner can go home and tell Republicans that he stuck with Trump the whole way and tell Democrats that the trial was fair because, after all, they heard from John Bolton, didn’t they?
Here’s Ted Cruz yesterday on Fox talking about witness reciprocity and how the trial is likely to play out.


hotair--2020-01-15--ICE subpoenas Denver law enforcement for information on illegal aliens arrested for violent crimes

For the first time , Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) has issued subpoenas to fellow members of law enforcement .
In the past most law enforcement agents around the country would work with them to remove criminal aliens from the Unites States but the spread of sanctuary laws has forced ICE to demand information some states and municipalities will no longer share .
Specifically in this case , ICE is demanding the city of Denver provide information on four illegal aliens who had been arrested for crimes .
“ Since we have no cooperation at the Denver justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce information , ” said Henry Lucero , deputy executive associate director for ICE ’ s Enforcement and Removal Operations… The administrative subpoenas are usually sent by ICE to employers or landlords — but have never been sent to law enforcement agencies before , Lucero said… Immigration officials sent requests to a Denver jail to alert them when the suspects were released , but the city does not comply with such requests , much like New York , Philadelphia and San Francisco and other localities that refuse to help federal immigration authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released , one remains in custody… …immigrant advocates and lawmakers say ICE is deporting people who have been in the U.S. for decades , who have families and lives and make contributions to American cities and who should not be their focus .
Is ICE being too aggressive in this case ?
Eventually we learn about the four individuals ICE is seeking to deport : Sexual assault , homicide , child abuse , and domestic violence .
Why is Denver refusing to help ICE remove these people from the country ?
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a case for not deporting people who have been living peacefully in the country for decades .
It ’ s another to argue we should protect people from deportation who are assaulting women and children .
The story doesn ’ t specify under what circumstances they were previously removed from the country .
Usually there ’ s a minimum of five years before you can attempt to return .
If any of these individuals entered illegally a second time that would be a felony .
But beyond the legal issue there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Protecting these individuals could result in more victims as has happened several times in the past year .
Last March I wrote about a homeless drug addict named Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza who was deported , reentered the country and was arrested ten subsequent times .
Nine of those times ICE asked authorities to hold Carranza so he could be deported again but law enforcement declined in keeping with sanctuary policies .
Carranza was finally arrested after he allegedly broke into the home of 59-year-old Bambi Larson and stabbed her to death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lopez-Herrera who threatened to kill his girlfriend with a knife .
She sought a restraining order and when he refused to show up in court , deputies went to arrest him .
When they approached he began firing at the deputies , hitting one of them in the chest and leg .
Lopez-Herrera then went on the run and eventually led police on a high-speech chase , driving up to 120 miles per hour and firing his weapon at police through his window .
When he was eventually captured , the Sheriff lashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people in danger : “ This person is not a legal citizen within the United States .
We had him in our custody in January of this year .
And because of the folks in Sacramento limiting our ability to cooperate with ICE , we could not turn him over.
” Colorado ’ s democratic governor Jared Polis signed a law last May which forbids local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE .
Polis denies that Colorado is a sanctuary state but the Denver Post says the bill he signed meets the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local news report from last march about the murder of Bambi Larson .

For the first time, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has issued subpoenas to fellow members of law enforcement. In the past most law enforcement agents around the country would work with them to remove criminal aliens from the Unites States but the spread of sanctuary laws has forced ICE to demand information some states and municipalities will no longer share. Specifically in this case, ICE is demanding the city of Denver provide information on four illegal aliens who had been arrested for crimes.
“Since we have no cooperation at the Denver justice center, we are modifying our tactics to produce information,” said Henry Lucero, deputy executive associate director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations… The administrative subpoenas are usually sent by ICE to employers or landlords — but have never been sent to law enforcement agencies before, Lucero said… Immigration officials sent requests to a Denver jail to alert them when the suspects were released, but the city does not comply with such requests, much like New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco and other localities that refuse to help federal immigration authorities. Three of the four men were released, one remains in custody… …immigrant advocates and lawmakers say ICE is deporting people who have been in the U.S. for decades, who have families and lives and make contributions to American cities and who should not be their focus.
Is ICE being too aggressive in this case? Eventually we learn about the four individuals ICE is seeking to deport:
In the Denver cases, one man from Mexico was arrested for sexual assault, another for vehicular homicide and a third for child abuse and strangulation assault. The Honduran man was released after he was arrested on domestic violence charges. All had been removed from the country previously.
Sexual assault, homicide, child abuse, and domestic violence. Why is Denver refusing to help ICE remove these people from the country? It’s one thing for immigration activists to make a case for not deporting people who have been living peacefully in the country for decades. It’s another to argue we should protect people from deportation who are assaulting women and children.
The story doesn’t specify under what circumstances they were previously removed from the country. Usually there’s a minimum of five years before you can attempt to return. If any of these individuals entered illegally a second time that would be a felony. But beyond the legal issue there’s the potential danger to the community. Protecting these individuals could result in more victims as has happened several times in the past year.
Last March I wrote about a homeless drug addict named Carlos Eduardo Arevalo Carranza who was deported, reentered the country and was arrested ten subsequent times. Nine of those times ICE asked authorities to hold Carranza so he could be deported again but law enforcement declined in keeping with sanctuary policies. Carranza was finally arrested after he allegedly broke into the home of 59-year-old Bambi Larson and stabbed her to death.
Last September I wrote about Guadalupe Lopez-Herrera who threatened to kill his girlfriend with a knife. She sought a restraining order and when he refused to show up in court, deputies went to arrest him. When they approached he began firing at the deputies, hitting one of them in the chest and leg. Lopez-Herrera then went on the run and eventually led police on a high-speech chase, driving up to 120 miles per hour and firing his weapon at police through his window. When he was eventually captured, the Sheriff lashed out over the policies that put so many people in danger: “This person is not a legal citizen within the United States. We had him in our custody in January of this year. And because of the folks in Sacramento limiting our ability to cooperate with ICE, we could not turn him over.”
Colorado’s democratic governor Jared Polis signed a law last May which forbids local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. Polis denies that Colorado is a sanctuary state but the Denver Post says the bill he signed meets the usual definition:
While there is not a singular definition for a sanctuary city, anti-sanctuary legislation in Congress usually defines it as a city that prohibits police from complying with ICE detainers. By that definition, the state has made virtually every city in Colorado a sanctuary city, vulnerable to losing billions in federal grants if presidential action or legislation were to crack down on sanctuaries.
Here’s a local news report from last march about the murder of Bambi Larson.


hotair--2020-01-15--Hmmm: IRS agents arrest Avenatti in court yesterday

Hmmm: IRS agents arrest Avenatti in court yesterday -- and feds add money-laundering counts today

Could it get any worse for Michael Avenatti ?
Apparently , yes .
The man who briefly embodied the La Résistance dreams of defeating Donald Trump faces extortion charges on one coast while battling fraud charges on the other .
In the middle of the court hearing in California , where the State Bar Association wants Avenatti ’ s license pulled , federal agents placed the beleaguered attorney in custody : Ex-Stormy Daniels lawyer and Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti was led out of the State Bar Court in Los Angeles by federal agents on Tuesday evening .
The arrest occurred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Bar of California has accused the hard-charging , tough-talking attorney of using a doctored document to scam a client out of nearly $ 840,000 , funneling money from a lawsuit settlement fund to his own personal use .
The State Bar of California , the official attorney licensing agency , has sought to put Avenatti on “ involuntary inactive status , ” setting in motion a timeline for disbarment proceedings .
During a break in testimony , members of the United States Attorney ’ s Office for the Central District of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate criminal matter in Orange County , parleyed with Avenatti ’ s team of lawyers and took the lawyer into custody .
Avenatti had remained free on bail from both his New York and Orange County trials while dealing with this issue in California .
Among the conditions of that bail was the requirement not to commit any more federal crimes , but that raises another question .
If federal prosecutors needed to enforce bail conditions , one would expect that US Marshals would have been sent to collect Avenatti .
Why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Avenatti was arrested by IRS agents on allegation of violating the terms of his pre-trial release , said Thom Mrozek , spokesman for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney ’ s office .
The documents were under seal , so Mrozek could not provide details on the allegations .
… The court filing did not make it clear what Avenatti allegedly did to violate bail .
California court filings on the matter were not available Tuesday evening .
The answer appears to be that the DoJ needed the IRS to track Avenatti ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reports that a new indictment accuses Avenatti of trying to hide a million bucks from his ex-wife through even more fraud , and they suspect that he has more hidden away in Italy : Los Angeles attorney Michael Avenatti engaged in fraud and money laundering to hide $ 1 million from one of his ex-wives and other creditors after his March arrest , federal prosecutors allege in newly filed court papers .
… In documents filed in the federal court , they allege that Avenatti received the $ 1 million in legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ client ’ s settlement , but concealed the money from his second ex-wife , Lisa Storie Avenatti , his former law partner Jason Frank , tax authorities and other creditors .
… In the court papers , prosecutors described elaborate steps taken by Avenatti to hide the $ 1 million by shifting it through multiple bank accounts and using cashiers checks to spend it .
Avenatti , who is scheduled to go on trial next week in New York federal court for allegedly trying to extort sports giant Nike out of more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cover rent on his luxury apartment in Century City , pay his legal bills and buy a $ 50,000 Mercedes , according to the court documents .
Read the whole report from Michael Finnegan , which describes a byzantine effort from Avenatti that involves using one ex-wife to defraud another .
The indictment suggests that Avenatti also used a girlfriend ’ s trip to Tuscany to potentially hide other assets .
He owes Ex-Wife # 2 well over two million dollars , along with debts to his former partner and a client @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plenty of reasons to hide any cash that comes his way .
And the IRS likely has the best forensic accounting to find it , too .
At this point , Avenatti will likely find himself behind bars for the duration of his trials .
This kind of track record will make a federal judge very nervous about setting bail anywhere near a level that Avenatti can meet .
As always , Avenatti will likely have entertaining answers of his own for the media , assuming he ’ s allowed to step outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Could it get any worse for Michael Avenatti? Apparently, yes. The man who briefly embodied the La Résistance dreams of defeating Donald Trump faces extortion charges on one coast while battling fraud charges on the other. In the middle of the court hearing in California, where the State Bar Association wants Avenatti’s license pulled, federal agents placed the beleaguered attorney in custody:
Ex-Stormy Daniels lawyer and Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti was led out of the State Bar Court in Los Angeles by federal agents on Tuesday evening. The arrest occurred outside the disciplinary hearing in which the State Bar of California has accused the hard-charging, tough-talking attorney of using a doctored document to scam a client out of nearly $840,000, funneling money from a lawsuit settlement fund to his own personal use. The State Bar of California, the official attorney licensing agency, has sought to put Avenatti on “involuntary inactive status,” setting in motion a timeline for disbarment proceedings. During a break in testimony, members of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, who are prosecuting Avenatti in a separate criminal matter in Orange County, parleyed with Avenatti’s team of lawyers and took the lawyer into custody.
Avenatti had remained free on bail from both his New York and Orange County trials while dealing with this issue in California. Among the conditions of that bail was the requirement not to commit any more federal crimes, but that raises another question. If federal prosecutors needed to enforce bail conditions, one would expect that US Marshals would have been sent to collect Avenatti. Why did the IRS get involved this time instead?
Avenatti was arrested by IRS agents on allegation of violating the terms of his pre-trial release, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the Los Angeles U.S. attorney’s office. The documents were under seal, so Mrozek could not provide details on the allegations. … The court filing did not make it clear what Avenatti allegedly did to violate bail. California court filings on the matter were not available Tuesday evening. A message seeking comment was left with Avenatti’s attorneys.
The answer appears to be that the DoJ needed the IRS to track Avenatti’s financial adventures. The Los Angeles Times reports that a new indictment accuses Avenatti of trying to hide a million bucks from his ex-wife through even more fraud, and they suspect that he has more hidden away in Italy:
Los Angeles attorney Michael Avenatti engaged in fraud and money laundering to hide $1 million from one of his ex-wives and other creditors after his March arrest, federal prosecutors allege in newly filed court papers. … In documents filed in the federal court, they allege that Avenatti received the $1 million in legal fees in April as part of a client’s settlement, but concealed the money from his second ex-wife, Lisa Storie Avenatti, his former law partner Jason Frank, tax authorities and other creditors. … In the court papers, prosecutors described elaborate steps taken by Avenatti to hide the $1 million by shifting it through multiple bank accounts and using cashiers checks to spend it. Avenatti, who is scheduled to go on trial next week in New York federal court for allegedly trying to extort sports giant Nike out of more than $20 million, used the money to cover rent on his luxury apartment in Century City, pay his legal bills and buy a $50,000 Mercedes, according to the court documents.
Read the whole report from Michael Finnegan, which describes a byzantine effort from Avenatti that involves using one ex-wife to defraud another. The indictment suggests that Avenatti also used a girlfriend’s trip to Tuscany to potentially hide other assets. He owes Ex-Wife #2 well over two million dollars, along with debts to his former partner and a client Avenatti allegedly defrauded, so he has plenty of reasons to hide any cash that comes his way. And the IRS likely has the best forensic accounting to find it, too.
At this point, Avenatti will likely find himself behind bars for the duration of his trials. This kind of track record will make a federal judge very nervous about setting bail anywhere near a level that Avenatti can meet. As always, Avenatti will likely have entertaining answers of his own for the media, assuming he’s allowed to step outside of the building to provide them.


hotair--2020-01-15--"Perplexed" Susan Collins on new Parnas material: If we're only learning this now, it must mean Hous

"Perplexed" Susan Collins on new Parnas material: If we're only learning this now, it must mean House Dems rushed their process, no?

Via the Right Scoop , a valiant attempt by the Senate ’ s most closely watched Republican to make lemonade out of the lemons she was handed yesterday by the news .
It ’ s not easy to spin a story like “ Key crony of president ’ s lawyer may have conspired to stalk U.S. ambassador in Ukraine.
” But she ’ s gon na make the effort , at least , damn it .
I wonder if there ’ s more to this answer than her trying to dodge questions in the short term about the bizarre story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing surveillance of Marie Yovanovitch .
Is she … laying the groundwork for refusing to call Parnas as a witness ?
We know now that Schumer will demand that he testify .
We can also safely assume that that testimony won ’ t be great for Trump given how eager Parnas seems to be to cooperate with the House probe , hoping that he might catch a break from a judge in his federal criminal case if he shows he ’ s a good boy .
Collins can tolerate having John Bolton testify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close Trump confidant who might know the goriest details about the Ukraine business , and even if he was he could probably be blocked via executive privilege from revealing things Trump told him in confidence about policy there .
But Parnas is way too unpredictable .
Collins needs her “ not guilty ” vote to look as credible as possible .
What if he gets on the stand and says something legitimately incriminating ?
She ’ s got to find a reason to vote against letting him testify .
Maybe we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this evidence considered , they should have produced it before Trump was impeached .
I ’ m stuck assessing the evidence set forth in Schiff ’ s committee report , Collins might say .
If Dems don ’ t like that , well , that ’ s their problem for rushing to impeach POTUS .
Couple of problems with that , though .
One , obviously , is that calling Bolton would blow up her logic .
If she considers herself bound to consider only the evidence produced before the impeachment vote then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s testimony .
Or could she ?
There ’ s a loophole potentially : “ Bolton was being blocked at the time by ‘ absolute immunity , ' ” she could say , “ whereas Parnas wasn ’ t .
Democrats can ’ t be blamed for Bolton ’ s failure to testify but they can certainly be blamed for Parnas ’ s. ” But that wouldn ’ t make sense .
Dems could have tried to force Bolton to testify and fought Trump in court over it , allowing that process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceeding with impeachment .
Schumer might also note that Parnas was busy wrangling with the DOJ while impeachment was proceeding and the House didn ’ t want to interfere with that process .
Now that Parnas is more available as a witness , the prosecution shouldn ’ t be punished for producing his evidence belatedly .
And at the end of the day , Democrats will say , it doesn ’ t matter when evidence is produced .
What matters is whether Trump is innocent or guilty and whether Susan Collins truly intends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
If she ’ s as serious about it as she ’ s telling swing voters she is then she needs to know what Parnas knows .
End of story .
What could she say in response ?
“ I tend to like information , ” she quipped yesterday when a reporter noted that she supported calling witnesses during Clinton ’ s impeachment trial and also supported further investigation during Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearing .
Well , now she has some new information .
And she may soon have more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be rolling out new documents all the way up to closing arguments in the trial ?
That does make it seem like House Dems didn ’ t do their homework , although I ’ m sure they ’ d accept that perception as a price worth paying for rolling out further incriminating material in the next few weeks .
With the verdict assured , impeachment is now a pure PR war .
Anything Dems can do to convince voters that Trump is guilty and that Senate Republicans are covering up for him they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notwithstanding the “ not guilty ” verdict or public opinion that they went waaaaay too fast on impeachment given all the evidence that came out afterwards .
By the way , if you ’ re not free and/or in front of a TV tonight at 9 p.m. , you might want to change that .
News will be made here , assuredly : If Parnas has anything whatsoever to say that ’ s new about Trump and Giuliani , which seems like a safe bet , then the media will go nuts tomorrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then it ’ ll be Collins ’ s and McConnell ’ s move .
Here ’ s Chris Wallace earlier today on Fox News noting that Pelosi ’ s “ impeach and withhold ” strategy was a total failure insofar as it didn ’ t force McConnell to commit to calling any witnesses .
True , but Mitch ’ s big win has been complicated subsequently by Bolton ’ s willingness to testify .
They ’ re probably going to have to call him , if only for appearance ’ s sake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schiff more time to pull together new evidence like the texts between Parnas and Hyde .
If Pelosi was delaying to buy time , because she had/has reason to believe that more is coming and didn ’ t want the trial to end before it was ready , then there ’ s a method to her madness after all .
Update : Right , this is how Schumer ’ s going to counter Collins ’ s “ you should have produced this evidence before ” argument .

Via the Right Scoop, a valiant attempt by the Senate’s most closely watched Republican to make lemonade out of the lemons she was handed yesterday by the news. It’s not easy to spin a story like “Key crony of president’s lawyer may have conspired to stalk U.S. ambassador in Ukraine.”
But she’s gonna make the effort, at least, damn it.
I wonder if there’s more to this answer than her trying to dodge questions in the short term about the bizarre story of Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde seemingly organizing surveillance of Marie Yovanovitch.
.@SenatorCollins “I’m perplexed that the house is sending over some additional information which should’ve been included earlier it appears.” Q: It was just made available.
COLLINS: “Then that means the house rushed their proceedings, doesn’t it.” — Julie Tsirkin (@JulieNBCNews) January 15, 2020
Susan Collins throws cold water on new Lev Parnas evidence. “I wonder why the House did not put that into the record and it’s only now being revealed.” Told it was just turned over, she says: “well doesn’t that suggest that the House did an incomplete job then?” @Phil_Mattingly — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 15, 2020
Is she … laying the groundwork for refusing to call Parnas as a witness? We know now that Schumer will demand that he testify. We can also safely assume that that testimony won’t be great for Trump given how eager Parnas seems to be to cooperate with the House probe, hoping that he might catch a break from a judge in his federal criminal case if he shows he’s a good boy. Collins can tolerate having John Bolton testify since he was never the sort of close Trump confidant who might know the goriest details about the Ukraine business, and even if he was he could probably be blocked via executive privilege from revealing things Trump told him in confidence about policy there.
But Parnas is way too unpredictable. Collins needs her “not guilty” vote to look as credible as possible. What if he gets on the stand and says something legitimately incriminating?
She’s got to find a reason to vote against letting him testify. Maybe we’ve just heard it — if Dems wanted this evidence considered, they should have produced it before Trump was impeached. I’m stuck assessing the evidence set forth in Schiff’s committee report, Collins might say. If Dems don’t like that, well, that’s their problem for rushing to impeach POTUS.
Couple of problems with that, though. One, obviously, is that calling Bolton would blow up her logic. If she considers herself bound to consider only the evidence produced before the impeachment vote then she can’t rightly hear Bolton’s testimony. Or could she? There’s a loophole potentially: “Bolton was being blocked at the time by ‘absolute immunity,'” she could say, “whereas Parnas wasn’t. Democrats can’t be blamed for Bolton’s failure to testify but they can certainly be blamed for Parnas’s.” But that wouldn’t make sense. Dems could have tried to force Bolton to testify and fought Trump in court over it, allowing that process to take however long it took before proceeding with impeachment. Schumer might also note that Parnas was busy wrangling with the DOJ while impeachment was proceeding and the House didn’t want to interfere with that process. Now that Parnas is more available as a witness, the prosecution shouldn’t be punished for producing his evidence belatedly.
And at the end of the day, Democrats will say, it doesn’t matter when evidence is produced. What matters is whether Trump is innocent or guilty and whether Susan Collins truly intends to undertake a good-faith effort to ascertain that. If she’s as serious about it as she’s telling swing voters she is then she needs to know what Parnas knows. End of story.
What could she say in response? “I tend to like information,” she quipped yesterday when a reporter noted that she supported calling witnesses during Clinton’s impeachment trial and also supported further investigation during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. Well, now she has some new information.
And she may soon have more:
Lead House manager Adam Schiff tells @sarahdwire & me he expects new impeachment evidence to emerge in the course of a Senate trial. “There’s going to be new evidence coming out all the time," Schiff said. That evidence, he said, "should be admitted."https://t.co/aMvIsVPY1Q — Jennifer Haberkorn (@jenhab) January 15, 2020
Is Liddle Adam Schiff going to be rolling out new documents all the way up to closing arguments in the trial? That does make it seem like House Dems didn’t do their homework, although I’m sure they’d accept that perception as a price worth paying for rolling out further incriminating material in the next few weeks. With the verdict assured, impeachment is now a pure PR war. Anything Dems can do to convince voters that Trump is guilty and that Senate Republicans are covering up for him they’ll consider a moral victory, notwithstanding the “not guilty” verdict or public opinion that they went waaaaay too fast on impeachment given all the evidence that came out afterwards.
By the way, if you’re not free and/or in front of a TV tonight at 9 p.m., you might want to change that. News will be made here, assuredly:
Tonight!
9pm ET on MSNBC
Giuliani associate Lev Parnas breaks his silence as he and his lawyer sit down with Rachel Maddow. pic.twitter.com/jHH8EWOQbB — Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) January 15, 2020
If Parnas has anything whatsoever to say that’s new about Trump and Giuliani, which seems like a safe bet, then the media will go nuts tomorrow insisting that he be called to testify. Then it’ll be Collins’s and McConnell’s move.
Here’s Chris Wallace earlier today on Fox News noting that Pelosi’s “impeach and withhold” strategy was a total failure insofar as it didn’t force McConnell to commit to calling any witnesses. True, but Mitch’s big win has been complicated subsequently by Bolton’s willingness to testify. They’re probably going to have to call him, if only for appearance’s sake. And delaying the trial did give Schiff more time to pull together new evidence like the texts between Parnas and Hyde. If Pelosi was delaying to buy time, because she had/has reason to believe that more is coming and didn’t want the trial to end before it was ready, then there’s a method to her madness after all.
https://twitter.com/FrancisBrennan/status/1217538071979339783
Update: Right, this is how Schumer’s going to counter Collins’s “you should have produced this evidence before” argument.