hotair--2020-01-20--More on that gun rights rally in Virginia (Updates)

Ed wrote about the media coverage of the gun rights rally in Virginia this morning .
The rally is now taking place so there are lots of reporters posting video and photos on social media .
The Governor set up fencing for the protest .
People inside the fencing are not allowed to carry guns while people outside the fencing can .
Here ’ s a reporter from the Guardian noting the area inside the fence is relatively empty : Heavy police presence is needed when there are two opposing groups who seem intent on mixing it up in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case at the Virginia rally .
Initially there were concerns that Antifa planned to show up to create chaos but they apparently decided to stay away : Townhall has a reporter at the rally : Contrary to what the media seems to be claiming , not all 2nd Amendment supporters are straight white males : A handful of Revcom protesters did show up : It ’ s a good sized crowd considering the temperature was in the 20s this morning and is now around 34 degrees ( plus 11 mph winds ) : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : CNN is reporting that attendees are well-armed but calm : But here ’ s how it ’ s being covered by MSNBC : Update : From CNN , the threats did not emerge .
Update : A supercut of the media hyping the possibility of violence :

Ed wrote about the media coverage of the gun rights rally in Virginia this morning. The rally is now taking place so there are lots of reporters posting video and photos on social media.
Crowds in Richmond, Virginia are already massive and In the thousands These does not look like domestic terrorists @RalphNortham pic.twitter.com/l5eKs7IJEW — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) January 20, 2020
The Governor set up fencing for the protest. People inside the fencing are not allowed to carry guns while people outside the fencing can. Here’s a reporter from the Guardian noting the area inside the fence is relatively empty:
Security line to get into the Capitol right now is not that long — maybe 15 minutes—and moving quickly. More folks packed in the street outside, where firearms are allowed. pic.twitter.com/j8Efs1tidu — Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) January 20, 2020
Modest crowd inside the gun-free Capitol grounds in Richmond for the gun rights protest, packed crowd in the streets outside, where citizens are allowed to carry firearms. pic.twitter.com/1HXvxJim1S — Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) January 20, 2020
What is so striking about the scene at the gun rights rally in Richmond is what you don’t see: almost no cops. Just that little cluster of state police there. No lines of riot cops. No law enforcement in riot gear. pic.twitter.com/W0jkwYmmkP — Lois Beckett (@loisbeckett) January 20, 2020
Heavy police presence is needed when there are two opposing groups who seem intent on mixing it up in the streets. That’s not the case at the Virginia rally. Initially there were concerns that Antifa planned to show up to create chaos but they apparently decided to stay away:
there is no counter demonstration planned for the january 20 convergence of armed militias on virginia's capitol. please, please encourage anyone you know who is thinking about counter protesting this event to stay away from downtown richmond on monday. https://t.co/OBVMBXdVH6 — molly conger (@socialistdogmom) January 18, 2020
Townhall has a reporter at the rally:
In addition to quite a few people being armed with rifles in Richmond, there's also quite a few Gov. Northam yearbook pictures on signs. pic.twitter.com/v02m4P0gWU — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 20, 2020
This clip is pretty funny:
An African-American man waving a Trump flag jokingly tells the crowd: I am Gov. Ralph Northam and I am in blackface today.#VirginaRally pic.twitter.com/z32mnR5Tzp — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 20, 2020
Contrary to what the media seems to be claiming, not all 2nd Amendment supporters are straight white males:
Another anti-Gov. Ralph Northam sign at the #VirginiaRally. pic.twitter.com/DhBZWw6jfC — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 20, 2020
https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/1219263988208291840
More pictures of people carrying rifles at the #VirginiaRally and more evidence that debunks the narrative that the rally is filled with racists and white supremacists. pic.twitter.com/V0jGLpKW2d — Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) January 20, 2020
There’s a recall petition attracting a lot of rally-goers:
There's a recall Governor Ralph Northam petition effort at the rally. pic.twitter.com/9ZgU8sAYq9 — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 20, 2020
https://twitter.com/MichaelCoudrey/status/1219248817515614208
A handful of Revcom protesters did show up:
Counter protestors have showed up at the Richmond capitol It appears to be @RefuseFascism primarily comprised of Los Angeles chapter members There were about 9 of them calling for a communist revolution in the streets Attendees did not harass or assault them Totally Peaceful pic.twitter.com/i9V64eKlZE — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) January 20, 2020
This made me laugh:
One issue both the left and right can come together on at the Richmond gun rally pic.twitter.com/jeHS8akWSp — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) January 20, 2020
It’s a good sized crowd considering the temperature was in the 20s this morning and is now around 34 degrees (plus 11 mph winds):
WATCH: Virginia Democrat takes video of tens of thousands supporting 2nd Amendment and flooding Virginia Capital of Richmond. Message Sent! #IStandWithVirginia https://t.co/FZR0FS7h0W — Matt Couch (@RealMattCouch) January 20, 2020
The media is going to be disappointed:
There have not been any violent incidents & I have not seen any racist signage or demonstrations. There are lots of gun-rights signs and a few people are open carrying outside of the fenced-off Capitol grounds area. Security is running smoothly. No disruptions or confrontations. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) January 20, 2020
I have yet to see a single white supremacist at the Richmond, VA pro-2A rally. Weird, considering the media claimed they were the organizers of the event? In fact, the only white supremacist in sight is Ralph Northam on the protester's signs: pic.twitter.com/trSzqVTe1p — Caleb Hull (I'm With the CCP Don't Ban Me) (@CalebJHull) January 20, 2020
CNN is reporting that attendees are well-armed but calm:
Lots of heavily armed folks here today in #richmond. But all is calm. Chants of USA regularly and scenes like this #Richmond2ARally pic.twitter.com/ey7iWTtHm6 — Mallory Simon (@MallorySimonCNN) January 20, 2020
But here’s how it’s being covered by MSNBC:
Update: Rally over.
CNN sounds disappointed pic.twitter.com/OWpsCCYR0q — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 20, 2020
They went off to see Joker but they’ll do the violence right after — Kyle Smith (@rkylesmith) January 20, 2020
Update: From CNN, the threats did not emerge.
CNN: Threats which caused Gov. Northam to call for a State of Emergency "Have simply not emerged".. "The police very clear in saying they have not had a single arrest during this rally and we have been standing here all morning" pic.twitter.com/6p2JfebvFO — Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 20, 2020
Update: A supercut of the media hyping the possibility of violence:


hotair--2020-01-20--Illegal border crossings plunge in Arizona

Not that you ’ d generally be able to tell by watching CNN or MSNBC , but there ’ s actually been quite a bit of good news lately .
And it ’ s not just retail sales , Wall Street and historic low unemployment .
In a surprising reversal of recent trends , the number of illegal border crossings observed in Arizona this winter is down .
And I mean way down .
We ’ re talking a reduction of more than 90 percent over the previous year during the same period .
( Associated Press ) Illegal crossings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration made more asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. court .
The drop has been most striking on the western Arizona border , a pancake-flat desert with a vast canal system from the Colorado River that turns bone-dry soil into fields of melons and wheat and orchards of dates and lemons .
Arrests in the Border Patrol ’ s Yuma sector nearly hit 14,000 in May , when the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico took effect there .
By October , they fell 94 % , to less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , making Yuma the second-slowest of the agency ’ s nine sectors on the Mexican border , just ahead of the perennially quiet Big Bend sector in Texas .
We ’ re in the middle of the cooler part of the year in the northern hemisphere and that ’ s usually when migrants are trying to make their way across the desert regions leading to the United States border .
A reduction of crossings in one region from 14,000 to roughly 800 is more than just a statistical blip .
So what led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s likely a combination of factors .
Progress has continued on new and improved sections of the border wall , but there are still many gaps so that ’ s probably not one of the major causes .
A far larger influence is no doubt coming from Mexico ’ s more aggressive approach to stopping caravans as they reach Mexico ’ s southern border , such as we saw this weekend .
But the big factor , at least in the eyes of our Customs and Border Protection folks , is the effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Policy has had on those looking to sneak across our borders .
The AP offers at least a bit of anecdotal evidence to support this , quoting one migrant named Adolfo Cardenas .
He and his son had made it from Ecuador to the American border in only nine days on a bus .
He paid a coyote thousands of dollars to get him across the border .
At that point , he surrendered himself to CBP , saying he expected them to release him with a court date so he could go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , he was put on a bus and shipped to the Mexican border city of Mexicali to await his day in court .
He ’ s quoted as saying , “ It was a surprise .
I never imagined this would happen.
” Welcome to the new normal , pal .
The CBP Chief for the Yuma sector told the AP that once the option of just being released into the interior of the United States was taken off the table , the motivation for most of the migrants to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly reduced .
Kind of makes sense , doesn ’ t it ?
That doesn ’ t mean that we don ’ t need to keep working on the wall .
We absolutely do .
The fewer gaps we have and the more electronic surveillance we add , the easier the jobs of the CBP agents will be when attempting to locate and stop the remaining migrants who still want to give it a go .
And we ’ ll also need to reward Mexico for their continued good behavior and assistance in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to pass freely toward our border every winter .
The recent trade deal we signed with them is likely offering even more of an incentive for AMLO to keep up the good work .
It ’ s taken a few years to really bear fruit , but Donald Trump ’ s promise to get the immigration crisis on our southern border under control really seems to be turning into a reality .
As I said , there ’ s still much work left to be done , but the numbers are moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustained will and effort , I ’ m almost to the point of allowing myself to hope that this could actually happen .

Not that you’d generally be able to tell by watching CNN or MSNBC, but there’s actually been quite a bit of good news lately. And it’s not just retail sales, Wall Street and historic low unemployment. In a surprising reversal of recent trends, the number of illegal border crossings observed in Arizona this winter is down. And I mean way down. We’re talking a reduction of more than 90 percent over the previous year during the same period. (Associated Press)
Illegal crossings plummeted across the border after the Trump administration made more asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. court. The drop has been most striking on the western Arizona border, a pancake-flat desert with a vast canal system from the Colorado River that turns bone-dry soil into fields of melons and wheat and orchards of dates and lemons. Arrests in the Border Patrol’s Yuma sector nearly hit 14,000 in May, when the policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico took effect there. By October, they fell 94%, to less than 800, and have stayed there since, making Yuma the second-slowest of the agency’s nine sectors on the Mexican border, just ahead of the perennially quiet Big Bend sector in Texas.
We’re in the middle of the cooler part of the year in the northern hemisphere and that’s usually when migrants are trying to make their way across the desert regions leading to the United States border. A reduction of crossings in one region from 14,000 to roughly 800 is more than just a statistical blip.
So what led to this happy development? It’s likely a combination of factors. Progress has continued on new and improved sections of the border wall, but there are still many gaps so that’s probably not one of the major causes. A far larger influence is no doubt coming from Mexico’s more aggressive approach to stopping caravans as they reach Mexico’s southern border, such as we saw this weekend.
But the big factor, at least in the eyes of our Customs and Border Protection folks, is the effect that Trump’s Remain in Mexico Policy has had on those looking to sneak across our borders. The AP offers at least a bit of anecdotal evidence to support this, quoting one migrant named Adolfo Cardenas. He and his son had made it from Ecuador to the American border in only nine days on a bus. He paid a coyote thousands of dollars to get him across the border.
At that point, he surrendered himself to CBP, saying he expected them to release him with a court date so he could go move in with his cousin in Dallas. Instead, he was put on a bus and shipped to the Mexican border city of Mexicali to await his day in court. He’s quoted as saying, “It was a surprise. I never imagined this would happen.”
Welcome to the new normal, pal.
The CBP Chief for the Yuma sector told the AP that once the option of just being released into the interior of the United States was taken off the table, the motivation for most of the migrants to take their chances by jumping the border was significantly reduced. Kind of makes sense, doesn’t it?
That doesn’t mean that we don’t need to keep working on the wall. We absolutely do. The fewer gaps we have and the more electronic surveillance we add, the easier the jobs of the CBP agents will be when attempting to locate and stop the remaining migrants who still want to give it a go. And we’ll also need to reward Mexico for their continued good behavior and assistance in blocking the huge groups who previously were allowed to pass freely toward our border every winter. The recent trade deal we signed with them is likely offering even more of an incentive for AMLO to keep up the good work.
It’s taken a few years to really bear fruit, but Donald Trump’s promise to get the immigration crisis on our southern border under control really seems to be turning into a reality. As I said, there’s still much work left to be done, but the numbers are moving in the right direction and with enough sustained will and effort, I’m almost to the point of allowing myself to hope that this could actually happen.


hotair--2020-01-20--Report: Impeachment trial resolution may have "kill switch" option to end things quickly

It ’ s mostly for show , of course .
Mostly .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly is close to finalizing a rule that would allow President Trump ’ s team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly after some evidence has been presented , as a sort of safety valve in case Democrats try to drag out the trial for weeks… Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley , for example , said he would be “ very , very surprised ” if McConnell ’ s resolution didn ’ t include that kind of kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the resolution as it stood a day or two ago , ” Hawley told Axios .
“ My understanding is that the resolution will give the president ’ s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time.
” I ’ m trying to imagine the circumstances under which the Collins contingent in the GOP caucus would agree to a motion to dismiss .
As I understand it , there are four phases to the trial : During which phase might there conceivably be 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Is there one ?
Hardcore Republican populists like Hawley who are planning to run in 2024 support dismissing the articles right up front , a supreme act of owning the libs by nuking their impeachment attempt before it gets rolling .
But that won ’ t work .
The goal of the Collins crew is to show their constituents that they took the evidence against Trump seriously and weighed it carefully before voting to acquit him , believing that that ’ s the only way to make swing voters who wanted removal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t anywhere near 51 votes to dismiss the charges at the beginning of the trial , the moment when having the option to do so is most valuable .
Trump ’ s team probably won ’ t even demand a vote on it , partly because McConnell won ’ t want Collins and Cory Gardner to have to take that vote and risk pissing off MAGA fans back home by voting no and partly because it ’ ll be a minor embarrassment to Trump to lose that initial vote so decisively .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments would then be held over several days .
Could Collins et al .
maybe support a motion to dismiss then ?
Seems doubtful , as they ’ d at least want to let their Senate colleagues ask questions about the evidence .
Those questions are going to be asked in TV interviews by Democrats anyway , after all .
If Collins doesn ’ t let them be asked during the trial itself then , again , it would look like she ’ s short-circuiting the process instead of taking it seriously .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ & A .
The next stage , witnesses , would be a better opportunity to dismiss the charges : If Collins etc .
decide that they don ’ t want to hear witnesses after all , they could squelch the process right then and there by voting to dismiss the charges .
Except … why would they want to do that when the trial would almost be over at that point ?
All that would remain is a day or two of closing arguments .
Better to push through to the finish line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats any opportunity , however lame and unconvincing , to claim that the process was deliberately truncated because Republicans were afraid of the evidence .
( “ They wouldn ’ t even hear our closing arguments !
” ) Obviously they ’ re not going to dismiss the articles after closing arguments since all that would remain at that point is deliberations and a verdict .
So again I ask : When is the option of a motion to dismiss in the impeachment trial resolution actually supposed to be utilized ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s there to give the Hawleys and Cruzes something to grandstand about , to show Trump fans that they hated impeachment soooooo much that they demanded there be at least a possibility of dismissing the articles of impeachment at trial even if that possibility is never realized .
E.g .
: I ’ m trying to imagine what Schiff could do that would cause the Senate to lose so much control over the proceedings that even Collins and Gardner would vote to nuke the trial instead of proceeding to a verdict .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor will be subject to a majority vote , wouldn ’ t there need to be at least four Republican votes to begin with to empower Schiff to gain “ control ” ?
If so , what reason is there to think those four would then turn around and support a motion to dismiss to punish him for it ?
Hawley wants the option of a motion to dismiss , I suspect , in case Schiff ’ s grandstanding irritates the MAGA base to the point where he senses there ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least force a vote on it , however uncomfortable that vote might make Collins and Gardner .
Hawley doesn ’ t have the numbers to nuke the trial but he can at least ingratiate himself to Trumpers ( and maybe Trump himself ) by making the effort at some point .
No doubt to the great annoyance of McConnell , whose top priority in this mess is protecting his most vulnerable incumbents from unnecessary tough votes .
By the way , Ted Cruz told Fox yesterday that he thought the trial could run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate decides it ’ s open season on witnesses .
That ’ s ludicrous .
As much as the Collins crew wants to convince people that they ’ re taking the evidence seriously , they don ’ t want to extend their own political pain a moment longer than they need to in order to do that .
Each new witness brings some political risk , after all , in terms of what they might say in their testimony .
Clinton ’ s trial had three witnesses ; that ’ s as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I suspect , and since Cruz and other GOPers are insisting on one-to-one reciprocity between prosecution and defense witnesses , they probably won ’ t even agree to three .
We ’ ll probably end up with two , Bolton and Hunter Biden .
Worst-case scenario is that the trial runs three weeks instead of two , and maybe not even that long .
Exit quotation :

It’s mostly for show, of course. Mostly.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly is close to finalizing a rule that would allow President Trump’s team to move to dismiss the articles of impeachment in the Senate quickly after some evidence has been presented, as a sort of safety valve in case Democrats try to drag out the trial for weeks… Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, for example, said he would be “very, very surprised” if McConnell’s resolution didn’t include that kind of kill switch. “I am familiar with the resolution as it stood a day or two ago,” Hawley told Axios. “My understanding is that the resolution will give the president’s team the option to either move to judgment or to move to dismiss at a meaningful time.”
I’m trying to imagine the circumstances under which the Collins contingent in the GOP caucus would agree to a motion to dismiss. As I understand it, there are four phases to the trial:
1. Opening arguments
2. Senators’ questions
3. Witnesses
4. Closing arguments
During which phase might there conceivably be 51 votes to dismiss the articles of impeachment? Is there one? Hardcore Republican populists like Hawley who are planning to run in 2024 support dismissing the articles right up front, a supreme act of owning the libs by nuking their impeachment attempt before it gets rolling. But that won’t work. The goal of the Collins crew is to show their constituents that they took the evidence against Trump seriously and weighed it carefully before voting to acquit him, believing that that’s the only way to make swing voters who wanted removal comfortable with the verdict. There aren’t anywhere near 51 votes to dismiss the charges at the beginning of the trial, the moment when having the option to do so is most valuable. Trump’s team probably won’t even demand a vote on it, partly because McConnell won’t want Collins and Cory Gardner to have to take that vote and risk pissing off MAGA fans back home by voting no and partly because it’ll be a minor embarrassment to Trump to lose that initial vote so decisively.
So, no upfront dismissal. Opening arguments would then be held over several days. Could Collins et al. maybe support a motion to dismiss then? Seems doubtful, as they’d at least want to let their Senate colleagues ask questions about the evidence. Those questions are going to be asked in TV interviews by Democrats anyway, after all. If Collins doesn’t let them be asked during the trial itself then, again, it would look like she’s short-circuiting the process instead of taking it seriously.
So they’ll do the Q&A. The next stage, witnesses, would be a better opportunity to dismiss the charges: If Collins etc. decide that they don’t want to hear witnesses after all, they could squelch the process right then and there by voting to dismiss the charges. Except … why would they want to do that when the trial would almost be over at that point? All that would remain is a day or two of closing arguments. Better to push through to the finish line and deliver a proper verdict than give the Democrats any opportunity, however lame and unconvincing, to claim that the process was deliberately truncated because Republicans were afraid of the evidence. (“They wouldn’t even hear our closing arguments!”)
Obviously they’re not going to dismiss the articles after closing arguments since all that would remain at that point is deliberations and a verdict. So again I ask: When is the option of a motion to dismiss in the impeachment trial resolution actually supposed to be utilized?
It isn’t. I think it’s there to give the Hawleys and Cruzes something to grandstand about, to show Trump fans that they hated impeachment soooooo much that they demanded there be at least a possibility of dismissing the articles of impeachment at trial even if that possibility is never realized. E.g.:
Hawley added that if the final resolution does not allow Trump’s lawyers the option to dismiss or move to judgment at a “meaningful point” in the trial, he would be “very, very surprised,” and might not vote for the organizing resolution. Hawley also said he worries that if Trump doesn’t have the option to move to dismiss or move to judgment then Adam Schiff would have too much control over the trial.
I’m trying to imagine what Schiff could do that would cause the Senate to lose so much control over the proceedings that even Collins and Gardner would vote to nuke the trial instead of proceeding to a verdict. Since everything that happens on the Senate floor will be subject to a majority vote, wouldn’t there need to be at least four Republican votes to begin with to empower Schiff to gain “control”? If so, what reason is there to think those four would then turn around and support a motion to dismiss to punish him for it?
Hawley wants the option of a motion to dismiss, I suspect, in case Schiff’s grandstanding irritates the MAGA base to the point where he senses there’d be some political benefit to him to at least force a vote on it, however uncomfortable that vote might make Collins and Gardner. Hawley doesn’t have the numbers to nuke the trial but he can at least ingratiate himself to Trumpers (and maybe Trump himself) by making the effort at some point. No doubt to the great annoyance of McConnell, whose top priority in this mess is protecting his most vulnerable incumbents from unnecessary tough votes.
By the way, Ted Cruz told Fox yesterday that he thought the trial could run eight weeks(!) if the Senate decides it’s open season on witnesses. That’s ludicrous. As much as the Collins crew wants to convince people that they’re taking the evidence seriously, they don’t want to extend their own political pain a moment longer than they need to in order to do that. Each new witness brings some political risk, after all, in terms of what they might say in their testimony. Clinton’s trial had three witnesses; that’s as many as Republicans would be willing to call, I suspect, and since Cruz and other GOPers are insisting on one-to-one reciprocity between prosecution and defense witnesses, they probably won’t even agree to three. We’ll probably end up with two, Bolton and Hunter Biden. Worst-case scenario is that the trial runs three weeks instead of two, and maybe not even that long. Exit quotation:


hotair--2020-01-20--Sanders: We need to put an end to all this dark money, except, of course, for my PAC

Running a presidential campaign takes money .
A lot of money .
But candidates frequently find themselves in a bind because it has to be the right sort of money .
And with laws allowing your opponents to scrutinize almost all of the cash coming in the door , you ’ re left open to criticism if you take “ bad money ” from “ bad people.
” Enter Bernie Sanders .
He ’ s got a solution for that problem , particularly when it comes to all of that “ dark money ” that comes in from PACs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from unnamed sources , particularly since the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Citizens United .
So what should the candidates be doing about it ?
Cut them off !
Don ’ t take their money !
Or at least that ’ s what he said in an interview this weekend .
( Associated Press ) Bernie Sanders said Sunday that outside political groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums backing candidates for public office should be abolished — including those supporting his own bid for the White House .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Our Revolution , a political nonprofit he founded , to cease its efforts on behalf of his Democratic presidential primary campaign .
“ I would think that we should end super PACs right now .
So I would tell my opponents who have a super PAC , why don ’ t you end it ?
And certainly that ’ s applicable to the groups that are supporting me , ” Sanders said .
Sanders is trying to be too clever by half here and the press is already calling him out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super PACs should be shut out of the process and the candidates should stop taking money from them .
Including “ groups that are supporting me.
” But he ’ s only talking about Super PACs , not PACs .
You ’ ll notice that he ’ s not calling for his own PAC , Our Revolution , to shut down .
That ’ s the PAC he started in August of 2016 after he lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton so his supporters could help “ continue our work.
” But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution has been under scrutiny because it appears to operate more like a Super PAC than just a PAC .
And that could lead to FEC problems .
The Campaign Finance Act allows groups like Our Revolution to operate and they don ’ t have to reveal the names of their donors .
But it also states that the groups need to keep their activities separate from those of the candidate they support .
The act specifically says that such groups “ directly or indirectly established ” by federal elected officials or candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive , direct , transfer , or spend funds ” for federal electoral activity in excess of the “ limitations , prohibitions , and reporting requirements ” in federal election law .
Our Revolution was directly established by Sanders .
By that standard , the group shouldn ’ t be able to take in or pay out any contributions from individuals in excess of the usual cap .
( $ 2,800 per individual contributor . )
But people can and apparently do give Our Revolution as much as they like .
So Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ bad money ” we were talking about above .
So Bernie Sanders wants to take the high road and call on the rest of the field to stop accepting dark money .
But he ’ s apparently willing to turn a blind eye his own group that may very well be coloring outside the lines in terms of FEC requirements .
It ’ s a pretty slick game… unless he gets caught .

Running a presidential campaign takes money. A lot of money. But candidates frequently find themselves in a bind because it has to be the right sort of money. And with laws allowing your opponents to scrutinize almost all of the cash coming in the door, you’re left open to criticism if you take “bad money” from “bad people.”
Enter Bernie Sanders. He’s got a solution for that problem, particularly when it comes to all of that “dark money” that comes in from PACs and Super PACs. Those dollars frequently come from unnamed sources, particularly since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. So what should the candidates be doing about it? Cut them off! Don’t take their money! Or at least that’s what he said in an interview this weekend. (Associated Press)
Bernie Sanders said Sunday that outside political groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums backing candidates for public office should be abolished — including those supporting his own bid for the White House. But the Vermont senator stopped short of directly calling on Our Revolution, a political nonprofit he founded, to cease its efforts on behalf of his Democratic presidential primary campaign. “I would think that we should end super PACs right now. So I would tell my opponents who have a super PAC, why don’t you end it? And certainly that’s applicable to the groups that are supporting me,” Sanders said.
Sanders is trying to be too clever by half here and the press is already calling him out on it. He’s saying that Super PACs should be shut out of the process and the candidates should stop taking money from them. Including “groups that are supporting me.” But he’s only talking about Super PACs, not PACs.
You’ll notice that he’s not calling for his own PAC, Our Revolution, to shut down. That’s the PAC he started in August of 2016 after he lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton so his supporters could help “continue our work.” But as the AP report points out, Our Revolution has been under scrutiny because it appears to operate more like a Super PAC than just a PAC. And that could lead to FEC problems.
The Campaign Finance Act allows groups like Our Revolution to operate and they don’t have to reveal the names of their donors. But it also states that the groups need to keep their activities separate from those of the candidate they support. The act specifically says that such groups “directly or indirectly established” by federal elected officials or candidates for office can not “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds” for federal electoral activity in excess of the “limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” in federal election law.
Our Revolution was directly established by Sanders. By that standard, the group shouldn’t be able to take in or pay out any contributions from individuals in excess of the usual cap. ($2,800 per individual contributor.) But people can and apparently do give Our Revolution as much as they like. So Bernie might be sitting on some of that “bad money” we were talking about above.
So Bernie Sanders wants to take the high road and call on the rest of the field to stop accepting dark money. But he’s apparently willing to turn a blind eye his own group that may very well be coloring outside the lines in terms of FEC requirements. It’s a pretty slick game… unless he gets caught.


hotair--2020-01-20--CNN: You know what today's gun-rights rally will look like? Charlottesville; <span class=red>NBC: Th

CNN: You know what today's gun-rights rally will look like? Charlottesville; NBC: The Pledge of Allegiance is ... problematic?

“ Just to remind our viewers ” — of what ?
Today ’ s gun-rights rally does have the FBI on alert for trouble in Richmond , Virginia , but despite CNN ’ s characterization of the event , it ’ s not a white-supremacist rally .
The rally in Charlottesville three years ago was explicitly staged by neo-Nazi anti-Semites focused on an effort to remove statues of Confederacy members .
Today ’ s demonstration will protest efforts to pass gun-control legislation in this session of the Virginia legislature , an issue that has nothing to do with race .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Day on CNN laying out the narrative they plan to use in covering this event , which is that it ’ s Charlottesville II , Racist Boogaloo : The Associated Press offers only slightly more subtlety in framing its narrative : Gun-rights activists — some making deliberate displays of their military-style rifles — began to descend on Virginia ’ s capital city Monday to protest plans by the state ’ s Democratic leadership to pass gun-control legislation .
Several thousand activists — mostly white and male , many clothed in camouflage and waving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump — appeared hours before the 11 a.m. rally was set to begin .
Gov .
Ralph Northam declared a temporary state of emergency days ahead of the rally , banning all weapons , including guns , from the event on Capitol Square .
The expected arrival of thousands of gun-rights activists — along with members of militia groups and white supremacists — raised fears the state could again see the type of violence that exploded in Charlottesville in 2017 .
The Virginia State Police , the Virginia Capitol Police and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with both uniformed and plainclothes officers .
Police limited access to Capitol Square to only one entrance and have warned rally-goers they may have to wait hours to get past security screening .
Authorities started letting people in at the sole public entrance just before 7:30 a.m. CBS This Morning offered a somewhat more balanced look at the protest , which is a low bar to clear .
David Begnaud actually talked with the organizers of the event , which they stage every year at the capital .
They wait until two minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Begnaud gets supporters of the rally on camera to decry the attempt by outsiders to disrupt the rally for their own racist purposes : Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which organized the annual gun rights rally , insist their message is solely to protect the Second Amendment .
“ We ’ re against any more gun control that affects everyday law-abiding citizens .
We don ’ t need any more gun control , we ’ re not the problem , ” Philip Van Cleave , president of the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ahead of Monday ’ s event , seven members of the white nationalist group “ The Base , ” which calls for a “ race war ” to create a “ white ethno-state , ” were arrested across the country .
Authorities said some of them were expected to attend the rally .
State officials said they want to avoid what happened at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017 , when a white supremacist drove a car into a counter protester , killing her .
“ Our fears are that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or white supremacists are going to come in here , ” said Michelle Wharton , who traveled from New York to show support for the Second Amendment .
So this is a regular rally by gun owners , which has previously not borne any resemblance to the anti-Semitic riot that took place in Charlottesville three years ago ?
Thanks to CBS for making at least that much clear .
The only thing different this year is that they have a specific legislative agenda that they oppose — and that seems to be why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second coming of Charlottesville , even though that specific rally was organized by the neo-Nazis who participated in it .
This is nothing more than media narrative framing , a way to discredit the views of law-abiding gun owners exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble in protest of government action .
It ’ s an extended form of a heckler ’ s veto , using the threats from unrelated fringe groups — apparently legitimate , according to the FBI — to smear tens of thousands of people who do not in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a cheap way to demean supporters of a position that the media dislikes .
Hopefully , today ’ s protest will unfold peacefully .
Law enforcement appears to be taking all the correct precautions to ensure that , but any criminal behavior will be the responsibility of the individuals who perpetrate it .
Begnaud notes , “ Everything is very peaceful at the moment , ” which might allow everyone to breathe a sigh of relief .
Except for some of the media covering it , that is .
Update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got his video clips mixed up , or he ’ s very concerned about the defiance inherent in [ checks notes ] … the Pledge of Allegiance ?
Er , this is the most “ we will comply ” statement one can make , no ?
Twitchy has a lot of fun with this , so be sure to check out all of the reactions .
In fairness , “ we will not comply ” is probably a chant that would take place in a rally against gun-control legislation in Virginia , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clips .
But shouldn ’ t reporters get their facts straight before reporting ?
Or is the narrative everything these days ?

“Just to remind our viewers” — of what? Today’s gun-rights rally does have the FBI on alert for trouble in Richmond, Virginia, but despite CNN’s characterization of the event, it’s not a white-supremacist rally. The rally in Charlottesville three years ago was explicitly staged by neo-Nazi anti-Semites focused on an effort to remove statues of Confederacy members. Today’s demonstration will protest efforts to pass gun-control legislation in this session of the Virginia legislature, an issue that has nothing to do with race.
And yet, here’s New Day on CNN laying out the narrative they plan to use in covering this event, which is that it’s Charlottesville II, Racist Boogaloo:
Federal authorities arrested a number of suspected neo-Nazis around the country out of concern that they were planning violent acts at a gun rights rally in Richmond, a senior FBI official said. @elspethreeve reports.https://t.co/gCDJWxC3v9 pic.twitter.com/xveHFBajtq — New Day (@NewDay) January 20, 2020
The Associated Press offers only slightly more subtlety in framing its narrative:
Gun-rights activists — some making deliberate displays of their military-style rifles — began to descend on Virginia’s capital city Monday to protest plans by the state’s Democratic leadership to pass gun-control legislation. Several thousand activists — mostly white and male, many clothed in camouflage and waving flags with messages of support for President Donald Trump — appeared hours before the 11 a.m. rally was set to begin. Gov. Ralph Northam declared a temporary state of emergency days ahead of the rally, banning all weapons, including guns, from the event on Capitol Square. The expected arrival of thousands of gun-rights activists — along with members of militia groups and white supremacists — raised fears the state could again see the type of violence that exploded in Charlottesville in 2017. The Virginia State Police, the Virginia Capitol Police and the Richmond Police planned a huge police presence with both uniformed and plainclothes officers. Police limited access to Capitol Square to only one entrance and have warned rally-goers they may have to wait hours to get past security screening. Authorities started letting people in at the sole public entrance just before 7:30 a.m.
CBS This Morning offered a somewhat more balanced look at the protest, which is a low bar to clear. David Begnaud actually talked with the organizers of the event, which they stage every year at the capital. They wait until two minutes into the report to mention Charlottesville, and Begnaud gets supporters of the rally on camera to decry the attempt by outsiders to disrupt the rally for their own racist purposes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX-cIO7Jm_o
Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which organized the annual gun rights rally, insist their message is solely to protect the Second Amendment. “We’re against any more gun control that affects everyday law-abiding citizens. We don’t need any more gun control, we’re not the problem,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the organization, told CBS News correspondent David Begnaud. Ahead of Monday’s event, seven members of the white nationalist group “The Base,” which calls for a “race war” to create a “white ethno-state,” were arrested across the country. Authorities said some of them were expected to attend the rally. State officials said they want to avoid what happened at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville in 2017, when a white supremacist drove a car into a counter protester, killing her. “Our fears are that the skinheads, and the neo-Nazi groups or white supremacists are going to come in here,” said Michelle Wharton, who traveled from New York to show support for the Second Amendment.
So this is a regular rally by gun owners, which has previously not borne any resemblance to the anti-Semitic riot that took place in Charlottesville three years ago? Thanks to CBS for making at least that much clear. The only thing different this year is that they have a specific legislative agenda that they oppose — and that seems to be why the media wants to paint it as the second coming of Charlottesville, even though that specific rally was organized by the neo-Nazis who participated in it.
This is nothing more than media narrative framing, a way to discredit the views of law-abiding gun owners exercising their constitutional rights to peaceably assemble in protest of government action. It’s an extended form of a heckler’s veto, using the threats from unrelated fringe groups — apparently legitimate, according to the FBI — to smear tens of thousands of people who do not in any way ascribe to those views. It’s a cheap way to demean supporters of a position that the media dislikes.
Hopefully, today’s protest will unfold peacefully. Law enforcement appears to be taking all the correct precautions to ensure that, but any criminal behavior will be the responsibility of the individuals who perpetrate it. Begnaud notes, “Everything is very peaceful at the moment,” which might allow everyone to breathe a sigh of relief. Except for some of the media covering it, that is.
Update: Either NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez got his video clips mixed up, or he’s very concerned about the defiance inherent in [checks notes] … the Pledge of Allegiance? Er, this is the most “we will comply” statement one can make, no?
Chants of “we will not comply” from gun rights protesters in Richmond. pic.twitter.com/BjEfniwMKP — Gabe Gutierrez (@gabegutierrez) January 20, 2020
Twitchy has a lot of fun with this, so be sure to check out all of the reactions. In fairness, “we will not comply” is probably a chant that would take place in a rally against gun-control legislation in Virginia, so it might just be a mix-up of clips. But shouldn’t reporters get their facts straight before reporting? Or is the narrative everything these days?


hotair--2020-01-20--NYT: We endorse Warren. And Klobuchar! But pretty much anyone but Trump; <span class=red>Update: "Gi

NYT: We endorse Warren. And Klobuchar! But pretty much anyone but Trump; Update: "Gifted storyteller"?

“ In a break with tradition , ” reads the intro to this , er , unique editorial , “ the editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate Democratic candidates for president.
” True enough ; usually the New York Times only cheerleads for one Democratic candidate for president .
However , the gag here is that the New York Times apparently forgot along the way that an endorsement means a choice .
Even more hilariously , the Gray Lady can ’ t even choose a direction ( via Instapundit ) : American voters must choose between three sharply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent president , Donald Trump , is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad , brazen corruption , escalating culture wars , a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged .
On the Democratic side , an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation .
Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more sensible America is possible .
Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced .
Great !
So which one direction should we actually choose ?
Cue Meat Loaf ’ s Two Out of Three Ain ’ t Bad : Uhhh … the editors of the Paper of Record know you can ’ t cast two votes for president , right ?
Outside of Chicago , that is ?
Maybe someone should explain to the editors that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t actually an endorsement at all , except as an endorsement of indecision and impotence .
Most ironically , the paper set up their standard as the best chance to beat Trump , and then chose two candidates who can ’ t even come within ten points of winning the primaries .
Warren ’ s been declining into the second tier for the last three months , and Klobuchar never got a bump out of it in the first place — which means they ’ re not even Democrats ’ choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the party .
If they had picked one of the two , they could have made a principled argument for why that didn ’ t matter to their endorsement , but this non-choice tosses that out the window .
The hilarity doesn ’ t end there .
The NYT chose this year to open its endorsement process to the world as a reality TV series , and the big reveal in the FX show The Weekly got a lot of promotion this week as a must-see event .
The Paper of Record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it — and a lot more of it than they bargained for , as Ashley Feinberg writes at Slate : After weeks of buildup , a slow trickle of candidate Q & A transcripts , and no less than four separate New York Times pieces about the process of a Times endorsement itself , we finally have an answer to the question the paper of record desperately wants to be on everyone ’ s mind : Who is the New York Times endorsing in the 2020 Democratic primary ?
That answer , revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s FX show , The Weekly , mostly boils down to , uh , Warren , maybe ?
Unless you don ’ t like that .
In which case , Klobuchar , I guess ?
This marks the first time in its 160-year endorsement history that the Times has tried to give readers ( or in tonight ’ s case , viewers ) a sense of what actually goes into the process of a presidential endorsement .
Rather than opening the paper to read an opaque verdict of authority , we got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYT reporters laugh a little too loudly at Andrew Yang ’ s jokes and express concern at Klobuchar ’ s lack of charisma .
And then , in the end , they delivered a verdict that undermined itself and both candidates involved : “ May the best woman win.
” … And yet , as much as the rollout of the Very Special Episode has been about the Democratic primary , it has also very much been about the New York Times and The Role of the New York Times in the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyper-self-awareness and inflated ego , the Times has done what the Times does best : choke .
Not unlike a few years ago when the Times ’ endorsement of Andrew Cuomo for governor consisted almost exclusively of reasons not to vote for him , the paper ’ s editorial board has decided that , in lieu of any sort of cleareyed , moral direction , it will offer readers throat clearing , ambivalence , and a vague gesture at who might possibly be OK .
The NYT ’ s editors make it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump in 2020 .
The direction of the Democratic Party doesn ’ t mean much to them except to the extent that it can deliver on their first priority .
It matters so little to them that they can ’ t be bothered to choose one of the two directions they lay out in their own article , and instead choose both .
Or neither .
Whatever works .
Rarely has so much hype been lavished on so very little , and rarely has such a self-important project failed so utterly at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own designers .
Geraldo Rivera ’ s live special on Al Capone ’ s vault may be the best parallel , but in fairness to Rivera , that was always supposed to be cheesy and insubstantial .
The importance of newspaper endorsements has been dying a slow death ever since the Internet allowed people to break out of their local monopoly .
The New York Times might have driven a stake through the heart of newspaper endorsements with this reality-TV clown show .
Update : In my haste to scoff at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of its most scoffable claims , emphasis mine : Ahem .
At the very least , she ’ s proven to be a storyteller — when it comes to her ethnicity , her departure from teaching , and whether her son went to private school .
Outside of the NYT ’ s offices , we ’ d call that lying , but YMMV .

“In a break with tradition,” reads the intro to this, er, unique editorial, “the editorial board has chosen to endorse two separate Democratic candidates for president.” True enough; usually the New York Times only cheerleads for one Democratic candidate for president. However, the gag here is that the New York Times apparently forgot along the way that an endorsement means a choice.
Even more hilariously, the Gray Lady can’t even choose a direction (via Instapundit):
American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future. The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged. On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.
Great! So which one direction should we actually choose? Cue Meat Loaf’s Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad:
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Uhhh … the editors of the Paper of Record know you can’t cast two votes for president, right? Outside of Chicago, that is? Maybe someone should explain to the editors that endorsing multiple candidates for the same race isn’t actually an endorsement at all, except as an endorsement of indecision and impotence.
Most ironically, the paper set up their standard as the best chance to beat Trump, and then chose two candidates who can’t even come within ten points of winning the primaries. Warren’s been declining into the second tier for the last three months, and Klobuchar never got a bump out of it in the first place — which means they’re not even Democrats’ choices to represent either of the two directions for the party. If they had picked one of the two, they could have made a principled argument for why that didn’t matter to their endorsement, but this non-choice tosses that out the window.
The hilarity doesn’t end there. The NYT chose this year to open its endorsement process to the world as a reality TV series, and the big reveal in the FX show The Weekly got a lot of promotion this week as a must-see event. The Paper of Record tried for transparency, and they got it — and a lot more of it than they bargained for, as Ashley Feinberg writes at Slate:
After weeks of buildup, a slow trickle of candidate Q&A transcripts, and no less than four separate New York Times pieces about the process of a Times endorsement itself, we finally have an answer to the question the paper of record desperately wants to be on everyone’s mind: Who is the New York Times endorsing in the 2020 Democratic primary? That answer, revealed in a special edition of the paper’s FX show, The Weekly, mostly boils down to, uh, Warren, maybe? Unless you don’t like that. In which case, Klobuchar, I guess? This marks the first time in its 160-year endorsement history that the Times has tried to give readers (or in tonight’s case, viewers) a sense of what actually goes into the process of a presidential endorsement. Rather than opening the paper to read an opaque verdict of authority, we got to watch as a room full of NYT reporters laugh a little too loudly at Andrew Yang’s jokes and express concern at Klobuchar’s lack of charisma. And then, in the end, they delivered a verdict that undermined itself and both candidates involved: “May the best woman win.” … And yet, as much as the rollout of the Very Special Episode has been about the Democratic primary, it has also very much been about the New York Times and The Role of the New York Times in the Democratic primary. And in this state of hyper-self-awareness and inflated ego, the Times has done what the Times does best: choke. Not unlike a few years ago when the Times’ endorsement of Andrew Cuomo for governor consisted almost exclusively of reasons not to vote for him, the paper’s editorial board has decided that, in lieu of any sort of cleareyed, moral direction, it will offer readers throat clearing, ambivalence, and a vague gesture at who might possibly be OK.
The NYT’s editors make it clear that their only real concern is defeating Donald Trump in 2020. The direction of the Democratic Party doesn’t mean much to them except to the extent that it can deliver on their first priority. It matters so little to them that they can’t be bothered to choose one of the two directions they lay out in their own article, and instead choose both. Or neither. Whatever works.
Rarely has so much hype been lavished on so very little, and rarely has such a self-important project failed so utterly at the task laid out for it by its own designers. Geraldo Rivera’s live special on Al Capone’s vault may be the best parallel, but in fairness to Rivera, that was always supposed to be cheesy and insubstantial.
The importance of newspaper endorsements has been dying a slow death ever since the Internet allowed people to break out of their local monopoly. The New York Times might have driven a stake through the heart of newspaper endorsements with this reality-TV clown show.
Update: In my haste to scoff at the New York Times, I inadvertently missed one of its most scoffable claims, emphasis mine:
Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of “our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country,” as she put it in a speech last month. In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country.
Ahem. At the very least, she’s proven to be a storyteller — when it comes to her ethnicity, her departure from teaching, and whether her son went to private school. Outside of the NYT’s offices, we’d call that lying, but YMMV.


hotair--2020-01-20--Steyer: I hope at least half of America isn't misogynistic

Now that the New York Times has endorsed both of the remaining women in the top tier of the Democratic primary race , all the men in the hunt are rushing to make sure you know that they don ’ t have a misogynistic bone in their bodies .
( And that even includes Bernie Sanders . )
But one of the wealthy dark horse candidates , billionaire Tom Steyer , wants everyone to know who the real members of the He Man Woman Haters Club are .
Steyer , like the rest of the candidates , took questions on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without specifying specifically who he was talking about , he expressed some despair about the state of our union , hoping that “ at least half ” of the country isn ’ t comprised of a bunch of raging misogynists .
( Associated Press ) Democratic presidential candidates spent the weekend grappling with how to address questions surrounding sexism and gender bias as they sought to balance support for women against concerns of a political blowback .
After his wife went public with her own experience of sexual assault at the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ our country is deeply misogynist.
” Other White House hopefuls , however , didn ’ t go so far .
Billionaire Tom Steyer said that while systemic sexism exists , he “ hopes ” half of America is not misogynistic .
So you know which half of the country are misogynists , right ?
It ’ s the ( roughly ) half that didn ’ t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and probably won ’ t vote for Warren or Klobuchar if either of them manages to snag the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the way identity politics is played these days and , frankly , has been for some time now .
If you didn ’ t vote for Clinton , it must be because you don ’ t think women are up to the task .
It couldn ’ t be because of a disagreement over the policies she was pushing or your views on gun rights , abortion , taxes or anything else .
You must be a misogynist .
Similarly , if you failed to vote for Obama you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s all too tedious for words .
Someone who didn ’ t handle the question very well was Bernie Sanders .
He did a lengthy interview with NPR in Vermont and was similarly asked if female candidates face special challenges not shared by their male counterparts .
Sanders said yes , that was true .
But he then went on to say , “ I think everybody has their own sets of problems .
I ’ m 78 years of age .
That ’ s a problem.
” He then went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a challenge for 38-year-old former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , saying “ if you ’ re looking at Buttigieg , he ’ s a young guy.
” “ And people will say , well he ’ s too young to be president .
You look at this one , she ’ s a woman , ” Sanders said .
“ So everybody brings some negatives if you ’ d like .
I would just hope very much that the American people look at the totality of a candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at their sexuality , not at their age , but at everything .
Nobody is perfect .
There ain ’ t no perfect candidate out there.
” Oh , Bernie .
That ’ s not how the game is played and that ’ s not the answer the liberal media outlets are looking for .
You ’ re supposed to just say , yes , it ’ s tougher for female candidates .
And you leave it at that .
By adding in your own “ problems ” you make it all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot in his mouth by describing the status of being female as “ a problem ” and a case of “ bringing some negatives.
” I think everyone agrees that a candidate who is almost 80 could have a potential problem unless he or she can show that they still have all of their mental acuity and robust physical health .
And people might even agree that a candidate as young as Buttigieg might face questions about whether they are experienced enough , so that too could be a problem .
But no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born with ovaries is “ a problem ” in terms of being able to do the job .
Anyway , we ’ re closing in on the first primary votes in a couple of weeks , so this crew will be scrambling and wrestling with these issues until the last minute .
And all of you misogynists out there from the other half of the country can just break out the popcorn and enjoy the show .

Now that the New York Times has endorsed both of the remaining women in the top tier of the Democratic primary race, all the men in the hunt are rushing to make sure you know that they don’t have a misogynistic bone in their bodies. (And that even includes Bernie Sanders.) But one of the wealthy dark horse candidates, billionaire Tom Steyer, wants everyone to know who the real members of the He Man Woman Haters Club are. Steyer, like the rest of the candidates, took questions on Sunday about challenges facing female candidates. Without specifying specifically who he was talking about, he expressed some despair about the state of our union, hoping that “at least half” of the country isn’t comprised of a bunch of raging misogynists. (Associated Press)
Democratic presidential candidates spent the weekend grappling with how to address questions surrounding sexism and gender bias as they sought to balance support for women against concerns of a political blowback. After his wife went public with her own experience of sexual assault at the hands of her doctor, businessman Andrew Yang said that “our country is deeply misogynist.” Other White House hopefuls, however, didn’t go so far. Billionaire Tom Steyer said that while systemic sexism exists, he “hopes” half of America is not misogynistic.
So you know which half of the country are misogynists, right? It’s the (roughly) half that didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and probably won’t vote for Warren or Klobuchar if either of them manages to snag the nomination this time.
Of course, that’s the way identity politics is played these days and, frankly, has been for some time now. If you didn’t vote for Clinton, it must be because you don’t think women are up to the task. It couldn’t be because of a disagreement over the policies she was pushing or your views on gun rights, abortion, taxes or anything else. You must be a misogynist. Similarly, if you failed to vote for Obama you have to be a racist by definition. It’s all too tedious for words.
Someone who didn’t handle the question very well was Bernie Sanders. He did a lengthy interview with NPR in Vermont and was similarly asked if female candidates face special challenges not shared by their male counterparts. Sanders said yes, that was true. But he then went on to say, “I think everybody has their own sets of problems. I’m 78 years of age. That’s a problem.”
He then went on to note that age concerns could also be a challenge for 38-year-old former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, saying “if you’re looking at Buttigieg, he’s a young guy.” “And people will say, well he’s too young to be president. You look at this one, she’s a woman,” Sanders said. “So everybody brings some negatives if you’d like. I would just hope very much that the American people look at the totality of a candidate, not at their gender, not at their sexuality, not at their age, but at everything. Nobody is perfect. There ain’t no perfect candidate out there.”
Oh, Bernie. That’s not how the game is played and that’s not the answer the liberal media outlets are looking for. You’re supposed to just say, yes, it’s tougher for female candidates. And you leave it at that. By adding in your own “problems” you make it all about you.
Also, Sanders stuck his foot in his mouth by describing the status of being female as “a problem” and a case of “bringing some negatives.” I think everyone agrees that a candidate who is almost 80 could have a potential problem unless he or she can show that they still have all of their mental acuity and robust physical health. And people might even agree that a candidate as young as Buttigieg might face questions about whether they are experienced enough, so that too could be a problem. But no reasonable person thinks that merely having been born with ovaries is “a problem” in terms of being able to do the job.
Anyway, we’re closing in on the first primary votes in a couple of weeks, so this crew will be scrambling and wrestling with these issues until the last minute. And all of you misogynists out there from the other half of the country can just break out the popcorn and enjoy the show.


hotair--2020-01-20--Self-cancellation: Author asked magazine to remove story after being bullied online

A first-time author wrote a science fiction story about sexual identity and got it published in a monthly magazine .
Critics of the piece attacked the author until she asked that it be taken down .
Writing in the Atlantic , Conor Friedersdorf called it a case of “ self-cancellation.
” Recently , Clarkesworld , a monthly science-fiction and fantasy magazine , published a short story by Isabel Fall titled “ I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter , ” an allusion to a viral meme from 2014 that sought to mock and parody claims about transgender identities .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reclaim the phrase , and explore trans identities .
After experiencing vicious and personal attacks online , Isabel Fall asked that “ Attack Helicopter ” be taken down .
Call it a self-cancellation .
“ The recent barrage of attacks on Isabel have taken a toll and I ask that even if you disagree with the decision , that you respect it , ” Neil Clarke , the magazine ’ s editor , later explained in a statement .
“ This is not censorship .
She needed this to be done for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed that “ Isabel was not out as trans when this story was published , ” but outed herself under pressure to mount a defense against the false claims of detractors , an outcome he called “ very disturbing.
” One of the leading voices that trashed the story and the author was the “ acting president of SF-Canada ” who said it seemed to be written by someone with no real knowledge of trans people : Dembo was wrong about all of that .
Asked if she had any second thoughts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a trans person , she said her criticism stands and faulted the author for not providing a statement of intent along with the story : All I can say at this point is that a lot of people might have been spared a lot of mental anguish if that story had simply been accompanied by a sentence or two of context—an artist ’ s statement of the author ’ s identity and her intention for the work .
There ’ s a reason that the Artist Statement is so common in art @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yes , or readers could choose not to make half-assed assumptions about the author ’ s identity the way Dembo did .
Friedersdorf argues there ’ s a real problem with the wholesale move to “ art for justice ’ s sake ” as opposed to “ art for art ’ s sake ” and I think he ’ s right as far as he goes .
But arguably things are even now worse than that .
It ’ s not just the art that has to toe the ever-changing line , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen evidence of this several times in recent weeks .
There was outrage last week over statements by Stephen King ( that films nominated for Oscars should be judged on their merit without regard to diversity ) .
Before that people were outraged by J.K. Rowling siding with someone who questioned trans orthodoxy .
Though the controversy had nothing to do with her books , angry readers began expressing their distaste for her fiction .
Artists are in a bind these days .
Any work of art that doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but any work of art that raises them risks being shouted down for offering the wrong take .
Why try to write or speak thoughtfully about these topics at all if the slightest misstep can create a career-ending controversy ?
This sad case of self-cancellation is evidence that it ’ s often easier to say nothing than risk saying something that might be misunderstood by the social justice mob .

A first-time author wrote a science fiction story about sexual identity and got it published in a monthly magazine. Critics of the piece attacked the author until she asked that it be taken down. Writing in the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf called it a case of “self-cancellation.”
Recently, Clarkesworld, a monthly science-fiction and fantasy magazine, published a short story by Isabel Fall titled “I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter,” an allusion to a viral meme from 2014 that sought to mock and parody claims about transgender identities. The story attempts to subvert that critique, reclaim the phrase, and explore trans identities. After experiencing vicious and personal attacks online, Isabel Fall asked that “Attack Helicopter” be taken down. Call it a self-cancellation. “The recent barrage of attacks on Isabel have taken a toll and I ask that even if you disagree with the decision, that you respect it,” Neil Clarke, the magazine’s editor, later explained in a statement. “This is not censorship. She needed this to be done for her own personal safety and health.” Clarke revealed that “Isabel was not out as trans when this story was published,” but outed herself under pressure to mount a defense against the false claims of detractors, an outcome he called “very disturbing.”
One of the leading voices that trashed the story and the author was the “acting president of SF-Canada” who said it seemed to be written by someone with no real knowledge of trans people:
https://twitter.com/Erinys/status/1216429100673327105
https://twitter.com/Erinys/status/1216431988313210880
Dembo was wrong about all of that. Asked if she had any second thoughts in light of the fact that the author is a trans person, she said her criticism stands and faulted the author for not providing a statement of intent along with the story:
All I can say at this point is that a lot of people might have been spared a lot of mental anguish if that story had simply been accompanied by a sentence or two of context—an artist’s statement of the author’s identity and her intention for the work. There’s a reason that the Artist Statement is so common in art galleries that showcase transgressive or challenging work.
Yes, or readers could choose not to make half-assed assumptions about the author’s identity the way Dembo did.
Friedersdorf argues there’s a real problem with the wholesale move to “art for justice’s sake” as opposed to “art for art’s sake” and I think he’s right as far as he goes. But arguably things are even now worse than that. It’s not just the art that has to toe the ever-changing line, it’s the artists. We’ve seen evidence of this several times in recent weeks. There was outrage last week over statements by Stephen King (that films nominated for Oscars should be judged on their merit without regard to diversity). Before that people were outraged by J.K. Rowling siding with someone who questioned trans orthodoxy. Though the controversy had nothing to do with her books, angry readers began expressing their distaste for her fiction.
Artists are in a bind these days. Any work of art that doesn’t raise identity politics issues is considered suspect but any work of art that raises them risks being shouted down for offering the wrong take. Why try to write or speak thoughtfully about these topics at all if the slightest misstep can create a career-ending controversy? This sad case of self-cancellation is evidence that it’s often easier to say nothing than risk saying something that might be misunderstood by the social justice mob.


hotair--2020-01-20--Poll: 69% want Senate to call witnesses at impeachment trial, including plurality of Republicans

That ’ s a big number .
It ’ s conspicuously bigger , in fact , than it was just a few weeks ago in two other polls .
In early January FiveThirtyEight found the public split 57/39 in favor of calling new witnesses whereas YouGov had it at 52/21 .
Today , if you believe CNN , support for witnesses is knocking on the door of 70 percent .
What changed ?
It ’ s not just Democrats who are in favor either , although it ’ s mostly Democrats : Even among Republicans it ’ s 48/44 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnest interest in hearing all relevant evidence from the likes of John Bolton plus enthusiasm about Trump being able to present his own case by calling witnesses like Hunter Biden .
But however you slice it , there ’ s no way the Collins contingent in the Senate is going to resist 69 percent polling on this issue .
Their goal is to make the trial look as fair as possible so that their eventual “ not guilty ” votes look as legitimate as possible .
If the public wants witnesses at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a done deal for Republicans .
They ’ ll have to call Bolton and Biden at a minimum .
As with any single poll , the CNN data could be fluky , especially given the noticeably lower levels of support at FiveThirtyEight and YouGov .
But there are reasons to believe interest in calling witnesses really might have grown over the past three weeks .
One is that people are paying more attention as the trial approaches , with some casual followers of the Ukraine saga possibly having better acquainted themselves with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton and Biden might say .
Another is the announcement from Bolton himself on January 6 that he ’ ll testify in the Senate if subpoenaed .
Until that point some Americans might have been ambivalent about calling new witnesses , believing that Trump ’ s inner circle couldn ’ t be compelled to show up and give evidence .
Once Bolton told them otherwise the question was suddenly no longer academic .
Public interest understandably might have spiked .
On top of that , maybe Lev Parnas ’ s whirlwind media tour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s told anti-Trumpers virtually everything they could have wanted to hear .
Maybe some left-leaning independents who were disengaged from impeachment have perked up at news of an eleventh-hour witness who may or may not have the goods on the president .
Naturally they ’ d want Parnas on the stand as well .
Perhaps not coincidentally , support for impeaching and removing Trump from office has risen to 51/45 in this poll , the highest figure posted in a CNN survey since they started asking the question in June 2018 .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question .
Moving from plurality opposition to majority support in a matter of a few weeks is big news ; since Parnas has been the only figure coughing up new information about the Ukraine business , I can only assume it ’ s a reaction to the coverage of him .
Or it could be an outlier , of course — the last two national polls on removal taken before this showed the public leaning against it ( by one point and five points ) and the RCP average remains ever so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks or three weeks we ’ ll measure against that baseline to see how the trial ended up playing to viewers at home .
Speaking of which , here ’ s a little good news for the GOP .
The result when people were asked by CNN whether they thought Senate Republicans were likely to give Trump a fair trial : Independents are giving Collins , Gardner , and the rest of the party the benefit of the doubt for now on whether they ’ re taking this seriously .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no appetite in the chamber outside of the Josh Hawley contingent for a motion to dismiss the articles at the outset .
Republicans don ’ t want to squander the perception that they ’ ll be fair .
On the other hand , here ’ s what happened when CNN asked people if they thought Democrats were demanding new witnesses because they sincerely believe that ’ s what ’ s required in a fair trial or because they suspect those witnesses will end up damaging Republicans next fall .
Dems are getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To some extent those results may reflect people ’ s own beliefs about the importance of new witnesses .
If you ’ re an independent who thinks the trial won ’ t be fair unless the Senate hears from Bolton then maybe you ’ re also inclined to believe that that ’ s why Democrats want to hear from him too .
That ’ s yet another reason for Collins et al .
to want to call a witness or two .
If this data reflects what Americans think is required for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what the GOP will be stuck doing in order to maximize the likelihood that Trump ’ s acquittal will be greeted as a just outcome .
There ’ s one more bit of good news for Trump and the GOP buried in the data : A clear majority of the people who seem most likely to turn out next fall are pro-Trump .
A strong majority of the people who seem least likely to do so are anti .
How does that shake out for Democrats in the battlegrounds ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d love to be a witness — because I ’ m a potential witness in the trial — and explain to everyone the corruption that I found in Ukraine , that far out-surpasses any I ’ ve ever seen before , involving Joe Biden and a lot of other Democrats.
” Hmmm !

That’s a big number. It’s conspicuously bigger, in fact, than it was just a few weeks ago in two other polls. In early January FiveThirtyEight found the public split 57/39 in favor of calling new witnesses whereas YouGov had it at 52/21.
Today, if you believe CNN, support for witnesses is knocking on the door of 70 percent. What changed?
It’s not just Democrats who are in favor either, although it’s mostly Democrats:
Even among Republicans it’s 48/44, which I assume is a combination of earnest interest in hearing all relevant evidence from the likes of John Bolton plus enthusiasm about Trump being able to present his own case by calling witnesses like Hunter Biden.
But however you slice it, there’s no way the Collins contingent in the Senate is going to resist 69 percent polling on this issue. Their goal is to make the trial look as fair as possible so that their eventual “not guilty” votes look as legitimate as possible. If the public wants witnesses at a nearly three-to-one clip then it’s a done deal for Republicans. They’ll have to call Bolton and Biden at a minimum.
As with any single poll, the CNN data could be fluky, especially given the noticeably lower levels of support at FiveThirtyEight and YouGov. But there are reasons to believe interest in calling witnesses really might have grown over the past three weeks. One is that people are paying more attention as the trial approaches, with some casual followers of the Ukraine saga possibly having better acquainted themselves with the facts and now newly curious about what Bolton and Biden might say. Another is the announcement from Bolton himself on January 6 that he’ll testify in the Senate if subpoenaed. Until that point some Americans might have been ambivalent about calling new witnesses, believing that Trump’s inner circle couldn’t be compelled to show up and give evidence. Once Bolton told them otherwise the question was suddenly no longer academic. Public interest understandably might have spiked.
On top of that, maybe Lev Parnas’s whirlwind media tour has made an impression. He’s told anti-Trumpers virtually everything they could have wanted to hear. Maybe some left-leaning independents who were disengaged from impeachment have perked up at news of an eleventh-hour witness who may or may not have the goods on the president. Naturally they’d want Parnas on the stand as well.
Perhaps not coincidentally, support for impeaching and removing Trump from office has risen to 51/45 in this poll, the highest figure posted in a CNN survey since they started asking the question in June 2018. A month ago the public split 45/47 on the question. Moving from plurality opposition to majority support in a matter of a few weeks is big news; since Parnas has been the only figure coughing up new information about the Ukraine business, I can only assume it’s a reaction to the coverage of him. Or it could be an outlier, of course — the last two national polls on removal taken before this showed the public leaning against it (by one point and five points) and the RCP average remains ever so slightly tilted against removal. In two weeks or three weeks we’ll measure against that baseline to see how the trial ended up playing to viewers at home.
Speaking of which, here’s a little good news for the GOP. The result when people were asked by CNN whether they thought Senate Republicans were likely to give Trump a fair trial:
Independents are giving Collins, Gardner, and the rest of the party the benefit of the doubt for now on whether they’re taking this seriously. That’s a perfect example of why there’s no appetite in the chamber outside of the Josh Hawley contingent for a motion to dismiss the articles at the outset. Republicans don’t want to squander the perception that they’ll be fair.
On the other hand, here’s what happened when CNN asked people if they thought Democrats were demanding new witnesses because they sincerely believe that’s what’s required in a fair trial or because they suspect those witnesses will end up damaging Republicans next fall. Dems are getting the benefit of the doubt too:
To some extent those results may reflect people’s own beliefs about the importance of new witnesses. If you’re an independent who thinks the trial won’t be fair unless the Senate hears from Bolton then maybe you’re also inclined to believe that that’s why Democrats want to hear from him too. That’s yet another reason for Collins et al. to want to call a witness or two. If this data reflects what Americans think is required for the trial to be “fair” then that’s what the GOP will be stuck doing in order to maximize the likelihood that Trump’s acquittal will be greeted as a just outcome.
There’s one more bit of good news for Trump and the GOP buried in the data:
A key number buried in new @CNN poll –> Trump's approval rating by enthusiasm to vote in the 2020 election: Extremely enthusiastic:
51% approve (!)
47% disapprove Very enthusiastic:
46% approve
52% disapprove Less enthusiastic:
35% approve
59% disapprove — Ryan Struyk (@ryanstruyk) January 20, 2020
A clear majority of the people who seem most likely to turn out next fall are pro-Trump. A strong majority of the people who seem least likely to do so are anti. How does that shake out for Democrats in the battlegrounds?
Exit quotation from Rudy Giuliani: “I’d love to be a witness — because I’m a potential witness in the trial — and explain to everyone the corruption that I found in Ukraine, that far out-surpasses any I’ve ever seen before, involving Joe Biden and a lot of other Democrats.” Hmmm!


hotair--2020-01-20--Kellyanne Conway: MLK would have opposed dragging Americans through this sham impeachment

I admire her sheer guts in turning a question about Martin Luther King Jr on MLK Day into an anodyne pro-Trump talking point about the president ’ s political problem du jour .
We should all be so lucky to have employees as loyal as this .
If not for impeachment , it might have been an answer about how King would have approved of the Soleimani strike because he spent his life fighting evil and Soleimani was evil and therefore maybe this one time the great nonviolence advocate would have appreciated a little death from above for a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m trying to picture George Conway ’ s face right now .
I don ’ t know if Kellyanne owned the libs with this response , but she definitely owned one very particularly anti-Trump conservative : “ Well , I can tell you that the president is preparing for Davos and agrees with many of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King stood for and agreed with for many years , including unity and equality , ” she began to respond .
“ And he ’ s not the one trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment process and a lack of substance that really is very shameful at this point.
” “ I ’ ve held my opinion on it for a very long time , ” Conway continued , “ but when you see the articles of impeachment that came out , I don ’ t think it was within Dr. King ’ s vision to have Americans dragged through a process where the president is not going to be removed from office , is not being charged with bribery , extortion , high crimes or misdemeanors.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ One thing about MLK : He wouldn ’ t let his belief in a good cause be deterred by the social upheaval that resulted from it .
No way to know how he would have felt about impeachment , of course , but there ’ s an easy way to know how black Americans feel .
From Quinnipiac ’ s latest national poll : At 81/18 in favor , blacks are easily the most supportive nonpartisan demographic group on the board .
The same number , 81 percent , say they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine actions .
When asked if they approve or disapprove of Trump ’ s job performance as president , black Americans split 11/85 , with 74 percent saying they disapprove “ strongly.
” Another recent poll from Morning Consult showed similar overwhelming support for impeachment among black voters , with the group dividing 73/19 .
Haven ’ t there been several polls lately , though , showing rising black support for Trump ?
Yes , says columnist Henry Olsen , flagging one that showed the president ’ s approval among African-Americans climbing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically argues in Trump ’ s favor , is wary in this case : Here ’ s what the facts really show : Trump ’ s job approval rating among blacks averages a mere 13.3 percent in three of the most recent polls that release breakdowns by race .
Trump received an average of only 9 percent of the black vote against Joe Biden in surveys in four key swing states conducted by the New York Times and Siena College in November .
And a recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll of blacks found Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This poll is the only recent public poll that interviewed only black voters , and thus has a lower margin of error for them than the other polls mentioned above .
It found Trump had only a 7 percent job approval rating and gave him only 4 percent of the vote against Biden… [ E ] rror margins can be extremely high when you look at the actual numbers of blacks sampled in any given poll .
Only 186 blacks were included in one poll that gave Trump a 34 percent job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of error for that sample size is between 7 percent and 8 percent , and even that is only within a 95 percent confidence level .
The subtotal figure will likely be wrong 5 percent of the time even if the poll was conducted perfectly .
He ’ s nowhere near 34 percent approval in reality .
The pro-impeachment numbers among blacks across multiple polls are abundantly clear about that .
That ’ s the bad news .
The good news is that he doesn ’ t need to be anywhere near 34 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winning the presidency next fall .
If the roaring economy is enough to increase his 2016 take of the African-American vote by , say , five percentage points , he ’ ll win .
That ’ s a key electability argument in Joe Biden ’ s favor , in fact : It may be only Joe who can consolidate the black vote to the full extent necessary to tip some of the Rust Belt states back into the Democratic column .

I admire her sheer guts in turning a question about Martin Luther King Jr on MLK Day into an anodyne pro-Trump talking point about the president’s political problem du jour. We should all be so lucky to have employees as loyal as this.
If not for impeachment, it might have been an answer about how King would have approved of the Soleimani strike because he spent his life fighting evil and Soleimani was evil and therefore maybe this one time the great nonviolence advocate would have appreciated a little death from above for a bad guy courtesy of the military-industrial complex.
I’m trying to picture George Conway’s face right now. I don’t know if Kellyanne owned the libs with this response, but she definitely owned one very particularly anti-Trump conservative:
“Well, I can tell you that the president is preparing for Davos and agrees with many of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King stood for and agreed with for many years, including unity and equality,” she began to respond. “And he’s not the one trying to tear the country apart through an impeachment process and a lack of substance that really is very shameful at this point.” “I’ve held my opinion on it for a very long time,” Conway continued, “but when you see the articles of impeachment that came out, I don’t think it was within Dr. King’s vision to have Americans dragged through a process where the president is not going to be removed from office, is not being charged with bribery, extortion, high crimes or misdemeanors.”
I don’t know. One thing about MLK: He wouldn’t let his belief in a good cause be deterred by the social upheaval that resulted from it.
No way to know how he would have felt about impeachment, of course, but there’s an easy way to know how black Americans feel. From Quinnipiac’s latest national poll:
At 81/18 in favor, blacks are easily the most supportive nonpartisan demographic group on the board. The same number, 81 percent, say they’re “troubled” by Trump’s Ukraine actions. When asked if they approve or disapprove of Trump’s job performance as president, black Americans split 11/85, with 74 percent saying they disapprove “strongly.” Another recent poll from Morning Consult showed similar overwhelming support for impeachment among black voters, with the group dividing 73/19.
Haven’t there been several polls lately, though, showing rising black support for Trump? Yes, says columnist Henry Olsen, flagging one that showed the president’s approval among African-Americans climbing to 34 percent. But Olsen, who typically argues in Trump’s favor, is wary in this case:
Here’s what the facts really show: Trump’s job approval rating among blacks averages a mere 13.3 percent in three of the most recent polls that release breakdowns by race. Trump received an average of only 9 percent of the black vote against Joe Biden in surveys in four key swing states conducted by the New York Times and Siena College in November. And a recent Washington Post/Ipsos poll of blacks found Trump’s position to be even worse. This poll is the only recent public poll that interviewed only black voters, and thus has a lower margin of error for them than the other polls mentioned above. It found Trump had only a 7 percent job approval rating and gave him only 4 percent of the vote against Biden… [E]rror margins can be extremely high when you look at the actual numbers of blacks sampled in any given poll. Only 186 blacks were included in one poll that gave Trump a 34 percent job approval rating among blacks. The margin of error for that sample size is between 7 percent and 8 percent, and even that is only within a 95 percent confidence level. The subtotal figure will likely be wrong 5 percent of the time even if the poll was conducted perfectly.
He’s nowhere near 34 percent approval in reality. The pro-impeachment numbers among blacks across multiple polls are abundantly clear about that. That’s the bad news.
The good news is that he doesn’t need to be anywhere near 34 percent to extinguish any Democratic hope of winning the presidency next fall. If the roaring economy is enough to increase his 2016 take of the African-American vote by, say, five percentage points, he’ll win. That’s a key electability argument in Joe Biden’s favor, in fact: It may be only Joe who can consolidate the black vote to the full extent necessary to tip some of the Rust Belt states back into the Democratic column.
Here’s Kellyanne doing her thing.


hotair--2020-01-20--Avenatti allegedly redirected money from another settlement to fund his own needs

Last week Michael Avenatti was arrested by IRS agents during a break in a court appearance over his California bar license .
That arrest allegedly involved an effort to hide $ 1 million he received as part of a settlement from his various creditors including his ex-wife and an ex business partner .
Avenatti ’ s bail was revoked and he has now been moved to New York where he faces trial in the Nike case .
Today Fox News reports on another settlement which Avenatti allegedly misused to fund his own lifestyle : “ We didn ’ t receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of Avenatti ’ s clients , said by phone Monday .
Albaugh said he and his wife , Tracy , went to the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas but , like hundreds of other ticket holders , had problems with their seats and sued the NFL… In May 2017 , Avenatti , representing the ticket holders , entered into an agreement with the NFL for a settlement of about $ 1,550,000 and a dismissal of all legal claims .
But , in a request for a search warrant of Avenatti ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2019 arrest , IRS Special Agent Remoun Karlous told a federal judge that Avenatti paid out only a small fraction of that settlement .
“ Avenatti used the remainder of the approximately $ 1.31 million dollars [ he ] and his law firm received from the settlement of the Super Bowl Litigation for [ his ] own personal and business purposes , ” Karlous wrote .
Avenatti has not been charged with defrauding his clients in the Super Bowl case , but Karlous wrote , “ The government will be seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis that this criminal conduct falls squarely within and is inextricably intertwined with ” an already existing 36-count federal fraud indictment in Orange County , Calif .
This seems to be the pattern with Avenatti .
He wins settlements and millions come in but most of it doesn ’ t ever seem to leave his accounts .
In several cases he has ( allegedly ) lied to his own clients about settlements to avoid paying them then used the money to buy private planes or whatever else he needed .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the great white hope of the resistance thanks to endless media appearances on MSNBC and CNN .
CNN interviewed him 121 times according to this clip :

Last week Michael Avenatti was arrested by IRS agents during a break in a court appearance over his California bar license. That arrest allegedly involved an effort to hide $1 million he received as part of a settlement from his various creditors including his ex-wife and an ex business partner. Avenatti’s bail was revoked and he has now been moved to New York where he faces trial in the Nike case. Today Fox News reports on another settlement which Avenatti allegedly misused to fund his own lifestyle:
“We didn’t receive any of that,” Donald Albaugh, one of Avenatti’s clients, said by phone Monday. Albaugh said he and his wife, Tracy, went to the 2011 Super Bowl in Dallas but, like hundreds of other ticket holders, had problems with their seats and sued the NFL… In May 2017, Avenatti, representing the ticket holders, entered into an agreement with the NFL for a settlement of about $1,550,000 and a dismissal of all legal claims. But, in a request for a search warrant of Avenatti’s computers and phones seized following his March 2019 arrest, IRS Special Agent Remoun Karlous told a federal judge that Avenatti paid out only a small fraction of that settlement. “Avenatti used the remainder of the approximately $1.31 million dollars [he] and his law firm received from the settlement of the Super Bowl Litigation for [his] own personal and business purposes,” Karlous wrote. Avenatti has not been charged with defrauding his clients in the Super Bowl case, but Karlous wrote, “The government will be seeking to admit this evidence at trial on the basis that this criminal conduct falls squarely within and is inextricably intertwined with” an already existing 36-count federal fraud indictment in Orange County, Calif.
This seems to be the pattern with Avenatti. He wins settlements and millions come in but most of it doesn’t ever seem to leave his accounts. In several cases he has (allegedly) lied to his own clients about settlements to avoid paying them then used the money to buy private planes or whatever else he needed.
It’s perfect that this guy wound up being the great white hope of the resistance thanks to endless media appearances on MSNBC and CNN. CNN interviewed him 121 times according to this clip: