hotair--2020-01-24--Decency Collective: It's Journolist for progressive celebrities

If you ’ ve ever wondered why so many progressive celebrities on Twitter seem to be focused on the same issues at the same time , well , wonder no longer .
Vox reports today that a group of progressive influencers have been meeting online in private Twitter rooms intended to allow them to organize and discuss strategy .
It ’ s called the “ Decency Collective.
” Among the names I noticed of those involved are many that people might recognize : Gabrielle Union , Alyssa Milano , Jon Cryer , Sarah Silverman , Ben Stiller , Tom Colicchio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adrian Grenier , Akilah Hughes , Piper Perabo , W. Kamau Bell , Ady Barkan , Jason Kander .
Representatives from the presidential campaigns of Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , among others , are in the mix as well .
The initiative is being spearheaded by Rob Bennett , former creative communications director at the New York City mayor ’ s office under Bill de Blasio .
Some of the discussion is organic and self organized , but not all of it .
State Democratic Parties also pay Bennett to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Many of the Decency Collective groups are hubs for ongoing conversations , but the influencers are also sometimes rallied around specific causes and events , such as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearings and President Trump ’ s impeachment .
And Democrats in both Wisconsin and Minnesota enlisted Bennett ’ s stable of # Resistance celebrities to boost specific fundraising initiatives in 2019 — and , according to public filings with the Federal Election Commission , paid a company he runs thousands of dollars for that service .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who use the collective to spread word about their activities : In August , Ilyse Hogue , the president of the abortion rights group NARAL , dropped into a group called DC-PeoplesResponse one of her tweets of news that the House Judiciary Committee had requested documents on Kavanaugh and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
Perabo , who has 167,000 Twitter followers and is one of the most active members of the group , thanked Hogue “ for fighting for this , ” and Messing responded that it was “ THRILLING.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been doing something like this as well .
The 2017 story they link to at Politico Magazine seems to be missing from the website at the moment .
A cache of the page shows the story was about groups of Trump fans , many of whom hadn ’ t even been online prior to joining the groups in question .
It all sounds very grassroots .
The Decency Collective is self-consciously meant to be a top-down approach .
Celebrities discuss issues and sometimes take direction about how to amplify certain messages or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on conservative messages .
If you remember Journolist , a private email list for progressive journalists created by Ezra Klein , this sounds like the Hollywood version of that .
( Klein later founded Vox , the site reporting this story . )
Back then , the in-crowd at Journolist were eager to claim that there was no political organizing or message-crafting taking place at Journolist .
The Decency Collective seems to have dispensed with that fiction .

If you’ve ever wondered why so many progressive celebrities on Twitter seem to be focused on the same issues at the same time, well, wonder no longer. Vox reports today that a group of progressive influencers have been meeting online in private Twitter rooms intended to allow them to organize and discuss strategy. It’s called the “Decency Collective.”
Among the names I noticed of those involved are many that people might recognize: Gabrielle Union, Alyssa Milano, Jon Cryer, Sarah Silverman, Ben Stiller, Tom Colicchio, Jason Long, Mark Ruffalo, Adrian Grenier, Akilah Hughes, Piper Perabo, W. Kamau Bell, Ady Barkan, Jason Kander. Representatives from the presidential campaigns of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, among others, are in the mix as well. The initiative is being spearheaded by Rob Bennett, former creative communications director at the New York City mayor’s office under Bill de Blasio.
Some of the discussion is organic and self organized, but not all of it. State Democratic Parties also pay Bennett to get his celebrities to chirp about fundraising:
Many of the Decency Collective groups are hubs for ongoing conversations, but the influencers are also sometimes rallied around specific causes and events, such as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings and President Trump’s impeachment. And Democrats in both Wisconsin and Minnesota enlisted Bennett’s stable of #Resistance celebrities to boost specific fundraising initiatives in 2019 — and, according to public filings with the Federal Election Commission, paid a company he runs thousands of dollars for that service.
There are also leaders from groups like NARAL who use the collective to spread word about their activities:
In August, Ilyse Hogue, the president of the abortion rights group NARAL, dropped into a group called DC-PeoplesResponse one of her tweets of news that the House Judiciary Committee had requested documents on Kavanaugh and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Perabo, who has 167,000 Twitter followers and is one of the most active members of the group, thanked Hogue “for fighting for this,” and Messing responded that it was “THRILLING.”
The Vox story points out that Trump supporters have been doing something like this as well. The 2017 story they link to at Politico Magazine seems to be missing from the website at the moment. A cache of the page shows the story was about groups of Trump fans, many of whom hadn’t even been online prior to joining the groups in question. It all sounds very grassroots. The Decency Collective is self-consciously meant to be a top-down approach. Celebrities discuss issues and sometimes take direction about how to amplify certain messages or, alternatively, how to tamp down on conservative messages.
If you remember Journolist, a private email list for progressive journalists created by Ezra Klein, this sounds like the Hollywood version of that. (Klein later founded Vox, the site reporting this story.) Back then, the in-crowd at Journolist were eager to claim that there was no political organizing or message-crafting taking place at Journolist. The Decency Collective seems to have dispensed with that fiction.


hotair--2020-01-24--Al Gore in Davos on climate change: "This is Dunkirk. This is 9/11"

Does anyone do hyperbole about climate change better than Al Gore ?
No , I don ’ t think so .
Of course , he has had a lot of practice .
He ’ s been using the issue since back in the day when the first predictions of the coming of a new Ice Age began to catch on .
Some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s and the first Earth Day .
Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin was concerned that environmental issues were not being addressed in politics so he began Earth Day .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An estimated 20 million people nationwide attended festivities that day .
The Clean Air Act of 1963 was one of the first laws to address the environment and it was designed to control air pollution on a national level .
The Clean Water Act , first passed in 1972 , is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution .
Al Gore , throughout his long political career , presented himself as an expert on climate change – though it was then called global warming .
In 1976 , during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he held the first congressional hearings on the issue and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming .
Since he left political office , Gore has been a full-time scold on the topic .
He ’ s made a handsome living from his fearmongering .
He started a London-based investment management firm to create environment-friendly portfolios , he formed a group to develop a web-based program with multiple advertisements on television focused on spreading awareness for the climate crisis ( he invented the internet , you know ) , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conferences .
His books are best-sellers and we can ’ t forget his award-winning documentary , An Inconvenient Truth .
Liberals loved that one .
All of this activity on the part of Gore makes appearances at forums like Davos a natural fit .
No longer the premiere world economic forum of days past , it has been overrun by social justice warriors and their causes .
Climate change is particularly popular with attendees .
With this in mind , Al Gore ’ s speech at this year ’ s gathering is over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just when we thought Gore could not get any more obnoxious in his language on the topic , he outdoes himself .
This year he compared the threat of climate change to war battles and terrorism .
In his closing remarks Wednesday before a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland , Mr. Gore said that “ this crisis , the climate crisis , is way worse than people generally realize .
Way worse.
” “ The burden to act that is on the shoulders of the generation of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moral imagination , but this is Thermopylae , ” Mr. Gore said .
“ This is Agincourt .
This is the Battle of the Bulge .
This is Dunkirk .
This is 9/11 .
We have to rise to this occasion.
” Clearly , he says such over-the-top statements to capture the attention of his audience .
He is trying to make the case of the severity of the problem , in his mind , to those who will listen to him .
What he does with this kind of hyperbole , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be open to hearing what he has to say .
His loyal followers are already convinced .
Sensible people who may be skeptical of the coming environmental apocalypse hear these kinds of comments and think , “ C ’ mon , man.
” These words are also hurtful and insulting to survivors of terrorist attacks and wars and their loved ones .
Gore , like other publicity-seeking adults , enjoyed a photo op with teen activist Greta Thunberg and sang her praises .
Some reactions to Gore ’ s meeting with young Greta @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Does anyone do hyperbole about climate change better than Al Gore? No, I don’t think so. Of course, he has had a lot of practice. He’s been using the issue since back in the day when the first predictions of the coming of a new Ice Age began to catch on.
Some of us are old enough to remember the 1970s and the first Earth Day. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin was concerned that environmental issues were not being addressed in politics so he began Earth Day. That was on April 22, 1970. An estimated 20 million people nationwide attended festivities that day. The Clean Air Act of 1963 was one of the first laws to address the environment and it was designed to control air pollution on a national level. The Clean Water Act, first passed in 1972, is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. Al Gore, throughout his long political career, presented himself as an expert on climate change – though it was then called global warming. In 1976, during his days in the House of Representatives, he held the first congressional hearings on the issue and co-sponsored hearings on toxic waste and global warming.
Since he left political office, Gore has been a full-time scold on the topic. He’s made a handsome living from his fearmongering. He started a London-based investment management firm to create environment-friendly portfolios, he formed a group to develop a web-based program with multiple advertisements on television focused on spreading awareness for the climate crisis (he invented the internet, you know), and he’s a frequent speaker at environmental conferences. His books are best-sellers and we can’t forget his award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Liberals loved that one.
All of this activity on the part of Gore makes appearances at forums like Davos a natural fit. No longer the premiere world economic forum of days past, it has been overrun by social justice warriors and their causes. Climate change is particularly popular with attendees. With this in mind, Al Gore’s speech at this year’s gathering is over the top, even for him. Just when we thought Gore could not get any more obnoxious in his language on the topic, he outdoes himself. This year he compared the threat of climate change to war battles and terrorism.
In his closing remarks Wednesday before a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Gore said that “this crisis, the climate crisis, is way worse than people generally realize. Way worse.” “The burden to act that is on the shoulders of the generation of people alive today is a challenge to our moral imagination, but this is Thermopylae,” Mr. Gore said. “This is Agincourt. This is the Battle of the Bulge. This is Dunkirk. This is 9/11. We have to rise to this occasion.”
Clearly, he says such over-the-top statements to capture the attention of his audience. He is trying to make the case of the severity of the problem, in his mind, to those who will listen to him. What he does with this kind of hyperbole, though, is turn off those who might be open to hearing what he has to say. His loyal followers are already convinced. Sensible people who may be skeptical of the coming environmental apocalypse hear these kinds of comments and think, “C’mon, man.” These words are also hurtful and insulting to survivors of terrorist attacks and wars and their loved ones.
Ken Webster Jr., radio host at KPRC-AM in Houston, said that 16,000 French soldiers and 1,000 British soldiers died during the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940. “Imagine telling millions of people that a fraction of a degree higher in temperature is the equivalent of thousands of people dying in a giant explosion or a Nazi invasion,” said Mr. Webster in a post.
Gore, like other publicity-seeking adults, enjoyed a photo op with teen activist Greta Thunberg and sang her praises.
Great to see @GretaThunberg at #WEF20 today. Once again, I was struck by her potent and sobering call to action. Nobody speaks truth to power as she does: “Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour.” https://t.co/tbd7mh1P4Y pic.twitter.com/UzbdkMlvJr — Al Gore (@algore) January 22, 2020
Some reactions to Gore’s meeting with young Greta are worth a chuckle. Enjoy.
Two terrorist leaders in one photo https://t.co/LKfmGWc8Pn — Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) January 22, 2020
But did she scold you for your massive house and SUV travel https://t.co/IC6qVLNimn — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) January 22, 2020


hotair--2020-01-24--Live video: Trump makes first in-person presidential address to the March for Life; <span class=red>

Live video: Trump makes first in-person presidential address to the March for Life; Update: Did Twitter censor Trump video?

Today pro-life groups join together in the 47th annual March for Life , staged on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade .
American presidents have addressed the crowd before via remote hook-up or through surrogates , but today ’ s march will feature the first in-person appearance by a sitting president .
The speeches begin at noon ET with Donald Trump scheduled take the stage around 12:15 pm ET today , a change from the previous two years when he appeared by live video feed from the White House .
ABC News reports that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s part of his effort to rally the evangelical base ahead of the election : “ President Trump is the most pro-life President in the history of our country , and becoming the first President to speak at the March for Life is further evidence of that , ” Kayleigh McEnany , national press secretary for the Trump campaign , told ABC News in a statement .
Trump ’ s decision to appear is part of a larger effort to reach out to evangelical Christians , a core section of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign kicked off the 2020 election year ramping up religious voter outreach , launching “ Evangelicals for Trump ” with a massive rally-like event at a Miami megachurch .
“ We ’ re standing up to the pro-abortion lobby like never before — we will never shy away from the battle to protect innocent life , ” Trump said at the kickoff in January .
At the very least , his in-person appearance makes that claim literally true .
He ’ ll be standing up on stage backing the pro-life movement as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The symbolic value , at least , of having a sitting president on stage can not be dismissed .
Nor can the earned-media value .
In years past , media outlets gave the event less attention than , say , demonstrations in the capital for gun control and the pro-abortion lobby .
Trump ’ s presence makes the march more difficult to ignore .
With impeachment ongoing , the media might try to stay away from this , but the Senate trial session won ’ t start until 1 pm ET today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of an excuse .
That may not be the only audience Trump intends to reach either , as CBS News notes , because this comes not too long before the Supreme Court has yet another opportunity to rethink abortion restrictions .
Note how Kate Smith frames this , however , as “ a huge win for anti-abortion rights activists.
” Do they ever call the pro-choice side “ abortion supporters ” ?
Just askin ’ : President Trump on Friday will become the first sitting president to speak at the annual March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of support for those who want to restrict abortion access .
The event comes six weeks before Supreme Court arguments in one of the most important abortion cases since Roe v. Wade , which legalized abortion nationwide .
… Until this week , the highest-ranking White House official to attend March for Life was Vice President Mike Pence , who has gone every year since 2017 .
Other presidents have delivered remarks over the phone , but never attended in person .
Friday ’ s event will begin with a rally at noon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of speakers , including Mr. Trump , will address the crowd .
Attendees will then march down Constitution Avenue and end at the steps of the Supreme Court .
The event starts at noon ET , as noted above , and there will be plenty of live coverage even if the nets are all ignoring it in favor of Trump ’ s impeachment .
EWTN will have live coverage of the March for Life , including Trump ’ s historic address , available on its YouTube channel , which I ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also have running commentary , but my friends at Relevant Radio® will have live coverage on the air and through its app , too , if that ’ s more convenient .
I ’ ll guest host again for Drew Mariani today from 3-6 pm ET and have plenty of coverage and commentary of the day ’ s events .
Hours before Trump is scheduled to become the first sitting U.S. president to attend the annual March for Life , his official campaign account posted a video showing couples with newborns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her baby .
“ Life is the greatest miracle of all .
We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful , innocent , and glorious newborn child in her loving arms , ” Trump says in the video .
“ Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.
” The video was flagged as containing “ sensitive material , ” despite showing no sexual , violent , or hateful imagery .
Twitter later called this an “ error.
” Here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it might be Bernie Sanders .

Today pro-life groups join together in the 47th annual March for Life, staged on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. American presidents have addressed the crowd before via remote hook-up or through surrogates, but today’s march will feature the first in-person appearance by a sitting president. The speeches begin at noon ET with Donald Trump scheduled take the stage around 12:15 pm ET today, a change from the previous two years when he appeared by live video feed from the White House.
ABC News reports that this is a very big deal, and that it’s part of his effort to rally the evangelical base ahead of the election:
“President Trump is the most pro-life President in the history of our country, and becoming the first President to speak at the March for Life is further evidence of that,” Kayleigh McEnany, national press secretary for the Trump campaign, told ABC News in a statement. Trump’s decision to appear is part of a larger effort to reach out to evangelical Christians, a core section of his conservative base. Trump’s campaign kicked off the 2020 election year ramping up religious voter outreach, launching “Evangelicals for Trump” with a massive rally-like event at a Miami megachurch. “We’re standing up to the pro-abortion lobby like never before — we will never shy away from the battle to protect innocent life,” Trump said at the kickoff in January.
At the very least, his in-person appearance makes that claim literally true. He’ll be standing up on stage backing the pro-life movement as he and his predecessors have never done before. The symbolic value, at least, of having a sitting president on stage cannot be dismissed.
Nor can the earned-media value. In years past, media outlets gave the event less attention than, say, demonstrations in the capital for gun control and the pro-abortion lobby. Trump’s presence makes the march more difficult to ignore. With impeachment ongoing, the media might try to stay away from this, but the Senate trial session won’t start until 1 pm ET today, so that won’t be much of an excuse.
That may not be the only audience Trump intends to reach either, as CBS News notes, because this comes not too long before the Supreme Court has yet another opportunity to rethink abortion restrictions. Note how Kate Smith frames this, however, as “a huge win for anti-abortion rights activists.”
Do they ever call the pro-choice side “abortion supporters”? Just askin’:
Later today, President Trump will become the first sitting president ever to speak at the March for Life rally. @bykatesmith reports on the response to @POTUS attending the annual anti-abortion rights event. https://t.co/hUwxuc4F29 pic.twitter.com/gjfODBaTZ7 — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 24, 2020
President Trump on Friday will become the first sitting president to speak at the annual March for Life rally — a visible show of support for those who want to restrict abortion access. The event comes six weeks before Supreme Court arguments in one of the most important abortion cases since Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. … Until this week, the highest-ranking White House official to attend March for Life was Vice President Mike Pence, who has gone every year since 2017. Other presidents have delivered remarks over the phone, but never attended in person. Friday’s event will begin with a rally at noon at the National Mall, where a group of speakers, including Mr. Trump, will address the crowd. Attendees will then march down Constitution Avenue and end at the steps of the Supreme Court.
The event starts at noon ET, as noted above, and there will be plenty of live coverage even if the nets are all ignoring it in favor of Trump’s impeachment. EWTN will have live coverage of the March for Life, including Trump’s historic address, available on its YouTube channel, which I’ve embedded below in this post. They will also have running commentary, but my friends at Relevant Radio® will have live coverage on the air and through its app, too, if that’s more convenient. I’ll guest host again for Drew Mariani today from 3-6 pm ET and have plenty of coverage and commentary of the day’s events.
Update: Lame move, Twitter, lame move:
Hours before Trump is scheduled to become the first sitting U.S. president to attend the annual March for Life, his official campaign account posted a video showing couples with newborns and a pregnant woman looking at an ultrasound of her baby. “Life is the greatest miracle of all. We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful, innocent, and glorious newborn child in her loving arms,” Trump says in the video. “Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.” The video was flagged as containing “sensitive material,” despite showing no sexual, violent, or hateful imagery.
Twitter later called this an “error.” Here’s the video; the most objectionable part of it might be Bernie Sanders.
https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1220516029446742017


hotair--2020-01-24--Report: Kamala Harris considering endorsing Biden

Big day for Joe , now knowing how close he is to locking down Harris ’ s three percent of the electorate .
To put that differently , I understand what she ’ d get out of this endorsement .
I ’ m not sure what Biden gets , especially in a race that now looks to be a battle between him and Bernie Sanders .
If instead he was facing a showdown with Elizabeth Warren , the backing of a prominent woman colleague of Warren ’ s in the Senate would be a signal to undecided Dems that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman candidate .
But against Bernie , that doesn ’ t matter .
At best , Harris ’ s endorsement of Biden would serve to balance Warren ’ s eventual endorsement of Sanders — although Biden ’ s already likely to “ balance ” that with Amy Klobuchar ’ s endorsement .
And since Biden already has strong support among black voters , the support of America ’ s best-known black woman official shouldn ’ t add much to his take .
If Harris had serious influence with black voters she wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first place .
But yeah , Harris herself obviously has a reason to do this .
At some risk .
Democrats close to Ms. Harris said she wanted to carefully consider the potential impact of her endorsement ; was mindful that two of her female colleagues , Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , were still in the race ; and was uneasy about the prospect of backing a candidate only to see him or her lose California… A 55-year-old woman of African and Indian descent with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already likely to be on Mr. Biden ’ s short list [ for VP ] , should he emerge as the nominee .
Yet she could bolster her chances to be his running mate if she backed his campaign at a critical time , particularly if he did not win in either Iowa or New Hampshire next month and needed a boost in Nevada and South Carolina .
And even if she is not chosen for vice president , she would be a leading contender for a cabinet post , such as attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be if she were to get behind Mr. Biden only to see him lose in California , which votes on March 3 as part of Super Tuesday .
A survey of the state ’ s Democratic voters , conducted this month by the Public Policy Institute of California survey , found that Mr. Biden was in second place to Mr. Sanders , of Vermont .
But the poll highlighted the strength of the progressive bloc in the state : Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined were capturing 50 percent of the vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorse before Iowa or New Hampshire knowing how uncertain the result is in those states .
If you think Harris ’ s influence is meager now , imagine her rolling out a big announcement on Biden ’ s behalf a week before Iowa and then watching him get clobbered on caucus night .
Plus , like the Times says , she won ’ t want to knife Warren or Klobuchar while they ’ re still in contention lest she be accused of betraying the sisterhood .
Better to sit tight and see in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for real .
Ideally for Harris , he ’ d win one state and lose another .
Then , with the race in some doubt , she could throw her support to him and hope he comes up big in Nevada and South Carolina .
( If he wins both early states then he won ’ t need her support , of course . )
The interesting scenario is *Bernie* winning Iowa and New Hampshire .
What would Harris do then ?
It ’ s hard to imagine her disappointing her old friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already with her attack on him at the first primary debate over busing .
But if Bernie suddenly looks like he has a real chance to win , Harris could protect her left flank in California and endear herself to otherwise chilly progressives by surprising everyone with a Sanders endorsement .
I don ’ t think he ’ d reward her with the VP slot — she ’ s too different ideologically — but certainly she ’ d become a player for a cabinet position .
( Would lefties tolerate her as AG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in California ? )
Even if she didn ’ t end up in the cabinet , an alliance with Bernie would likely ward off any progressive primary challenges to her for Senate in 2024 .
And it would position her to run for president again down the line as a slightly more authentic progressive herself , a politician who went all-in on socialism when the 2020 primary was momentarily in doubt .
Plus , who knows ?
If Harris turned out to be an effective surrogate for Sanders on the trail , maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The support of an extremely prominent black pol would be valuable to him in countering the narrative that black Democrats are lukewarm about him .
Her home state of California is potentially hugely important in the primary too , with Biden and Sanders separated there right now just two-tenths of a point .
He could use someone on the stump in such an enormous state to help make the sale , and someone who ’ s well-known there already would be that much more valuable .
Her problem is that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris ’ s endorsement is worth more than even , say , Andrew Yang ’ s , never mind Elizabeth Warren ’ s or Pete Buttigieg ’ s .
( Or Mike Bloomberg ’ s ! )
If you were Biden or Bernie , headed for a showdown in Nevada and South Carolina , would you be working harder to bring the Yang Gang onboard or whatever constituency Harris supposedly commands ?
The Yang Gang is loyal to their guy and might heed his endorsement .
Who ’ s heeding Harris ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsement that ’ s both interesting and possibly influential among the current field , and that ’ s Buttigieg ’ s .
Warren and Yang will go for Bernie .
Klobuchar and Bloomberg will go for Joe .
Buttigieg , however , occupies an ideological space somewhere between the two .
And although he ’ s tacked towards the center recently , that appears to have been a strategic decision in response to the fact that Bernie and Warren were monopolizing the left .
If Buttigieg finished a distant third or fourth in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d have no chance of being nominated but might still command a large enough share of the electorate that his support would be meaningful to whoever received it .
And then he ’ d face a new strategic decision : Even if Biden looks stronger than Sanders after the first two states , is it worth it to Mayor Pete given his long-term future in the party to endorse Bernie anyway and try to reclaim some progressive cred with the left ?
If he backs Biden they ’ ll never forgive him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ what looks to be a losing cause , he has a talking point for his next presidential primary in 2024 or whenever .

Big day for Joe, now knowing how close he is to locking down Harris’s three percent of the electorate.
To put that differently, I understand what she’d get out of this endorsement. I’m not sure what Biden gets, especially in a race that now looks to be a battle between him and Bernie Sanders. If instead he was facing a showdown with Elizabeth Warren, the backing of a prominent woman colleague of Warren’s in the Senate would be a signal to undecided Dems that they shouldn’t feel pressured to choose a woman candidate.
But against Bernie, that doesn’t matter. At best, Harris’s endorsement of Biden would serve to balance Warren’s eventual endorsement of Sanders — although Biden’s already likely to “balance” that with Amy Klobuchar’s endorsement. And since Biden already has strong support among black voters, the support of America’s best-known black woman official shouldn’t add much to his take. If Harris had serious influence with black voters she wouldn’t be an ex-candidate right now in the first place.
But yeah, Harris herself obviously has a reason to do this. At some risk.
Democrats close to Ms. Harris said she wanted to carefully consider the potential impact of her endorsement; was mindful that two of her female colleagues, Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, were still in the race; and was uneasy about the prospect of backing a candidate only to see him or her lose California… A 55-year-old woman of African and Indian descent with law enforcement credentials, Ms. Harris was already likely to be on Mr. Biden’s short list [for VP], should he emerge as the nominee. Yet she could bolster her chances to be his running mate if she backed his campaign at a critical time, particularly if he did not win in either Iowa or New Hampshire next month and needed a boost in Nevada and South Carolina. And even if she is not chosen for vice president, she would be a leading contender for a cabinet post, such as attorney general… The risk for Ms. Harris would be if she were to get behind Mr. Biden only to see him lose in California, which votes on March 3 as part of Super Tuesday. A survey of the state’s Democratic voters, conducted this month by the Public Policy Institute of California survey, found that Mr. Biden was in second place to Mr. Sanders, of Vermont. But the poll highlighted the strength of the progressive bloc in the state: Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren combined were capturing 50 percent of the vote.
It makes no sense for her to endorse before Iowa or New Hampshire knowing how uncertain the result is in those states. If you think Harris’s influence is meager now, imagine her rolling out a big announcement on Biden’s behalf a week before Iowa and then watching him get clobbered on caucus night. Plus, like the Times says, she won’t want to knife Warren or Klobuchar while they’re still in contention lest she be accused of betraying the sisterhood. Better to sit tight and see in IA and NH whether Biden’s for real. Ideally for Harris, he’d win one state and lose another. Then, with the race in some doubt, she could throw her support to him and hope he comes up big in Nevada and South Carolina. (If he wins both early states then he won’t need her support, of course.)
The interesting scenario is *Bernie* winning Iowa and New Hampshire. What would Harris do then? It’s hard to imagine her disappointing her old friend Joe again after having done so once already with her attack on him at the first primary debate over busing. But if Bernie suddenly looks like he has a real chance to win, Harris could protect her left flank in California and endear herself to otherwise chilly progressives by surprising everyone with a Sanders endorsement. I don’t think he’d reward her with the VP slot — she’s too different ideologically — but certainly she’d become a player for a cabinet position. (Would lefties tolerate her as AG given how dismally they viewed her record in California?) Even if she didn’t end up in the cabinet, an alliance with Bernie would likely ward off any progressive primary challenges to her for Senate in 2024. And it would position her to run for president again down the line as a slightly more authentic progressive herself, a politician who went all-in on socialism when the 2020 primary was momentarily in doubt.
Plus, who knows? If Harris turned out to be an effective surrogate for Sanders on the trail, maybe he would consider her for VP. The support of an extremely prominent black pol would be valuable to him in countering the narrative that black Democrats are lukewarm about him. Her home state of California is potentially hugely important in the primary too, with Biden and Sanders separated there right now just two-tenths of a point. He could use someone on the stump in such an enormous state to help make the sale, and someone who’s well-known there already would be that much more valuable.
Her problem is that it’s hard to see at this point how Harris’s endorsement is worth more than even, say, Andrew Yang’s, never mind Elizabeth Warren’s or Pete Buttigieg’s. (Or Mike Bloomberg’s!) If you were Biden or Bernie, headed for a showdown in Nevada and South Carolina, would you be working harder to bring the Yang Gang onboard or whatever constituency Harris supposedly commands? The Yang Gang is loyal to their guy and might heed his endorsement. Who’s heeding Harris’s?
There’s only one potential endorsement that’s both interesting and possibly influential among the current field, and that’s Buttigieg’s. Warren and Yang will go for Bernie. Klobuchar and Bloomberg will go for Joe. Buttigieg, however, occupies an ideological space somewhere between the two. And although he’s tacked towards the center recently, that appears to have been a strategic decision in response to the fact that Bernie and Warren were monopolizing the left. If Buttigieg finished a distant third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’d have no chance of being nominated but might still command a large enough share of the electorate that his support would be meaningful to whoever received it. And then he’d face a new strategic decision: Even if Biden looks stronger than Sanders after the first two states, is it worth it to Mayor Pete given his long-term future in the party to endorse Bernie anyway and try to reclaim some progressive cred with the left? If he backs Biden they’ll never forgive him. If he backs Sanders, even in what looks to be a losing cause, he has a talking point for his next presidential primary in 2024 or whenever.


hotair--2020-01-24--Yawner: Senate Republicans claim boredom with trial

Yawner: Senate Republicans claim boredom with trial -- and ratings show it too

For Senate Republicans , boredom is strategic .
For American television viewers , it ’ s inevitable .
Nothing new to see here is a pretty good PR talking point for the GOP on Day 2 of the House presentment on impeachment , and they ’ re mainly staying on message , The Hill reports : Republicans are bored — and they hope the American public shares their tedium .
The first week of President Trump ’ s impeachment trial has been met with regular assertions from GOP senators — as well as outside allies — that there is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of excitement is real or confected , it seems to clearly have a tactical purpose : to encourage voters to pay little heed to what is going on .
In fairness , it doesn ’ t seem all that confected .
Roll Call reports that senators have become visibly bored with the proceedings even apart from promoting the messaging .
And the ennui appears to be crossing the aisle at times , too , although it was still mostly the GOP who were visibly bored : This was the third long day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history , and the 100 senators began to find more ways to pass time while watching the second day of opening presentation from House managers .
Sixteen desks were empty when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced that the House impeachment managers had 16 hours and 42 minutes left to make their case for Trump ’ s removal .
North Carolina Republican Richard M. Burr handed out fidget spinners to his GOP colleagues before the day ’ s session began .
Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton spun his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump White House hid call records , and at other times throughout the day .
South Dakota Republican John Thune , the majority whip , used the timeless fidget spinner of old — flipping his pen over between his fingers over and over again .
He dropped it at one point on to his legal pad , but immediately resumed .
Some of this is just the mechanics of human physiology .
It ’ s tough to sit still for eight hours at a time , even with breaks , to listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even on fascinating subjects .
In this case , the Senate is being asked to listen to twenty-four hours of a rehash of an argument that the House has made repeatedly over the last three months — and refused to take the time to investigate fully .
It ’ s no wonder that some members of the upper chamber are starting to get a little stir-crazy under the lockdown rules of the trial .
Still , it ’ s clear that this is also tactical/strategic on the part of the Senate GOP .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ re sighing for the cameras , and Democrats have nothing new .
It would be easy to dismiss that argument if it wasn ’ t for the fact that the ratings on Impeachapalooza indicate that most Americans agree .
The numbers have been declining since the hearings opened in October , and this week ’ s numbers are the worst yet : House Democrat managers lost more than 20 % of their audience after Day 1 ?
Oof .
Joe Concha puts all the numbers into perspective : As boring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the room , it ’ s much more so for television viewers .
Not even running commentary is holding onto viewers , and one has to wonder just how long the 8.9 million people Wednesday actually watched the proceedings .
There ’ s also a sense here that there ’ s less at stake here than in the Kavanaugh hearing , and it ’ s almost certainly correct — since the outcome here seems pretty much set .
However , the plain fact is that the House impeachment hasn ’ t caught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats wanted to turn this into Watergate II , where the methodical and comprehensive investigation of a president gripped the nation .
This partisan circus , in contrast , has been basically an exercise in the same hyperbolic speculation and hearsay that plays every day in Washington .
The American viewing public clearly is no more into reruns than Senate Republicans .

For Senate Republicans, boredom is strategic. For American television viewers, it’s inevitable. Nothing new to see here is a pretty good PR talking point for the GOP on Day 2 of the House presentment on impeachment, and they’re mainly staying on message, The Hill reports:
Republicans are bored — and they hope the American public shares their tedium. The first week of President Trump’s impeachment trial has been met with regular assertions from GOP senators — as well as outside allies — that there is nothing to see here. Whether their personal lack of excitement is real or confected, it seems to clearly have a tactical purpose: to encourage voters to pay little heed to what is going on.
In fairness, it doesn’t seem all that confected. Roll Call reports that senators have become visibly bored with the proceedings even apart from promoting the messaging. And the ennui appears to be crossing the aisle at times, too, although it was still mostly the GOP who were visibly bored:
This was the third long day in the Senate chamber of the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history, and the 100 senators began to find more ways to pass time while watching the second day of opening presentation from House managers. Sixteen desks were empty when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced that the House impeachment managers had 16 hours and 42 minutes left to make their case for Trump’s removal. North Carolina Republican Richard M. Burr handed out fidget spinners to his GOP colleagues before the day’s session began. Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton spun his purple toy as Schiff explained how the Trump White House hid call records, and at other times throughout the day. South Dakota Republican John Thune, the majority whip, used the timeless fidget spinner of old — flipping his pen over between his fingers over and over again. He dropped it at one point on to his legal pad, but immediately resumed.
Some of this is just the mechanics of human physiology. It’s tough to sit still for eight hours at a time, even with breaks, to listen to presentations with one’s full attention even on fascinating subjects. In this case, the Senate is being asked to listen to twenty-four hours of a rehash of an argument that the House has made repeatedly over the last three months — and refused to take the time to investigate fully. It’s no wonder that some members of the upper chamber are starting to get a little stir-crazy under the lockdown rules of the trial.
Still, it’s clear that this is also tactical/strategic on the part of the Senate GOP. We’ve heard all this before, they’re sighing for the cameras, and Democrats have nothing new. It would be easy to dismiss that argument if it wasn’t for the fact that the ratings on Impeachapalooza indicate that most Americans agree. The numbers have been declining since the hearings opened in October, and this week’s numbers are the worst yet:
About 8.9 million viewers watched the opening arguments in President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, Reuters reported Thursday, citing Nielsen ratings data. It’s roughly 2 million fewer viewers than the 11 million who watched the trial on Tuesday, according to the Nielsen data. The ratings include viewership from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. EST on ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and Fox News, according to Reuters.
House Democrat managers lost more than 20% of their audience after Day 1? Oof. Joe Concha puts all the numbers into perspective:
Context:
20.5M watched the Kavanaugh hearings
19.5M watched Comey testify before the Sen. Intel Cmte
16M watched Michael Cohen testify Oversight Cmte
13.1M watched Day 1 of the House impeachment hearings
11M watched Day 1 of the Senate trial on Tuesdayhttps://t.co/x8B9RwIePU — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) January 24, 2020
As boring as this might be for the senators in the room, it’s much more so for television viewers. Not even running commentary is holding onto viewers, and one has to wonder just how long the 8.9 million people Wednesday actually watched the proceedings. There’s also a sense here that there’s less at stake here than in the Kavanaugh hearing, and it’s almost certainly correct — since the outcome here seems pretty much set.
However, the plain fact is that the House impeachment hasn’t caught the public’s imagination. House Democrats wanted to turn this into Watergate II, where the methodical and comprehensive investigation of a president gripped the nation. This partisan circus, in contrast, has been basically an exercise in the same hyperbolic speculation and hearsay that plays every day in Washington. The American viewing public clearly is no more into reruns than Senate Republicans.


hotair--2020-01-24--WaPo columnist: Let's face it, fellow Dems, Hunter Biden has to testify

Is Hunter Biden the latest iteration of Barack Obama ’ s birth certificate ?
So argues Danielle Allen in today ’ s Washington Post , claiming that the impeachment of Donald Trump has turned into yet another platform for Trump ’ s conspiracy theories .
The only path out of the thicket of Hunterism is the same way out of the birtherism thicket , Allen argues — produce the Hunter .
That might not be quite as analogous as Allen thinks , however : Trump ’ s demand for an announcement by Ukraine of an investigation into Joe and Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investigation into Barack Obama ’ s birth certificate .
The Hunter issue is Joe Biden ’ s birther issue .
The biggest difference between birtherism and Hunterism is that Trump pursued the former without any of the trappings of credibility that come with holding the highest office in the land .
Nonetheless , he succeeded in forcing a sitting president of the United States to release his birth certificate as the only means by which a baseless conspiracy theory could finally be quelled .
Trump now brings all the authority of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yet his mode is no different than when he was peddling birtherism .
He finds a way to sow just enough doubt to keep baseless allegations alive .
Only production of the proof that the allegations are baseless brought it to an end then .
The same is true now .
Hunter Biden will dog Joe Biden from now until the election just as the birth certificate did Obama .
The Democrats should face the fact sooner rather than later that Hunter Biden will have to be produced in order to put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should accept a deal for witnesses in the impeachment trial that involves having Hunter Biden testify , too .
Not because having him testify is warranted by the evidence .
Not because one wants to give credence to a baseless conspiracy theory .
But as a service to the country .
Conspiracy theories die only when it ’ s possible to say conclusively , “ Nothing to see here , folks.
” We are trapped inside the worldview of a conspiracy theorist , and the only way out may be through it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to support it , however .
From the start , evidence existed to refute it , evidence that was flat-out ignored by those who pushed those theories .
That , by the way , definitely includes Donald Trump , who pushed it long enough for Obama to release the certified copy of the birth certificate , which Hawaii state officials had long verified was accurate .
Allen ’ s criticism in that case is fully warranted .
That ’ s not true of Hunter Biden ’ s odd involvement in Ukraine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Burisma ’ s board .
Hunter had no expertise in energy production , no expertise in Ukraine , and appeared to do little to support the $ 50,000 a month he was paid as a board member .
No one , not even Hunter himself , can explain how a Ukrainian oligarch facing a hostile US administration with Biden ’ s father as VP came to offer him that job .
Joe Biden ’ s intervention while his son filled a no-responsibilities job that paid $ 600K a year in Ukraine created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest , and arguably an actual conflict of interest .
And that would make Hunter and Joe Biden reasonable persons of interest in a corruption investigation — not to mention Hunter ’ s other work crossing Joe ’ s streams in China and perhaps Romania , too .
With all that said , Democrats aren ’ t going to push for Hunter Biden ’ s subpoena in a trade .
Not only aren ’ t they interested in potentially legitimizing Trump ’ s interest in the Bidens , they should be worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For some reason , Hunter won ’ t turn over his financial records in a paternity lawsuit in Arkansas , repeatedly defying a judge ’ s orders to do so .
Now that judge has ordered Hunter to appear to explain why he shouldn ’ t be sitting in jail ( via American Thinker and PJM ) : Hunter Biden must appear Jan. 29 in a Batesville courtroom and explain why he shouldn ’ t be held in contempt for violating court orders to provide financial information in his Arkansas paternity case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed an “ Order to Appear and Show Cause ” on Monday , a day when Arkansas courts were closed to honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr .
The judge ’ s order was filed into the court record Tuesday .
… Biden missed a Jan. 16 deadline to provide financial information for the past five years as ordered by the court , Lancaster wrote .
The financial information would remain under seal , according to a court order .
Among the things Biden has failed to provide , Lancaster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , names of financial institutions , a list of all sources of income , a list of all companies in which he has an ownership interest , copies of deeds to properties he owns , copies of his 2017 and 2018 tax returns , and unredacted copies of his other tax returns .
Hunter Biden told the court that he ’ s unemployed at the moment .
However , the Washington Examiner ’ s Alana Goodman did some digging and found Hunter living in posh Hollywood gigs … at the same address as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boot : Hunter Biden is defying a court order to disclose his financial information as part of a child support fight while renting a $ 3.8 million designer home in Hollywood Hills , Los Angeles , for $ 12,000 per month .
Biden and his new wife , Melissa Cohen , are getting use of a stunning , midcentury modern home for the price .
… One of Biden ’ s businesses , Skaneateles LLC , is registered to the Hollywood Hills address , according to corporate records .
Biden used the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chinese investment fund BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. in 2017 , according to his attorney .
Biden ’ s business dealings in China have faced scrutiny during his father ’ s presidential campaign .
Hunter Biden said he would step down from the board of the BHR investment fund in October , although he has not said whether he would divest his shares in the company .
He is still the director at Skaneateles LLC , the company he used to purchase equity in the Chinese fund , the Daily Caller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hell that Senate Democrats will let Hunter Biden testify under oath in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
There is just too much potential for dirt to get dug up , and too much potential for damage to Joe Biden , to allow it .
The Senate will end up acquitting Trump anyway , so what ’ s the upside of having Hunter testify ?
They ’ re better off pretending that this is just another birtherism eruption rather than the murky business it actually is .

Is Hunter Biden the latest iteration of Barack Obama’s birth certificate? So argues Danielle Allen in today’s Washington Post, claiming that the impeachment of Donald Trump has turned into yet another platform for Trump’s conspiracy theories. The only path out of the thicket of Hunterism is the same way out of the birtherism thicket, Allen argues — produce the Hunter.
That might not be quite as analogous as Allen thinks, however:
Trump’s demand for an announcement by Ukraine of an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden is analogous to his demand for an investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The Hunter issue is Joe Biden’s birther issue. The biggest difference between birtherism and Hunterism is that Trump pursued the former without any of the trappings of credibility that come with holding the highest office in the land. Nonetheless, he succeeded in forcing a sitting president of the United States to release his birth certificate as the only means by which a baseless conspiracy theory could finally be quelled. Trump now brings all the authority of that same presidency to his mode of operation, yet his mode is no different than when he was peddling birtherism. He finds a way to sow just enough doubt to keep baseless allegations alive. Only production of the proof that the allegations are baseless brought it to an end then. The same is true now. Hunter Biden will dog Joe Biden from now until the election just as the birth certificate did Obama. The Democrats should face the fact sooner rather than later that Hunter Biden will have to be produced in order to put an end to the matter. They should accept a deal for witnesses in the impeachment trial that involves having Hunter Biden testify, too. Not because having him testify is warranted by the evidence. Not because one wants to give credence to a baseless conspiracy theory. But as a service to the country. Conspiracy theories die only when it’s possible to say conclusively, “Nothing to see here, folks.” We are trapped inside the worldview of a conspiracy theorist, and the only way out may be through it.
The birther conspiracy theory never had any evidence to support it, however. From the start, evidence existed to refute it, evidence that was flat-out ignored by those who pushed those theories. That, by the way, definitely includes Donald Trump, who pushed it long enough for Obama to release the certified copy of the birth certificate, which Hawaii state officials had long verified was accurate. Allen’s criticism in that case is fully warranted.
That’s not true of Hunter Biden’s odd involvement in Ukraine and his hiring by Mykola Zlochevsky to sit on Burisma’s board. Hunter had no expertise in energy production, no expertise in Ukraine, and appeared to do little to support the $50,000 a month he was paid as a board member. No one, not even Hunter himself, can explain how a Ukrainian oligarch facing a hostile US administration with Biden’s father as VP came to offer him that job. Joe Biden’s intervention while his son filled a no-responsibilities job that paid $600K a year in Ukraine created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, and arguably an actual conflict of interest. And that would make Hunter and Joe Biden reasonable persons of interest in a corruption investigation — not to mention Hunter’s other work crossing Joe’s streams in China and perhaps Romania, too.
With all that said, Democrats aren’t going to push for Hunter Biden’s subpoena in a trade. Not only aren’t they interested in potentially legitimizing Trump’s interest in the Bidens, they should be worried whether Hunter will show up at all. For some reason, Hunter won’t turn over his financial records in a paternity lawsuit in Arkansas, repeatedly defying a judge’s orders to do so. Now that judge has ordered Hunter to appear to explain why he shouldn’t be sitting in jail (via American Thinker and PJM):
Hunter Biden must appear Jan. 29 in a Batesville courtroom and explain why he shouldn’t be held in contempt for violating court orders to provide financial information in his Arkansas paternity case. Independence County Circuit Judge Holly Meyer signed an “Order to Appear and Show Cause” on Monday, a day when Arkansas courts were closed to honor the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The judge’s order was filed into the court record Tuesday. … Biden missed a Jan. 16 deadline to provide financial information for the past five years as ordered by the court, Lancaster wrote. The financial information would remain under seal, according to a court order. Among the things Biden has failed to provide, Lancaster wrote, are addresses, telephone numbers, names of financial institutions, a list of all sources of income, a list of all companies in which he has an ownership interest, copies of deeds to properties he owns, copies of his 2017 and 2018 tax returns, and unredacted copies of his other tax returns.
Hunter Biden told the court that he’s unemployed at the moment. However, the Washington Examiner’s Alana Goodman did some digging and found Hunter living in posh Hollywood gigs … at the same address as his China business is registered, to boot:
Hunter Biden is defying a court order to disclose his financial information as part of a child support fight while renting a $3.8 million designer home in Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles, for $12,000 per month. Biden and his new wife, Melissa Cohen, are getting use of a stunning, midcentury modern home for the price. … One of Biden’s businesses, Skaneateles LLC, is registered to the Hollywood Hills address, according to corporate records. Biden used the company to purchase a 10% equity stock in Chinese investment fund BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co. in 2017, according to his attorney. Biden’s business dealings in China have faced scrutiny during his father’s presidential campaign. Hunter Biden said he would step down from the board of the BHR investment fund in October, although he has not said whether he would divest his shares in the company. He is still the director at Skaneateles LLC, the company he used to purchase equity in the Chinese fund, the Daily Caller reported in October.
There is no way in hell that Senate Democrats will let Hunter Biden testify under oath in Trump’s impeachment trial. There is just too much potential for dirt to get dug up, and too much potential for damage to Joe Biden, to allow it. The Senate will end up acquitting Trump anyway, so what’s the upside of having Hunter testify? They’re better off pretending that this is just another birtherism eruption rather than the murky business it actually is.


hotair--2020-01-24--Murkowski: Why are House managers pushing us into a legal battle they refused?

Will executive privilege confound House prerogative ?
As the impeachment presentment rolls into its third day on the Senate floor , the one message that gets beaten into the ground by each House manager is the need to call witnesses who didn ’ t testify before the House .
Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler declined to pursue witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney because they didn ’ t want to get slowed down by a court fight over executive privilege .
Senate Republicans are asking themselves why they shouldn ’ t make the same choice the House did : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to President Donald Trump ’ s threat to invoke executive privilege in order to make their case against subpoenas sought by Democrats for key witnesses and documents , a development that could bolster Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s goal of a swift end to the impeachment trial .
GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , many say there ’ s little appetite for such a time-consuming fight , given that legal battles may ultimately not be successful and could force the courts to rule on hugely consequential constitutional issues about the separation of powers between the branches of government .
McConnell has little margin for error since it would take just four Republican defections to join with 47 Democrats in order to issue a subpoena .
But his increased warnings that subpoenas could prompt an “ indefinite ” delay in the trial and get tied up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his conference , GOP senators and aides told CNN .
It ’ s not really a question of a “ growing number of Republicans ” in the conference regarding witness subpoenas .
There wasn ’ t much appetite for those subpoenas in the first place .
The issue is whether there ’ s appetite among four Senate Republicans , the number that would have to flip to allow Chuck Schumer a majority to win on a floor vote for a subpoena request .
In any configuration , Schumer would have to get Lisa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being the most independent-minded Republican senator in the caucus .
Murkowski had kept her cards close to the vest on this question , but after two days of the House managers ’ arguments , she ’ s sounding a very skeptical note on their demands : Democrats would need four Republicans to vote with them to successfully call a witness , and GOP senators are expressing confidence the votes are not there .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) , who has been seen as a swing vote , appeared wary of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to get the Senate to go through a legal battle they bypassed .
“ It ’ s kind of like the House made a decision that they didn ’ t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts , ” she said .
“ And yet now they ’ re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts .
We didn ’ t but we need you to .
That ’ s kind of where we are.
” Some Democrats are now claiming that executive privilege @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the court in an impeachment trial , noting that the Senate has the “ sole ” power to try the president .
The Hill quotes one legal expert expressing support for that notion : Ahem .
A federal district court has the power to try cases too , but defendants can appeal evidentiary rulings to higher courts as well .
A single court can not dictate rules without any oversight at all .
On top of that , the executive branch is co-equal to Congress , not subsidiary to it , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate ’ s purview to determine .
A court would have to rule on the limits of executive privilege , even within the context of an impeachment .
You can bet that the courts will see it that way if Trump challenges the subpoenas on that basis , and you can bet the courts will enjoin the witnesses from appearing until the courts settle the matter .
The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments .
That doesn ’ t mean they have the power to make up or disregard due process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And if Democrats really thought that was the case , the House would have called Bolton and Mulvaney and had them arrested for failing to appear even if Trump went to court on executive-privilege claims .
All of this appears moot now , anyway .
If Schumer has lost Murkowski on the witness issue , it ’ s game over , man .
At worst , Mitch McConnell would end up 50-50 on subpoena demands , which would put a spike through them .
Senate Democrats will remain stuck with the half-baked case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was destined to go nowhere anyway .

Will executive privilege confound House prerogative? As the impeachment presentment rolls into its third day on the Senate floor, the one message that gets beaten into the ground by each House manager is the need to call witnesses who didn’t testify before the House. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler declined to pursue witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney because they didn’t want to get slowed down by a court fight over executive privilege.
Senate Republicans are asking themselves why they shouldn’t make the same choice the House did:
A growing number of Republicans are pointing to President Donald Trump’s threat to invoke executive privilege in order to make their case against subpoenas sought by Democrats for key witnesses and documents, a development that could bolster Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s goal of a swift end to the impeachment trial. GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve to drag out the proceedings. Plus, many say there’s little appetite for such a time-consuming fight, given that legal battles may ultimately not be successful and could force the courts to rule on hugely consequential constitutional issues about the separation of powers between the branches of government. McConnell has little margin for error since it would take just four Republican defections to join with 47 Democrats in order to issue a subpoena. But his increased warnings that subpoenas could prompt an “indefinite” delay in the trial and get tied up in the courts have been gaining traction within his conference, GOP senators and aides told CNN.
It’s not really a question of a “growing number of Republicans” in the conference regarding witness subpoenas. There wasn’t much appetite for those subpoenas in the first place. The issue is whether there’s appetite among four Senate Republicans, the number that would have to flip to allow Chuck Schumer a majority to win on a floor vote for a subpoena request.
In any configuration, Schumer would have to get Lisa Murkowski to vote for a subpoena, being the most independent-minded Republican senator in the caucus. Murkowski had kept her cards close to the vest on this question, but after two days of the House managers’ arguments, she’s sounding a very skeptical note on their demands:
Democrats would need four Republicans to vote with them to successfully call a witness, and GOP senators are expressing confidence the votes are not there. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has been seen as a swing vote, appeared wary of a legal fight, characterizing House Democrats as trying to get the Senate to go through a legal battle they bypassed. “It’s kind of like the House made a decision that they didn’t want to slow things down by having to go through the courts,” she said. “And yet now they’re basically saying you guys need to go through the courts. We didn’t but we need you to. That’s kind of where we are.”
Some Democrats are now claiming that executive privilege doesn’t need to be addressed by the court in an impeachment trial, noting that the Senate has the “sole” power to try the president. The Hill quotes one legal expert expressing support for that notion:
James Robenalt, an attorney with the firm Thompson Hine and an expert on Watergate, said the Constitution and Senate rules empower the upper chamber to decide questions of evidence admissibility. “I think the Senate has the right to make its own rules and rulings,” Robenalt said. “That should keep the courts out of privilege decisions.”
Ahem. A federal district court has the power to try cases too, but defendants can appeal evidentiary rulings to higher courts as well. A single court cannot dictate rules without any oversight at all. On top of that, the executive branch is co-equal to Congress, not subsidiary to it, which means executive privilege is not within the Senate’s purview to determine. A court would have to rule on the limits of executive privilege, even within the context of an impeachment. You can bet that the courts will see it that way if Trump challenges the subpoenas on that basis, and you can bet the courts will enjoin the witnesses from appearing until the courts settle the matter.
The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments. That doesn’t mean they have the power to make up or disregard due process or ignore constitutional prerogatives or limitations. And if Democrats really thought that was the case, the House would have called Bolton and Mulvaney and had them arrested for failing to appear even if Trump went to court on executive-privilege claims.
All of this appears moot now, anyway. If Schumer has lost Murkowski on the witness issue, it’s game over, man. At worst, Mitch McConnell would end up 50-50 on subpoena demands, which would put a spike through them. Senate Democrats will remain stuck with the half-baked case the House dropped on them, one that was destined to go nowhere anyway.


hotair--2020-01-24--Klobuchar: I'll fire Betsy DeVos in my first 100 days

It ’ s official .
The Secretary of the Department of Education has been put on notice .
Betsy DeVos should be keeping an eye on her resume and her future job opportunities .
Because if Amy Klobuchar is not only nominated by the Democrats but takes the White House this November , she ’ s going to fire DeVos and will give her at most three months to find new employment .
If nothing else , DeVos is getting a lot more notice of her termination than most Americans , despite the fact that she would likely already be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sworn in if Trump somehow loses the election .
( Free Beacon ) Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D. , Minn. ) in a new ad released Wednesday pledged to fire Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos within her first 100 days as president—a likely unnecessary move given that DeVos would depart with sitting president Donald Trump .
Klobuchar lists various progressive policy wishes in the 30-second spot now airing in Iowa , sandwiching a promise to dismiss DeVos between expanding Veterans Affairs benefits and addressing mental health and addiction .
Klobuchar ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment as to why firing DeVos would be necessary , or as to whether Klobuchar would consider keeping any Trump cabinet members , as when President Barack Obama kept on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates from the Bush administration .
Given the vast rift between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to education policy , does Klobuchar really believe that DeVos wouldn ’ t turn in her resignation as soon as Donald Trump leaves office ?
( Assuming the Democrats somehow unseat Trump this year . )
Is there some scenario where Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board or where DeVos would have wanted to stay on and work for the new boss ?
As the Free Beacon points out , this is rather similar to Eric Swalwell ( who you probably don ’ t remember was running for POTUS ) promising to fire Jared Kushner upon taking office .
Did anyone really think that the President ’ s son-in-law was going to want to stick around and be an advisor to a Democrat after Trump left office ?
There ’ s precedent for some Cabinet members hanging around from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are becoming more and more rare .
Trump kept on David Shulkin at the VA after he served as an undersecretary for Obama .
And Obama kept Robert Gates on at Defense after Bush left office .
But DeVos underwent one of the more brutal confirmation hearings of this administration and was barely confirmed after two Republican defections , requiring a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President .
The days of bipartisan virtue-signaling are likely over at this point .
Anyone who dared to accept a nomination from Donald Trump is unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the next Democratic POTUS if Trump loses .
DeVos and the rest of the crew will be looking for new employment if Biden , Warren or Sanders is somehow elected .
And I ’ m sure they already know this and are making preparations in advance .
Similarly , after all of the hot takes and divisiveness surrounding the 2020 campaign , Trump won ’ t be looking to invite any Democrats to his cabinet next year .
Whether that ’ s for better or worse I leave to the discretion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be seriously drifting off message with this announcement .

It’s official. The Secretary of the Department of Education has been put on notice. Betsy DeVos should be keeping an eye on her resume and her future job opportunities. Because if Amy Klobuchar is not only nominated by the Democrats but takes the White House this November, she’s going to fire DeVos and will give her at most three months to find new employment. If nothing else, DeVos is getting a lot more notice of her termination than most Americans, despite the fact that she would likely already be long gone by the time Klobuchar was sworn in if Trump somehow loses the election. (Free Beacon)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) in a new ad released Wednesday pledged to fire Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos within her first 100 days as president—a likely unnecessary move given that DeVos would depart with sitting president Donald Trump. Klobuchar lists various progressive policy wishes in the 30-second spot now airing in Iowa, sandwiching a promise to dismiss DeVos between expanding Veterans Affairs benefits and addressing mental health and addiction. Klobuchar’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment as to why firing DeVos would be necessary, or as to whether Klobuchar would consider keeping any Trump cabinet members, as when President Barack Obama kept on Secretary of Defense Robert Gates from the Bush administration.
Given the vast rift between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to education policy, does Klobuchar really believe that DeVos wouldn’t turn in her resignation as soon as Donald Trump leaves office? (Assuming the Democrats somehow unseat Trump this year.) Is there some scenario where Klobuchar would have wanted to keep her on board or where DeVos would have wanted to stay on and work for the new boss?
As the Free Beacon points out, this is rather similar to Eric Swalwell (who you probably don’t remember was running for POTUS) promising to fire Jared Kushner upon taking office. Did anyone really think that the President’s son-in-law was going to want to stick around and be an advisor to a Democrat after Trump left office?
There’s precedent for some Cabinet members hanging around from one administration to the next, but they are becoming more and more rare. Trump kept on David Shulkin at the VA after he served as an undersecretary for Obama. And Obama kept Robert Gates on at Defense after Bush left office. But DeVos underwent one of the more brutal confirmation hearings of this administration and was barely confirmed after two Republican defections, requiring a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President.
The days of bipartisan virtue-signaling are likely over at this point. Anyone who dared to accept a nomination from Donald Trump is unlikely to be offered another stint in office by the next Democratic POTUS if Trump loses. DeVos and the rest of the crew will be looking for new employment if Biden, Warren or Sanders is somehow elected. And I’m sure they already know this and are making preparations in advance.
Similarly, after all of the hot takes and divisiveness surrounding the 2020 campaign, Trump won’t be looking to invite any Democrats to his cabinet next year. Whether that’s for better or worse I leave to the discretion of the reader. But Amy Klobuchar seems to be seriously drifting off message with this announcement.


hotair--2020-01-24--Trump confidant to Republican senators: Vote against him and "your head will be on a pike"

Is the “ confidant ” Steve Bannon ?
Because it sounds like Steve Bannon .
Vivid tough-guy bluster .
Axe-grinding about fickle establishmentarians .
Whispering on background to reporters .
It has all the hallmarks .
Some lefties are taking the line literally , not because there ’ s any actual doubt that it ’ s metaphorical but because it ’ s Friday and content is thin and “ the Trump administration is about to cross a frightening new line ” is always good filler content for the Resistance .
On a positive note , “ is Trump going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” isn ’ t the worst anti-Trump take out there today : Hoo boy .
Anyway , no one ’ s head will end up on a pike .
In a worst-case scenario a guy like Romney will vote to remove , serve out his term as an unelectable incumbent , then enjoy a very cushy retirement surrounded by a hundred adoring grandchildren .
In fact , likening the end of one ’ s political career to a beheading is a weirdly elitist view for a Trump confidant , the sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the country would be much better off without the careerist mindset shared by so much of the time-serving trash that populates official Washington .
God forbid Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski have an awakening that not being a senator anymore wouldn ’ t be the end of the world and decide that they ’ re going to vote from now on however they want to vote .
( In fairness , Murkowski may have already had that awakening . )
Plus , it ’ s simply false to suggest that Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disobedient senators .
Look no further than Jefferson Beauregard Sessions , the current frontrunner in the race for the Republican Senate nomination in Alabama despite the fact that Trump bears him a very public grudge .
Why has POTUS kept his mouth shut about Sessions since he entered the race ?
Because : He remembers what happened in Alabama when Republicans there nominated a gonzo populist like Roy Moore .
As much as Trump hates Sessions , he hates the thought of losing that seat again more , so he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hang back against Collins or Romney if one of them voted to remove him .
It ’ d be too personal .
But if they crossed him on witnesses or something ?
Sure , he ’ d let it go .
He ’ d have no choice .
At the end of the day he ’ d realize that the GOP is likelier to hold Collins ’ s seat with her as the nominee than it is if they nominate some Trumpy loose cannon instead .
If he goes around taking revenge on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the trial , he may find himself saddled with a Democratic Senate next year .
And then it ’ ll be the president ’ s judicial nominees who end up with their heads on pikes .
Speaking of crossing him on witnesses , Democrats think Collins , Murkowski , and Romney are all gettable .
( Are they ? )
But who ’ s going to be the 51st vote that puts them over the top on Bolton ?
Probably not Cory Gardner .
He has good reason to do so but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more worried about Republicans not turning out to vote for him than alienating Democrats .
Is it all down to … Lamar Alexander ?
He ’ s a retiring defender of the Senate as an institution who ’ s occasionally bucked his party , but he also counts Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a longtime ally .
He ’ s more hesitant to criticize Trump than are some other Republicans , but he also has said it was “ inappropriate ” for Trump to ask foreign governments to investigate his political opponents… Alexander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for witnesses and throw momentary control of the Senate to the Democrats .
More likely , if he ’ s feeling the need to hear new evidence in the trial , other Republicans would join him and scramble plans on how to handle witnesses and documents .
Yet at the moment , GOP leaders are not worried about Alexander , according to a Republican senator and aides privy to party strategy .
They believe Alexander is likely to side with McConnell and help wrap up the trial .
He also has his eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which he ’ ll need Trump ’ s and McConnell ’ s help to pass .
I don ’ t think he ’ ll be number 51 on this .
But what if he doesn ’ t need to be ?
What if … John Roberts is number 51 ?
There ’ s been little discussion of it , but there ’ s a musty precedent from the 1868 Andrew Johnson trial whereby , in theory , it could take three Republicans .
The catch is that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
If only three Republicans were to vote for a motion to call witnesses , the Senate would be split 50-50 .
That means the motion would fail .
But twice in the 1868 trial , Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase , in his role as the presiding officer , cast a tie-breaking vote on a procedural motion — which therefore passed .
Those two votes were trivial matters , in one case whether the Senate should take a break , in the other whether it should adjourn for the day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his boldness , to put it mildly , a precedent ’ s a precedent .
It stands to reason that the presiding officer should cast a tiebreaking vote .
Normally during Senate business that ’ s the vice president .
In the case of impeachment the VP has a conflict of interest , so logically it would fall to the chief justice .
I think Roberts would find a reason to duck it , though .
He ’ s the guy who famously described his role as a judge during his confirmation hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balls and strikes .
If he participates in witness selection than he ’ d be more of a player , acting in concert with the politicians in the Senate .
Not his cup of tea .

Is the “confidant” Steve Bannon? Because it sounds like Steve Bannon.
Vivid tough-guy bluster. Axe-grinding about fickle establishmentarians. Whispering on background to reporters. It has all the hallmarks.
Some lefties are taking the line literally, not because there’s any actual doubt that it’s metaphorical but because it’s Friday and content is thin and “the Trump administration is about to cross a frightening new line” is always good filler content for the Resistance.
CBS News reports that GOP Senators have been warned by Trump team: "Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike." How is this acceptable? pic.twitter.com/19TKOn4kSq — Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) January 24, 2020
On a positive note, “is Trump going to put people’s heads on pikes?” isn’t the worst anti-Trump take out there today:
I wish I knew how to write takes like this intentionally, as a joke. pic.twitter.com/laSIOWKp5P — Jeff B., who on earth is this guy?? (@EsotericCD) January 24, 2020
Hoo boy. Anyway, no one’s head will end up on a pike. In a worst-case scenario a guy like Romney will vote to remove, serve out his term as an unelectable incumbent, then enjoy a very cushy retirement surrounded by a hundred adoring grandchildren. In fact, likening the end of one’s political career to a beheading is a weirdly elitist view for a Trump confidant, the sort of person who’d normally tell you that the country would be much better off without the careerist mindset shared by so much of the time-serving trash that populates official Washington. God forbid Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski have an awakening that not being a senator anymore wouldn’t be the end of the world and decide that they’re going to vote from now on however they want to vote. (In fairness, Murkowski may have already had that awakening.)
Plus, it’s simply false to suggest that Trump has all of the leverage when it comes to disobedient senators. Look no further than Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, the current frontrunner in the race for the Republican Senate nomination in Alabama despite the fact that Trump bears him a very public grudge. Why has POTUS kept his mouth shut about Sessions since he entered the race? Because: He remembers what happened in Alabama when Republicans there nominated a gonzo populist like Roy Moore. As much as Trump hates Sessions, he hates the thought of losing that seat again more, so he’s hanging back.
He wouldn’t hang back against Collins or Romney if one of them voted to remove him. It’d be too personal. But if they crossed him on witnesses or something? Sure, he’d let it go. He’d have no choice. At the end of the day he’d realize that the GOP is likelier to hold Collins’s seat with her as the nominee than it is if they nominate some Trumpy loose cannon instead. If he goes around taking revenge on his own incumbents for displaying insufficient loyalty at the trial, he may find himself saddled with a Democratic Senate next year.
And then it’ll be the president’s judicial nominees who end up with their heads on pikes.
Speaking of crossing him on witnesses, Democrats think Collins, Murkowski, and Romney are all gettable. (Are they?) But who’s going to be the 51st vote that puts them over the top on Bolton? Probably not Cory Gardner. He has good reason to do so but Gardner is a timid politician who seems more worried about Republicans not turning out to vote for him than alienating Democrats. Is it all down to … Lamar Alexander?
He’s a retiring defender of the Senate as an institution who’s occasionally bucked his party, but he also counts Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a longtime ally. He’s more hesitant to criticize Trump than are some other Republicans, but he also has said it was “inappropriate” for Trump to ask foreign governments to investigate his political opponents… Alexander is unlikely to be the 51st vote for witnesses and throw momentary control of the Senate to the Democrats. More likely, if he’s feeling the need to hear new evidence in the trial, other Republicans would join him and scramble plans on how to handle witnesses and documents. Yet at the moment, GOP leaders are not worried about Alexander, according to a Republican senator and aides privy to party strategy. They believe Alexander is likely to side with McConnell and help wrap up the trial.
He also has his eye on a bill to lower health-care costs which he’ll need Trump’s and McConnell’s help to pass. I don’t think he’ll be number 51 on this. But what if he doesn’t need to be? What if … John Roberts is number 51?
There’s been little discussion of it, but there’s a musty precedent from the 1868 Andrew Johnson trial whereby, in theory, it could take three Republicans. The catch is that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would have to support the idea, too. If only three Republicans were to vote for a motion to call witnesses, the Senate would be split 50-50. That means the motion would fail. But twice in the 1868 trial, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, in his role as the presiding officer, cast a tie-breaking vote on a procedural motion — which therefore passed.
Those two votes were trivial matters, in one case whether the Senate should take a break, in the other whether it should adjourn for the day. And although Roberts is not known for his boldness, to put it mildly, a precedent’s a precedent. It stands to reason that the presiding officer should cast a tiebreaking vote. Normally during Senate business that’s the vice president. In the case of impeachment the VP has a conflict of interest, so logically it would fall to the chief justice.
I think Roberts would find a reason to duck it, though. He’s the guy who famously described his role as a judge during his confirmation hearing as that of an umpire, calling balls and strikes. If he participates in witness selection than he’d be more of a player, acting in concert with the politicians in the Senate. Not his cup of tea.


hotair--2020-01-24--Alyssa Milano launches initiative to stop "the orange-haired guy"

Actress/activist Alyssa Milano is partnering with a group that helps grow progressive power in all levels of government .
She made the announcement Friday .
It is a “ brilliant ” new strategy to stop President Trump ’ s re-election if she does say so herself – and she does .
Her initiative is called # 2020Fund .
Milano is partnering with Movement Voter Project ( MVP ) .
The group , according to its website , “ helps thousands of donors support hundreds of local groups in more than 40 states get out the vote , win on issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milano is focusing on raising money to get out the vote in three swing states for the 2020 election – Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania .
MVP pledges to match donations , up to $ 1M , to hire staff , support volunteers , and canvass neighborhoods .
I ’ ve found a brilliant new strategy to stop Trump in three of the most critical 2020 swing states , ” the actress wrote on the fund ’ s website .
“ These organizations empower youth , immigrants , women , people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans ’ horrible policies .
They fight tirelessly on the issues and increase voter turnout.
” Donations to grassroots organizations can be made through the fund ’ s website .
“ This is the most compelling strategy I ’ ve heard to stop the orange-haired guy AND support local community heroes at the same time , ” Milano wrote on the donations page of the website .
“ Please join me in supporting these awesome , underfunded local groups to save our country — from the grassroots up !
” The organizations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money include Detroit Action , Michigan Liberation and Mothering Justice Action Fund .
The Pennsylvania organizations for which she ’ s fundraising are 215 People ’ s Alliance , Pennsylvania Stands Up and Pennsylvania Student Power Network .
Meanwhile , the Wisconsin-based organizations are Black Leaders Organizing Communities , Leaders Igniting Transformation Action Fund and Voces de la Frontera Action , Inc .
The push is to motivate young people and people of color to get out and vote against the bad Orange Man .
Instead of endorsing a candidate in the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unity among Democrat voters so that the goal of preventing Trump ’ s re-election is met .
As she bemoans the fact that Trump won in 2020 thanks to “ just ” 77,000 votes total in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania , she is honest enough to admit , “ and he could easily do it again.
” Even Alyssa Milano knows that President Trump is very likely to win re-election , despite The Resistance ’ s best efforts over the last three years .
Milano has been busy this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post interviewed her and just as other Hollywood celebrities and the media are swooning over Adam Schiff ’ s performances , so is Alyssa Milano .
He is so compelling .
She slammed Trump ’ s defense team but gosh , Schiff is so theatrical compared to the other House impeachment managers .
It ’ s like watching a one-man show on Broadway .
It was intense .
It was definitely intense .
It felt historic — just being in that room alone , it was overwhelming .
But also I think to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam ] Schiff speak , he was so compelling , and I think you could feel , especially yesterday [ Wednesday ] when he really laid out the constitutional crisis , you could see the Republican senators become a lot more engaged — sort of taking notes feverishly and really listening and hanging on every word , which was refreshing to me because I just expected everyone to be sort of disengaged .
The other thing was that I had a perfect vantage point of [ Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slightly appalled by the reactions that they were having , which no one is really talking about .
They ’ re giggling at some points and scoffing when Congressman Schiff says certain things , and I thought it was disgraceful and such an outward symbol of how they just don ’ t take this process seriously .
I think that showed a lot on that first day — the sort of arrogance to be unprepared .
When Schiff was laying out his case for taking on Senator [ Charles E. ] Schumer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense would get up there and just say , “ This is a scam !
” And they had nothing .
All they could do was attack weird parts of protocol .
Not once did anyone say , “ We will prove that Donald Trump did not commit impeachable offenses.
” To me , it almost sounded like when a defense team has no real argument , so they go to a botched scene or something like that .
But I thought Schiff was really interesting , especially from a performer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference between him and the other impeachment managers , how he is in his element when he gets into that zone of really conveying that narrative and a timeline .
It felt like you were watching a one-man show on Broadway .
It will be a bitter pill to swallow for Ms. Milano and Schiff ’ s other Hollywood fans when they realize how turned off voters are in the three swing states she is targeting for 2020 with the impeachment circus .
It ’ s not like a Broadway performance to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus performance .

Actress/activist Alyssa Milano is partnering with a group that helps grow progressive power in all levels of government. She made the announcement Friday. It is a “brilliant” new strategy to stop President Trump’s re-election if she does say so herself – and she does. Her initiative is called #2020Fund.
This is how we win in 2020! From the grassroots up! More info here: https://t.co/DcClnc3qrj #2020Fund pic.twitter.com/O6VFexl4sZ — Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) January 24, 2020
Milano is partnering with Movement Voter Project (MVP). The group, according to its website, “helps thousands of donors support hundreds of local groups in more than 40 states get out the vote, win on issues, and organize in their communities.” Milano is focusing on raising money to get out the vote in three swing states for the 2020 election – Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. MVP pledges to match donations, up to $1M, to hire staff, support volunteers, and canvass neighborhoods.
I’ve found a brilliant new strategy to stop Trump in three of the most critical 2020 swing states,” the actress wrote on the fund’s website. “These organizations empower youth, immigrants, women, people of color and communities facing the worst of Republicans’ horrible policies. They fight tirelessly on the issues and increase voter turnout.” Donations to grassroots organizations can be made through the fund’s website. “This is the most compelling strategy I’ve heard to stop the orange-haired guy AND support local community heroes at the same time,” Milano wrote on the donations page of the website. “Please join me in supporting these awesome, underfunded local groups to save our country — from the grassroots up!” The organizations in Michigan for which Milano will be raising money include Detroit Action, Michigan Liberation and Mothering Justice Action Fund. The Pennsylvania organizations for which she’s fundraising are 215 People’s Alliance, Pennsylvania Stands Up and Pennsylvania Student Power Network. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin-based organizations are Black Leaders Organizing Communities, Leaders Igniting Transformation Action Fund and Voces de la Frontera Action, Inc.
The push is to motivate young people and people of color to get out and vote against the bad Orange Man. Instead of endorsing a candidate in the Democrat primary, she is promoting a message of unity among Democrat voters so that the goal of preventing Trump’s re-election is met. As she bemoans the fact that Trump won in 2020 thanks to “just” 77,000 votes total in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, she is honest enough to admit, “and he could easily do it again.” Even Alyssa Milano knows that President Trump is very likely to win re-election, despite The Resistance’s best efforts over the last three years.
Milano has been busy this week attending the impeachment trial. The Washington Post interviewed her and just as other Hollywood celebrities and the media are swooning over Adam Schiff’s performances, so is Alyssa Milano. He is so compelling. She slammed Trump’s defense team but gosh, Schiff is so theatrical compared to the other House impeachment managers. It’s like watching a one-man show on Broadway.
It was intense. It was definitely intense. It felt historic — just being in that room alone, it was overwhelming. But also I think to be able to watch Congressman [and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff speak, he was so compelling, and I think you could feel, especially yesterday [Wednesday] when he really laid out the constitutional crisis, you could see the Republican senators become a lot more engaged — sort of taking notes feverishly and really listening and hanging on every word, which was refreshing to me because I just expected everyone to be sort of disengaged. The other thing was that I had a perfect vantage point of [Trump’s] defense team, and I was slightly appalled by the reactions that they were having, which no one is really talking about. They’re giggling at some points and scoffing when Congressman Schiff says certain things, and I thought it was disgraceful and such an outward symbol of how they just don’t take this process seriously. I think that showed a lot on that first day — the sort of arrogance to be unprepared. When Schiff was laying out his case for taking on Senator [Charles E.] Schumer’s amendments, you know, the defense would get up there and just say, “This is a scam!” And they had nothing. All they could do was attack weird parts of protocol. Not once did anyone say, “We will prove that Donald Trump did not commit impeachable offenses.” To me, it almost sounded like when a defense team has no real argument, so they go to a botched scene or something like that. But I thought Schiff was really interesting, especially from a performer’s perspective. And you can see the difference between him and the other impeachment managers, how he is in his element when he gets into that zone of really conveying that narrative and a timeline. It felt like you were watching a one-man show on Broadway.
It will be a bitter pill to swallow for Ms. Milano and Schiff’s other Hollywood fans when they realize how turned off voters are in the three swing states she is targeting for 2020 with the impeachment circus. It’s not like a Broadway performance to them – it’s more like a Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus performance.