hotair--2020-02-05--Green New Conceal: Warren tries sneaking off private jet after spotting camera

Are there more important political developments today than Elizabeth Warren hiding from a camera after exiting a private-jet flight ?
Sure , but in the Green New Deal/climate-change-hysteria era , perhaps none quite so entertaining .
Warren , whose presidential campaign website includes not just support for the Green New Deal but a proposal for a “ Blue New Deal ” as well to eliminate carbon output and save the oceans , seems relaxed and at ease as she exits this charter jet .
At least until she sees the camera .
Hoo boy ( via Katie Pavlich ) : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sells this , because otherwise it ’ s at least potentially defensible .
Presidential candidates get ripped for not doing enough retail politics , especially in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire , where commercial flights aren ’ t all that abundant .
Warren could simply have offered an explanation that on rare occasions in this particular context , a charter flight is necessary — but that it should be a choice of last resort .
It would still be fairly hypocritical as environmental advocates rarely if ever concede anything about practicality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to their diktats , but at least it would address the obvious contradiction here .
Instead , Warren tries to use one of her aides as a human shield against the camera .
Way to champion transparency and accountability , Senator !
Speaking of which , Warren ’ s hardly the only hypocrite in the Greta Thunberg Army .
The Washington Free Beacon did an analysis of private-jet use by Democratic candidates , and guess who comes in first place ?
Feel the after-Berner , baby : The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel last quarter , outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field .
The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $ 1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets , LLC , a “ luxury private jet charter service.
” The campaign spent an additional $ 23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team .
And as if right on cue , Bernie offered this trenchant criticism of Donald Trump ’ s State of the Union speech : Oof .
Sanders and Warren aren ’ t alone on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden , whose campaign spent $ 1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter .
An analysis of private jet spending in filings from other top candidates found that Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign spent $ 720,518 and Pete Buttigieg ’ s campaign spent $ 323,518 .
Michael Bloomberg , who pumped a whopping $ 200 million of his personal fortune into his campaign ’ s opening weeks , spent about $ 646,000 on private jet travel , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers don ’ t suggest “ occasional logistical issues.
” They suggest standard operational convenience , of the very same kind that Democrats demonize in their environmental lecturing .
To paraphrase our colleague Instapundit , I ’ ll believe that climate change is an emergency when its hysterics start living like it is .

Are there more important political developments today than Elizabeth Warren hiding from a camera after exiting a private-jet flight? Sure, but in the Green New Deal/climate-change-hysteria era, perhaps none quite so entertaining. Warren, whose presidential campaign website includes not just support for the Green New Deal but a proposal for a “Blue New Deal” as well to eliminate carbon output and save the oceans, seems relaxed and at ease as she exits this charter jet.
At least until she sees the camera. Hoo boy (via Katie Pavlich):
Hahaha Warren was clearly trying to hide behind one of her staffers when she noticed someone was filming her get off the private jet. https://t.co/M9HPqw6657 — Cameron Cawthorne (@Cam_Cawthorne) February 4, 2020
It’s the hiding that really sells this, because otherwise it’s at least potentially defensible. Presidential candidates get ripped for not doing enough retail politics, especially in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire, where commercial flights aren’t all that abundant. Warren could simply have offered an explanation that on rare occasions in this particular context, a charter flight is necessary — but that it should be a choice of last resort. It would still be fairly hypocritical as environmental advocates rarely if ever concede anything about practicality when demanding that everyone else live according to their diktats, but at least it would address the obvious contradiction here.
Instead, Warren tries to use one of her aides as a human shield against the camera. Way to champion transparency and accountability, Senator!
Speaking of which, Warren’s hardly the only hypocrite in the Greta Thunberg Army. The Washington Free Beacon did an analysis of private-jet use by Democratic candidates, and guess who comes in first place? Feel the after-Berner, baby:
The Bernie Sanders campaign spent just under $1.2 million on private jet travel last quarter, outpacing the entire 2020 Democratic presidential primary field. The most recent filing from Sanders reveals $1,199,579 in spending during the final three months of 2019 to Apollo Jets, LLC, a “luxury private jet charter service.” The campaign spent an additional $23,941 for transportation to Virginia-based Advanced Aviation Team.
And as if right on cue, Bernie offered this trenchant criticism of Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech:
Bernie Sanders on Pres. Trump’s State of the Union address: "In the year 2020, how can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention climate change?” https://t.co/F8xQbwgQ2u pic.twitter.com/g4RrjEIvjb — ABC News (@ABC) February 5, 2020
Oof. Sanders and Warren aren’t alone on this score, either:
The candidate who comes closest to matching Sanders in private jet spending was former vice president Joe Biden, whose campaign spent $1,040,698 to Advanced Aviation Team last quarter. An analysis of private jet spending in filings from other top candidates found that Elizabeth Warren’s campaign spent $720,518 and Pete Buttigieg’s campaign spent $323,518. Michael Bloomberg, who pumped a whopping $200 million of his personal fortune into his campaign’s opening weeks, spent about $646,000 on private jet travel, about half of what Sanders spent.
Those numbers don’t suggest “occasional logistical issues.” They suggest standard operational convenience, of the very same kind that Democrats demonize in their environmental lecturing. To paraphrase our colleague Instapundit, I’ll believe that climate change is an emergency when its hysterics start living like it is.


hotair--2020-02-05--Matthews: Netanyahu "one of the bad guys"

In an era of controversy and contention , at least we can always rely on the hosts at MSNBC for some levelheaded , dignified analysis of world events .
Now that I ’ ve gotten the obligatory sarcasm out of the way , let ’ s take a look at Chris Matthews ’ red hot analysis of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from last night .
During a discussion of the recent Middle East peace deal ( the “ Deal of the Century ” ) , Matthews decided to go for a twofer and take a shot at both Bibi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by way of proof or examples , the liberal anchor declared that Trump loves to associate with “ bad guys ” like Putin , Erdogan and… Netanyahu .
You really can ’ t make this stuff us .
( Free Beacon ) MSNBC host Chris Matthews said Israel ’ s longtime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the world ’ s “ bad guys , ” lumping him in with brutal dictators such as Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin and Turkey ’ s Recep Erdoğan .
Matthews observed during his Tuesday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad guys ” on the world stage more than world leaders Matthews views as good , such as French president Emanuel Macron .
“ He does seem to be a guy who doesn ’ t like the good guys of the world , he seems to like the bad guys , ” Matthews said .
“ He doesn ’ t like Macron , or Justin Trudeau , or the chancellor of Germany—they ’ re all to regular for him—he likes the bad guys , he wants to be one of them.
” Clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrill running up his leg when the conversation turns to either Trump or Bibi Netanyahu , but this seems a bit over the top even for him .
I ’ ll give him credit for lumping Recep Tayyip Erdogan in with Putin and company because , at this point , he ’ s really no longer an ally of ours and is deep in the pockets of the Russians .
But Netanyahu ?
I ’ ll be the first to admit that Bibi Netanyahu plays hardball when he has to .
That even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister has a lot of enemies right in his own country .
But where he really derives his tough image from is his defense of Israeli citizens against the Palestinian terrorists who are constantly trying to murder them .
I ’ m sure that puts Chris Matthews off his feed because he never seems to tire of moaning about the poor treatment the Palestinians receive at the hands of Israel ’ s soldiers .
His concern over the safety of the citizens of Israel when rockets come blasting across their borders is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We probably shouldn ’ t have been too terribly surprised by this outburst , however .
Matthews has had a burr under his saddle when it comes to Netanyahu for quite a while now .
You may recall the way he freaked out last year when Bibi won his last election .
And even then he managed to lump Donald Trump into his tirade , castigating him for being a partisan supporter of the Prime Minister and Israel when he ’ s “ supposed to be a neutral moderator ” in that conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope for peace in the Middle East , but let ’ s not lose sight of the fact that Israel is our staunch ally in that region , not the Palestinians .
In closing , it ’ s probably good to note just how out of step Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC panel are with the rest of the country .
As the Free Beacon reminds us , Americans view Benjamin Netanyahu as the most admired foreign leader .
We ’ ll leave their opinions of the most admired cable news @ @ @ @ @

In an era of controversy and contention, at least we can always rely on the hosts at MSNBC for some levelheaded, dignified analysis of world events.
Now that I’ve gotten the obligatory sarcasm out of the way, let’s take a look at Chris Matthews’ red hot analysis of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from last night. During a discussion of the recent Middle East peace deal (the “Deal of the Century”), Matthews decided to go for a twofer and take a shot at both Bibi and Donald Trump. Offering virtually nothing by way of proof or examples, the liberal anchor declared that Trump loves to associate with “bad guys” like Putin, Erdogan and… Netanyahu. You really can’t make this stuff us. (Free Beacon)
MSNBC host Chris Matthews said Israel’s longtime prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one of the world’s “bad guys,” lumping him in with brutal dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan. Matthews observed during his Tuesday night show that President Donald Trump likes “bad guys” on the world stage more than world leaders Matthews views as good, such as French president Emanuel Macron. “He does seem to be a guy who doesn’t like the good guys of the world, he seems to like the bad guys,” Matthews said. “He doesn’t like Macron, or Justin Trudeau, or the chancellor of Germany—they’re all to regular for him—he likes the bad guys, he wants to be one of them.”
Clearly, Matthews doesn’t get a thrill running up his leg when the conversation turns to either Trump or Bibi Netanyahu, but this seems a bit over the top even for him. I’ll give him credit for lumping Recep Tayyip Erdogan in with Putin and company because, at this point, he’s really no longer an ally of ours and is deep in the pockets of the Russians. But Netanyahu?
I’ll be the first to admit that Bibi Netanyahu plays hardball when he has to. That even applies to Israeli domestic politics because the Prime Minister has a lot of enemies right in his own country. But where he really derives his tough image from is his defense of Israeli citizens against the Palestinian terrorists who are constantly trying to murder them. I’m sure that puts Chris Matthews off his feed because he never seems to tire of moaning about the poor treatment the Palestinians receive at the hands of Israel’s soldiers. His concern over the safety of the citizens of Israel when rockets come blasting across their borders is more muted to say the least.
We probably shouldn’t have been too terribly surprised by this outburst, however. Matthews has had a burr under his saddle when it comes to Netanyahu for quite a while now. You may recall the way he freaked out last year when Bibi won his last election. And even then he managed to lump Donald Trump into his tirade, castigating him for being a partisan supporter of the Prime Minister and Israel when he’s “supposed to be a neutral moderator” in that conflict.
Oh, really? All presidents hope for peace in the Middle East, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that Israel is our staunch ally in that region, not the Palestinians.
In closing, it’s probably good to note just how out of step Matthews and the rest of the MSNBC panel are with the rest of the country. As the Free Beacon reminds us, Americans view Benjamin Netanyahu as the most admired foreign leader. We’ll leave their opinions of the most admired cable news host for another day.


hotair--2020-02-05--The Salvador Dalí SOTU

The Salvador Dalí SOTU

I ’ ll confess that , as usual , I didn ’ t stay up to watch the entire State of the Union address .
( These things take place too late for someone who gets up at five in the morning . )
So I had to catch the high and lowlights this morning on YouTube .
For the most part , the majority of the speech was typical of SOTU addresses , albeit spiced up with Trump ’ s distinctive flair for self-promotion .
The majority of the address focused on the actual state of the union which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The economy is booming ( if you can ignore the exploding debt and deficit ) , with near-record employment levels across the board .
Optimism about the economy is well above average .
Illegal immigration is down and home ownership is up .
Like his predecessors before him , Donald Trump took credit for the good times and there ’ s nothing wrong with that .
With the nuts and bolts of the speech out of the way , however , it was impossible to ignore the bizarre ending of the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last night… that moment when the President left the Speaker of the House hanging when she offered a handshake .
She then dramatically tore up the speech she had just been handed .
I ’ ve seen various reactions to this from both sides of the political divide this morning , but I ’ m left feeling rather hollow and taken aback .
Before going any further , allow me to just say that I get it .
I ’ m not looking at the world through rose-colored glasses .
Trump and Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different agendas .
They are enemies at this point .
They ’ re at war .
And each has given the other plenty of reasons to be ticked off .
But on the world stage during an annual ritual that ’ s embedded in our Constitution , is that really the time and place ?
Perhaps in the current political climate we should settle in for such displays .
Perhaps .
I noticed something that Peggy Noonan tweeted about the confrontation last night .
It ’ s a rather apt description .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleaved down the middle night with no one trying to hide the divide .
No ameliorating courtesy , no enacting of formal regard .
Just the great divide , unhidden and out there for all the world to see.
” Whether you want to boo or cheer for this development , I won ’ t be judging you .
There ’ s always something to be said for honesty , I suppose .
That confrontation was the reality of where we are today , with no false smiles or phony camaraderie .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Majority is , at this point , a knife fight .
Perhaps “ street brawl ” would be a more apt description .
But does it have to be ?
Even in the midst of the most bitter divorce , after both the husband and wife have cheated on each other and busted up the furniture , they generally find a way to be at least a bit civil in front of the children .
( Or at least they should . )
Refusing to shake the extended hand of the Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter how much she may have wronged you .
Ripping up the official copy of the State of the Union address is equally childish and a violation of protocol and official record-keeping .
Two of the most prominent leaders in the government of the United States were acting out a poorly written scene from an episode of the Ren & Stimpy Show .
I just don ’ t know .
As I said , I understand the antipathy .
Shaking the hand of the woman who just finished impeaching you on highly dubious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot to ask .
But when you ’ re the President of the United States , much is asked of you on a regular basis .
And the Speaker of the House – a person well up on the list of presidential successors – is similarly expected to exhibit a certain amount of decorum .
If either of them had managed to avoid their piece of the abrasive display , the other would have been left looking foolish and petty .
But they both dove into the deep end of the caustic pool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a winner .
We live in a highly partisan world now and there ’ s probably no path back from this state of affairs on the horizon .
I ’ m just not sure we should be celebrating that fact when it plays out on the world stage , no matter how honest and transparent it was .
But maybe that ’ s just me .

I’ll confess that, as usual, I didn’t stay up to watch the entire State of the Union address. (These things take place too late for someone who gets up at five in the morning.) So I had to catch the high and lowlights this morning on YouTube. For the most part, the majority of the speech was typical of SOTU addresses, albeit spiced up with Trump’s distinctive flair for self-promotion. The majority of the address focused on the actual state of the union which is pretty awesome by most conventional measures. The economy is booming (if you can ignore the exploding debt and deficit), with near-record employment levels across the board. Optimism about the economy is well above average. Illegal immigration is down and home ownership is up. Like his predecessors before him, Donald Trump took credit for the good times and there’s nothing wrong with that.
With the nuts and bolts of the speech out of the way, however, it was impossible to ignore the bizarre ending of the event. Ed posted the video of it last night… that moment when the President left the Speaker of the House hanging when she offered a handshake. She then dramatically tore up the speech she had just been handed. I’ve seen various reactions to this from both sides of the political divide this morning, but I’m left feeling rather hollow and taken aback.
Before going any further, allow me to just say that I get it. I’m not looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. Trump and Pelosi are more than simply political rivals with different agendas. They are enemies at this point. They’re at war. And each has given the other plenty of reasons to be ticked off.
But on the world stage during an annual ritual that’s embedded in our Constitution, is that really the time and place? Perhaps in the current political climate we should settle in for such displays. Perhaps. I noticed something that Peggy Noonan tweeted about the confrontation last night. It’s a rather apt description.
This is a big night, a cleaved down the middle night with no one trying to hide the divide. No ameliorating courtesy, no enacting of formal regard. Just the great divide, unhidden and out there for all the world to see. — Peggy Noonan (@Peggynoonannyc) February 5, 2020
“This is a big night, a cleaved down the middle night with no one trying to hide the divide. No ameliorating courtesy, no enacting of formal regard. Just the great divide, unhidden and out there for all the world to see.”
Whether you want to boo or cheer for this development, I won’t be judging you. There’s always something to be said for honesty, I suppose. That confrontation was the reality of where we are today, with no false smiles or phony camaraderie. The relationship between the White House and the House Majority is, at this point, a knife fight. Perhaps “street brawl” would be a more apt description.
But does it have to be? Even in the midst of the most bitter divorce, after both the husband and wife have cheated on each other and busted up the furniture, they generally find a way to be at least a bit civil in front of the children. (Or at least they should.) Refusing to shake the extended hand of the Speaker is simply childish and vindictive, no matter how much she may have wronged you. Ripping up the official copy of the State of the Union address is equally childish and a violation of protocol and official record-keeping. Two of the most prominent leaders in the government of the United States were acting out a poorly written scene from an episode of the Ren & Stimpy Show.
I just don’t know. As I said, I understand the antipathy. Shaking the hand of the woman who just finished impeaching you on highly dubious grounds (at best) is a lot to ask. But when you’re the President of the United States, much is asked of you on a regular basis. And the Speaker of the House – a person well up on the list of presidential successors – is similarly expected to exhibit a certain amount of decorum. If either of them had managed to avoid their piece of the abrasive display, the other would have been left looking foolish and petty. But they both dove into the deep end of the caustic pool, so nobody came out looking like a winner.
We live in a highly partisan world now and there’s probably no path back from this state of affairs on the horizon. I’m just not sure we should be celebrating that fact when it plays out on the world stage, no matter how honest and transparent it was. But maybe that’s just me.


hotair--2020-02-05--Romney sent a signed note to every Senate Republican explaining his vote and it's something

Click over to Axios and read the whole thing , as it runs only a few sentences .
I ’ m trying to imagine how I ’ d react to it if I were a Republican senator intent on voting to acquit .
I feel like I wouldn ’ t have reacted … great .
“ I take an oath before God as enormously consequential , ” he wrote in one excerpt explaining how his faith guided his decision .
“ Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and disruptive violation of one ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine.
” He also said he was prepared to be denounced by some and that “ my vote is an act of conviction ” that followed his conscience .
Do senators normally send each other notes explaining their intention to vote a certain way ?
Granted , this was a big vote and Romney was the lone dissenter .
But it ’ s not like his vote was about to send the caucus down to defeat on something .
They were going to win on acquittal no matter what .
So , why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like a rebuke .
There ’ s a heavy emphasis on how his sworn duty to God and to his conscience compels his vote to remove , as well as a line about how what Trump did is gravely serious .
The closing line feels like sarcasm under the circumstances : “ We have come to different conclusions , fellow senators , but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.
” There ’ s no way Romney really believes that .
He knew that “ centrists ” like Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acquit from day one , and he knows why .
Was he rebuking them ?
Or am I reading this all wrong and what he was actually trying to do was maybe discourage them from joining in on the inevitable pile-on by Trump fans everywhere ?
I felt I had a religious duty to vote my conscience , he ’ s telling them .
Are you really going to demagogue me for that ?
I don ’ t know what to make of it .
If it ’ s a rebuke then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war on the caucus , implying that they ’ re gutless hacks who didn ’ t have the stones to do what he did .
If it ’ s not a rebuke then it feels unnecessary .
He ’ d already done two interviews and was preparing to deliver a floor speech justifying his vote .
He didn ’ t need to explain to them separately what his reasoning was .
They could have just watched the speech .
Anyway , the AP is already chatting up Utah voters for reaction to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided .
Er , what did they expect to find ?
Shelly Cluff , a 33-year-old stay-at-home mother in suburban Riverton , is a Republican who ’ s never been a fan of Trump .
She was pleasantly surprised at Romney ’ s stance .
“ I was greatly impressed by his integrity , his willingness to put so much on the line in order not to violate his conscience , in order to stand with a clear conscience before God , ” Cluff said .
Still , she knows that not all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several who didn ’ t vote for him in 2016 but have since come around .
“ I ’ ve been taken aback by how many people have been really upset and disappointed in Mitt Romney , ” she said .
We ’ ll get a poll in the next few days .
A majority of Utahns will disapprove of his vote , I ’ m sure , but for starters he should have strong Democratic support for it .
That ’ s 30 percent or so of the electorate based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Democratic opponent in the 2018 Senate race .
Assuming overwhelming Republican opposition , he ’ s probably still looking at something like 40 percent overall in favor .
Coincidentally , when the Deseret News polled Utah on impeachment a few weeks ago , they found 39 percent at least somewhat in favor of removal and 53 percent at least somewhat opposed .
That ’ s the baseline Romney starts from .
We ’ ll see if it helps him any that he ’ s stressed repeatedly today how important faith and duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast in tone with this guy will help too : In lieu of an exit question , here ’ s Trump ’ s first post-impeachment shot at Romney , one of many to come .
I ’ m pretty sure this clip is old .
It looks familiar , especially the odd reference to Romney as “ slick .
”

Click over to Axios and read the whole thing, as it runs only a few sentences. I’m trying to imagine how I’d react to it if I were a Republican senator intent on voting to acquit. I feel like I wouldn’t have reacted … great.
Not great.
Key bits:
“I take an oath before God as enormously consequential,” he wrote in one excerpt explaining how his faith guided his decision. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and disruptive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” He also said he was prepared to be denounced by some and that “my vote is an act of conviction” that followed his conscience.
Do senators normally send each other notes explaining their intention to vote a certain way? Granted, this was a big vote and Romney was the lone dissenter. But it’s not like his vote was about to send the caucus down to defeat on something. They were going to win on acquittal no matter what. So, why the note?
It reads to me like a rebuke. There’s a heavy emphasis on how his sworn duty to God and to his conscience compels his vote to remove, as well as a line about how what Trump did is gravely serious. The closing line feels like sarcasm under the circumstances: “We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.” There’s no way Romney really believes that. He knew that “centrists” like Susan Collins and Cory Gardner were a lock to acquit from day one, and he knows why.
Was he rebuking them? Or am I reading this all wrong and what he was actually trying to do was maybe discourage them from joining in on the inevitable pile-on by Trump fans everywhere? I felt I had a religious duty to vote my conscience, he’s telling them. Are you really going to demagogue me for that?
I don’t know what to make of it. If it’s a rebuke then it’s like a declaration of war on the caucus, implying that they’re gutless hacks who didn’t have the stones to do what he did. If it’s not a rebuke then it feels unnecessary. He’d already done two interviews and was preparing to deliver a floor speech justifying his vote. He didn’t need to explain to them separately what his reasoning was. They could have just watched the speech.
Anyway, the AP is already chatting up Utah voters for reaction to his vote and discovering that they’re divided. Er, what did they expect to find?
Shelly Cluff, a 33-year-old stay-at-home mother in suburban Riverton, is a Republican who’s never been a fan of Trump. She was pleasantly surprised at Romney’s stance. “I was greatly impressed by his integrity, his willingness to put so much on the line in order not to violate his conscience, in order to stand with a clear conscience before God,” Cluff said. Still, she knows that not all her neighbors feel the same, including several who didn’t vote for him in 2016 but have since come around. “I’ve been taken aback by how many people have been really upset and disappointed in Mitt Romney,” she said.
We’ll get a poll in the next few days. A majority of Utahns will disapprove of his vote, I’m sure, but for starters he should have strong Democratic support for it. That’s 30 percent or so of the electorate based on the share of the vote that went to his Democratic opponent in the 2018 Senate race. Assuming overwhelming Republican opposition, he’s probably still looking at something like 40 percent overall in favor. Coincidentally, when the Deseret News polled Utah on impeachment a few weeks ago, they found 39 percent at least somewhat in favor of removal and 53 percent at least somewhat opposed. That’s the baseline Romney starts from. We’ll see if it helps him any that he’s stressed repeatedly today how important faith and duty were to his deliberations.
Maybe the contrast in tone with this guy will help too:
Congratulations @realDonaldTrump. I’m looking forward to your next five years in office. Those who voted to remove you were wrong. Very wrong. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) February 5, 2020
In lieu of an exit question, here’s Trump’s first post-impeachment shot at Romney, one of many to come. I’m pretty sure this clip is old. It looks familiar, especially the odd reference to Romney as “slick.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225203837226700800


hotair--2020-02-05--Jonathan Turley to Nancy the Ripper: Apologize or resign

The State of the Union address delivered by President Trump Tuesday night was like no other I ’ ve seen .
Most of all , the messages it delivered were effective .
The Democrats in attendance resorted to behavior indicating they now realize the future may not be so bright for them on Election Night 2020 .
Speaker Pelosi led them over the cliff .
One of President Trump ’ s best lines was this one : “ We have rejected the downsizing of America ’ s destiny.
” As Jazz and Ed have noted so far today , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech was one long on patriotism , America First , and keeping America safe .
Woven into the speech were several moments that will be remembered long after any sentences that the president read to the nation – not the least of which is the final moment when the Speaker of the House rose from her seat directly behind President Trump and began ripping up her copy of the multi-page document .
That wasn ’ t any old copy of a speech , that was an official document that Trump handed to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t able to watch all of this year ’ s address .
I taped it , though , and watched what I missed after tuning in to see about the last third of it in real-time .
When Pelosi acted like a petulant teenager by ripping up those papers , it was a jaw-dropping moment .
Ed has the video here from last night .
Vice-President Mike Pence said during an interview Wednesday morning on Fox and Friends , “ I wasn ’ t clear if she was ripping up the speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Jonathan Turley had a few things to say about Pelosi ’ s behavior throughout the address and posted his thoughts on Twitter .
I followed along as he presented a lesson in etiquette for the Speaker .
He explains there are traditions and decorum and we expect the Speaker of the House to behave as a grown-up , even if she doesn ’ t like what the president is saying .
The continual head shaking and muttering to herself had me wondering if Pelosi was ok .
Seriously .
Even for her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Turley , by Pelosi ripping up the document , she was reduced to acting like a troll .
There was plenty of tit-for-tat going on but Speaker Pelosi sets the tone for her party and in that , she failed miserably .
I noticed that she kept looking off to the side where the Democrats sat .
She kept an eye on them all as applause broke out for the president ’ s words .
She wanted to make sure they toed the line and didn ’ t give him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and didn ’ t clap for anything except for a couple of times that I noticed .
They did clap when Trump mentioned the demise of Al-Baghdadi and Soleimani .
They took a pass on applauding the successes of the economy , such as low unemployment , record employment of women and minorities , low-interest rates , rising homeownership and so on .
They didn ’ t applaud when Trump announced a scholarship opportunity for a young black girl in a neighborhood with a failing public school .
Her life will improve and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her child is getting a better education .
Democrats didn ’ t clap for less illegal immigration or increased security at the border .
Democrats didn ’ t bother to clap for Rush Limbaugh as he was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Trump and when Melania placed it on him .
Pelosi kept them all under control .
The Democrats were allowed to applaud when a family reunion occurred .
As a military wife and mom to two young children was acknowledged , she received a surprise – her husband walked out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an amazing moment that even the Democrats couldn ’ t ignore .
Sadly , the lukewarm reception from them for the 100-year-old Tuskegee airman and his young great-grandson was also a part of the evening ’ s event .
He had been promoted by the president and Trump presented him with the appropriate military decoration earlier on Tuesday .
Never-Trumper Bill Kristol did the Democrats ’ bidding on Twitter .
Don ’ t forget the bad Orange Man is racist .
Now Professor Turley is calling for Speaker Pelosi ’ s resignation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lasting impact on the House .
While many will celebrate her trolling of the president , she tore up something far more important than a speech .
She shredded decades of tradition , decorum , and civility that we need now more than ever .
The House speaker is more than a political partisan , particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address .
A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress .
The House speaker represents not her party or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At that moment , she transcends her political ambitions and loyalties .
Tensions for this address were high .
Democrats had the House impeachment managers sit as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing impeachment trial .
That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the House .
Moreover , Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi .
I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “ check under your seat ” moments , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss .
However , if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah , Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer .
He goes on to mention some of the back and forth .
For example , the president didn ’ t shake her hand ( he also didn ’ t shake Pence ’ s hand ) and Pelosi didn ’ t bother to announce Trump in the traditional way by saying it was her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
She simply introduced him by saying , “ Members of Congress , the president of the United States.
” He rightfully says it isn ’ t the first time that bad behavior has happened during a State of the Union address but his time was different in its magnitude and timing , coming during the president ’ s impeachment trial .
He calls for her to resign since she has proven she is not up to the task in front of her when she ripped up her copy of the speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to most of us , but no one should count on Pelosi resigning .
War has broken out and there is no end in sight .

The State of the Union address delivered by President Trump Tuesday night was like no other I’ve seen. Most of all, the messages it delivered were effective. The Democrats in attendance resorted to behavior indicating they now realize the future may not be so bright for them on Election Night 2020. Speaker Pelosi led them over the cliff.
One of President Trump’s best lines was this one: “We have rejected the downsizing of America’s destiny.” As Jazz and Ed have noted so far today, as I write this Wednesday morning, this speech was one long on patriotism, America First, and keeping America safe. Woven into the speech were several moments that will be remembered long after any sentences that the president read to the nation – not the least of which is the final moment when the Speaker of the House rose from her seat directly behind President Trump and began ripping up her copy of the multi-page document. That wasn’t any old copy of a speech, that was an official document that Trump handed to her before delivering the speech.
I wasn’t able to watch all of this year’s address. I taped it, though, and watched what I missed after tuning in to see about the last third of it in real-time. When Pelosi acted like a petulant teenager by ripping up those papers, it was a jaw-dropping moment. Ed has the video here from last night. Vice-President Mike Pence said during an interview Wednesday morning on Fox and Friends, “I wasn’t clear if she was ripping up the speech or ripping up the Constitution.”
Liberal Professor Jonathan Turley had a few things to say about Pelosi’s behavior throughout the address and posted his thoughts on Twitter. I followed along as he presented a lesson in etiquette for the Speaker. He explains there are traditions and decorum and we expect the Speaker of the House to behave as a grown-up, even if she doesn’t like what the president is saying. The continual head shaking and muttering to herself had me wondering if Pelosi was ok. Seriously. Even for her, she was a bit too over-the-top.
There has long been a revered SOTU tradition that the Speaker of the House does not exhibit opposition or ridicule for the remarks of a president (even if he is from the opposing party). Pelosi is shattering that tradition by nodding in the negative and shaking her head. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
As Speaker at the SOTU, Pelosi represents the entire House (Republicans and Democrats alike). She is not there as a member of the opposition, but as the representative of the institution of the House of Representatives. . . . — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
The facial expressions and head shaking is a new low for the House. Moreover, the protests of members was incredibly inappropriate. A president speaks at the SOTU as a guest of both houses. . . . — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
You do not have applaud or to stand, but to heckle, mock, and interrupt destroys both the decorum and traditions of the House. I can understand why the address was objectionable to the opposition but that is no excuse for this sad departure of history. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
According to Turley, by Pelosi ripping up the document, she was reduced to acting like a troll.
Trump was wrong not to shake the hand of the Speaker. Likewise, the Speaker was wrong in skipping the traditional words welcoming the President as a "distinct honor." The ripping up of the speech reduced the Speaker to the level of troll. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
Pelosi's act dishonored the institution and destroyed even the pretense of civility and decorum in the House. If this is the Speaker's "drop the mike" moment, it is a disgrace that should never be celebrated or repeated. In a single act, she obliterated decades of tradition. — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 5, 2020
There was plenty of tit-for-tat going on but Speaker Pelosi sets the tone for her party and in that, she failed miserably. I noticed that she kept looking off to the side where the Democrats sat. She kept an eye on them all as applause broke out for the president’s words. She wanted to make sure they toed the line and didn’t give him any support. The Democrats sat stone-faced and didn’t clap for anything except for a couple of times that I noticed. They did clap when Trump mentioned the demise of Al-Baghdadi and Soleimani. They took a pass on applauding the successes of the economy, such as low unemployment, record employment of women and minorities, low-interest rates, rising homeownership and so on. They didn’t applaud when Trump announced a scholarship opportunity for a young black girl in a neighborhood with a failing public school. Her life will improve and her single mom will rest easier knowing her child is getting a better education. Democrats didn’t clap for less illegal immigration or increased security at the border. Democrats didn’t bother to clap for Rush Limbaugh as he was awarded the Medal of Freedom by Trump and when Melania placed it on him. Pelosi kept them all under control.
The Democrats were allowed to applaud when a family reunion occurred. As a military wife and mom to two young children was acknowledged, she received a surprise – her husband walked out and joined his family. It was an amazing moment that even the Democrats couldn’t ignore. Sadly, the lukewarm reception from them for the 100-year-old Tuskegee airman and his young great-grandson was also a part of the evening’s event. He had been promoted by the president and Trump presented him with the appropriate military decoration earlier on Tuesday. Never-Trumper Bill Kristol did the Democrats’ bidding on Twitter. Don’t forget the bad Orange Man is racist.
A friend emails:
“It was heartwarming: A Tuskegee airman…turns 100. But what if then-Col. McGee has been assigned in the early ‘70s to Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, and tried to rent at Trump Village? Wouldn’t young Donald have turned him away and written ‘C’ on his application?” — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 5, 2020
Now Professor Turley is calling for Speaker Pelosi’s resignation.
Her drop the mic moment will have a lasting impact on the House. While many will celebrate her trolling of the president, she tore up something far more important than a speech. She shredded decades of tradition, decorum, and civility that we need now more than ever. The House speaker is more than a political partisan, particularly when carrying out functions such as the State of the Union address. A president appears in the House as a guest of both chambers of Congress. The House speaker represents not her party or herself but the entirety of the chamber. At that moment, she transcends her political ambitions and loyalties. Tensions for this address were high. Democrats had the House impeachment managers sit as a group in front of the president as a reminder of the ongoing impeachment trial. That can be excused as a silent but pointed message from the House. Moreover, Trump hardly covered himself with glory by not shaking hands with Pelosi. I also strongly disliked elements of his address which bordered on “check under your seat” moments, or the awarding of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the House gallery like a Mardi Gras bead toss. However, if Trump made the State of the Union look like Oprah, Pelosi made it look like Jerry Springer.
He goes on to mention some of the back and forth. For example, the president didn’t shake her hand (he also didn’t shake Pence’s hand) and Pelosi didn’t bother to announce Trump in the traditional way by saying it was her high privilege and distinct honor to do so. She simply introduced him by saying, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States.” He rightfully says it isn’t the first time that bad behavior has happened during a State of the Union address but his time was different in its magnitude and timing, coming during the president’s impeachment trial. He calls for her to resign since she has proven she is not up to the task in front of her when she ripped up her copy of the speech.
That act was more important to Pelosi than preserving the tradition of her office. In doing so, she forfeited the right to occupy that office. If Pelosi cannot maintain the dignity and neutrality of her office at the State of the Union, she should resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
It’s a nice thought to most of us, but no one should count on Pelosi resigning. War has broken out and there is no end in sight.


hotair--2020-02-05--Romney to Fox News: I know there'll be "extraordinary" consequences for my vote

There ’ ll be many a presidential tweetstorm about it in the coming days and weeks , certainly .
There are already snide remarks flowing from House cronies and media courtiers of the president .
But Romney will cast plenty of votes that go Trump ’ s way over the next five years , some in big spots like SCOTUS nominations .
People won ’ t forgive but they ’ ll cool off .
And I think his Senate colleagues will go easy on him , if only because some of them doubtless agree with him on the merits and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s careful to say in the interview below that he trusts that all Republicans who voted to acquit were following their consciences just like he was , which is farcical but a wise show of goodwill at a moment when he needs some goodwill in return .
Plus , Mitch McConnell is a bottom-line kind of guy : What Romney ’ s worried about , I think , is potential danger to his family .
In a hyperpartisan age , an act of momentous betrayal against the party leader is apt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the interview below how he checked with his wife and kids before moving forward on this , knowing that it might put all of them at risk of petty social and business sanctions at a minimum and possibly something worse .
“ Yeah , it ’ s going to get very lonely , ” he said .
“ And again , the consequences are significant .
They ’ re , um , uh — they ’ re enough that it made this a very difficult process for me .
There has not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I ’ ve slept beyond 4:00 a.m. ” … “ I have spoken a good deal with my family because this will have consequence — the blowback will have consequence , not just for me , but for my family , for my wife , for my sons , for my daughters-in-law , for my 24 grandkids , ” Romney said .
“ That ’ s why the burden has been so substantial as I ’ ve done this , but they all said , you ’ ve got to do what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no call to pull back or , gee , dad , ya know , this is going to be tough .
They said , do what you believe is right.
” A rich family can afford security but it ’ s surreal that they ’ d need to consult as a group over his decision to cast a vote that had … no meaningful consequences at all .
It didn ’ t produce anything close to the 67-vote threshold needed for removal .
It didn ’ t get Democrats to 50 votes so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadlocked .
It handed them a talking point that removal was bipartisan and acquittal wasn ’ t , but who cares ?
Romney ’ s vote isn ’ t going to jar anything loose among a public that ’ s been deadlocked on removal for months .
The potential negative consequences to him politically from today ’ s vote are vastly larger than they are to Trump , as he ’ s now much more likely to face a Senate primary challenge in 2024 .
He ’ ll get blasted for it anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ player is weirdly a major affront in a populist era in which Americans broadly agree that the two “ teams ” are wet garbage .
And partly because Romney spoiled the agreed-upon illusion that Trump didn ’ t do anything wrong , and not in a lame perfunctory “ it was inappropriate but no big deal ” rhetorical way either .
No one likes to be reproached morally but that ’ s what his vote amounted to for all the heroes who were sure that what Trump did was fine and would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be removed unanimously if they ’ d done the same thing .
On Earth 2 , if President Hillary had pulled this , Cruz and Hawley would have been pushing McConnell to let the Senate vote for removal even before impeachment was finished in the House in hopes of accelerating her departure from office .
Romney called BS on that , a scandalous break with the ethic of power politics .
On the day of Trump ’ s vindication by the Senate , with his approval at an all-time high in Gallup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to have aneurysms about the heretic .
The irony , as Ross Douthat noted , is that this is a departure from the weaselly politician whom righties grew to know and disdain during his first two runs for president .
Romney ’ s defining political characteristic until recently was his opportunism .
The opportunistic thing to do in this case , obviously , was to vote with Trump and trade on that for some political favors .
It ’ d make reelection in Utah easier and it ’ d get Trump fans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once , he wasn ’ t opportunistic .
He must pay .
Anyway , he claims here that he wanted Bolton to testify and White House aides to submit affidavits in hopes of that their testimony might lead him to reasonable doubt , which seems … unlikely given how incriminating the leaks from Bolton ’ s book have been but is useful to Romney ’ s argument that he really was open to persuasion .
He also makes an interesting but outdated point that we can ’ t just punt this issue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by partisanship on Election Day .
We let the Senate decide on removal because they can be dispassionate — in theory .
In practice , thanks to the 17th Amendment , senators can no longer decouple their own partisan interests from questions of guilt and innocence in an impeachment trial .
If they could , rest assured that Cory Gardner , for instance , would have had a much harder time making up his mind in this case than he had in offering a slam-dunk acquittal for the president .
In lieu of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point published yesterday : “ For the first time since his election in 2016 , a majority of Utah voters say they approve of President Donald Trump ’ s job performance , according to a new Utah Political Trends poll.
” Good luck , Mitt .

There’ll be many a presidential tweetstorm about it in the coming days and weeks, certainly. There are already snide remarks flowing from House cronies and media courtiers of the president. But Romney will cast plenty of votes that go Trump’s way over the next five years, some in big spots like SCOTUS nominations. People won’t forgive but they’ll cool off.
And I think his Senate colleagues will go easy on him, if only because some of them doubtless agree with him on the merits and are afraid to say so. He’s careful to say in the interview below that he trusts that all Republicans who voted to acquit were following their consciences just like he was, which is farcical but a wise show of goodwill at a moment when he needs some goodwill in return.
Plus, Mitch McConnell is a bottom-line kind of guy:
MCCONNELL on Romney. Says a good deal here: “We don’t have any dog houses here. The most important vote is the next vote.” — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) February 5, 2020
What Romney’s worried about, I think, is potential danger to his family. In a hyperpartisan age, an act of momentous betrayal against the party leader is apt to bring out some crazies. He stresses in the interview below how he checked with his wife and kids before moving forward on this, knowing that it might put all of them at risk of petty social and business sanctions at a minimum and possibly something worse.
“Yeah, it’s going to get very lonely,” he said. “And again, the consequences are significant. They’re, um, uh — they’re enough that it made this a very difficult process for me. There has not been a morning since this process began that I’ve slept beyond 4:00 a.m.”… “I have spoken a good deal with my family because this will have consequence — the blowback will have consequence, not just for me, but for my family, for my wife, for my sons, for my daughters-in-law, for my 24 grandkids,” Romney said. “That’s why the burden has been so substantial as I’ve done this, but they all said, you’ve got to do what you believe is right. There was no call to pull back or, gee, dad, ya know, this is going to be tough. They said, do what you believe is right.”
A rich family can afford security but it’s surreal that they’d need to consult as a group over his decision to cast a vote that had … no meaningful consequences at all. It didn’t produce anything close to the 67-vote threshold needed for removal. It didn’t get Democrats to 50 votes so that they could claim the chamber was deadlocked. It handed them a talking point that removal was bipartisan and acquittal wasn’t, but who cares? Romney’s vote isn’t going to jar anything loose among a public that’s been deadlocked on removal for months. The potential negative consequences to him politically from today’s vote are vastly larger than they are to Trump, as he’s now much more likely to face a Senate primary challenge in 2024.
He’ll get blasted for it anyway, partly because not being a team player is weirdly a major affront in a populist era in which Americans broadly agree that the two “teams” are wet garbage. And partly because Romney spoiled the agreed-upon illusion that Trump didn’t do anything wrong, and not in a lame perfunctory “it was inappropriate but no big deal” rhetorical way either. No one likes to be reproached morally but that’s what his vote amounted to for all the heroes who were sure that what Trump did was fine and would have been equally sure that a Democratic president should be removed unanimously if they’d done the same thing. On Earth 2, if President Hillary had pulled this, Cruz and Hawley would have been pushing McConnell to let the Senate vote for removal even before impeachment was finished in the House in hopes of accelerating her departure from office. Romney called BS on that, a scandalous break with the ethic of power politics. On the day of Trump’s vindication by the Senate, with his approval at an all-time high in Gallup, the president’s protectors are going to have aneurysms about the heretic.
The irony, as Ross Douthat noted, is that this is a departure from the weaselly politician whom righties grew to know and disdain during his first two runs for president. Romney’s defining political characteristic until recently was his opportunism. The opportunistic thing to do in this case, obviously, was to vote with Trump and trade on that for some political favors. It’d make reelection in Utah easier and it’d get Trump fans off his back for awhile. For once, he wasn’t opportunistic. He must pay.
Anyway, he claims here that he wanted Bolton to testify and White House aides to submit affidavits in hopes of that their testimony might lead him to reasonable doubt, which seems … unlikely given how incriminating the leaks from Bolton’s book have been but is useful to Romney’s argument that he really was open to persuasion. He also makes an interesting but outdated point that we can’t just punt this issue to the voters since voters are understandably driven by partisanship on Election Day. We let the Senate decide on removal because they can be dispassionate — in theory. In practice, thanks to the 17th Amendment, senators can no longer decouple their own partisan interests from questions of guilt and innocence in an impeachment trial. If they could, rest assured that Cory Gardner, for instance, would have had a much harder time making up his mind in this case than he had in offering a slam-dunk acquittal for the president.
In lieu of an exit question, enjoy this data point published yesterday: “For the first time since his election in 2016, a majority of Utah voters say they approve of President Donald Trump’s job performance, according to a new Utah Political Trends poll.” Good luck, Mitt.


hotair--2020-02-06--AOC: 'It's a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by your bootstrap'

The Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to discuss proposed changes to poverty line calculations made by the Trump administration .
During the hearing , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that , contrary to Trump ’ s claim in the State of the Union , Americans hadn ’ t been “ lifted ” off of food stamps , they had been “ kicked ” off .
“ Seven million people have not been lifted off of food stamps in this country , they were kicked off food stamps in this country !
” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ And people are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we like to use the word lift instead of the truth , which was kicked .
And we are booting millions of Americans into the streets because we want to believe and dupe ourselves into thinking that we ’ re doing better .
We are not .
We ’ re not.
” … Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored a bill , known as The Recognizing Poverty Act , that would have Congress determine a new , updated poverty line that takes into account factors such as family size and geography… Ocasio-Cortez ’ s bill does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but in September she floated the number of $ 38,000 a year .
Current poverty guidelines , which went into effect Jan. 15 , 2020 , list $ 12,760 as the mark for an individual .
As she is wont to do , AOC got a little carried away with herself in the midst of discussing all of this and went off on a strange tangent about…a familiar idiom : She literally said this was a metaphor and then immediately pointed out it isn ’ t psychically possible , which makes you wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what other metaphors she might find problematic .
There ’ s also the fact that AOC is , to some degree , exactly what most people have in mind when they say “ pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
” She went from working for tips to a six figure salary .
If she can do it , other people can too .
That ’ s really all most people mean by the phrase , i.e .
apply yourself with effort and your circumstances can improve .
Is it true , as AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a different meaning , i.e .
something that is absurd and can ’ t be done ?
According to a pair of linguists who looked into it , that is true : So it ’ s probably true that this whole thing was a joke nearly 200 years ago ( or longer ) .
However , along the way the meaning of the phrase changed from one of ridicule to self-improvement .
And another linguist points out that sort of change over time is completely normal [ emphasis added ] While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the shifting meaning of the phrase , does this apparent contradiction actually matter ?
Not really , according to Grant Barrett , a lexicographer and co-host of the public radio show , “ A Way with Words.
” After all , idioms simply mean what they mean .
“ The saying does its new job as well as it did its old job , ” said Barrett .
“ There ’ s something called the ‘ etymological fallacy , ’ which is when people incorrectly believe that the original or older meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more correct one .
It just isn ’ t the case : Lexical items often change their meanings ; they often have more than one meaning .
Those meanings often co-exist , and we learn to manage those possible conflicts through context , clarification , and restatement , which are normal parts of human language.
” By this logic , the modern use of “ pull yourself up by your bootstraps ” is just as valid as the early version .
Barrett noted that the English language is full of hyperbolic and figurative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So there you go .
Everyone knows what the idiom means .
No one thinks it ’ s meant literally and the fact that it used to mean something different 200 years ago doesn ’ t make the current meaning invalid .
Finally , as pointed out above , AOC has to some degree proven it can be done .
She ’ d be better off pointing to herself as an example than dismissing the possibility that others could follow it .
Here ’ s her full statement at the hearing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes into this :

The Oversight Committee held a hearing Wednesday to discuss proposed changes to poverty line calculations made by the Trump administration. During the hearing, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that, contrary to Trump’s claim in the State of the Union, Americans hadn’t been “lifted” off of food stamps, they had been “kicked” off.
“Seven million people have not been lifted off of food stamps in this country, they were kicked off food stamps in this country!” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And people are going hungry. They are going hungry because we like to use the word lift instead of the truth, which was kicked. And we are booting millions of Americans into the streets because we want to believe and dupe ourselves into thinking that we’re doing better. We are not. We’re not.”… Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored a bill, known as The Recognizing Poverty Act, that would have Congress determine a new, updated poverty line that takes into account factors such as family size and geography… Ocasio-Cortez’s bill does not specify a proposed poverty line, but in September she floated the number of $38,000 a year. Current poverty guidelines, which went into effect Jan. 15, 2020, list $12,760 as the mark for an individual.
As she is wont to do, AOC got a little carried away with herself in the midst of discussing all of this and went off on a strange tangent about…a familiar idiom:
.@AOC on America’s rags-to-riches ideal: “It’s a physical impossibility to lift yourself up by a bootstrap, by your shoelaces? It’s physically impossible. The whole thing is a joke.” pic.twitter.com/9WNf8UE06T — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 6, 2020
She literally said this was a metaphor and then immediately pointed out it isn’t psychically possible, which makes you wonder if she understands how metaphors work and what other metaphors she might find problematic.
“A ‘cake walk?’ Have you ever tried to walk on cake? Do you know how slippery icing is?" https://t.co/qVh1Ao03VN — Mattphilbin (@Mattphilbin) February 6, 2020
“My friend said they made a killing in the stock market, so I called the police to report them.” — Razor (@hale_razor) February 6, 2020
In other news, cats don't actually have people's tongues, nor do pots have the ability to call kettles black https://t.co/XN6pA1OsNV — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 6, 2020
There’s also the fact that AOC is, to some degree, exactly what most people have in mind when they say “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.”
Not sure what's funnier: >AOC taking metaphors literally >AOC, a former bartender who is now a congressman, dismissing the idea of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps https://t.co/VuMYnlEmtR — Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) February 6, 2020
Former Bartender-now-Congresswoman and national political star lectures us that people can't possibly rise above the level of their birth.@AOC https://t.co/eMJlBzC4Nu — Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) February 6, 2020
She went from working for tips to a six figure salary. If she can do it, other people can too. That’s really all most people mean by the phrase, i.e. apply yourself with effort and your circumstances can improve.
Is it true, as AOC claims, that this metaphor started out with a different meaning, i.e. something that is absurd and can’t be done? According to a pair of linguists who looked into it, that is true:
Etymologist Barry Popik and linguist and lexicographer Ben Zimmer have cited an American newspaper snippet from Sept. 30, 1834 as the earliest published reference to lifting oneself up by one’s bootstraps. A month earlier, a man named Nimrod Murphree announced in the Nashville Banner that he had “discovered perpetual motion.” The Mobile Advertiser picked up this tidbit and published it with a snarky response ridiculing his claim: “Probably Mr. Murphree has succeeded in handing himself over the Cumberland river, or a barn yard fence, by the straps of his boots.”
So it’s probably true that this whole thing was a joke nearly 200 years ago (or longer). However, along the way the meaning of the phrase changed from one of ridicule to self-improvement. And another linguist points out that sort of change over time is completely normal [emphasis added]
While it’s certainly interesting to look back on the shifting meaning of the phrase, does this apparent contradiction actually matter? Not really, according to Grant Barrett, a lexicographer and co-host of the public radio show, “A Way with Words.” After all, idioms simply mean what they mean. “The saying does its new job as well as it did its old job,” said Barrett. “There’s something called the ‘etymological fallacy,’ which is when people incorrectly believe that the original or older meaning of a word or expression is the more correct one. It just isn’t the case: Lexical items often change their meanings; they often have more than one meaning. Those meanings often co-exist, and we learn to manage those possible conflicts through context, clarification, and restatement, which are normal parts of human language.” By this logic, the modern use of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is just as valid as the early version. Barrett noted that the English language is full of hyperbolic and figurative expressions that should not be interpreted literally.
So there you go. Everyone knows what the idiom means. No one thinks it’s meant literally and the fact that it used to mean something different 200 years ago doesn’t make the current meaning invalid. Finally, as pointed out above, AOC has to some degree proven it can be done. She’d be better off pointing to herself as an example than dismissing the possibility that others could follow it.
Here’s her full statement at the hearing. The bootstrap portion comes up about 4 minutes into this:
Update: AOC isn’t done.
I see that the right is worked up that we pointed out the myth of bootstrapping when 60% of the wealth in this country is *inherited.* But hey, if you think I’m hopelessly dumb, try listening to MLK talk about “bootstrapping” & the racial wealth gap, too: pic.twitter.com/RHdSfzaJzH — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) February 6, 2020
You can see some of the reactions to this at Twitchy.


hotair--2020-02-06--Cruz warned Trump's lawyers: Not a single member of the Senate believes there was no quid pro quo

The funniest part of this CNN scoop is how the strategizing about whether to admit at the trial that there was a quid pro quo is presented as some sort of eureka moment by “ legal eagles ” Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham .
For months commentators on both sides of the Trump divide made the point that the president would be on much firmer ground legally if he gave up fighting on the facts and focused on fighting on the law .
By insisting there was no quid pro quo in the teeth of all kinds of witness testimony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Better to just say , “ Whether you believe there was a quid pro quo or not , it ’ s clearly not a high crime or misdemeanor that warrants removal.
” And because “ high crime or misdemeanor ” is such a gassy term , there was really nothing effective Democrats could say in reply .
I was writing about the “ bad but not impeachable ” defense within two weeks of the Ukraine news blowing up .
( I ’ ve used it in 26 other posts , per a quickie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers like Andy McCarthy at National Review argued over and over during the process that “ bad but not impeachable ” was the way to go , since it would give the likes of Collins and Murkowski an easy reason to dispense with the charges instead of having to wade into what Trump may or may not have said about pressuring Ukraine to the likes of Bolton , Mulvaney , Pompeo , and so on .
Evidently it took an idle comment by Adam Schiff during the trial itself to get the Cruz/Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first day of questioning , while making the case for Bolton to appear as a witness , Schiff inadvertently gave Cruz and Graham an idea .
Schiff argued it was necessary to hear from Bolton , since the White House disputed his account .
But what if it didn ’ t ?
What if the President ’ s lawyers simply acknowledged that Bolton ’ s recollection may be accurate ?
Why would you need witnesses ?
As Schiff spoke , Cruz and Graham immediately looked at each other from their seats in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the White House to stipulate to this ?
” Cruz asked Graham in the cloakroom .
“ Do you think this is something that could get Lisa and Lamar ’ s vote ?
” In other words , the Cruz/Graham innovation on “ bad but not impeachable ” was simply to apply it not just to the ultimate verdict but to the thorny issue of calling witnesses .
If what Trump did wasn ’ t a high crime or misdemeanor then obviously he should be acquitted , even if the facts set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if what he did wasn ’ t a high crime or misdemeanor then we shouldn ’ t really need a full account of what happened from a willing firsthand witness like John Bolton either , should we ?
Except that ’ s nonsense : Obviously there are things Bolton might hypothetically have said under oath about the Ukraine pressure campaign that would have amounted to a high crime .
If Trump had said something about physically threatening Marie Yovanovitch , for instance , that would have been big news and a potential gamechanger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they didn ’ t have an impartial jury on either side .
What they had in their own caucus was a group of people who wanted to get to acquittal with the least amount of political pain inflicted and needed a fig leaf to do it .
So they provided that fig leaf .
If what Trump did isn ’ t impeachable then we don ’ t need to find out what Trump , er , actually did .
In fact , said Cruz to CNN , he told Trump ’ s lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go of the idea that Trump did nothing wrong .
“ Out of 100 senators , zero believe you on the argument there is no quid pro quo , ” he claims he told Trump ’ s lawyers .
“ Stop making it.
” They did stop making it , sort of .
One of Trump ’ s lawyers eventually admitted during Q & A that this matter wouldn ’ t warrant impeachment even if everything Democrats alleged was true .
Cruz and Graham made a shrewd — and really obvious — calculation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more smoothly if everyone stopped pretending that Trump wasn ’ t guilty and just let the Senate hand him a farking free pass already .
There ’ s just one wrinkle : The president spent a lot of time since September insisting that there was no quid pro quo and a lot of Republican voters believed him .
Monmouth asked about it in January : Republican voters split 17/70 on the question .
Sean Hannity did a segment on his Fox News show nine days ago titled “ Trump , Zelensky confirm there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dispatch did a head count of Republican senators based on public statements and found that fewer than half were willing to acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong .
Note that our friend Lindsey , whose cynicism is bottomless , is in the “ Trump did nothing wrong ” category even though he was allegedly part of the effort with Cruz to get the White House to stipulate to a quid pro quo .
In one sense , Cruz and Graham are just doing what lawyers do : Your job is to win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what you were arguing five minutes ago will help you do that then that ’ s what you should do .
But there ’ s an Orwellian odor to a political effort that spent months trying to inculcate the idea that our leader did nothing blameworthy only to conveniently shift at the last moment in the name of shielding him from accountability .
No quid pro quo , no quid pro quo , only a Democrat or human-scum Never Trumpers would believe there was a quid pro quo — and then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was a quid pro quo , let ’ s wrap this up.
” Cruz is going to feel so cheated in 2024 , having devoted so much time and energy to trying to ingratiate himself to Trumpers , when they opt for Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton or whoever in the primary instead .
In lieu of an exit question , read this piece by Peter Beinart arguing that the big loser from Trump ’ s impeachment is Joe Biden .
What the process did , notes Beinart , is give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to promote the Biden/Burisma matter that the Ukraine quid pro quo was supposed to generate in the first place .
I ’ ve made that point myself , although I ’ m not totally sold on Beinart ’ s argument that Burisma news has been a meaningful contributor to Biden ’ s polling slide .
I think that had more to do with Democrats making up their minds and finding Biden to be a lackluster candidate , which he is .
If he ’ s right , though , that the Burisma hype @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have inadvertently done Trump a disservice by convincing their colleagues that the Senate didn ’ t need to hear witnesses .
Trump was going to be acquitted no matter what Bolton said ( barring a truly nuclear bombshell like the one I imagined above ) but the spectacle of Hunter Biden squirming under questioning could have done major , major damage to his father .
Eh — given Joe ’ s polling lately , he ’ s probably sunk either way .

The funniest part of this CNN scoop is how the strategizing about whether to admit at the trial that there was a quid pro quo is presented as some sort of eureka moment by “legal eagles” Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham. For months commentators on both sides of the Trump divide made the point that the president would be on much firmer ground legally if he gave up fighting on the facts and focused on fighting on the law. By insisting there was no quid pro quo in the teeth of all kinds of witness testimony he was boxing Senate Republicans in. Better to just say, “Whether you believe there was a quid pro quo or not, it’s clearly not a high crime or misdemeanor that warrants removal.”
And because “high crime or misdemeanor” is such a gassy term, there was really nothing effective Democrats could say in reply.
I was writing about the “bad but not impeachable” defense within two weeks of the Ukraine news blowing up. (I’ve used it in 26 other posts, per a quickie search of our archives.) Trump-friendly lawyers like Andy McCarthy at National Review argued over and over during the process that “bad but not impeachable” was the way to go, since it would give the likes of Collins and Murkowski an easy reason to dispense with the charges instead of having to wade into what Trump may or may not have said about pressuring Ukraine to the likes of Bolton, Mulvaney, Pompeo, and so on.
Evidently it took an idle comment by Adam Schiff during the trial itself to get the Cruz/Graham spidey sense tingling.
On Wednesday, the first day of questioning, while making the case for Bolton to appear as a witness, Schiff inadvertently gave Cruz and Graham an idea. Schiff argued it was necessary to hear from Bolton, since the White House disputed his account. But what if it didn’t? What if the President’s lawyers simply acknowledged that Bolton’s recollection may be accurate? Why would you need witnesses? As Schiff spoke, Cruz and Graham immediately looked at each other from their seats in the Senate chamber… “What if we get the White House to stipulate to this?” Cruz asked Graham in the cloakroom. “Do you think this is something that could get Lisa and Lamar’s vote?”
In other words, the Cruz/Graham innovation on “bad but not impeachable” was simply to apply it not just to the ultimate verdict but to the thorny issue of calling witnesses. If what Trump did wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor then obviously he should be acquitted, even if the facts set forth by Democrats were true. Annnnnnnnd if what he did wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor then we shouldn’t really need a full account of what happened from a willing firsthand witness like John Bolton either, should we? Except that’s nonsense: Obviously there are things Bolton might hypothetically have said under oath about the Ukraine pressure campaign that would have amounted to a high crime. If Trump had said something about physically threatening Marie Yovanovitch, for instance, that would have been big news and a potential gamechanger. But Cruz and Graham understood that they didn’t have an impartial jury on either side. What they had in their own caucus was a group of people who wanted to get to acquittal with the least amount of political pain inflicted and needed a fig leaf to do it. So they provided that fig leaf. If what Trump did isn’t impeachable then we don’t need to find out what Trump, er, actually did.
In fact, said Cruz to CNN, he told Trump’s lawyers frankly that it was time to let go of the idea that Trump did nothing wrong. “Out of 100 senators, zero believe you on the argument there is no quid pro quo,” he claims he told Trump’s lawyers. “Stop making it.”
They did stop making it, sort of. One of Trump’s lawyers eventually admitted during Q&A that this matter wouldn’t warrant impeachment even if everything Democrats alleged was true. Cruz and Graham made a shrewd — and really obvious — calculation that the process would go a lot more smoothly if everyone stopped pretending that Trump wasn’t guilty and just let the Senate hand him a farking free pass already. There’s just one wrinkle: The president spent a lot of time since September insisting that there was no quid pro quo and a lot of Republican voters believed him. Monmouth asked about it in January:
Republican voters split 17/70 on the question. Sean Hannity did a segment on his Fox News show nine days ago titled “Trump, Zelensky confirm there was no quid pro quo.” The Dispatch did a head count of Republican senators based on public statements and found that fewer than half were willing to acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong.
Helpful graphic in today’s @thedispatch on where GOP senators landed on impeachment. https://t.co/yrq7fv7N6X pic.twitter.com/Jsc8yhvkLq — Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) February 6, 2020
Note that our friend Lindsey, whose cynicism is bottomless, is in the “Trump did nothing wrong” category even though he was allegedly part of the effort with Cruz to get the White House to stipulate to a quid pro quo. In one sense, Cruz and Graham are just doing what lawyers do: Your job is to win the case, and if arguing the opposite of what you were arguing five minutes ago will help you do that then that’s what you should do. But there’s an Orwellian odor to a political effort that spent months trying to inculcate the idea that our leader did nothing blameworthy only to conveniently shift at the last moment in the name of shielding him from accountability. No quid pro quo, no quid pro quo, only a Democrat or human-scum Never Trumpers would believe there was a quid pro quo — and then, as if by magic, “fine, there was a quid pro quo, let’s wrap this up.”
Cruz is going to feel so cheated in 2024, having devoted so much time and energy to trying to ingratiate himself to Trumpers, when they opt for Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton or whoever in the primary instead.
In lieu of an exit question, read this piece by Peter Beinart arguing that the big loser from Trump’s impeachment is Joe Biden. What the process did, notes Beinart, is give Trump exactly the sort of media megaphone to promote the Biden/Burisma matter that the Ukraine quid pro quo was supposed to generate in the first place. I’ve made that point myself, although I’m not totally sold on Beinart’s argument that Burisma news has been a meaningful contributor to Biden’s polling slide. I think that had more to do with Democrats making up their minds and finding Biden to be a lackluster candidate, which he is. If he’s right, though, that the Burisma hype hurt Joe then Cruz and Graham may have inadvertently done Trump a disservice by convincing their colleagues that the Senate didn’t need to hear witnesses. Trump was going to be acquitted no matter what Bolton said (barring a truly nuclear bombshell like the one I imagined above) but the spectacle of Hunter Biden squirming under questioning could have done major, major damage to his father. Eh — given Joe’s polling lately, he’s probably sunk either way.


hotair--2020-02-06--Gaetz: I'm filing ethics charges against Pelosi for ripping up Trump's speech

On the issue of double standards , Reps. Matt Gaetz and Lee Zeldin are on solid ground .
On legality , well … even Laura Ingraham had to rain a bit on their parade to get Nancy Pelosi investigated by the House Ethics Committee .
Ripping up the president ’ s speech on the dais Tuesday night violated the federal law protecting official government records , the pair argued .
“ The law does not allow the Speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House , ” Gaetz declared , but Ingraham rebutted that argument in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted out the letter he will send to the Ethics Committee today : Gaetz ’ allegation involves subsection ( b ) of 18 USC 2071 , which applies to those who have custody of official records , ie , the legal documents retained by government offices .
The consequence of violation is disqualification from public office .
But was that copy that Trump handed to Pelosi an official record ?
Ingraham calls this argument “ cute , ” but … It won ’ t work because , strictly speaking , 18 USC 2071 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least not to their personal records .
The official record of the speech goes from the White House to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act , so the two copies that traditionally go to the presiders of each congressional chamber are personal copies only .
Even under House rules , members are not required to preserve all their personal records , although any records relating to committee work are required to be maintained : “ Her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglas Cox , professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law and an expert in the laws governing the preservation of government records .
“ It is personal property.
” Under House rules , members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study , Cox said .
Unlike congressional committees , members are not legally required to hold onto their office ’ s files .
“ They can keep them private , they can destroy them , or they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
This is in contrast to presidential records , which have been considered government property since the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and are supposed to be stored with the National Archives for safekeeping .
The claim that Pelosi broke the law is , in other words , a rather silly overreach .
The double-standard claim is on much more solid ground .
Joe Wilson got censured on a 240-179 vote for his disrespectful comportment during a presidential address , specifically for yelling , “ You lie !
” in the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joint session ( not a State of the Union speech ) that pushed ObamaCare .
Wilson turned out to be correct , of course , but that didn ’ t change the disrespectful nature of the outburst , and censure was considered necessary to prevent further erosion of protocol on Capitol Hill .
Does that concern only extend to Republicans ?
Regardless of whether Pelosi didn ’ t violate any law with her speech-ripping stunt , it carries the same potential for escalation of disrespect and disrepute within Congress .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stunt was conducted by the highest-ranking member of leadership and not just a backbencher looking for some publicity .
If leadership can ’ t restrain themselves from this intentional disrespect of a president executing his constitutional duty to report on the state of the Union , then these will turn into nothing more than shoutfests and chaos .
The current Democratic majority will almost certainly block any censure motion over Ripgate , of course .
That doesn ’ t mean Republicans shouldn ’ t raise the issue and point out the double standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

On the issue of double standards, Reps. Matt Gaetz and Lee Zeldin are on solid ground. On legality, well … even Laura Ingraham had to rain a bit on their parade to get Nancy Pelosi investigated by the House Ethics Committee. Ripping up the president’s speech on the dais Tuesday night violated the federal law protecting official government records, the pair argued. “The law does not allow the Speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House,” Gaetz declared, but Ingraham rebutted that argument in part:
Just before his appearance, Gaetz tweeted out the letter he will send to the Ethics Committee today:
BREAKING: I'm filing an ethics complaint against @SpeakerPelosi for destroying @realDonaldTrump's State of the Union speech. Her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071). Nobody is above the law. She must be held accountable. pic.twitter.com/dXPPWQNtI8 — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 6, 2020
Gaetz’ allegation involves subsection (b) of 18 USC 2071, which applies to those who have custody of official records, ie, the legal documents retained by government offices. The consequence of violation is disqualification from public office. But was that copy that Trump handed to Pelosi an official record? Ingraham calls this argument “cute,” but …
INGRAHAM: … I heard today that it’s not really a formal record, because it’s a copy of the speech the president signed. I heard murmurs that — this is cute, but it’s not really going to work.
It won’t work because, strictly speaking, 18 USC 2071 doesn’t apply to Congress, at least not to their personal records. The official record of the speech goes from the White House to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act, so the two copies that traditionally go to the presiders of each congressional chamber are personal copies only. Even under House rules, members are not required to preserve all their personal records, although any records relating to committee work are required to be maintained:
“Her copy of the State of the Union address is not a government record or government property at all,” said Douglas Cox, professor of law at the City of New York University School of Law and an expert in the laws governing the preservation of government records. “It is personal property.” Under House rules, members of Congress are encouraged to preserve records or donate them to a research institution for historical study, Cox said. Unlike congressional committees, members are not legally required to hold onto their office’s files. “They can keep them private, they can destroy them, or they can rip them up,” he said. This is in contrast to presidential records, which have been considered government property since the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and are supposed to be stored with the National Archives for safekeeping.
The claim that Pelosi broke the law is, in other words, a rather silly overreach. The double-standard claim is on much more solid ground. Joe Wilson got censured on a 240-179 vote for his disrespectful comportment during a presidential address, specifically for yelling, “You lie!” in the middle of a Barack Obama speech to a joint session (not a State of the Union speech) that pushed ObamaCare. Wilson turned out to be correct, of course, but that didn’t change the disrespectful nature of the outburst, and censure was considered necessary to prevent further erosion of protocol on Capitol Hill.
Does that concern only extend to Republicans? Regardless of whether Pelosi didn’t violate any law with her speech-ripping stunt, it carries the same potential for escalation of disrespect and disrepute within Congress. In fact, it has even more potential since the stunt was conducted by the highest-ranking member of leadership and not just a backbencher looking for some publicity. If leadership can’t restrain themselves from this intentional disrespect of a president executing his constitutional duty to report on the state of the Union, then these will turn into nothing more than shoutfests and chaos.
The current Democratic majority will almost certainly block any censure motion over Ripgate, of course. That doesn’t mean Republicans shouldn’t raise the issue and point out the double standard. Just ix-nay on the iminal-cray alk-tay.


hotair--2020-02-06--Seattle: Suspects in last month's shooting had 65 prior arrests

Two suspects in a downtown Seattle shooting that killed one woman and injured seven others last month were arrested in Nevada earlier this week .
They were hiding out in a Las Vegas hotel : Marquise Tolbert and William Tolliver , both 24 , stood in shackles before a Nevada judge on Tuesday and each said they won ’ t contest extradition to Seattle .
Tolbert and Tolliver weren ’ t represented by attorneys .
They were arrested Saturday leaving a casino hotel near the Las Vegas Strip… As the two men waited to face the Las Vegas judge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tried to hide their faces behind paper when they saw the television news camera recording their actions… The two men , between them , have 65 arrests and four felony convictions , authorities have said .
Wednesday , prosecutors in Washington charged them both with first-degree murder .
According to authorities , the shooting began when Tolliver and Tolbert had a dispute with a third man , Jamel Jackson , on the street in front of a McDonalds .
The dispute escalated and Tolliver shot Jackson who then fired back .
Tolbert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tolliver began running down the street and shooting , hitting numerous bystanders .
Tanya Jackson was struck and killed .
A nine year old was hit in the leg and had to be rushed to surgery .
Given this chaos , a lot of people in the area are wondering why two criminals with a combined 65 arrests and multiple felony convictions were out on the street in the first place .
Seattle radio host Jason Rantz spoke to several police officers about what it would take to stop violent crime in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from just one of those officers : The blade ( 1500 block of Third Avenue ) draws in addicts like moths to a flame .
That wouldn ’ t be a problem , except for all of the issues that come with an open air drug and stolen items market .
The first that has been made graphically clear is violence .
Drug markets come with violence .
This is because in black market activities , dealers can ’ t trust those who enforce rules with enforcing rules within their illegal behavior .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t come to us and say , “ hey , I had a pound of meth stolen.
” I ’ d have some follow up questions… We need our prosecutors to do their job .
Dan Satterberg and Pete Holmes are on the tail end of a disastrous experiment in legalizing drugs and pushing unproven , underfunded , and ineffective “ diversion ” mechanisms .
Why does LEAD have such a great success rate ?
They cook the numbers .
Once you ’ re in LEAD , you don ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future jail bookings .
By measuring reduction in recidivism via jail bookings , you get an astoundingly high number of “ non-recidivism.
” You don ’ t get a change in actions or activities — just stats .
And hey , if we can shove stats down your throat to distract from reality , Seattle politicos will jump at the chance .
Then there ’ s the peripheral issues that come with the drug trade .
Property crime is chief among them .
You can fence jeans from Macy ’ s , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nordstrom , a cell phone from a car prowl , luggage from Bergman ’ s at Third and Pike for a commission that can be used for drug purchases from select dealers .
All property crime is connected to drugs .
All of it .
Addressing an open trade of drugs is paramount in addressing property crime .
Then , violence .
Our prosecutors routinely give conditional releases , low bail amounts , or straight up don ’ t follow through on their duty to prosecute VUFA/PSF arrests .
These arrests are dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felonies for a reason .
The level of lawlessness at Third and Pine can not be described to someone who has never experienced it first hand .
There are absolutely zero consequences for this anti-social behavior .
As law enforcement , our hands have been tied by “ progressive politics.
” Criminals need to be held accountable .
They don ’ t care about being arrested because they know they ’ ll be out of jail in quick order .
We need the support of not only our administrations but the prosecutor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have hundreds of people who cycle in and out of the system , often being released just hours after they are arrested .
Most of the time the crime is a low-level nuisance to citizens and business owners , but occasionally it flares up into deadly violence like this shooting did last month .
There ’ s simply no way to stop the violence without taking on the underlying crime and drug abuse that has been allowed to fester on the streets .

Two suspects in a downtown Seattle shooting that killed one woman and injured seven others last month were arrested in Nevada earlier this week. They were hiding out in a Las Vegas hotel:
Marquise Tolbert and William Tolliver, both 24, stood in shackles before a Nevada judge on Tuesday and each said they won’t contest extradition to Seattle. Tolbert and Tolliver weren’t represented by attorneys. They were arrested Saturday leaving a casino hotel near the Las Vegas Strip… As the two men waited to face the Las Vegas judge, they chatted and laughed with each other and tried to hide their faces behind paper when they saw the television news camera recording their actions… The two men, between them, have 65 arrests and four felony convictions, authorities have said.
Wednesday, prosecutors in Washington charged them both with first-degree murder. According to authorities, the shooting began when Tolliver and Tolbert had a dispute with a third man, Jamel Jackson, on the street in front of a McDonalds. The dispute escalated and Tolliver shot Jackson who then fired back. Tolbert also had a gun and he and Tolliver began running down the street and shooting, hitting numerous bystanders. Tanya Jackson was struck and killed. A nine year old was hit in the leg and had to be rushed to surgery.
Given this chaos, a lot of people in the area are wondering why two criminals with a combined 65 arrests and multiple felony convictions were out on the street in the first place. Seattle radio host Jason Rantz spoke to several police officers about what it would take to stop violent crime in the city. Here’s an excerpt from just one of those officers:
The blade (1500 block of Third Avenue) draws in addicts like moths to a flame. That wouldn’t be a problem, except for all of the issues that come with an open air drug and stolen items market. The first that has been made graphically clear is violence. Drug markets come with violence. This is because in black market activities, dealers can’t trust those who enforce rules with enforcing rules within their illegal behavior. For example, a drug dealer can’t come to us and say, “hey, I had a pound of meth stolen.” I’d have some follow up questions… We need our prosecutors to do their job. Dan Satterberg and Pete Holmes are on the tail end of a disastrous experiment in legalizing drugs and pushing unproven, underfunded, and ineffective “diversion” mechanisms. Why does LEAD have such a great success rate? They cook the numbers. Once you’re in LEAD, you don’t get arrested for following offenses, thus eliminating future jail bookings. By measuring reduction in recidivism via jail bookings, you get an astoundingly high number of “non-recidivism.” You don’t get a change in actions or activities — just stats. And hey, if we can shove stats down your throat to distract from reality, Seattle politicos will jump at the chance. Then there’s the peripheral issues that come with the drug trade. Property crime is chief among them. You can fence jeans from Macy’s, a vacuum from Target, a belt from Nordstrom, a cell phone from a car prowl, luggage from Bergman’s at Third and Pike for a commission that can be used for drug purchases from select dealers. All property crime is connected to drugs. All of it. Addressing an open trade of drugs is paramount in addressing property crime. Then, violence. Our prosecutors routinely give conditional releases, low bail amounts, or straight up don’t follow through on their duty to prosecute VUFA/PSF arrests. These arrests are dangerous for officers to undertake, and are felonies for a reason.
A Sheriff’s Deputy added:
The level of lawlessness at Third and Pine cannot be described to someone who has never experienced it first hand. There are absolutely zero consequences for this anti-social behavior. As law enforcement, our hands have been tied by “progressive politics.” Criminals need to be held accountable. They don’t care about being arrested because they know they’ll be out of jail in quick order. We need the support of not only our administrations but the prosecutor’s office.
This is how you have hundreds of people who cycle in and out of the system, often being released just hours after they are arrested. Most of the time the crime is a low-level nuisance to citizens and business owners, but occasionally it flares up into deadly violence like this shooting did last month. There’s simply no way to stop the violence without taking on the underlying crime and drug abuse that has been allowed to fester on the streets.