hotair--2020-01-15--Report: Warren accused Bernie after the debate of mischaracterizing their chat about women candidate

Report: Warren accused Bernie after the debate of mischaracterizing their chat about women candidates and Trump; Update: "I think you called me a liar on national TV"

It ’ s fun watching this otherwise straightforward he said/she said play out knowing that lefty opinion about it would be completely upended if Warren were a bit to Bernie ’ s left on policy instead of vice versa .
Personal credibility has nothing to do with it .
If she were executing this late hit on Sanders in the name of advancing the socialist cause instead of retarding it , Bernie would be getting ripped apart as an old sexist who talks a good game about progress in front of the cameras and then reverts to being a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned off .
I think Warren ’ s telling the truth about what he said .
I also think his opinion that a woman can ’ t beat Trump is defensible , although I don ’ t share it .
It will very likely be harder for a woman to beat Trump given the appeal his “ tough guy ” alpha-male persona holds for some voters and his inevitable willingness to attack a woman opponent as soft or whatever .
I also also think , like I said earlier , that it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this since it ’ s more apt to alienate hardcore Bernie fans long-term than it is to earn her new votes in the primaries short-term .
But .
I also also also think it ’ s mainly an online controversy , as so many political controversies are nowadays .
No one outside the Twitter/chatterati bubble really cares .
In fact , I continue to believe Warren ’ s chances are being undervalued despite her fade in the polls because she ’ s a solid goldilocks option for Dem voters who recognize that Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major flaws .
If you want bold liberal policy , as Dem primary voters tend to do , but you ’ re also anxious about the party being viewed as “ extreme , ” as voters of all stripes tend to be , then you ’ ve got Warren .
My guess is a lot of undecideds are going to come to that conclusion in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Unless I ’ m wrong about this “ sexism ” thing being mostly a Twitter phenomenon , in which case hoo boy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most tense moment at Tuesday night ’ s Democratic debate : Just after the event ended , Senator Elizabeth Warren walked over to Senator Bernie Sanders , with whom she had clashed onstage that evening , and refused to shake his outstretched hand .
After a short exchange of words , he threw up his hands and then turned away from her .
People familiar with the exchange said Ms. Warren walked over and told Mr. Sanders that she was concerned that , during the debate , he had mischaracterized a conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman could win the presidency .
She has accused him of saying that a woman could not ; he has denied that remark .
Appearing frustrated , Mr. Sanders asked to discuss the matter at a different time , said the people , who insisted on anonymity to discuss a sensitive , private conversation .
He pointed his finger toward her , then back at himself , before turning and walking away .
What if Bernie ’ s the liar , not Warren ?
It should be noted that she was given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him of lying about their conversation and didn ’ t do so — although I suppose she didn ’ t need to since CNN did it for her .
Besides , the whole point of leaking the details of their conversation in late 2018 to CNN to begin with was to try to spare Warren from having to raise the subject publicly herself .
Leaking it put the story into the media ’ s bloodstream , circulating it among voters and giving the moderators a pretext to bring it up .
Then Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , declining to accuse Bernie of lying herself ( even though she did so in a statement on Monday night ) and showing lefties that she ’ s interested in healing and unity or whatever .
But it was too clever by half : I ’ m guessing this new Times story won ’ t soothe the irritation of Berniebros either since it ’ s probably also a leak from Warren .
There were only two people “ familiar with the exchange ” ( Tom Steyer insists he didn ’ t overhear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason to tell the media that he ’ s been accused again of lying about what he said .
This smells like a Team Warren hangout designed to bolster her account of what he told her in 2018 about women candidates not being able to beat Trump .
And it would fit her M.O .
of wanting voters to question Bernie ’ s progressive vision for women in politics ( and his honesty ) without the messiness of her having to ask that question herself in front of a mic .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of this , the claim by Bernie ’ s volunteers that Warren isn ’ t as electable as Sanders is , has some merit to it : A different poll today out of Michigan has Sanders leading Trump by five and Warren leading him by just three .
There was also that NYT poll of battleground states in November showing Trump trailing Biden narrowly in all but one and leading Warren in all but one .
Too bad Amy Klobuchar isn ’ t also part of the top tier since then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hypothetical Trump/Klobuchar match-up and could answer the question first broached in that fateful conversation between Warren and Bernie 13 months ago : Do women candidates have special difficulty beating Trump or is it just Liz ?
Here ’ s a gloomy Van Jones assessing the state of play after last night ’ s debate .
Elsewhere today the Times reports that Team Trump is preoccupied with two Democratic candidates nowadays .
One is Bernie , the lone Democrat who might be able to one-up him on populism .
The other is … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Pete Buttigieg , for that matter .
Update : Hoo boy .
CNN found the audio of the exchange between Sanders and Warren after the debate .
This is gon na get worse for lefties before it gets better .
Excellent .

It’s fun watching this otherwise straightforward he said/she said play out knowing that lefty opinion about it would be completely upended if Warren were a bit to Bernie’s left on policy instead of vice versa. Personal credibility has nothing to do with it. If she were executing this late hit on Sanders in the name of advancing the socialist cause instead of retarding it, Bernie would be getting ripped apart as an old sexist who talks a good game about progress in front of the cameras and then reverts to being a man of his generation once they’re turned off.
I think Warren’s telling the truth about what he said. I also think his opinion that a woman can’t beat Trump is defensible, although I don’t share it. It will very likely be harder for a woman to beat Trump given the appeal his “tough guy” alpha-male persona holds for some voters and his inevitable willingness to attack a woman opponent as soft or whatever. I also also think, like I said earlier, that it was a terrible idea for her to leak this since it’s more apt to alienate hardcore Bernie fans long-term than it is to earn her new votes in the primaries short-term.
But. I also also also think it’s mainly an online controversy, as so many political controversies are nowadays. No one outside the Twitter/chatterati bubble really cares. In fact, I continue to believe Warren’s chances are being undervalued despite her fade in the polls because she’s a solid goldilocks option for Dem voters who recognize that Biden, Bernie, and Buttigieg each have major flaws. If you want bold liberal policy, as Dem primary voters tend to do, but you’re also anxious about the party being viewed as “extreme,” as voters of all stripes tend to be, then you’ve got Warren. My guess is a lot of undecideds are going to come to that conclusion in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless I’m wrong about this “sexism” thing being mostly a Twitter phenomenon, in which case hoo boy. New from the NYT:
It was the most tense moment at Tuesday night’s Democratic debate: Just after the event ended, Senator Elizabeth Warren walked over to Senator Bernie Sanders, with whom she had clashed onstage that evening, and refused to shake his outstretched hand. After a short exchange of words, he threw up his hands and then turned away from her. People familiar with the exchange said Ms. Warren walked over and told Mr. Sanders that she was concerned that, during the debate, he had mischaracterized a conversation they had in 2018 about whether a woman could win the presidency. She has accused him of saying that a woman could not; he has denied that remark. Appearing frustrated, Mr. Sanders asked to discuss the matter at a different time, said the people, who insisted on anonymity to discuss a sensitive, private conversation. He pointed his finger toward her, then back at himself, before turning and walking away.
What if Bernie’s the liar, not Warren?
It should be noted that she was given the chance onstage during the debate to accuse him of lying about their conversation and didn’t do so — although I suppose she didn’t need to since CNN did it for her. Besides, the whole point of leaking the details of their conversation in late 2018 to CNN to begin with was to try to spare Warren from having to raise the subject publicly herself. Leaking it put the story into the media’s bloodstream, circulating it among voters and giving the moderators a pretext to bring it up. Then Warren could behave tactfully when asked about it, declining to accuse Bernie of lying herself (even though she did so in a statement on Monday night) and showing lefties that she’s interested in healing and unity or whatever.
But it was too clever by half:
Elizabeth & Bernie have appeared in my films. I love them both. Why Elizabeth chose to stick a knife in Bernie’s back is beyond me. At a time when job #1 is to remove Trump, how did this help? My new RUMBLE podcast “The Sad Downfall of Elizabeth Warren.” https://t.co/uFwOFNka9U — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 15, 2020
I’m guessing this new Times story won’t soothe the irritation of Berniebros either since it’s probably also a leak from Warren. There were only two people “familiar with the exchange” (Tom Steyer insists he didn’t overhear it) and Bernie and his team have no reason to tell the media that he’s been accused again of lying about what he said. This smells like a Team Warren hangout designed to bolster her account of what he told her in 2018 about women candidates not being able to beat Trump. And it would fit her M.O. of wanting voters to question Bernie’s progressive vision for women in politics (and his honesty) without the messiness of her having to ask that question herself in front of a mic.
The irony is that the attack that started all of this, the claim by Bernie’s volunteers that Warren isn’t as electable as Sanders is, has some merit to it:
In new Marquette Law School Poll, Biden leads Trump 49% to 45%; it’s Sanders 47% vs. Trump 46%; Trump 48% vs. Warren 45%; Trump 46% vs. Buttigieg 44%. #mulawpoll — MULawPoll (@MULawPoll) January 15, 2020
A different poll today out of Michigan has Sanders leading Trump by five and Warren leading him by just three. There was also that NYT poll of battleground states in November showing Trump trailing Biden narrowly in all but one and leading Warren in all but one. Too bad Amy Klobuchar isn’t also part of the top tier since then we’d have lots of polling on a hypothetical Trump/Klobuchar match-up and could answer the question first broached in that fateful conversation between Warren and Bernie 13 months ago: Do women candidates have special difficulty beating Trump or is it just Liz?
Here’s a gloomy Van Jones assessing the state of play after last night’s debate. Elsewhere today the Times reports that Team Trump is preoccupied with two Democratic candidates nowadays. One is Bernie, the lone Democrat who might be able to one-up him on populism. The other is … not Elizabeth Warren. Or Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg, for that matter.
Update: Hoo boy. CNN found the audio of the exchange between Sanders and Warren after the debate.
CNN releases the audio from the post debate interaction between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV” Sanders: “What?” Warren: “I think you called me a liar on national TV” Sanders: “No, let's not do it right now …” pic.twitter.com/nhendvv5Jb — Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 16, 2020
This is gonna get worse for lefties before it gets better. Excellent.


hotair--2020-01-15--Iran to Europe: <i>You could be next</i>

If they don ’ t know it by now , they will soon enough .
Iran ’ s official response to the three European signatories of the JCPOA for filing a notice of dispute within the rules of the treaty is to warn them of a potential military retaliation .
The remarks from Iranian president Hassan Rouhani likely also references NATO ’ s interest in transitioning the US out of Iraq , when Tehran would rather have it all to themselves .
So much for negotiations , eh , Boris Johnson ?
Actually , there ’ s more to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s focus on Rouhani ’ s threat : The president of Iran warned Wednesday that European troops in the Middle East “ could be in danger ” after three countries challenged the country over breaches of its nuclear deal .
Meanwhile , Iran ’ s foreign minister acknowledged that the population “ were lied to ” for days about their military accidentally shooting down a Ukrainian passenger jet .
President Hassan Rouhani gave the warning in a televised Cabinet meeting after the United Kingdom , France and Germany activated a formal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s decision to lift limits on uranium production .
“ Today , the American soldier is in danger , tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger , ” Rouhani said , according to a translation by The Associated Press .
He did not elaborate on what this could mean in practical terms .
Does that require elaboration ?
Given that Iran has spent the last several years attacking American troops through its proxy militias in Iraq , Rouhani ’ s meaning couldn ’ t be any clearer .
Invoking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restoring full sanctions on Iran , including — theoretically — at the UN , at a moment when US-based sanctions are doing significant damage already .
Rouhani can ’ t afford that to happen and neither can the mullahs .
That ’ s why this response is so telling about the nature of the regime , as well as its fragility .
This didn ’ t come out of the blue , after all ; the E-3 nations are responding to Iran ’ s own declaration that they will stop complying with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European nations are only held in abeyance due to Iran ’ s supposed continuing compliance with the pact .
Rouhani wants to eat his cake and have it too — at the point of a gun if need be .
If that ’ s not a wake-up call for our European partners , then nothing will suffice .
Although it probably didn ’ t require this heavy-handed push reported by the Washington Post this afternoon : A week before Germany , France and Britain formally accused Iran of breaching the 2015 nuclear deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat to the Europeans that shocked officials in all three countries .
If they refused to call out Tehran and initiate an arcane dispute mechanism in the deal , the United States would impose a 25 percent tariff on European automobiles , the Trump officials warned , according to European officials familiar with the conversations .
Within days , the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal , triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act , though , which made this awkward , to say the least : European officials complained privately that Trump ’ s threat only complicated their decision on Tuesday to invoke the mechanism , which starts the clock on 65 days of negotiations with Iran about returning to full compliance with the deal .
If the dispute isn ’ t settled , U.N. sanctions could be reimposed on Iran , including a blanket arms embargo .
Officials in Britain , France and Germany say they had planned to initiate the mechanism , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to backtrack out of concern that they could be viewed as stooges of Washington if word of the threat ever leaked .
Ugh .
That might explain Boris Johnson ’ s testy challenge to Trump yesterday , which suddenly doesn ’ t look as surprising as it did yesterday .
With Iran all but declaring their cooperation dead , why not just allow the E-3 to come to the obvious conclusion on their own ?
Part of Iran ’ s reaction is being driven by desperation , though , which is becoming more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If their legendary Quds force commander were still around to control the streets , the mullahs might not have had to hit reverse on their story on the shootdown of Flight 752 .
Now , however , they ’ re still trying to find ways to blame it on the US while trying to defuse the rage in the streets by arresting a handful of people involved in the incident : This claim of accountability might be even a little credible … if the regime hadn ’ t arrested the man responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved that the jet got hit by a missile strike .
Don ’ t let this fool you ; without that evidence and the pictures from the crash site , the Iranians would never have admitted to this .
Even now , they ’ re clinging to a defense that they explicitly rejected from the US in the USS Vincennes incident in 1988 , when there was actual mutual conflict taking place .
The regime is running scared .
And they should be , from the people who deserve justice the most — @ @ @ @

If they don’t know it by now, they will soon enough. Iran’s official response to the three European signatories of the JCPOA for filing a notice of dispute within the rules of the treaty is to warn them of a potential military retaliation. The remarks from Iranian president Hassan Rouhani likely also references NATO’s interest in transitioning the US out of Iraq, when Tehran would rather have it all to themselves.
So much for negotiations, eh, Boris Johnson? Actually, there’s more to that angle of the story, but first let’s focus on Rouhani’s threat:
The president of Iran warned Wednesday that European troops in the Middle East “could be in danger” after three countries challenged the country over breaches of its nuclear deal. Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister acknowledged that the population “were lied to” for days about their military accidentally shooting down a Ukrainian passenger jet. President Hassan Rouhani gave the warning in a televised Cabinet meeting after the United Kingdom, France and Germany activated a formal dispute clause in the nuclear deal following Iran’s decision to lift limits on uranium production. “Today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger,” Rouhani said, according to a translation by The Associated Press. He did not elaborate on what this could mean in practical terms.
Does that require elaboration? Given that Iran has spent the last several years attacking American troops through its proxy militias in Iraq, Rouhani’s meaning couldn’t be any clearer. Invoking the dispute mechanism is the first step to restoring full sanctions on Iran, including — theoretically — at the UN, at a moment when US-based sanctions are doing significant damage already. Rouhani can’t afford that to happen and neither can the mullahs.
That’s why this response is so telling about the nature of the regime, as well as its fragility. This didn’t come out of the blue, after all; the E-3 nations are responding to Iran’s own declaration that they will stop complying with the JCPOA. The sanctions from the three European nations are only held in abeyance due to Iran’s supposed continuing compliance with the pact. Rouhani wants to eat his cake and have it too — at the point of a gun if need be. If that’s not a wake-up call for our European partners, then nothing will suffice.
Although it probably didn’t require this heavy-handed push reported by the Washington Post this afternoon:
A week before Germany, France and Britain formally accused Iran of breaching the 2015 nuclear deal, the Trump administration issued a private threat to the Europeans that shocked officials in all three countries. If they refused to call out Tehran and initiate an arcane dispute mechanism in the deal, the United States would impose a 25 percent tariff on European automobiles, the Trump officials warned, according to European officials familiar with the conversations. Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement.
The E-3 had already decided to act, though, which made this awkward, to say the least:
European officials complained privately that Trump’s threat only complicated their decision on Tuesday to invoke the mechanism, which starts the clock on 65 days of negotiations with Iran about returning to full compliance with the deal. If the dispute isn’t settled, U.N. sanctions could be reimposed on Iran, including a blanket arms embargo. Officials in Britain, France and Germany say they had planned to initiate the mechanism, but Trump’s threat nearly caused them to backtrack out of concern that they could be viewed as stooges of Washington if word of the threat ever leaked.
Ugh. That might explain Boris Johnson’s testy challenge to Trump yesterday, which suddenly doesn’t look as surprising as it did yesterday. With Iran all but declaring their cooperation dead, why not just allow the E-3 to come to the obvious conclusion on their own?
Part of Iran’s reaction is being driven by desperation, though, which is becoming more recognizable after the dispatching of Qassem Soleimani. If their legendary Quds force commander were still around to control the streets, the mullahs might not have had to hit reverse on their story on the shootdown of Flight 752. Now, however, they’re still trying to find ways to blame it on the US while trying to defuse the rage in the streets by arresting a handful of people involved in the incident:
This claim of accountability might be even a little credible … if the regime hadn’t arrested the man responsible for taking the video which all but proved that the jet got hit by a missile strike. Don’t let this fool you; without that evidence and the pictures from the crash site, the Iranians would never have admitted to this. Even now, they’re clinging to a defense that they explicitly rejected from the US in the USS Vincennes incident in 1988, when there was actual mutual conflict taking place.
The regime is running scared. And they should be, from the people who deserve justice the most — the Iranians themselves.


hotair--2020-01-15--Pelosi marks sad, solemn, prayerful impeachment with souvenir signing pens for Dems

Jerry Nadler punctuated the moment by doing an Ole-Miss-style “ dog pee ” end-zone move with a picture of Trump .
But he did it solemnly and prayerfully , please note .
She was all smiles during the signing ceremony , painstakingly rendering her John Hancock by using a different pen for each letter so that she could hand them out like dog biscuits later to Nadler and the rest : Maxine Waters was especially excited for her party favor .
But then that stands to reason : Today a dream she ’ s had for years came true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a few pens to raise some ResistanceBucks .
Even critics not normally inclined to defend Trump found the spectacle tacky .
“ Pelosi has handled the optics of impeachment well , right up until that signing ceremony , which was awkward , ” said Never Trumper Tom Nichols .
“ Handing out pens should have been done in private .
This was not some celebratory moment.
” CNN was also put off on what you ’ d otherwise assume was one of the happiest days in the network ’ s history : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pens being used as souvenirs to sign a bill .
Trump himself used multiple pens this morning to sign the new “ phase one ” trade deal with China .
But major legislation is viewed as an achievement by supporters , the fulfillment of a years-long effort towards progress on some policy that ’ ll benefit Americans .
That ’ s cause for celebration .
Whereas impeachment is the single most divisive thing the House can do , a process to be undertaken with the greatest reluctance for fear of what it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been the stated view of Pelosi herself at every step of this process , up to and including the final impeachment vote .
Until now .
Here ’ s an unhappy Greg Gutfeld on Fox News this afternoon after watching Pelosi ’ s solemnly prayerful and prayerfully solemn pen giveaway .
Exit question : Why didn ’ t Pelosi make Justin Amash one of the impeachment managers ?
It sounds like he was game .
And it would have been a way to show the public that this isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @

Jerry Nadler punctuated the moment by doing an Ole-Miss-style “dog pee” end-zone move with a picture of Trump.
But he did it solemnly and prayerfully, please note.
That’s a lotta pens:
The pens Pelosi will use to sign the articles of impeachment pic.twitter.com/lskRVsTLft — Ben Jacobs (@Bencjacobs) January 15, 2020
She was all smiles during the signing ceremony, painstakingly rendering her John Hancock by using a different pen for each letter so that she could hand them out like dog biscuits later to Nadler and the rest:
Speaker Pelosi has signed the articles of impeachment and they were delivered to the Senate. Here's what happens tomorrow: • Noon ET: House managers present the articles to the Senate • 2p ET: Chief Justice John Roberts sworn in • After: Senators will be sworn in as jurors pic.twitter.com/JGWJCDGJ91 — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 15, 2020
Maxine Waters was especially excited for her party favor. But then that stands to reason: Today a dream she’s had for years came true.
Maxine Waters holding her impeachment souvenir pen up in the air to showcase as a trophy. So much for “sad” & “somber” pic.twitter.com/3ZWpbOlWfO — Greg Manz (@Greg_Manz) January 15, 2020
I wonder if the DNC will auction off a few pens to raise some ResistanceBucks.
Even critics not normally inclined to defend Trump found the spectacle tacky. “Pelosi has handled the optics of impeachment well, right up until that signing ceremony, which was awkward,” said Never Trumper Tom Nichols. “Handing out pens should have been done in private. This was not some celebratory moment.” CNN was also put off on what you’d otherwise assume was one of the happiest days in the network’s history:
CNN panel: Pelosi handing out impeachment pens was a “jarring” “celebration”https://t.co/2ppgh1PZWa pic.twitter.com/Q7mQ5dTeMm — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 15, 2020
There’s nothing novel about multiple pens being used as souvenirs to sign a bill. Trump himself used multiple pens this morning to sign the new “phase one” trade deal with China. But major legislation is viewed as an achievement by supporters, the fulfillment of a years-long effort towards progress on some policy that’ll benefit Americans. That’s cause for celebration. Whereas impeachment is the single most divisive thing the House can do, a process to be undertaken with the greatest reluctance for fear of what it’ll put the country through. That’s been the stated view of Pelosi herself at every step of this process, up to and including the final impeachment vote. Until now.
Here’s an unhappy Greg Gutfeld on Fox News this afternoon after watching Pelosi’s solemnly prayerful and prayerfully solemn pen giveaway. Exit question: Why didn’t Pelosi make Justin Amash one of the impeachment managers? It sounds like he was game. And it would have been a way to show the public that this isn’t a purely partisan left-wing endeavor.


hotair--2020-01-17--CNN anchors furious at McSally for calling their reporter a "liberal hack"

“ Furious ” is a relative term .
Wolf Blitzer seems biologically incapable of expressing emotion but he does offer in the first clip below that McSally ’ s insult was “ disgusting.
” Meanwhile Chris “ Fredo ” Cuomo sounds like a DNC spokesman in the second clip , going so far as to scold Arizonans that they couldn ’ t possibly elect a person like her to fill St. John McCain ’ s Senate seat after this .
Watch 90 seconds or so of that from where it picks up to get the gist , then read on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ?
This is exactly the reaction McSally wanted from yesterday ’ s clumsy orchestrated stunt .
From the moment the exchange with CNN reporter Manu Raju happened it was transparently obvious that McSally had set out to insult him ( or anyone from CNN ) in hopes of creating a viral moment that could be monetized on the right .
One of her aides was recording on a cell phone before Raju even asked his question .
Her Democratic opponent , Mark Kelly , has consistently outraised her and currently has nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his campaign war chest .
She appears to have decided at some point recently that she ’ d take a shot at Republicans ’ favorite media antagonist , CNN , and hope that it earns her some own-the-libs cred with Trump fans .
And more importantly , some own-the-libs donations .
She wasn ’ t subtle about it either : The best-case scenario for McSally was that Fox News would take an interest in the incident , which it has ( no doubt with quiet encouragement from Team Martha ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest and applaud her on Twitter , boosting her MAGA cred and new donations further .
That hasn ’ t happened yet as I write this , but stay tuned .
What she probably didn ’ t expect was that CNN would help her out by airing its own footage of the insult throughout the day , forcing it before an even bigger audience .
You would think that if the network were intent on doing that they would at least take pains to contextualize it as the cynical fundraising stunt that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough race in Arizona , she ’ s in a deep hole money-wise , her shot at Raju is red meat aimed at solving that problem .
Instead they ’ re taking it mostly at face value .
Look how thuggish these Trump-era Republicans are to reporters !
Stupid .
But it ’ s not a total win for McSally either .
The incident was cringey precisely because it felt so forced .
If a partisan pugilist like Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz had called a reporter a “ liberal hack ” it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
McSally isn ’ t normally prone to that sort of thing , though , and Raju isn ’ t a prominent target for righty criticism the way a dozen other CNN anchors and panelists are .
To lunge at him that way seemed strange .
He didn ’ t even ask a hacky question that might justify her annoyance ; he asked which way she was leaning on calling witnesses at Trump ’ s trial .
Some Republicans couldn ’ t help but groan at how heavy-handed she was in picking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ populist ” and it shows , like when Cory Booker tries to emote over some left-wing grievance .
Some pols can sell it , some can ’ t .
Got ta be who you are and take the consequences on Election Day .
The stunt with Raju earned her some rare and valuable face time with Fox ’ s 10 p.m. audience last night , as it was designed to do , but that didn ’ t go completely according to plan either .
She and Laura Ingraham had some own-the-libs laughs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then Ingraham … repeated Raju ’ s question to her .
No , seriously , Senator , where are you on calling witnesses ?
Ingraham knew the game McSally was playing with CNN , trying to duck a thorny issue by pounding the table instead , and to her credit refused to let McSally do it .
But it ’ s a silly question in the aftermath of the “ liberal hack ” incident : Pretty clearly McSally feels her best chance at reelection is going all-in on Trumpism and hoping there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Arizona to drag her over the finish line next fall , particularly with Trump topping the ballot .
She ’ ll vote however he wants her to vote at the trial on any given issue .

“Furious” is a relative term. Wolf Blitzer seems biologically incapable of expressing emotion but he does offer in the first clip below that McSally’s insult was “disgusting.”
Meanwhile Chris “Fredo” Cuomo sounds like a DNC spokesman in the second clip, going so far as to scold Arizonans that they couldn’t possibly elect a person like her to fill St. John McCain’s Senate seat after this.
Watch 90 seconds or so of that from where it picks up to get the gist, then read on. You know what the funniest part is? This is exactly the reaction McSally wanted from yesterday’s clumsy orchestrated stunt.
A smart point from Noah Rothman:
The two big stories this week are largely about politicians predicating their strategies on the willingness of the press to make itself the story. — Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 17, 2020
Likewise, McSally doesn't get the millage she needs from what should have been a twenty minute news cycle around her comments if the indignation in media didn't dominate much of the day yesterday. — Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) January 17, 2020
From the moment the exchange with CNN reporter Manu Raju happened it was transparently obvious that McSally had set out to insult him (or anyone from CNN) in hopes of creating a viral moment that could be monetized on the right. One of her aides was recording on a cell phone before Raju even asked his question. Her Democratic opponent, Mark Kelly, has consistently outraised her and currently has nearly twice as much cash as McSally does in his campaign war chest. She appears to have decided at some point recently that she’d take a shot at Republicans’ favorite media antagonist, CNN, and hope that it earns her some own-the-libs cred with Trump fans. And more importantly, some own-the-libs donations.
She wasn’t subtle about it either:
A little insight into how calculated this was. McSally attacked Manu in the 10am hour. She had registered the domain name "https://t.co/YQW3ySFPna" by the 11am hour. (16:24 UTC = 11:24 EST) pic.twitter.com/TkBHt8S2BZ — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 17, 2020
NEW SHIRT!! 🚨 I’m in the Senate to fight for all Arizonans, not play politics and games with the liberal hacks of the left-wing media! https://t.co/tNbKJa49JN — Martha McSally (@MarthaMcSallyAZ) January 17, 2020
The best-case scenario for McSally was that Fox News would take an interest in the incident, which it has (no doubt with quiet encouragement from Team Martha), and that Trump himself might then take an interest and applaud her on Twitter, boosting her MAGA cred and new donations further. That hasn’t happened yet as I write this, but stay tuned. What she probably didn’t expect was that CNN would help her out by airing its own footage of the insult throughout the day, forcing it before an even bigger audience. You would think that if the network were intent on doing that they would at least take pains to contextualize it as the cynical fundraising stunt that it is — McSally’s facing a tough race in Arizona, she’s in a deep hole money-wise, her shot at Raju is red meat aimed at solving that problem. Instead they’re taking it mostly at face value. Look how thuggish these Trump-era Republicans are to reporters! Stupid.
But it’s not a total win for McSally either. The incident was cringey precisely because it felt so forced. If a partisan pugilist like Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz had called a reporter a “liberal hack” it’d at least be in character. McSally isn’t normally prone to that sort of thing, though, and Raju isn’t a prominent target for righty criticism the way a dozen other CNN anchors and panelists are. To lunge at him that way seemed strange. He didn’t even ask a hacky question that might justify her annoyance; he asked which way she was leaning on calling witnesses at Trump’s trial. Some Republicans couldn’t help but groan at how heavy-handed she was in picking the fight:
Lot of GOP aides — and even McConnell advisers — don’t like the McSally attack on @mkraju today. “Not the person to do it or or the way to do it,” one of these people said. — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) January 17, 2020
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1218151362376224768
McSally doesn’t speak “populist” and it shows, like when Cory Booker tries to emote over some left-wing grievance. Some pols can sell it, some can’t. Gotta be who you are and take the consequences on Election Day.
The stunt with Raju earned her some rare and valuable face time with Fox’s 10 p.m. audience last night, as it was designed to do, but that didn’t go completely according to plan either. She and Laura Ingraham had some own-the-libs laughs at CNN’s expense, but then Ingraham … repeated Raju’s question to her. No, seriously, Senator, where are you on calling witnesses? Ingraham knew the game McSally was playing with CNN, trying to duck a thorny issue by pounding the table instead, and to her credit refused to let McSally do it. But it’s a silly question in the aftermath of the “liberal hack” incident: Pretty clearly McSally feels her best chance at reelection is going all-in on Trumpism and hoping there’s still enough of a Republican majority in Arizona to drag her over the finish line next fall, particularly with Trump topping the ballot. She’ll vote however he wants her to vote at the trial on any given issue.


hotair--2020-01-17--Politico: Democrats stunned to find Biden campaign not collapsing

In fairness , aren ’ t we all ?
The polling frontrunner at the start of this cycle had twice run for president and had twice embarrassed himself out of contention .
The third time ’ s the charm for Joe Biden , who has managed not just to keep his lead this time around but has started to consolidate it ahead of the opening contests , Politico reports : It took more than a year , but the Democratic presidential primary is finally coming to terms with the fact that Joe Biden isn ’ t going to collapse before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , the landscape is tilting more in his favor .
Biden ’ s fundraising has improved .
His polling is steadier , and his opponents barely touched him in the presidential debate on Tuesday — the final debate ahead of the Iowa caucuses .
How did Biden manage to survive one of the largest Democratic primaries in recent memory ?
Partly from good fortune , plus the blessing of having bad competition : Two of his top rivals , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , have started feuding , raising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Pete Buttigieg , a well-funded , well-organized , moderate alternative to Biden , has still not demonstrated that he can appeal to people of color .
And three of the five top-polling candidates in Iowa — Sanders , Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar — are about to be pulled away from the campaign at the most inopportune time , stuck in Washington for President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
There will be those who will claim that Nancy Pelosi ’ s impeachment strategy was exquisitely timed to produce just this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wanted to guarantee that , Pelosi would have strung out the impeachment process until January and passed the articles then .
If the Senate ends up calling Hunter Biden as a witness , this strategy isn ’ t going to turn out to be any help at all .
As it turns out , Biden probably doesn ’ t need the help .
After making a run on Biden this summer and fall , Warren has fallen off the pace by double digits in the last three months .
Sanders has picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s voters but still is lower overall than he was before Biden officially entered the race .
Buttigieg ’ s support has declined back into single digits after a brief bump in the late fall , pushing him back into the lower tier of candidates .
Biden might be caught in tight races in Iowa and New Hampshire , but he ’ s going to score delegates in both states , and then will commence blowing out his competition in South Carolina .
In one sense , the large field might have played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way a similar field played into Donald Trump ’ s in 2016 .
Everyone in the field ran to the Left , leaving Biden with his claim — dubious or not — to the center ; Trump ran as the only real populist among GOP establishment figures .
In more ways , though , this resembles Mitt Romney ’ s win in the 2012 primaries against a somewhat smaller coterie of candidates .
Several of them got their momentary polling burst as the Not-Romney Of The Moment , only to collapse back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlasted everyone as the party ’ s Next In Line and won the nomination .
If Biden still manages to make it to the brass ring without killing his own chances , that ’ s not a great model for a general-election campaign against an incumbent president .
Biden survived , too , mainly because the other candidates spent more time attacking each other than Biden .
At least Romney came out of the 2012 primary somewhat tested by the experience .
Biden ’ s going to run into a buzz saw in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s true even if the Senate never calls Hunter Biden to testify .
That ’ s still an if , however .
Biden still has time to screw it up , and he ’ s got the track record to prove he can do so in fairly short order .

In fairness, aren’t we all? The polling frontrunner at the start of this cycle had twice run for president and had twice embarrassed himself out of contention. The third time’s the charm for Joe Biden, who has managed not just to keep his lead this time around but has started to consolidate it ahead of the opening contests, Politico reports:
It took more than a year, but the Democratic presidential primary is finally coming to terms with the fact that Joe Biden isn’t going to collapse before the first votes are cast. If anything, the landscape is tilting more in his favor. Biden’s fundraising has improved. His polling is steadier, and his opponents barely touched him in the presidential debate on Tuesday — the final debate ahead of the Iowa caucuses.
How did Biden manage to survive one of the largest Democratic primaries in recent memory? Partly from good fortune, plus the blessing of having bad competition:
Two of his top rivals, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, have started feuding, raising the prospect of a splintered progressive vote. Pete Buttigieg, a well-funded, well-organized, moderate alternative to Biden, has still not demonstrated that he can appeal to people of color. And three of the five top-polling candidates in Iowa — Sanders, Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar — are about to be pulled away from the campaign at the most inopportune time, stuck in Washington for President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial.
There will be those who will claim that Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment strategy was exquisitely timed to produce just this result. That seems unlikely; if she wanted to guarantee that, Pelosi would have strung out the impeachment process until January and passed the articles then. If the Senate ends up calling Hunter Biden as a witness, this strategy isn’t going to turn out to be any help at all.
As it turns out, Biden probably doesn’t need the help. After making a run on Biden this summer and fall, Warren has fallen off the pace by double digits in the last three months. Sanders has picked up a small amount of Warren’s voters but still is lower overall than he was before Biden officially entered the race. Buttigieg’s support has declined back into single digits after a brief bump in the late fall, pushing him back into the lower tier of candidates. Biden might be caught in tight races in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he’s going to score delegates in both states, and then will commence blowing out his competition in South Carolina.
In one sense, the large field might have played into Biden’s hands, just the way a similar field played into Donald Trump’s in 2016. Everyone in the field ran to the Left, leaving Biden with his claim — dubious or not — to the center; Trump ran as the only real populist among GOP establishment figures. In more ways, though, this resembles Mitt Romney’s win in the 2012 primaries against a somewhat smaller coterie of candidates. Several of them got their momentary polling burst as the Not-Romney Of The Moment, only to collapse back to the bottom tier. Romney just outlasted everyone as the party’s Next In Line and won the nomination.
If Biden still manages to make it to the brass ring without killing his own chances, that’s not a great model for a general-election campaign against an incumbent president. Biden survived, too, mainly because the other candidates spent more time attacking each other than Biden. At least Romney came out of the 2012 primary somewhat tested by the experience. Biden’s going to run into a buzz saw in the general election, and that’s true even if the Senate never calls Hunter Biden to testify.
That’s still an if, however. Biden still has time to screw it up, and he’s got the track record to prove he can do so in fairly short order.


hotair--2020-01-17--Hmmm: Taliban spox announces discussion of agreement-signing ceremony with US?

Has the US reached a peace agreement with the Taliban , or at least made enough progress to plan out a signing ceremony ?
A cryptic tweet from the Taliban ’ s spokesperson announced a meeting between top negotiators for both sides “ regarding the signing of the agreement and the related ceremony.
” That ’ s the latest hint , although not the first , that the war in Afghanistan may be heading to a conclusion : Taliban and American negotiators are meeting in Qatar for what a Taliban spokesman called “ fruitful discussions ” that are expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two sides “ discussed the signing of the agreement and the ceremony for it , ” Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen tweeted Friday .
It ’ s unclear what agreement Shaheen is referring to .
Neither Shaheen nor the State Department responded to requests for comment .
The tweet follows days of what appear to be rapid developments in the standoff between the the US and the Taliban , with the Kabul government stuck in between .
Just hours before Shaheen ’ s tweet , the Pakistani government announced that the Taliban would agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restart the final negotiations for a peace deal : American and Taliban negotiators appear to be making progress in Qatar , where the two sides are meeting to see about restarting peace negotiations , Pakistan ’ s foreign minister said Thursday .
Shah Mahmood Qureshi said “ a good development ” occurred Thursday and that the “ Taliban have showed their readiness to accept the demand for reduction in violence.
” Speaking in a video statement released by the Foreign Ministry , Qureshi added , “ I believe that this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Separately , the Associated Press reported that Taliban officials said the group gave the U.S. envoy in the talks “ a document outlining their offer for a temporary cease-fire in Afghanistan that would last between seven and 10 days.
” .
And just a few hours after Shaheen ’ s tweet , Reuters reported that the Taliban would implement a full cease-fire — and also open talks with the Kabul government , two long-time US demands for a peace agreement : The Taliban will implement a 10-day ceasefire with U.S. troops , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussions with Afghan government officials if it reaches an agreement with U.S. negotiators in talks in Doha , two sources have said .
If an agreement is reached , the move could revive hopes for a long-term solution to the conflict in Afghanistan .
Taliban and U.S. negotiation teams met on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss the signing of a peace deal , according to a spokesman for the Taliban office in Doha , Qatar .
In what now looks like a familiar pattern , the US had come close to an agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration had pushed talks in Qatar in order to extricate the US from Afghanistan , a goal that Trump had made part of his 2016 campaign .
However , the Taliban didn ’ t want to commit to negotiations with Kabul and refused to dial down its field operations , and when one of their attacks killed an American , Trump abruptly broke off negotiations and amped up US military operations against the Taliban .
So what has changed ?
It ’ s tempting to assume that the strike on Qassem Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban , but that seems a stretch .
If the US had actionable intel on Taliban leadership , we would have used it before now , and certainly after the break in negotiations .
This could be more likely attributed to the Taliban grasping that we ’ re not going to leave without any conditions , and that they ’ re better off agreeing to our short-term demands and playing a long game in Afghanistan instead .
Once the US leaves , we won ’ t be back , at least not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as they leave the US alone , the Taliban can get back to the normal warlord business of Afghanistan once we depart .
Even that kind of peace deal would likely get Trump ’ s approval , mostly for the fact that we ’ re not going to get anything better , even if we stay another twenty years .
It suited everyone ’ s purposes to ignore SIGAR Inspector General John Sopko ’ s scathing report on the “ mendacity ” of the US government across three administrations about the lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but his appearance in Congress on Wednesday reminded everyone that this is an open wound that isn ’ t going to heal : “ There ’ s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue .
.
.
mendacity and hubris , ” John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee .
“ The problem is there is a disincentive , really , to tell the truth .
We have created an incentive to almost require people to lie.
” As an example , Sopko said U.S. officials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Afghan children enrolled in schools — a key marker of progress touted by the Obama administration — even though they “ knew the data was bad.
” He also said U.S. officials falsely claimed major gains in Afghan life expectancy that were statistically impossible to achieve .
… Congress created the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction , known as SIGAR , in 2008 to investigate contractual fraud and waste in the war zone .
Since 2001 , the United States has spent more than $ 132 billion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent , adjusted for inflation , to rebuild Europe after World War II .
The House Foreign Affairs Committee summoned Sopko to testify in response to a series of articles published last month in The Washington Post that revealed how senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war , making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the conflict had become unwinnable .
Trump would benefit in the short run by putting an end to America ’ s longest war .
He might get accused of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the context of a re-election campaign , but it ’ s early enough to where that ’ s not going to be much of an argument .
The timing of such an agreement in the middle of an impeachment trial will raise more eyebrows , but the reporting thus far seems to indicate that the Taliban has initiated the latest progress and made the key concessions to get back to the table , not the US .
It seems doubtful that the Taliban care much about impeachment , unless they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be so keen on an exit ramp .
In the long run , this could play out in any number of ways .
Barack Obama ’ s pullout from Iraq in 2011 to fulfill his election pledge turned into a disaster that produced ISIS and required the return of thousands of American troops .
An American pullout from Afghanistan will almost certainly result in a return of the Taliban to power in Kabul at some point , either by force or by election .
However , the strategic interest for the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in Iraq/Syria , and in the latter we can still help to shape outcomes .
After nearly twenty years in Afghanistan , we ’ ve learned what the British did a century or more ago , and the Soviets just before us — that nation-building there is an exercise in futility .

Has the US reached a peace agreement with the Taliban, or at least made enough progress to plan out a signing ceremony? A cryptic tweet from the Taliban’s spokesperson announced a meeting between top negotiators for both sides “regarding the signing of the agreement and the related ceremony.” That’s the latest hint, although not the first, that the war in Afghanistan may be heading to a conclusion:
Taliban and American negotiators are meeting in Qatar for what a Taliban spokesman called “fruitful discussions” that are expected to continue for “several days.” The two sides “discussed the signing of the agreement and the ceremony for it,” Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen tweeted Friday. It’s unclear what agreement Shaheen is referring to. Neither Shaheen nor the State Department responded to requests for comment.
The tweet follows days of what appear to be rapid developments in the standoff between the the US and the Taliban, with the Kabul government stuck in between. Just hours before Shaheen’s tweet, the Pakistani government announced that the Taliban would agree to a reduction in operations in order to restart the final negotiations for a peace deal:
American and Taliban negotiators appear to be making progress in Qatar, where the two sides are meeting to see about restarting peace negotiations, Pakistan’s foreign minister said Thursday. Shah Mahmood Qureshi said “a good development” occurred Thursday and that the “Taliban have showed their readiness to accept the demand for reduction in violence.” Speaking in a video statement released by the Foreign Ministry, Qureshi added, “I believe that this is a step forward towards the peace agreement.” Separately, the Associated Press reported that Taliban officials said the group gave the U.S. envoy in the talks “a document outlining their offer for a temporary cease-fire in Afghanistan that would last between seven and 10 days.”.
And just a few hours after Shaheen’s tweet, Reuters reported that the Taliban would implement a full cease-fire — and also open talks with the Kabul government, two long-time US demands for a peace agreement:
The Taliban will implement a 10-day ceasefire with U.S. troops, a reduction in violence with Afghan forces and discussions with Afghan government officials if it reaches an agreement with U.S. negotiators in talks in Doha, two sources have said. If an agreement is reached, the move could revive hopes for a long-term solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. Taliban and U.S. negotiation teams met on Wednesday and Thursday to discuss the signing of a peace deal, according to a spokesman for the Taliban office in Doha, Qatar.
In what now looks like a familiar pattern, the US had come close to an agreement with the Taliban in September. The Trump administration had pushed talks in Qatar in order to extricate the US from Afghanistan, a goal that Trump had made part of his 2016 campaign. However, the Taliban didn’t want to commit to negotiations with Kabul and refused to dial down its field operations, and when one of their attacks killed an American, Trump abruptly broke off negotiations and amped up US military operations against the Taliban.
So what has changed? It’s tempting to assume that the strike on Qassem Soleimani might have had an impact on the Taliban, but that seems a stretch. If the US had actionable intel on Taliban leadership, we would have used it before now, and certainly after the break in negotiations. This could be more likely attributed to the Taliban grasping that we’re not going to leave without any conditions, and that they’re better off agreeing to our short-term demands and playing a long game in Afghanistan instead. Once the US leaves, we won’t be back, at least not to save the Kabul government alone. As long as they leave the US alone, the Taliban can get back to the normal warlord business of Afghanistan once we depart.
Even that kind of peace deal would likely get Trump’s approval, mostly for the fact that we’re not going to get anything better, even if we stay another twenty years. It suited everyone’s purposes to ignore SIGAR Inspector General John Sopko’s scathing report on the “mendacity” of the US government across three administrations about the lack of honesty on our progress there, but his appearance in Congress on Wednesday reminded everyone that this is an open wound that isn’t going to heal:
“There’s an odor of mendacity throughout the Afghanistan issue . . . mendacity and hubris,” John F. Sopko said in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “The problem is there is a disincentive, really, to tell the truth. We have created an incentive to almost require people to lie.” As an example, Sopko said U.S. officials have lied in the past about the number of Afghan children enrolled in schools — a key marker of progress touted by the Obama administration — even though they “knew the data was bad.” He also said U.S. officials falsely claimed major gains in Afghan life expectancy that were statistically impossible to achieve. … Congress created the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, known as SIGAR, in 2008 to investigate contractual fraud and waste in the war zone. Since 2001, the United States has spent more than $132 billion to modernize the country — more than it spent, adjusted for inflation, to rebuild Europe after World War II. The House Foreign Affairs Committee summoned Sopko to testify in response to a series of articles published last month in The Washington Post that revealed how senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the conflict had become unwinnable.
Trump would benefit in the short run by putting an end to America’s longest war. He might get accused of a reverse wag-the-dog for getting an exit within the context of a re-election campaign, but it’s early enough to where that’s not going to be much of an argument. The timing of such an agreement in the middle of an impeachment trial will raise more eyebrows, but the reporting thus far seems to indicate that the Taliban has initiated the latest progress and made the key concessions to get back to the table, not the US. It seems doubtful that the Taliban care much about impeachment, unless they’re afraid that a President Mike Pence might not be so keen on an exit ramp.
In the long run, this could play out in any number of ways. Barack Obama’s pullout from Iraq in 2011 to fulfill his election pledge turned into a disaster that produced ISIS and required the return of thousands of American troops. An American pullout from Afghanistan will almost certainly result in a return of the Taliban to power in Kabul at some point, either by force or by election. However, the strategic interest for the US is much less compelling in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq/Syria, and in the latter we can still help to shape outcomes. After nearly twenty years in Afghanistan, we’ve learned what the British did a century or more ago, and the Soviets just before us — that nation-building there is an exercise in futility.


hotair--2020-01-17--House Republicans to FISA court: When will you penalize attorneys who misled you on Carter Page warr

House Republicans to FISA court: When will you penalize attorneys who misled you on Carter Page warrants?

Almost exactly a month ago , the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) issued a rare public rebuke of the FBI in the wake of the Michael Horowitz report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane .
At the time , Judge Rosemary Collyer demanded a response from the bureau over the way the court had been misled by its agents and attorneys and demanded a sworn written response to explain how the FBI would ensure never to mislead the court on FISA warrant applications again .
Last week , Collyer appointed an amicus curiae to review the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has two leading House Republicans crying foul .
National-security investigative reporter Catherine Herridge , fresh to CBS News after a long gig at Fox , reports that Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have sent a letter demanding an explanation from Collyer why she appointed an Obama-era Department of Justice official who had publicly scoffed at reports of FBI abuse of the FISA system as her analyst .
They also wonder when Collyer plans to get around to sanctioning the officials who lied to the court to get four warrants to surveil Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s presiding judge , James Boasberg , Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows expressed doubts about the court ’ s choice of a former Justice Department official who worked under the Obama administration , charging that David Kris was unlikely to be “ objective — or likely effective ” in changing the process used by the FBI and Justice Department to obtain surveillance warrants .
“ … [ T ] he selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI… ( and ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing electronic surveillance practices , ” they wrote .
Meadows and Jordan , who sit on the House Oversight Committee , continued , “ Please explain with specificity what disciplinary action , if any , the FISC intends to pursue for attorneys who knowingly filed false or misleading information with the FISC with respect to applications to surveil Carter Page.
” John previously wrote that Kris had publicly criticized the memo written by then-House Intel chair Devin Nunes , which turned out to be all too accurate about the FBI ’ s abuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , is not the only basis for objections from Jordan and Meadows .
Later in 2018 , Kris also bragged that the FISA applications “ already substantially undermine the President ’ s narrative and that of his proxies , ” and that the “ submerged parts ” of the process would make things “ worse , not better ” for Page .
Even after Horowitz exposed the serial lies and misrepresentations used to secure the warrants , including deliberately omitting the fact that Page was working for US intelligence against the Russians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kris insisted that it was just sloppy practices and not anything malicious .
That hardly seems like a fair and impartial arbiter for reviewing the FBI ’ s response to the court .
In fact , it sounds more like a recipe for allowing the FBI to conduct its FISA business in exactly the same way , as long as it doesn ’ t blow up in the judges ’ faces the way it did with the Carter Page warrants .
Jordan and Meadows agree , and they want Collyer to start providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her role in dealing with the FBI ’ s misconduct : Jordan and Meadows don ’ t have much juice in pursuing this , except through public pressure .
However , Senate Republicans have a majority and Lindsey Graham ’ s certainly expressed interest in pursuing these same questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee .
When the upper chamber is done with the impeachment trial , Graham might well decide to start calling FISC jurists to testify to some of these same questions , and might take a very close look at Collyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deal with the bureau ’ s worst scandal in counterintelligence since the failure to stop 9/11 .
The lack of any disciplinary activity so far from that isn ’ t going to build confidence in Collyer or the FISA court , either .
Here ’ s the full letter from Jordan and Meadows , via CBS News and Scribd .
Letter from Jim Jordan and … by CBS News Politics on Scribd

Almost exactly a month ago, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) issued a rare public rebuke of the FBI in the wake of the Michael Horowitz report on Operation Crossfire Hurricane. At the time, Judge Rosemary Collyer demanded a response from the bureau over the way the court had been misled by its agents and attorneys and demanded a sworn written response to explain how the FBI would ensure never to mislead the court on FISA warrant applications again. Last week, Collyer appointed an amicus curiae to review the FBI’s submission — and that appointment has two leading House Republicans crying foul.
National-security investigative reporter Catherine Herridge, fresh to CBS News after a long gig at Fox, reports that Reps. Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have sent a letter demanding an explanation from Collyer why she appointed an Obama-era Department of Justice official who had publicly scoffed at reports of FBI abuse of the FISA system as her analyst. They also wonder when Collyer plans to get around to sanctioning the officials who lied to the court to get four warrants to surveil Carter Page:
Writing to the court’s presiding judge, James Boasberg, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows expressed doubts about the court’s choice of a former Justice Department official who worked under the Obama administration, charging that David Kris was unlikely to be “objective — or likely effective” in changing the process used by the FBI and Justice Department to obtain surveillance warrants. “…[T]he selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI… (and) has frequently defended the FBI’s existing electronic surveillance practices,” they wrote. Meadows and Jordan, who sit on the House Oversight Committee, continued, “Please explain with specificity what disciplinary action, if any, the FISC intends to pursue for attorneys who knowingly filed false or misleading information with the FISC with respect to applications to surveil Carter Page.”
John previously wrote that Kris had publicly criticized the memo written by then-House Intel chair Devin Nunes, which turned out to be all too accurate about the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process. That, however, is not the only basis for objections from Jordan and Meadows. Later in 2018, Kris also bragged that the FISA applications “already substantially undermine the President’s narrative and that of his proxies,” and that the “submerged parts” of the process would make things “worse, not better” for Page. Even after Horowitz exposed the serial lies and misrepresentations used to secure the warrants, including deliberately omitting the fact that Page was working for US intelligence against the Russians and not the other way around, Kris insisted that it was just sloppy practices and not anything malicious.
That hardly seems like a fair and impartial arbiter for reviewing the FBI’s response to the court. In fact, it sounds more like a recipe for allowing the FBI to conduct its FISA business in exactly the same way, as long as it doesn’t blow up in the judges’ faces the way it did with the Carter Page warrants. Jordan and Meadows agree, and they want Collyer to start providing some answers of her own, including her role in dealing with the FBI’s misconduct:
Jordan and Meadows don’t have much juice in pursuing this, except through public pressure. However, Senate Republicans have a majority and Lindsey Graham’s certainly expressed interest in pursuing these same questions at the Senate Judiciary Committee. When the upper chamber is done with the impeachment trial, Graham might well decide to start calling FISC jurists to testify to some of these same questions, and might take a very close look at Collyer’s appointment of an FBI apologist to deal with the bureau’s worst scandal in counterintelligence since the failure to stop 9/11. The lack of any disciplinary activity so far from that isn’t going to build confidence in Collyer or the FISA court, either.
Here’s the full letter from Jordan and Meadows, via CBS News and Scribd.
Letter from Jim Jordan and … by CBS News Politics on Scribd


hotair--2020-01-17--Latest liberal "solution." Start slashing police budgets

Among the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls , one topic that frequently comes up for debate is the rather gauzy issue generally described as criminal justice reform .
This subject takes a number of forms , often involving calls for decriminalization of various types of crimes and ending “ mass incarceration , ” which is frequently described in terms of racist policies .
But at the Washington Post this week , a new voice has piped up with a “ bolder ” proposal to supposedly fix the criminal justice system .
Philip V. McHarris is a PhD candidate in Sociology and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In his WaPo op-ed , McHarriss explains how the real problem with law enforcement is that there are just too many darned police in this country .
And if the Democrats really want to get serious about criminal justice reform , they need to be pushing to cut police budgets all across the nation , particularly in our larger cities , so there won ’ t be so many cops out there arresting people .
The funds should instead be channeled toward social assistance programs designed to lift people out of poverty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 100 billion dollars on policing each year .
Cities often spend anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of their total budgets toward policing , with some exceeding a billion dollars .
There are more than 12,300 local police departments in the United States and 468,000 sworn , full-time officers with arresting power , a 34 percent increase since 1987 .
And while politicians have often painted the rise in police officers as improving public safety , the truth is that the escalation of mass policing — police personnel , resources and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arrest and soaring rates of police violence in black communities , as well as other communities of color .
While Democratic presidential candidates today push for criminal justice reform , they must recognize that their party contributed significantly to this problem in a rush to attract political support through law-and-order platforms .
There are a couple of common , liberal tropes in this column that largely fail to hold water and shouldn ’ t simply be ignored .
The biggest one is the common perception on the left that the act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a disproportionate impact on communities of color .
While a look at the raw numbers in major urban areas would tend to make you think this is true ( assuming you don ’ t think about it for very long ) , the underlying facts tell a different story .
Simply saying that ( primarily ) black and Latino suspects are arrested and/or convicted at a higher per capita rate than white suspects in large cities ignores the reality of why certain areas have more criminal activity to begin with .
Saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , in itself , just as racist as attempting to claim that black and Latino people are more likely to be criminals because of their race .
The reality is that pervasive , generational and entrenched conditions of poverty produce communities where education suffers , employment opportunities are fewer and drug and alcohol abuse issues flourish .
It ’ s a vicious cycle that leads to a higher likelihood of criminal activity increasing .
McHarriss is correct that these low-income urban centers are largely populated by minorities as a result of generations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also find any number of more rural areas , such as we especially see in some southern states , where predominantly white communities have been gutted by the epidemic of meth production and addiction .
In those areas , the same types of economic hardship , depression and criminal activity take root and most of the people who wind up in trouble with the cops are white .
The reality is that , with the exception of a relative handful of racist bad apples , the police don ’ t go around hunting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the median income of their zip code .
The cops enforce the law where the law is being broken .
And unfortunately , for the aforementioned reasons , that does frequently wind up being low-income communities of color in some cities with persistent gang problems .
As far as this proposed “ solution ” goes , what Mr. McHarris apparently fails to realize is that there have already been cities engaging in these sorts of experiments and the results have been uniformly bad .
When urban police departments either cut back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cops to do “ less policing , ” the results are both tragic and predictable .
When Baltimore began going after their own cops following the Freddie Gray riots of 2015 , violent crime and gang activity spiked and continues to increase to this day .
Administrative changes in Philadelphia following the election of their new mayor in 2016 have been following by a nearly 50 % increase in homicides over the past few years .
New York City has managed to avoid a major increase in its body count thus far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo , including the recent “ bail reform ” laws have led to a revolving door of arrests of repeat offenders and the local police union describing 2020 as “ the year of the perp.
” And it ’ s not just violent crime that ’ s affected by these types of “ reforms.
” After California passed Proposition 47 in 2014 , they essentially decriminalized retail theft of goods up to a value of $ 1,000 .
In the next few years that followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shocked ! )
to find that incidents of retail theft soared .
Other examples abound .
The reality is that humanity is not composed purely of saints .
When presented with what appears to be an opportunity or faced with pervasive poverty and economic hardship , there will always be people ( of all races ) who will turn to crime .
And where organized , criminal gangs take root , the problems compound quickly .
While I agree with McHarris that social benefit programs designed to improve the lives of those living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people eventually escape these traps , the criminal element and the danger it poses for everyone concerned can ’ t simply be swept under the rug .
And the answer to that problem is strong , effective law enforcement .
Slashing the budgets of police departments across the country isn ’ t going to produce greater racial equality or improve the lives and safety of city dwellers .
It ’ s going to produce more crime , just as we ’ ve already seen from some of these failed experiments .

Among the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls, one topic that frequently comes up for debate is the rather gauzy issue generally described as criminal justice reform. This subject takes a number of forms, often involving calls for decriminalization of various types of crimes and ending “mass incarceration,” which is frequently described in terms of racist policies. But at the Washington Post this week, a new voice has piped up with a “bolder” proposal to supposedly fix the criminal justice system.
Philip V. McHarris is a PhD candidate in Sociology and African American Studies at Yale University. In his WaPo op-ed, McHarriss explains how the real problem with law enforcement is that there are just too many darned police in this country. And if the Democrats really want to get serious about criminal justice reform, they need to be pushing to cut police budgets all across the nation, particularly in our larger cities, so there won’t be so many cops out there arresting people. The funds should instead be channeled toward social assistance programs designed to lift people out of poverty.
Today, the United States spends more than $100 billion dollars on policing each year. Cities often spend anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of their total budgets toward policing, with some exceeding a billion dollars. There are more than 12,300 local police departments in the United States and 468,000 sworn, full-time officers with arresting power, a 34 percent increase since 1987. And while politicians have often painted the rise in police officers as improving public safety, the truth is that the escalation of mass policing — police personnel, resources and police contact — has produced persistent harassment, arrest and soaring rates of police violence in black communities, as well as other communities of color. While Democratic presidential candidates today push for criminal justice reform, they must recognize that their party contributed significantly to this problem in a rush to attract political support through law-and-order platforms.
There are a couple of common, liberal tropes in this column that largely fail to hold water and shouldn’t simply be ignored. The biggest one is the common perception on the left that the act of enforcing the law is racist because it has a disproportionate impact on communities of color. While a look at the raw numbers in major urban areas would tend to make you think this is true (assuming you don’t think about it for very long), the underlying facts tell a different story.
Simply saying that (primarily) black and Latino suspects are arrested and/or convicted at a higher per capita rate than white suspects in large cities ignores the reality of why certain areas have more criminal activity to begin with. Saying that the police target minorities for arrests is, in itself, just as racist as attempting to claim that black and Latino people are more likely to be criminals because of their race.
The reality is that pervasive, generational and entrenched conditions of poverty produce communities where education suffers, employment opportunities are fewer and drug and alcohol abuse issues flourish. It’s a vicious cycle that leads to a higher likelihood of criminal activity increasing. McHarriss is correct that these low-income urban centers are largely populated by minorities as a result of generations of racial inequity. But we can also find any number of more rural areas, such as we especially see in some southern states, where predominantly white communities have been gutted by the epidemic of meth production and addiction. In those areas, the same types of economic hardship, depression and criminal activity take root and most of the people who wind up in trouble with the cops are white.
The reality is that, with the exception of a relative handful of racist bad apples, the police don’t go around hunting for suspects based on their skin color or the median income of their zip code. The cops enforce the law where the law is being broken. And unfortunately, for the aforementioned reasons, that does frequently wind up being low-income communities of color in some cities with persistent gang problems.
As far as this proposed “solution” goes, what Mr. McHarris apparently fails to realize is that there have already been cities engaging in these sorts of experiments and the results have been uniformly bad. When urban police departments either cut back on their budgets and staffing or simply push the cops to do “less policing,” the results are both tragic and predictable. When Baltimore began going after their own cops following the Freddie Gray riots of 2015, violent crime and gang activity spiked and continues to increase to this day.
Administrative changes in Philadelphia following the election of their new mayor in 2016 have been following by a nearly 50% increase in homicides over the past few years. New York City has managed to avoid a major increase in its body count thus far, but various criminal justice reform efforts under Mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo, including the recent “bail reform” laws have led to a revolving door of arrests of repeat offenders and the local police union describing 2020 as “the year of the perp.”
And it’s not just violent crime that’s affected by these types of “reforms.” After California passed Proposition 47 in 2014, they essentially decriminalized retail theft of goods up to a value of $1,000. In the next few years that followed, they seemed to be shocked (shocked!) to find that incidents of retail theft soared. Other examples abound.
The reality is that humanity is not composed purely of saints. When presented with what appears to be an opportunity or faced with pervasive poverty and economic hardship, there will always be people (of all races) who will turn to crime. And where organized, criminal gangs take root, the problems compound quickly. While I agree with McHarris that social benefit programs designed to improve the lives of those living in poverty can and do help some people eventually escape these traps, the criminal element and the danger it poses for everyone concerned can’t simply be swept under the rug. And the answer to that problem is strong, effective law enforcement. Slashing the budgets of police departments across the country isn’t going to produce greater racial equality or improve the lives and safety of city dwellers. It’s going to produce more crime, just as we’ve already seen from some of these failed experiments.


hotair--2020-01-16--Here we go again: D.C. firefighters made a hand gesture, outrage ensues

You would think that the perpetually outraged would have learned by now , but no .
There is a new story out about a photograph of Washington DC Fire Department/EMS recruits that is now under investigation .
The investigation is over a hand gesture made by a few of the recruits when the picture was taken – stop me if you ’ ve heard this story before .
The District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services opened an investigation into an ‘ ok ’ hand gesture that shows up in the photograph .
Here we go again .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the circle game .
You may remember that less than a month ago , West Point cadets at the Army-Navy football game were investigated for the same thing .
Social media reactions included the accusation that the cadets were intentionally flashing a hand gesture made by white supremacists .
The D.C. Fire Department/EMS photograph is of a graduating recruit class from back in March of 2019 .
It is unclear why an investigation has been opened now and not at the time of the photograph .
“ The department has immediately initiated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which may include interviews with everyone pictured in the photograph , ” D.C. Fire and EMS chief communications officer Doug Buchanan said , according to WUAS9 .
The local affiliate added that a viewer , who the network didn ’ t name , sent them the following message regarding the photo : “ As a district citizen , I don ’ t feel comfortable with DC fire recruits taking pictures while showing the white power symbol , ” the message reportedly read .
“ They all just saw the fall back from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they still decide to follow with the same racial antics .
Whoever took this picture and posted it online , should be looked at as well.
” Perhaps the uncomfortable complainant is just now seeing the photo on social media , as the agency says it was made aware of it Wednesday .
Maybe the photo was only recently uploaded to someone ’ s Facebook page .
One little inconvenient fact of the story , as pointed out in the MRC story , is that the timing is off if the concern is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The cadets ’ story , as I mentioned , took place in December , well after the recruits ’ photograph last March .
The whole dumb white nationalist narrative about the ‘ ok ’ gesture was started on an alt-right website in 2017 , according to the Anti-Defamation League .
The Anti-Defamation League says on its website the “ OK ” hand gesture acquired a different significance in 2017 because of a hoax perpetuated on the online message board 4chan .
The idea was to troll liberals by taking an innocent symbol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic with right-leaning individuals and , ironically , some white supremacists , the ADL said .
It ’ s silly , of course , to assign guilt to everyone making the gesture .
The ‘ ok ’ gesture usually just means ok .
Sometimes a circle is just a circle , you know .
The 4chan folks aren ’ t mainstream America .
Why would anyone assume that first responders were casually flashing white power signs ?
The same was true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and women training to become leaders in the military .
It ’ s just all too much .
One reporter tweeted that he was told the recruits played the circle game , it wasn ’ t a racial gesture .
I don ’ t think it is going out on a limb to say that I feel sure the recruits will be in the clear when the investigation is completed .

You would think that the perpetually outraged would have learned by now, but no. There is a new story out about a photograph of Washington DC Fire Department/EMS recruits that is now under investigation. The investigation is over a hand gesture made by a few of the recruits when the picture was taken – stop me if you’ve heard this story before.
The District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services opened an investigation into an ‘ok’ hand gesture that shows up in the photograph. Here we go again. The hand gesture is used in a game called the circle game. You may remember that less than a month ago, West Point cadets at the Army-Navy football game were investigated for the same thing. Social media reactions included the accusation that the cadets were intentionally flashing a hand gesture made by white supremacists.
The D.C. Fire Department/EMS photograph is of a graduating recruit class from back in March of 2019.
D.C. Fire Department recruits might be making "white power" hand gesture in photo https://t.co/cSYPzwmUZ1 pic.twitter.com/3iw52wD9iB — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 16, 2020
It is unclear why an investigation has been opened now and not at the time of the photograph.
“The department has immediately initiated an interview review of the photograph, which may include interviews with everyone pictured in the photograph,” D.C. Fire and EMS chief communications officer Doug Buchanan said, according to WUAS9. The local affiliate added that a viewer, who the network didn’t name, sent them the following message regarding the photo: “As a district citizen, I don’t feel comfortable with DC fire recruits taking pictures while showing the white power symbol,” the message reportedly read. “They all just saw the fall back from the Navy midshipmen doing this online, yet they still decide to follow with the same racial antics. Whoever took this picture and posted it online, should be looked at as well.”
Perhaps the uncomfortable complainant is just now seeing the photo on social media, as the agency says it was made aware of it Wednesday. Maybe the photo was only recently uploaded to someone’s Facebook page. One little inconvenient fact of the story, as pointed out in the MRC story, is that the timing is off if the concern is that the recruits are mimicking the cadets. The cadets’ story, as I mentioned, took place in December, well after the recruits’ photograph last March.
The whole dumb white nationalist narrative about the ‘ok’ gesture was started on an alt-right website in 2017, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
The Anti-Defamation League says on its website the “OK” hand gesture acquired a different significance in 2017 because of a hoax perpetuated on the online message board 4chan. The idea was to troll liberals by taking an innocent symbol and making them believe it was racist. The hoax was so successful the symbol became a popular trolling tactic with right-leaning individuals and, ironically, some white supremacists, the ADL said.
It’s silly, of course, to assign guilt to everyone making the gesture. The ‘ok’ gesture usually just means ok. Sometimes a circle is just a circle, you know. The 4chan folks aren’t mainstream America. Why would anyone assume that first responders were casually flashing white power signs? The same was true for the cadets – those young men and women training to become leaders in the military. It’s just all too much.
One reporter tweeted that he was told the recruits played the circle game, it wasn’t a racial gesture.
NEW: Photo of @dcfireems recruits posing w/ hand sign some white supremacists use has led to an investigation. Source close to someone in it tells me it was not meant to be racist & that the group often played the circle or gotcha game. That was happening just before pic. @fox5dc pic.twitter.com/gHjPYua3Fy — Evan Lambert (@EvanLambertTV) January 15, 2020
I don’t think it is going out on a limb to say that I feel sure the recruits will be in the clear when the investigation is completed.


hotair--2020-01-16--Susan Collins ups the ante: Yes, it's "likely" that I'll vote to call witnesses

A fateful step .
Having raised the hopes of anti-Trumpers back home in Maine this way , she ’ ll annoy them even more now if she changes her mind and votes not to call anyone .
She has to follow through .
Trump fans will be angry , of course , but she has two trump cards ( no pun intended ) she ’ ll play for them .
One is that she ’ ll vote to let the president call a witness or two as well .
And the second is that she will , in the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trying to walk a tightrope here .
Agreeing in principle to call witnesses will steady her balance a little on her left side .
And hey — don ’ t forget that Collins alone isn ’ t enough for Schumer to successfully call anyone .
Like I said elsewhere today , if Cocaine Mitch can hold 51 Republicans together on witnesses then he can let Collins and Cory Gardner vote however they want and it won ’ t matter a lick .
That ’ s probably how Collins prefers it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call Bolton and that vote fails , 51/49 , she gets the best of both worlds .
She can tell Democrats in Maine that she did her best to produce all of the available evidence and , thanks to her caucus , she ’ ll be spared from having to actually reckon with that evidence in her verdict .
4 .
For this trial , as was done in 1999 , both sides should have the opportunity to state their case and the Senators should have the opportunity to pose questions .
Then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether to subpoena witnesses and documents .
5 .
While I need to hear the case argued and the questions answered , I tend to believe having additional information would be helpful .
It is likely that I would support a motion to call witnesses at that point in the trial just as I did in 1999… 7 .
I have not made a decision on any particular witnesses .
When we reach the appropriate point in the trial , I would like to hear from both sides about which witnesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call .
I think the double whammy of John Bolton declaring he ’ d testify if called and Lev Parnas chattering on TV about how guilty Trump is left her hands tied .
She ’ s willing to acquit Trump no matter what .
She ’ s not willing to make it easy for Democrats to accuse her of participating in a cover-up .
Bear in mind , Collins was outraised by her Democratic challenger last summer ( the last quarter for which we currently have data ) and a new survey from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 42/52 .
That 52 percent is the highest disapproval rating of anyone in the Senate .
She ’ s 100 out of 100 .
And Maine is one of the few purple states in 2016 that broke for Hillary over Trump , with Clinton winning by three points .
Collins is in real trouble next year .
If you want that state to stay red , which in this case will ultimately be the difference between a vote to acquit Trump and a vote to convict , you need to work with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the show she feels she needs to put on to maximize her odds of reelection .
In the end she ’ ll vote with the president , not just on the final verdict but probably on calling Hunter Biden too .
Here ’ s two clips for you from the 1999 impeachment trial that have been circulating the past few days and will doubtless circulate widely on Maine television if she ends up voting against calling witnesses .
She ’ s in a jam .

A fateful step. Having raised the hopes of anti-Trumpers back home in Maine this way, she’ll annoy them even more now if she changes her mind and votes not to call anyone. She has to follow through.
Trump fans will be angry, of course, but she has two trump cards (no pun intended) she’ll play for them. One is that she’ll vote to let the president call a witness or two as well. And the second is that she will, in the end, vote to acquit him. She’s trying to walk a tightrope here. Agreeing in principle to call witnesses will steady her balance a little on her left side.
And hey — don’t forget that Collins alone isn’t enough for Schumer to successfully call anyone. Like I said elsewhere today, if Cocaine Mitch can hold 51 Republicans together on witnesses then he can let Collins and Cory Gardner vote however they want and it won’t matter a lick. That’s probably how Collins prefers it, in fact. If she votes to call Bolton and that vote fails, 51/49, she gets the best of both worlds. She can tell Democrats in Maine that she did her best to produce all of the available evidence and, thanks to her caucus, she’ll be spared from having to actually reckon with that evidence in her verdict.
4. For this trial, as was done in 1999, both sides should have the opportunity to state their case and the Senators should have the opportunity to pose questions. Then, the Senate should have an up-or-down-vote on whether to subpoena witnesses and documents. 5. While I need to hear the case argued and the questions answered, I tend to believe having additional information would be helpful. It is likely that I would support a motion to call witnesses at that point in the trial just as I did in 1999… 7. I have not made a decision on any particular witnesses. When we reach the appropriate point in the trial, I would like to hear from both sides about which witnesses, if any, they would like to call.
I think the double whammy of John Bolton declaring he’d testify if called and Lev Parnas chattering on TV about how guilty Trump is left her hands tied. She’s willing to acquit Trump no matter what. She’s not willing to make it easy for Democrats to accuse her of participating in a cover-up. Bear in mind, Collins was outraised by her Democratic challenger last summer (the last quarter for which we currently have data) and a new survey from Morning Consult finds her job approval at 42/52. That 52 percent is the highest disapproval rating of anyone in the Senate. She’s 100 out of 100. And Maine is one of the few purple states in 2016 that broke for Hillary over Trump, with Clinton winning by three points. Collins is in real trouble next year.
If you want that state to stay red, which in this case will ultimately be the difference between a vote to acquit Trump and a vote to convict, you need to work with her a little. Let her put on the show she feels she needs to put on to maximize her odds of reelection. In the end she’ll vote with the president, not just on the final verdict but probably on calling Hunter Biden too.
Here’s two clips for you from the 1999 impeachment trial that have been circulating the past few days and will doubtless circulate widely on Maine television if she ends up voting against calling witnesses. She’s in a jam.
“I need witnesses and further evidence to guide me to the right destination, to get to the truth.” @SenatorCollins pic.twitter.com/VvRRL5OQea — Windsor Mann (@WindsorMann) January 15, 2020