hotair--2020-01-16--Progressive groups beg Sanders, Warren to show unity

After the post-debate blow up between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders there were two different reactions .
Some excitable Bernie Bros. began lashing out with hashtags like # NeverWarren and # LyingLiz to vent their fury .
Here are a couple of examples I noticed yesterday : But many of the people using the # NeverWarren hashtag were counseling the online combatants to settle down and focus on winning the White House instead of escalating the intramural battle : It ’ s a sign of how concerned many progressive were about the schism that a coalition of progressive groups has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things get worse : Leading progressive groups are issuing a call for unity as the public rift between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren widens ahead of the first round of Democratic presidential primary voting .
Eighteen days out from the Iowa caucuses , 18 influential organizations with ties to both candidates — and strong stakes in the wider movement — are launching a campaign to unite the Democratic left and push voters to act strategically on caucus night by not leaving their sites “ without casting their final vote for one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … Democracy for America , which stepped up almost immediately following reports of disquiet between the two campaigns , issued a warning along with its commitment .
“ When progressives fight each other , the establishment wins , ” Charles Chamberlain , the group ’ s chair , said in a statement .
“ We saw it in 2004 when progressives took each other out and John Kerry slipped through to win Iowa and then went on to lose in November to a very unpopular Republican incumbent.
” Other groups in the coalition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , Our Revolution ( Sanders ) , Justice Democrats , and the Sunrise Movement ( Sanders ) .
It ’ s a smart move to tone this down before one candidate or the other draws some additional blood , but will it work ?
The problem is that Warren and Sanders are still part of a primary contest in which they have to compete to win .
Sanders has been leading Warren in polls , so he can probably afford to play nice and hope his momentum continues to carry him forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a case that she ’ s the better choice and she can ’ t do that if she can ’ t say anything negative about Bernie .
Also , if you look at Warren ’ s reaction after the debate , she refused to shake Sanders hand when it was offered .
I ’ ve already expressed my skepticism that she is telling the truth about what was said at the private meeting , but clearly she believes her version of events .
Isn ’ t telling one of two women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the man who told her she can ’ t win because she ’ s a woman sort of off-brand for progressives ?
Wouldn ’ t her silence equal complicity with Bernie ’ s behavior and if not , why not ?
Remember when “ Nevertheless , she persisted ” became a feminist mantra because Warren refused to be stopped by Mitch McConnell ?
In that case her persistence in pressing her point over objections was cause for celebration .
Now it seems the left would prefer if she would sit down and @ @ @

After the post-debate blow up between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders there were two different reactions. Some excitable Bernie Bros. began lashing out with hashtags like #NeverWarren and #LyingLiz to vent their fury. Here are a couple of examples I noticed yesterday:
I want to apologize to everyone who I told that Warren was the “other progressive” or an “ally” etc. I was so wrong. The great beneficiary of her vicious attack has been the corporate establishment and their puppet Joe Biden. #NeverWarren — (@SocialistBoomer) January 15, 2020
Elizabeth Warren can’t credibly claim to be a “unifying” candidate after alienating the left with a dirty trick worthy of Karl Rove. She threw a grenade at Bernie & set our movement on fire. All for some praise from CNN & Van Jones. #NeverWarren #LyingLiz — LeftOfTheDial (@EricShapiro3) January 15, 2020
But many of the people using the #NeverWarren hashtag were counseling the online combatants to settle down and focus on winning the White House instead of escalating the intramural battle:
Tweeting #NeverWarren does not help @BernieSanders. What helps is door knocking and phonebanking. We have to work with Warren’s delegates to win the nomination. Stop letting your feelings dictate a winning strategy instead of the organizing. — Moumita🌹#nowaroniran (@disruptionary) January 15, 2020
Rather than #NeverWarren, I’m voting blue no matter who. I hate seeing this Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren drama. The CNN moderators and producers wanted to stir things up again because they care more about ratings than democracy. I love Sanders and I love Warren. Enough. — Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) January 15, 2020
It’s a sign of how concerned many progressive were about the schism that a coalition of progressive groups has already formed to call for unity before things get worse:
Leading progressive groups are issuing a call for unity as the public rift between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren widens ahead of the first round of Democratic presidential primary voting. Eighteen days out from the Iowa caucuses, 18 influential organizations with ties to both candidates — and strong stakes in the wider movement — are launching a campaign to unite the Democratic left and push voters to act strategically on caucus night by not leaving their sites “without casting their final vote for one of the top two progressives in the race.”… Democracy for America, which stepped up almost immediately following reports of disquiet between the two campaigns, issued a warning along with its commitment. “When progressives fight each other, the establishment wins,” Charles Chamberlain, the group’s chair, said in a statement. “We saw it in 2004 when progressives took each other out and John Kerry slipped through to win Iowa and then went on to lose in November to a very unpopular Republican incumbent.”
Other groups in the coalition include the Working Families Party (Warren), Our Revolution (Sanders), Justice Democrats, and the Sunrise Movement (Sanders).
It’s a smart move to tone this down before one candidate or the other draws some additional blood, but will it work? The problem is that Warren and Sanders are still part of a primary contest in which they have to compete to win. Sanders has been leading Warren in polls, so he can probably afford to play nice and hope his momentum continues to carry him forward. Warren on the other hand needs to make a case that she’s the better choice and she can’t do that if she can’t say anything negative about Bernie.
Also, if you look at Warren’s reaction after the debate, she refused to shake Sanders hand when it was offered. I’ve already expressed my skepticism that she is telling the truth about what was said at the private meeting, but clearly she believes her version of events. Isn’t telling one of two women left in the race to make nice with the man who told her she can’t win because she’s a woman sort of off-brand for progressives? Wouldn’t her silence equal complicity with Bernie’s behavior and if not, why not?
Remember when “Nevertheless, she persisted” became a feminist mantra because Warren refused to be stopped by Mitch McConnell? In that case her persistence in pressing her point over objections was cause for celebration. Now it seems the left would prefer if she would sit down and shut up.


hotair--2020-01-16--Today's big question: Who was Parnas working for in targeting Yovanovitch?

Is this a cui bono question , or maybe more of a cui non bono question ?
Lev Parnas appeared last night on MSNBC in his first major interview , telling Rachel Maddow that his efforts to get Marie Yovanovitch removed as US ambassador to Ukraine in 2019 had everything to do with Joe Biden and Donald Trump .
“ Do you believe that part of the motivation to get rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch , ” Maddow asks Parnas , “ was she was in the way of this effort to get the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only motivation , ” Parnas replies .
“ There was no other motivation.
” That doesn ’ t quite add up , Daily Caller reporter Chuck Ross pointed out immediately afterward .
For one thing , the pending indictment against Parnas put his efforts against Yovanovitch at least a year earlier , and on behalf of a Ukrainian official ( via Twitchy ) : The indictment has been a public record for three months , and on this point is crystal clear .
The theory of the crime allegedly committed by Parnas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money and passed it off as domestic contributions to benefit a “ then-sitting U.S.
Congressman ” in the spring of 2018 .
The entire point of this operation was an effort by one or more Ukrainian officials to get this congressman to urge Trump to recall Yovanovitch , and that effort had nothing to do with the Bidens : Furthermore , last November , Parnas himself put the effort in April 2018 rather than spring of 2019 .
At a super-PAC event , Parnas and Fruman told Trump that Yovanovitch was bad news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( also via Chuck Ross ) : One of the men , Lev Parnas , has described to associates that he and his business partner , Igor Fruman , told Trump at the dinner that they thought the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was unfriendly to the president and his interests .
According to Parnas , the president reacted strongly to the news : Trump immediately suggested that then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch , who had been in the Foreign Service for 32 years and served under Democratic and Republican presidents , should be fired , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s very curious that Maddow didn ’ t ask about this indictment or Parnas ’ own previous account when Parnas claimed that the Biden probe was the “ only motivation.
” The Department of Justice never alleges that this had anything to do with an investigation of any other US person , but only intended for the removal of Yovanovitch ( unnamed ) for the unknown purposes of one or more officials in the Ukrainian government — at the time , the government of Petro Poroshenko .
Both the timing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to corroborate that point far more than they do Parnas ’ later claim that this had to do with Trump ’ s 2019 interest in getting Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue a Biden probe .
A better question might have been which Ukrainian official wanted Yovanovitch out , and why ?
That could be one of the purposes of a new investigation of Parnas in Ukraine , although they ’ re also interested in what happened in 2019 too : Ukrainian authorities said Thursday they had opened a criminal investigation into whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yovanovitch was under surveillance by associates of Rudy Giuliani while in Kyiv last spring .
Officials from Ukraine ’ s interior ministry announced the investigation in a televised briefing , citing a trove of documents released by House Democrats on Tuesday that included several cryptic WhatsApp messages between Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde that discussed monitoring Yovanovitch ’ s physical movements and electronic devices .
“ Ukraine ’ s position is to not interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States , ” an interior ministry official said .
“ However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible violation of the legislation of Ukraine and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , which protects the rights of a diplomat on the territory of another country .
“ Ukraine can not ignore such illegal activities on its territory.
” It ’ s worth noting that these are not mutually exclusive conclusions .
Parnas might have decided by 2019 that he was more interested in the Biden angle .
Either that , or having had no luck with the attempts to get a congressman to push Yovanovitch out , Parnas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angle was a lot more promising .
That ’ s one reason why sending Giuliani to Ukraine on that kind of mission was not a particularly good idea , and largely unnecessary since the Robert Mueller report turned up nothing on the Russia-collusion hypothesis .
Giuliani apparently stumbled into a hornet ’ s nest of corrupt actors and wound up linking himself to Parnas and Fruman without doing enough due diligence to comprehend the risk involved .
It certainly appears that at some level Giuliani got suckered into a long-standing effort to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her for their own reasons .
However , it is clear that the DoJ has established that Parnas had “ other motivations ” for seeking Yovanovitch ’ s ouster well before the Biden angle emerged .
Parnas lied in this claim , and either Maddow didn ’ t know enough about Parnas to realize it … or she didn ’ t care , as long as it made Trump look bad .

Is this a cui bono question, or maybe more of a cui non bono question? Lev Parnas appeared last night on MSNBC in his first major interview, telling Rachel Maddow that his efforts to get Marie Yovanovitch removed as US ambassador to Ukraine in 2019 had everything to do with Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
“Do you believe that part of the motivation to get rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch,” Maddow asks Parnas, “was she was in the way of this effort to get the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden?”
“That was the only motivation,” Parnas replies. “There was no other motivation.”
That doesn’t quite add up, Daily Caller reporter Chuck Ross pointed out immediately afterward. For one thing, the pending indictment against Parnas put his efforts against Yovanovitch at least a year earlier, and on behalf of a Ukrainian official (via Twitchy):
Lev Parnas claims the effort to get rid of Yovanovitch was solely to get her out of the way so investigations of Biden could be opened. Except Parnas was pushing for Yovanovitch's removal way back in May 2018, and his indictment says he did it at direction of Ukrainian official pic.twitter.com/3RHlLrwCnk — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 16, 2020
The indictment has been a public record for three months, and on this point is crystal clear. The theory of the crime allegedly committed by Parnas and Fruman is that they took Ukrainian money and passed it off as domestic contributions to benefit a “then-sitting U.S. Congressman” in the spring of 2018. The entire point of this operation was an effort by one or more Ukrainian officials to get this congressman to urge Trump to recall Yovanovitch, and that effort had nothing to do with the Bidens:
Furthermore, last November, Parnas himself put the effort in April 2018 rather than spring of 2019. At a super-PAC event, Parnas and Fruman told Trump that Yovanovitch was bad news, without mentioning anything about the Bidens (also via Chuck Ross):
One of the men, Lev Parnas, has described to associates that he and his business partner, Igor Fruman, told Trump at the dinner that they thought the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was unfriendly to the president and his interests. According to Parnas, the president reacted strongly to the news: Trump immediately suggested that then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had been in the Foreign Service for 32 years and served under Democratic and Republican presidents, should be fired, people familiar with his account said.
It’s very curious that Maddow didn’t ask about this indictment or Parnas’ own previous account when Parnas claimed that the Biden probe was the “only motivation.” The Department of Justice never alleges that this had anything to do with an investigation of any other US person, but only intended for the removal of Yovanovitch (unnamed) for the unknown purposes of one or more officials in the Ukrainian government — at the time, the government of Petro Poroshenko. Both the timing and the specifics of Parnas’ straw-man actions tend to corroborate that point far more than they do Parnas’ later claim that this had to do with Trump’s 2019 interest in getting Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue a Biden probe.
A better question might have been which Ukrainian official wanted Yovanovitch out, and why? That could be one of the purposes of a new investigation of Parnas in Ukraine, although they’re also interested in what happened in 2019 too:
Ukrainian authorities said Thursday they had opened a criminal investigation into whether the former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch was under surveillance by associates of Rudy Giuliani while in Kyiv last spring. Officials from Ukraine’s interior ministry announced the investigation in a televised briefing, citing a trove of documents released by House Democrats on Tuesday that included several cryptic WhatsApp messages between Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde that discussed monitoring Yovanovitch’s physical movements and electronic devices. “Ukraine’s position is to not interfere in the domestic affairs of the United States,” an interior ministry official said. “However, the published records contain the fact of a possible violation of the legislation of Ukraine and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects the rights of a diplomat on the territory of another country. “Ukraine cannot ignore such illegal activities on its territory.”
It’s worth noting that these are not mutually exclusive conclusions. Parnas might have decided by 2019 that he was more interested in the Biden angle. Either that, or having had no luck with the attempts to get a congressman to push Yovanovitch out, Parnas’ Ukrainian patron might have thought the Giuliani angle was a lot more promising. That’s one reason why sending Giuliani to Ukraine on that kind of mission was not a particularly good idea, and largely unnecessary since the Robert Mueller report turned up nothing on the Russia-collusion hypothesis. Giuliani apparently stumbled into a hornet’s nest of corrupt actors and wound up linking himself to Parnas and Fruman without doing enough due diligence to comprehend the risk involved. It certainly appears that at some level Giuliani got suckered into a long-standing effort to get rid of Yovanovitch by Ukrainians unhappy with her for their own reasons.
However, it is clear that the DoJ has established that Parnas had “other motivations” for seeking Yovanovitch’s ouster well before the Biden angle emerged. Parnas lied in this claim, and either Maddow didn’t know enough about Parnas to realize it … or she didn’t care, as long as it made Trump look bad.


hotair--2020-01-16--Parnas: Trump knew everything that was going on with Ukraine and it was all about defeating Biden, n

Parnas: Trump knew everything that was going on with Ukraine and it was all about defeating Biden, not corruption

Conveniently , he said exactly what House Democrats and Rachel Maddow were desperate to hear .
Which doesn ’ t mean it ’ s untrue , of course .
Here ’ s the key Q & A from last night ’ s MSNBC interview .
As with Michael Cohen after his break-up with Trump , there ’ s no way to trust that what he ’ s saying is true .
He ’ s too sleazy a character to rely on , and his criminal jeopardy gives him an obvious incentive to ingratiate himself to authorities .
But Jim Geraghty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ If these guys [ Parnas and his crony , Igor Fruman ] are so obviously , glaringly , flashing-red-warning-sign untrustworthy , why did the president trust them ?
” To which I ’ d add : If Parnas ’ s account can be discounted because of bad character , what do we do with the thousands of criminal convictions in America that have been secured with the help of co-conspirators who turned state ’ s evidence ?
What we normally say when the prosecution wants to call a witness whose credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s for the jury to decide whether they ’ re trustworthy .
Take three minutes to watch , then read on : In a way it ’ s beside the point whether Parnas is telling the truth or not .
Trump won ’ t be removed by the Senate no matter what .
The question is how much or how little political pain will be inflicted on Senate Republicans by voting “ not guilty.
” Calling Parnas as a witness at Trump ’ s trial risks significantly increasing that pain if the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credible enough .
Doubtless Susan Collins and Cory Gardner would prefer to avoid that problem by not calling him to begin with .
But how do they do that now , with Parnas all over the media appearing to confirm the Democrats ’ theory of the Ukraine pressure campaign ?
It ’ s John Bolton 2.0 .
Just as Bolton put them in a bind by signaling that he ’ ll testify if called , here ’ s a known associate of the president ’ s lawyer who worked with him on Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s unquestionably a material witness .
If you ’ re Collins and you ’ re laser-focused on showing your voters at home that you ’ re taking the trial seriously , how do you justify not hearing from him ?
Got ta do better than “ Well , House Democrats never called him , ” especially since House Democrats couldn ’ t have called him in November while the hearings were going on .
Parnas wasn ’ t free to turn over evidence to the House until a federal judge gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats should have waited , then ” isn ’ t going to cut it as an excuse for flatly refusing to consider what Parnas has to say .
Collins is damned if she does and damned if she doesn ’ t .
If she votes to call him and he repeats all of this stuff on the stand , voting for acquittal becomes harder to defend .
If she votes not to call him and he ends up blocked from testifying , voting for acquittal looks like it was based on incomplete facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican jurors .
Her best option , I think , is to call him and let Trump ’ s lawyers try to destroy him on cross-examination .
At least one claim he made last night , about the reason Marie Yovanovitch was ousted , is already being challenged , but Ed has a post coming up on that at noon and I don ’ t want to step on it .
Stay tuned .
This answer , given to CNN in a separate interview last night , can also be challenged : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the pressure campaign was designed purely to benefit Trump personally only after the fact , conveniently .
Is that because he was slow on the uptake or because it benefits him now to tell the left whatever it wants to hear in the name of hopefully earning some leniency for himself during his eventual sentencing ?
Either way , it doesn ’ t sound like he heard anything firsthand from Trump about his motives , a key point in GOP attacks on the Democratic case .
A vigorous attack on Parnas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be hard ) gives Collins an opening to say , “ I listened and I just don ’ t think he ’ s credible.
” Refusing to call him in the first place looks dismissive by comparison , the opposite of the image she ’ s trying to project to voters .
Some things he said last night , like the claim that Bill Barr was in on the scheme ( “ Barr had to have known everything ” ) , seem obviously dubious .
Barr hasn ’ t been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reporting on the Ukraine business .
Other claims , like Mike Pence ’ s trip to Ukraine being canceled in order to put more pressure on Zelensky to play ball , are much more believable .
Parnas was also asked about the freaky deaky text exchanges he had with Robert Hyde last March , in which Hyde appeared to be orchestrating surveillance of Yovanovitch in Ukraine .
“ I think he was either drunk or he was trying to make himself bigger than he was , ” Parnas said of Hyde , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take him seriously.
” Ukraine is going to investigate that , but if you ’ re of the belief that Parnas is willing to lie about everything at this point in the name of making Trump and Rudy look bad , it ’ s odd that he wouldn ’ t also seize that opportunity to say , “ Sure , Hyde was stalking Yovanovitch on the president ’ s orders.
” I ’ ll leave you with one more clip .
This also corroborates previous reporting on the Ukraine matter , that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal but not the whole deal .
Really , good relations with the United States writ large were on the line , including an Oval Office photo op for Zelensky with Trump at some point .
That was the point of canceling Pence ’ s trip , to show that the entire relationship was at risk if Zelensky didn ’ t cooperate on Biden and Burisma .
Whether Parnas is corroborating that because he knows it firsthand or because he ’ s molding his story to fit with the reporting , only he @ @

Conveniently, he said exactly what House Democrats and Rachel Maddow were desperate to hear.
Which doesn’t mean it’s untrue, of course.
Here’s the key Q&A from last night’s MSNBC interview. As with Michael Cohen after his break-up with Trump, there’s no way to trust that what he’s saying is true. He’s too sleazy a character to rely on, and his criminal jeopardy gives him an obvious incentive to ingratiate himself to authorities. But Jim Geraghty’s twist on that is compelling: “If these guys [Parnas and his crony, Igor Fruman] are so obviously, glaringly, flashing-red-warning-sign untrustworthy, why did the president trust them?” To which I’d add: If Parnas’s account can be discounted because of bad character, what do we do with the thousands of criminal convictions in America that have been secured with the help of co-conspirators who turned state’s evidence?
What we normally say when the prosecution wants to call a witness whose credibility is easily attacked is that it’s for the jury to decide whether they’re trustworthy. Take three minutes to watch, then read on:
In a way it’s beside the point whether Parnas is telling the truth or not. Trump won’t be removed by the Senate no matter what. The question is how much or how little political pain will be inflicted on Senate Republicans by voting “not guilty.” Calling Parnas as a witness at Trump’s trial risks significantly increasing that pain if the public, the real jury, finds him credible enough. Doubtless Susan Collins and Cory Gardner would prefer to avoid that problem by not calling him to begin with.
But how do they do that now, with Parnas all over the media appearing to confirm the Democrats’ theory of the Ukraine pressure campaign? It’s John Bolton 2.0. Just as Bolton put them in a bind by signaling that he’ll testify if called, here’s a known associate of the president’s lawyer who worked with him on Ukraine corroborating the prosecution’s charges. He’s unquestionably a material witness. If you’re Collins and you’re laser-focused on showing your voters at home that you’re taking the trial seriously, how do you justify not hearing from him? Gotta do better than “Well, House Democrats never called him,” especially since House Democrats couldn’t have called him in November while the hearings were going on. Parnas wasn’t free to turn over evidence to the House until a federal judge gave permission on January 3. Saying “Democrats should have waited, then” isn’t going to cut it as an excuse for flatly refusing to consider what Parnas has to say.
Collins is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. If she votes to call him and he repeats all of this stuff on the stand, voting for acquittal becomes harder to defend. If she votes not to call him and he ends up blocked from testifying, voting for acquittal looks like it was based on incomplete facts, an act of willful blindness by Republican jurors.
Her best option, I think, is to call him and let Trump’s lawyers try to destroy him on cross-examination. At least one claim he made last night, about the reason Marie Yovanovitch was ousted, is already being challenged, but Ed has a post coming up on that at noon and I don’t want to step on it. Stay tuned. This answer, given to CNN in a separate interview last night, can also be challenged:
Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani's associate, said their efforts were "all about 2020." "That was the way everyone viewed it," Parnas added, disputing Trump's claim that the push for investigating the Bidens stemmed from concerns about corruption in Ukraine. https://t.co/xhuMLPQFQM pic.twitter.com/EZGOZMPiIb — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 16, 2020
It sounds like Parnas arrived at the conclusion that the pressure campaign was designed purely to benefit Trump personally only after the fact, conveniently. Is that because he was slow on the uptake or because it benefits him now to tell the left whatever it wants to hear in the name of hopefully earning some leniency for himself during his eventual sentencing? Either way, it doesn’t sound like he heard anything firsthand from Trump about his motives, a key point in GOP attacks on the Democratic case. A vigorous attack on Parnas’s credibility at trial (which won’t be hard) gives Collins an opening to say, “I listened and I just don’t think he’s credible.” Refusing to call him in the first place looks dismissive by comparison, the opposite of the image she’s trying to project to voters.
Some things he said last night, like the claim that Bill Barr was in on the scheme (“Barr had to have known everything”), seem obviously dubious. Barr hasn’t been a key player in any of the months of reporting on the Ukraine business. Other claims, like Mike Pence’s trip to Ukraine being canceled in order to put more pressure on Zelensky to play ball, are much more believable. Parnas was also asked about the freaky deaky text exchanges he had with Robert Hyde last March, in which Hyde appeared to be orchestrating surveillance of Yovanovitch in Ukraine. “I think he was either drunk or he was trying to make himself bigger than he was,” Parnas said of Hyde, adding, “I didn’t take him seriously.” Ukraine is going to investigate that, but if you’re of the belief that Parnas is willing to lie about everything at this point in the name of making Trump and Rudy look bad, it’s odd that he wouldn’t also seize that opportunity to say, “Sure, Hyde was stalking Yovanovitch on the president’s orders.”
I’ll leave you with one more clip. This also corroborates previous reporting on the Ukraine matter, that the military aid was one part of the deal but not the whole deal. Really, good relations with the United States writ large were on the line, including an Oval Office photo op for Zelensky with Trump at some point. That was the point of canceling Pence’s trip, to show that the entire relationship was at risk if Zelensky didn’t cooperate on Biden and Burisma. Whether Parnas is corroborating that because he knows it firsthand or because he’s molding his story to fit with the reporting, only he knows.


hotair--2020-01-17--Jessica Yaniv accuses Post Millennial reporter of sexual assault

A female reporter for the Post Millennial named Amy Eileen Hamm has been accused of sexual assault by Jessica Yaniv : That ’ s quite a striking claim .
What in the world is Yaniv talking about ?
I ’ m going to explain but to do this justice we need to step back a bit and look at what happened at the Canadian courthouse this week .
Monday Jessica Yaniv was appearing at a Canadian courthouse on weapons charges ( she brandished an illegal taser during a YouTube interview last year ) .
A reporter from Rebel Media covering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was promptly accused by Yaniv of taking photographs .
It ’ s illegal to take photographs inside a Canadian courthouse so a group of police asked the reporter to show them the contents of his phone .
There were no photos of Yaniv on the phone but she used the distraction to attempt to slip out of the courthouse .
The reporter followed her outside to ask her questions and she retreated inside the courthouse .
A bit later , when Yaniv was leaving the courthouse for the second time , she became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punching him in the head ( she ’ s definitely punching him in the video but you can ’ t actually see where the blows are landing ) .
Amy Eileen Hamm was also at the courthouse that day to cover Yaniv ’ s appearance on the weapons charge .
Here ’ s her description of what happened Monday : Notorious trans activist Jessica Yaniv appeared in a British Columbia court today where she faced two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon violating the Firearms Act .
During recess , Yaniv falsely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her in the women ’ s washroom .
I entered the woman ’ s washroom , noticed that Yaniv was there , and quickly exited .
Police responded to Yaniv ’ s false claim by searching my phone , only to discover that I had not done what Yaniv had claimed .
He yelled at me that he was going to charge me with “ voyeurism.
” Here ’ s how Hamm described it using a gif on Twitter : So Yaniv saw that someone who was at the courthouse reporting on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She made a false claim she was being photographed by the reporter .
Clearly , this is a gimmick Yaniv used at least twice that day to harass people covering her case .
In both cases , the claims were found to be false .
Somehow the false allegation about photographing her in the bathroom has morphed into the claim of sexual assault .
In response , Hamm once again repeated her story of what happened in the women ’ s washroom : Of course I wasn ’ t there but I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being photographed that day .
I also know she ’ s been found by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to have attempted to make money by threatening a series of minority beauticians against whom she displayed racial bias .
In short , her word can not be trusted .
The reporter who was attacked Monday wrote Wednesday that Yaniv is being investigated and could soon face assault charges .
He also said he plans to file a civil suit against Yaniv , regardless of what happens with the criminal case .

A female reporter for the Post Millennial named Amy Eileen Hamm has been accused of sexual assault by Jessica Yaniv:
https://twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1217665653873594368
https://twitter.com/trustednerd/status/1217939071718215680
That’s quite a striking claim. What in the world is Yaniv talking about? I’m going to explain but to do this justice we need to step back a bit and look at what happened at the Canadian courthouse this week.
Monday Jessica Yaniv was appearing at a Canadian courthouse on weapons charges (she brandished an illegal taser during a YouTube interview last year). A reporter from Rebel Media covering the story went inside the courthouse and was promptly accused by Yaniv of taking photographs. It’s illegal to take photographs inside a Canadian courthouse so a group of police asked the reporter to show them the contents of his phone. There were no photos of Yaniv on the phone but she used the distraction to attempt to slip out of the courthouse.
The reporter followed her outside to ask her questions and she retreated inside the courthouse. A bit later, when Yaniv was leaving the courthouse for the second time, she became enraged and attacked the reporter, allegedly punching him in the head (she’s definitely punching him in the video but you can’t actually see where the blows are landing).
Amy Eileen Hamm was also at the courthouse that day to cover Yaniv’s appearance on the weapons charge. Here’s her description of what happened Monday:
Notorious trans activist Jessica Yaniv appeared in a British Columbia court today where she faced two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon violating the Firearms Act. During recess, Yaniv falsely accused this reporter of taking photographs of her in the women’s washroom. I entered the woman’s washroom, noticed that Yaniv was there, and quickly exited. Police responded to Yaniv’s false claim by searching my phone, only to discover that I had not done what Yaniv had claimed. He yelled at me that he was going to charge me with “voyeurism.”
Here’s how Hamm described it using a gif on Twitter:
Imagine this but 100 times faster leaving the women’s room. pic.twitter.com/4KezsEJa20 — Amy Eileen Hamm (@preta_6) January 14, 2020
So Yaniv saw that someone who was at the courthouse reporting on her case had walked into the bathroom. She made a false claim she was being photographed by the reporter. Clearly, this is a gimmick Yaniv used at least twice that day to harass people covering her case. In both cases, the claims were found to be false. Somehow the false allegation about photographing her in the bathroom has morphed into the claim of sexual assault. In response, Hamm once again repeated her story of what happened in the women’s washroom:
The Post Millennial reached out to Hamm, who said,“During court recess, I entered the women’s washroom and saw JY standing in the common area. I immediately backed out of the room, fearing for my own safety and not wanting to be confined in a small room with this person.”
Of course I wasn’t there but I do know Yaniv made two false claims about being photographed that day. I also know she’s been found by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal to have attempted to make money by threatening a series of minority beauticians against whom she displayed racial bias. In short, her word cannot be trusted.
The reporter who was attacked Monday wrote Wednesday that Yaniv is being investigated and could soon face assault charges. He also said he plans to file a civil suit against Yaniv, regardless of what happens with the criminal case.


hotair--2020-01-17--Teacher of the Year took a knee to protest Trump at NCAA football final

Here ’ s a story that I missed from President Trump ’ s trip to New Orleans to watch the NCAA football championship game .
I ’ m betting a lot of other people did , too .
A Teacher of the Year honoree took a knee in protest on the playing field because of President Trump ’ s presence .
That ’ s right .
Minnesota ’ s 2019 Teacher of the Year , Kelly Holstine , was standing in a row of teachers on the football field to be honored as Teachers of the Year when she decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other teachers did – she knelt down and took a knee .
She wanted to make a statement against the bad Orange Man .
The honoree from Minnesota , Kelly Holstine , chose to kneel during the national anthem at the NCAA football championship game on Monday , where the ceremony took place , “ to stand up for marginalized and oppressed people , ” according to a tweet she wrote , which included a photograph of her kneeling .
“ Like many before , I respectfully kneeled during Nat ’ l Anthem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until we are all free , ' ” she wrote , referencing former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and citing a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. My initial reaction was probably like a lot of adults – ugh .
The worst part of the story , for me , is that she is a teacher .
This indicates to me that she probably also plays the part of a social justice warrior in the classroom , too .
Minnesota ’ s Commissioner of Education apparently approves and rewarded her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Year .
Perhaps it is a naive request but I ’ d like to see teachers held to a higher standard as the educators of the next generation .
Conflating Colin Kaepernick and Dr. King tells me that she is arrogantly justifying her behavior while boosting her own ego .
She was presenting herself as a teacher , not a random protester .
It isn ’ t her first protest against Trump .
She and the Kentucky Teacher of the Year boycotted a visit with President Trump at the White House .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration ’ s policies defied her belief that every student matters.
” She said that the Trump administration is filled with a lot of hate towards the LGBTQ community .
She isn ’ t the first in her community to lodge such a complaint but I would question exactly what she is talking about .
When Trump accepted the GOP nomination at the convention in 2016 , he became the first party nominee for president to address his support of the LGBTQ community .
I would question exactly what during his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against his pledge to support the community .
She no longer teaches .
She now advocates for LGBTQ rights as director of educational equity at OutFront Minnesota .
She knew in advance that President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump would be at the game .
Holstine is a gender-nonconforming lesbian who last summer stepped down from a teaching position at an alternative high school in Shakopee to serve as director of educational equity at OutFront Minnesota , the state ’ s largest LGBT rights organization .
In the days before Monday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video featuring Holstine was posted during which she spoke of being a tomboy who was bullied and how she wished she could go back to tell that girl how she would learn and grow and be given opportunities to help keep kids safe — and also be one of the first teachers to boycott a visit with the president over discriminatory policies and practices .
She has a history of activism .
She led a TED Talk in October 2019 titled “ Educators must be more than allies.
” In her speech , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave their comfort zones and “ stand up for all of the human beings who are being marginalized or oppressed.
” “ Allies are wonderful and we need them , but it is not enough for educators to just be allies , ” she said .
“ We need them to be advocates too.
” She acted on her own when she knelt in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome .
A statement was released from the Council of Chief State School Officers .
Holstine is the first openly LGBTQ teacher to receive the honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy work but I admit I think it ’ s a good thing that she will be doing it outside her role as a public school teacher .
‘ I think the current environment that is being created and has been created in his tenure definitely adds to my feelings of wanting to support individuals who are not being supported , ’ Holstine said .
‘ I really feel like our country is not serving the needs of all its inhabitants … so many humans right now that are not being given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ she added .
‘ Not everybody is given the opportunity to have a voice , and I can take a small moment , a respectful moment of protest , and exercise my First Amendment rights , and stand up for my students and for vulnerable adults and for people who are not treated in the way that they should be .
It feels like my responsibility to do that , ’ Holstine said .
She saw an opportunity to stick it to Trump – and Melania , too – and took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment but it took away from the other teachers being honored on the football field .
That isn ’ t being respectful – that ’ s being a selfish egotist .

Here’s a story that I missed from President Trump’s trip to New Orleans to watch the NCAA football championship game. I’m betting a lot of other people did, too. A Teacher of the Year honoree took a knee in protest on the playing field because of President Trump’s presence.
That’s right. Minnesota’s 2019 Teacher of the Year, Kelly Holstine, was standing in a row of teachers on the football field to be honored as Teachers of the Year when she decided to do something that none of the other teachers did – she knelt down and took a knee. She wanted to make a statement against the bad Orange Man.
The honoree from Minnesota, Kelly Holstine, chose to kneel during the national anthem at the NCAA football championship game on Monday, where the ceremony took place, “to stand up for marginalized and oppressed people,” according to a tweet she wrote, which included a photograph of her kneeling. “Like many before, I respectfully kneeled during Nat’l Anthem because, ‘No one is free until we are all free,'” she wrote, referencing former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and citing a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
My initial reaction was probably like a lot of adults – ugh. The worst part of the story, for me, is that she is a teacher. This indicates to me that she probably also plays the part of a social justice warrior in the classroom, too. Minnesota’s Commissioner of Education apparently approves and rewarded her with the honor of Teacher of the Year. Perhaps it is a naive request but I’d like to see teachers held to a higher standard as the educators of the next generation. Conflating Colin Kaepernick and Dr. King tells me that she is arrogantly justifying her behavior while boosting her own ego. She was presenting herself as a teacher, not a random protester.
It isn’t her first protest against Trump. She and the Kentucky Teacher of the Year boycotted a visit with President Trump at the White House. At the time “she said then that the administration’s policies defied her belief that every student matters.” She said that the Trump administration is filled with a lot of hate towards the LGBTQ community. She isn’t the first in her community to lodge such a complaint but I would question exactly what she is talking about. When Trump accepted the GOP nomination at the convention in 2016, he became the first party nominee for president to address his support of the LGBTQ community. I would question exactly what during his administration so far has Trump done to go against his pledge to support the community.
She no longer teaches. She now advocates for LGBTQ rights as director of educational equity at OutFront Minnesota. She knew in advance that President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump would be at the game.
Holstine is a gender-nonconforming lesbian who last summer stepped down from a teaching position at an alternative high school in Shakopee to serve as director of educational equity at OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT rights organization. In the days before Monday’s game, a “TED-Ed” video featuring Holstine was posted during which she spoke of being a tomboy who was bullied and how she wished she could go back to tell that girl how she would learn and grow and be given opportunities to help keep kids safe — and also be one of the first teachers to boycott a visit with the president over discriminatory policies and practices.
Honored as State Teachers of the Year at NCAA Champ FB Game. Given platform to stand up for marginalized and oppressed people. Like many before, I respectfully kneeled during Nat’l Anthem because, “No one is free until we are all free” (MLK). #imwithkap #blacklivesmatter #LGBTQ pic.twitter.com/DimP3pBtBn — Kelly D. Holstine (she/her) (@kellydholstine) January 14, 2020
She has a history of activism.
She led a TED Talk in October 2019 titled “Educators must be more than allies.” In her speech, she advocated for teachers to be willing to leave their comfort zones and “stand up for all of the human beings who are being marginalized or oppressed.” “Allies are wonderful and we need them, but it is not enough for educators to just be allies,” she said. “We need them to be advocates too.”
She acted on her own when she knelt in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome. A statement was released from the Council of Chief State School Officers.
The Council of Chief State School Officers, which facilitates the “Teacher of the Year” program, said in a statement to ABC News that Holstine’s actions hadn’t been coordinated with the program’s organizers. “The Council of Chief State School Officers appreciates the opportunity for outstanding teachers to be recognized on the national stage,” the statement read. “The decision by an individual State Teacher of the Year was not coordinated by the National Teacher of the Year program or CCSSO.”
Holstine is the first openly LGBTQ teacher to receive the honor. She’ll continue with her advocacy work but I admit I think it’s a good thing that she will be doing it outside her role as a public school teacher.
‘I think the current environment that is being created and has been created in his tenure definitely adds to my feelings of wanting to support individuals who are not being supported,’ Holstine said. ‘I really feel like our country is not serving the needs of all its inhabitants … so many humans right now that are not being given the respect and the rights that they deserve,’ she added. ‘Not everybody is given the opportunity to have a voice, and I can take a small moment, a respectful moment of protest, and exercise my First Amendment rights, and stand up for my students and for vulnerable adults and for people who are not treated in the way that they should be. It feels like my responsibility to do that,’ Holstine said.
She saw an opportunity to stick it to Trump – and Melania, too – and took it. She calls it a respectful moment but it took away from the other teachers being honored on the football field. That isn’t being respectful – that’s being a selfish egotist.


hotair--2020-01-17--Report: Senate GOP eyeing "aggressive" trial timetable that could see Trump acquitted within two wee

Report: Senate GOP eyeing "aggressive" trial timetable that could see Trump acquitted within two weeks

I tried gaming out the possible schedule in a post a few days ago and couldn ’ t figure out a way for the trial to end before February 4 , the day of the State of the Union .
This , I thought , was the most aggressive timetable realistically : It begins on the 21st , followed by a two-day break to give the defense time to prepare .
Let ’ s say it resumes on the afternoon of the 23rd with the Dems ’ opening arguments .
They ’ ll probably use all 24 hours , i.e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] , they ’ ve been granted in order to maximize their opportunity to reach the viewing public .
That would take us to the afternoon of the 27th ( including a Sunday break ) before Trump ’ s defense gets its own opening argument .
Assume they use two days instead of three purely in the interest of moving this show along .
Now it ’ s the afternoon of the 29th .
Assume a single day of written questions from the Senate instead of the three that were taken in 1999 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 30th , when the debate on calling witnesses will begin .
Assume a very speedy one-day deliberation for that too .
Now it ’ s the 31st .
Let ’ s then go ahead and assume that Collins and Gardner and the rest choose not to call any witnesses , even though that now seems highly unlikely thanks to John Bolton ’ s publicly stated willingness to testify .
Closing arguments would begin .
Assume House Dems take a day and ( after another Sunday break ) Trump ’ s defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
That ’ s February 3 , caucus day [ in Iowa ] .
Then the Senate would have to deliberate , or at least make a show of doing so .
That ’ s another day , taking us to February 4th — the day of the State of the Union — before the acquittal would finally be issued .
But maybe there ’ s a faster way .
What if … instead of splitting each side ’ s 24 hours of opening arguments into three eight-hour sessions the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Marathon trial sessions , from noon-ish to midnight !
Could happen , says Politico : In their partisan opening resolution , Republicans are considering providing 24 hours of opening arguments to both the House impeachment managers and the White House counsel .
If each team wants to use the full amount of hours , they may have to do so over as few as two days , potentially leading to long trial days .
The current “ posture is two , 12-hour periods .
Quite honestly , I don ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 hours nor do I think based on the evidence if we read the evidence word for word from the House it would take 24 hours , ” said Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-N.C. ) on Friday… Then , the question and answer period could total 16 hours over as few as two days .
In the most aggressive timetable described by some Republicans , a vote on witnesses could be held after just six days of arguments and questions .
Or senators could decide moving things too quickly is a mistake and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possibility of holding an impeachment trial late into the night .
Imagine House Democrats are forced to present their 24 hours of evidence over the course of just two days instead of three and that the White House , in the interest of finishing the trial expeditiously , takes just eight hours or so for its own defense .
Instead of opening arguments taking six days in total they ’ d be down to three .
Now there ’ s a real chance of ending the trial before Iowa votes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 4th .
Everything would depend on the debate over witnesses — how long it lasts , whether any are called , how many are called , how long it takes to depose them .
The sheer pace of the trial to that point may put extra pressure on the Collins contingent in the GOP not to slow things down by calling Bolton , especially knowing that Trump would demand at least one witness in return and that would slow things down even further .
We can get this done by the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them .
What would they say ?
Added bonus for Republicans : If there ’ s any chance of getting them back on the campaign trail before Iowa , even if it ’ s for just a few days , Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and Amy Klobuchar will obviously find a speedy trial appealing .
You can imagine Bernie saying something to the effect of , “ This whole trial is a sham .
Republicans are in the tank , they won ’ t seriously consider the evidence , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk legitimizing their verdict in the eyes of the public ?
Better that we vote now and wait to hear what John Bolton says in his book.
” That could be the sort of cover Susan Collins need from the left to vote against calling witnesses after all .
Result : The trial wraps on February 1 or so , Sanders et al .
get to zip into Iowa for the final 48 hours before the caucus , and Trump is vindicated before the SOTU .
Everyone wins !
Except , I guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t care about Bernie ’ s or Warren ’ s chances in Iowa and/or are pulling for Joe Biden .
And the many people , especially in Collins ’ s and Cory Gardner ’ s home states , who want to hear from Bolton and are hoping for something resembling a meaningful trial with witnesses .
And Republican voters who are excited to see the president mount a forceful defense replete with grilling Hunter Biden about Burisma in a deposition .
With the timetable Republicans are considering , Trump ’ s “ defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one day of his lawyers pontificating in court .
No Hunter , no whistleblower , no Schiff .
Just one day of challenging the evidence , after all this .
McConnell wants to use the accelerated timetable described above , according to a source who spoke to Politico .
And Democrats may be powerless to stop him if he can hold the Republican caucus together : Supposedly the hour at which the trial wraps each day will be determined by a majority vote , just like everything else .
If Collins , Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it run until midnight in the name of finishing sooner , it ’ ll run until midnight .
And yet , and yet , and yet .
It ’ s hard to believe that no witnesses will be called , especially with Bolton having said publicly that he ’ ll show up .
Collins really wants to be able to tell voters that she heard all the relevant testimony before she votes “ not guilty.
” She said last night that she ’ s “ likely ” to allow for witnesses to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too and Lamar Alexander sounds interested .
That ’ s 51 .
Even if Alexander bails , John Roberts would probably cast a tiebreaking vote to call witnesses , with Bolton and the “ reciprocal witness ” of Hunter Biden the most likely suspects .
If I were Trump I ’ d ask Pelosi for a two-week raincheck on the SOTU on grounds that he can ’ t in good conscience appear before the House at a moment when it ’ s persecuting him with a witch hunt , etc , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big acquittal vote will have happened by then .

I tried gaming out the possible schedule in a post a few days ago and couldn’t figure out a way for the trial to end before February 4, the day of the State of the Union. This, I thought, was the most aggressive timetable realistically:
It begins on the 21st, followed by a two-day break to give the defense time to prepare. Let’s say it resumes on the afternoon of the 23rd with the Dems’ opening arguments. They’ll probably use all 24 hours, i.e. three days [of eight-hour sessions], they’ve been granted in order to maximize their opportunity to reach the viewing public. That would take us to the afternoon of the 27th (including a Sunday break) before Trump’s defense gets its own opening argument. Assume they use two days instead of three purely in the interest of moving this show along. Now it’s the afternoon of the 29th. Assume a single day of written questions from the Senate instead of the three that were taken in 1999. That brings us to the afternoon of the 30th, when the debate on calling witnesses will begin. Assume a very speedy one-day deliberation for that too. Now it’s the 31st. Let’s then go ahead and assume that Collins and Gardner and the rest choose not to call any witnesses, even though that now seems highly unlikely thanks to John Bolton’s publicly stated willingness to testify. Closing arguments would begin. Assume House Dems take a day and (after another Sunday break) Trump’s defense takes a day for its own argument as well. That’s February 3, caucus day [in Iowa]. Then the Senate would have to deliberate, or at least make a show of doing so. That’s another day, taking us to February 4th — the day of the State of the Union — before the acquittal would finally be issued.
But maybe there’s a faster way. What if … instead of splitting each side’s 24 hours of opening arguments into three eight-hour sessions the Senate chose to compress them into two days? Marathon trial sessions, from noon-ish to midnight! Could happen, says Politico:
In their partisan opening resolution, Republicans are considering providing 24 hours of opening arguments to both the House impeachment managers and the White House counsel. If each team wants to use the full amount of hours, they may have to do so over as few as two days, potentially leading to long trial days. The current “posture is two, 12-hour periods. Quite honestly, I don’t believe that the White House would consume the 24 hours nor do I think based on the evidence if we read the evidence word for word from the House it would take 24 hours,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on Friday… Then, the question and answer period could total 16 hours over as few as two days. In the most aggressive timetable described by some Republicans, a vote on witnesses could be held after just six days of arguments and questions. Or senators could decide moving things too quickly is a mistake and dial back the aggressive timeline and avoid the possibility of holding an impeachment trial late into the night.
Imagine House Democrats are forced to present their 24 hours of evidence over the course of just two days instead of three and that the White House, in the interest of finishing the trial expeditiously, takes just eight hours or so for its own defense. Instead of opening arguments taking six days in total they’d be down to three. Now there’s a real chance of ending the trial before Iowa votes on the 3rd and Trump delivers the SOTU on the 4th. Everything would depend on the debate over witnesses — how long it lasts, whether any are called, how many are called, how long it takes to depose them. The sheer pace of the trial to that point may put extra pressure on the Collins contingent in the GOP not to slow things down by calling Bolton, especially knowing that Trump would demand at least one witness in return and that would slow things down even further. We can get this done by the State of the Union, McConnell would whisper to them. What would they say?
Added bonus for Republicans: If there’s any chance of getting them back on the campaign trail before Iowa, even if it’s for just a few days, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar will obviously find a speedy trial appealing. You can imagine Bernie saying something to the effect of, “This whole trial is a sham. Republicans are in the tank, they won’t seriously consider the evidence, so why proceed further with this farce and risk legitimizing their verdict in the eyes of the public? Better that we vote now and wait to hear what John Bolton says in his book.” That could be the sort of cover Susan Collins need from the left to vote against calling witnesses after all. Result: The trial wraps on February 1 or so, Sanders et al. get to zip into Iowa for the final 48 hours before the caucus, and Trump is vindicated before the SOTU. Everyone wins!
Except, I guess, the many Democrats who don’t care about Bernie’s or Warren’s chances in Iowa and/or are pulling for Joe Biden. And the many people, especially in Collins’s and Cory Gardner’s home states, who want to hear from Bolton and are hoping for something resembling a meaningful trial with witnesses. And Republican voters who are excited to see the president mount a forceful defense replete with grilling Hunter Biden about Burisma in a deposition. With the timetable Republicans are considering, Trump’s “defense” may consist of as little as one day of his lawyers pontificating in court. No Hunter, no whistleblower, no Schiff. Just one day of challenging the evidence, after all this.
McConnell wants to use the accelerated timetable described above, according to a source who spoke to Politico. And Democrats may be powerless to stop him if he can hold the Republican caucus together: Supposedly the hour at which the trial wraps each day will be determined by a majority vote, just like everything else. If Collins, Romney, et al. want to let it run until midnight in the name of finishing sooner, it’ll run until midnight.
And yet, and yet, and yet. It’s hard to believe that no witnesses will be called, especially with Bolton having said publicly that he’ll show up. Collins really wants to be able to tell voters that she heard all the relevant testimony before she votes “not guilty.” She said last night that she’s “likely” to allow for witnesses to be called; Romney and Murkowski surely are too and Lamar Alexander sounds interested. That’s 51. Even if Alexander bails, John Roberts would probably cast a tiebreaking vote to call witnesses, with Bolton and the “reciprocal witness” of Hunter Biden the most likely suspects. If I were Trump I’d ask Pelosi for a two-week raincheck on the SOTU on grounds that he can’t in good conscience appear before the House at a moment when it’s persecuting him with a witch hunt, etc, and then do it on the 18th. The big acquittal vote will have happened by then.


hotair--2020-01-17--Putin's push for scientific dominance created a black market of plagiarized papers and fake degrees

Critics also contend that Russia ’ s Ministry of Science and Higher Education fueled the problem .
In 2018 , Science and Higher Education Minister Mikhail Kotyukov said Russia had to double its publication of research articles .
Universities offered contracts and promotions to those who published more papers and sidelined those who failed to .
What went wrong ?
Many scientists blame Putin ’ s 2012 order , which provided greater funding but also led to pressure on scientists to churn out multiple papers a year regardless of quality , amid heavy teaching loads .
In fact , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Russian Academy is only scratching the surface of the scientific publishing scandal .
In 2013 a group of Russian academics founded an organization called Dissernet which uses plagiarism software to identify fake papers .
It identified thousands of papers which had been plagiarized : In March 2018 , for instance , Dissernet , a network aimed at cleaning up the Russian literature , identified more than 4000 cases of plagiarism and questionable authorship among 150,000 papers in about 1500 journals .
And Russian authors frequently republish their own work , says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plagiarism detection company .
In September 2019 , after sifting through 4.3 million Russian-language studies , Antiplagiat found that more than 70,000 were published at least twice ; a few were published as many as 17 times .
The academic fraud goes well beyond the publication of plagiarized scientific papers .
It also implicates thousands of dissertations for which people were granted advanced degrees in everything from medicine to economics : In 2018 , Dissernet used anti-plagiarism technology and found that 7,251 Russian degrees had been awarded for plagiarized or dubious work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 529 medical degrees .
Most were in economics , teaching and the law… In 2016 , Dissernet reported that 1 in 9 members of the State Duma , or lower house of parliament , had dubious degrees .
A year earlier , it exposed Duma ’ s then-chairman , Sergei Naryshkin , now the director of foreign intelligence , for plagiarizing more than half of the pages in his economics doctorate .
Naryshkin just shrugged off the accusations and never lost his degree .
The evidence suggests that people are literally buying research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling access to have their names appear on papers that have been accepted for publication .
Anna Kuleshova , the Russian Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers , told the Post that for a time you could buy stolen research with ease but now it ’ s a bit more expensive , as much as $ 1,600 per paper .
“ There are many professions where this has become the norm .
There are so many pseudo-experts who are not real experts , ” she said .

Critics also contend that Russia’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education fueled the problem. In 2018, Science and Higher Education Minister Mikhail Kotyukov said Russia had to double its publication of research articles. Universities offered contracts and promotions to those who published more papers and sidelined those who failed to.
What went wrong? Many scientists blame Putin’s 2012 order, which provided greater funding but also led to pressure on scientists to churn out multiple papers a year regardless of quality, amid heavy teaching loads.
In fact, there is reason to think that the actions of the Russian Academy is only scratching the surface of the scientific publishing scandal. In 2013 a group of Russian academics founded an organization called Dissernet which uses plagiarism software to identify fake papers. It identified thousands of papers which had been plagiarized:
In March 2018, for instance, Dissernet, a network aimed at cleaning up the Russian literature, identified more than 4000 cases of plagiarism and questionable authorship among 150,000 papers in about 1500 journals. And Russian authors frequently republish their own work, says Yury Chekhovich, CEO of Antiplagiat, a plagiarism detection company. In September 2019, after sifting through 4.3 million Russian-language studies, Antiplagiat found that more than 70,000 were published at least twice; a few were published as many as 17 times.
The academic fraud goes well beyond the publication of plagiarized scientific papers. It also implicates thousands of dissertations for which people were granted advanced degrees in everything from medicine to economics:
In 2018, Dissernet used anti-plagiarism technology and found that 7,251 Russian degrees had been awarded for plagiarized or dubious work in the previous four years, including 529 medical degrees. Most were in economics, teaching and the law… In 2016, Dissernet reported that 1 in 9 members of the State Duma, or lower house of parliament, had dubious degrees. A year earlier, it exposed Duma’s then-chairman, Sergei Naryshkin, now the director of foreign intelligence, for plagiarizing more than half of the pages in his economics doctorate. Naryshkin just shrugged off the accusations and never lost his degree.
The evidence suggests that people are literally buying research papers and, in some cases, selling access to have their names appear on papers that have been accepted for publication.
Anna Kuleshova, the Russian Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers, told the Post that for a time you could buy stolen research with ease but now it’s a bit more expensive, as much as $1,600 per paper. “There are many professions where this has become the norm. There are so many pseudo-experts who are not real experts,” she said.


hotair--2020-01-17--ABC: Isn't it curious how Frank Biden got rich?

Senate Republicans want to call Hunter Biden as a witness to explain how he got appointed to the board of Burisma .
The media has reported occasionally on James Biden , Joe ’ s older brother , and how he used perceived access to the vice president to cash in on the family name as well as get Hunter an income stream .
Today , ABC News takes a closer look at yet another Biden who scored off the family name , and who openly bragged about it … for a while .
Meet Frank Biden , Joe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a fortune on charter school contracts that turned out to be controversial : Frank Biden , a longtime real estate developer in the state , accepted the offer , and over the years , he touted his famous last name and prominent connections in Washington to help land the company a series of charter contracts from local officials in Florida to open charter schools , earning hundreds of thousands of dollars over a five-year period from the company in the process .
In media interviews at the time , Frank Biden was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tremendous asset ” because of the family ’ s record of “ taking care of people who need help , ” and telling people it brought him “ automatic acceptance ” as he sought government approvals for the for-profit Mavericks in Education .
Claims of mismanagement would ultimately bog down many of those schools , which focused on educating at-risk teens with troubled backgrounds .
In at least two separate lawsuits , Mavericks schools faced allegations of inflating enrollment as part of a scheme to garner more government funding .
The charters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under new management .
Critics suggest that when Frank Biden touted his family name to promote the Mavericks ’ charter schools , it was just one example of the Biden family actively benefiting from sharing a name with the vice president .
Now it could pose challenges for the former VP as he seeks the Democratic Party nomination for president , even when Joe Biden has not been accused of any wrongdoing .
“ They brought him in for his name , ” said one former Mavericks board member , and Frank had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wore cufflinks with the presidential seal on them just to make sure everyone knew that the Biden name was no coincidence .
At a 2011 Palm Beach school board meeting in which the Mavericks charter school application was questioned over its business plan , ABC News has video showing Biden telling them that “ I give you my word of honor , on my family name , that this system is sustainable.
” Was it ?
Apparently not : A 2014 lawsuit filed by two Pinellas County school district executives – which named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mavericks of “ falsely inflating the operating expenses associated with the operations of the charter schools ” in an effort to “ divert funds from the education of the students to the owners of [ Mavericks ] ” – to the tune of $ 22 million .
The lawsuit was ultimately dropped .
In 2012 , a former teacher at the Mavericks school in Palm Beach filed a whistleblower lawsuit accusing her supervisors at the company of altering student enrollment records in an effort to secure more government funding .
This case was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the settlement were kept private .
A pair of audits by the state of Florida in 2012 and 2014 found that Mavericks schools operated in Palm Beach and Broward Counties were beset by similar issues .
Pegg said those audits led school districts to develop corrective action plans for Mavericks , which the company followed .
Yikes .
That ’ s not a good look for Biden in a cycle dominated by populist distrust of Washington establishment .
Many pols have a Billy Carter-esque relative who ’ s willing to cash in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but few seem to have quite so many as Sheriff Joe does .
Are there any Bidens around who aren ’ t monetizing their connection to the man who ’ s been in Washington for nearly 50 years ?
Still , although this ABC report is both amusing and enlightening , it ’ s probably not going to mean much overall .
Unless ABC can tie Frank to an official intervention by Joe , no one will be able to pin the blame for Frank on his older brother .
The Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the obvious interventions that took place , and not just in Ukraine or for that matter in China too .
How did Joe ’ s buddy Sen. Thomas Carper get the idea of appointing Hunter to the board of Amtrak , for instance , one of Joe ’ s biggest hobby horses during his time in the Senate ?
And how did Hunter score $ 130 million in the TERF program ’ s bailout loans that his father pushed as VP ?
Those are the questions that will matter to voters in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination in the first place .
That ’ s the kind of cashing in that will anger Americans the most , and Team Trump must be salivating at the prospect of beating Biden over the head with all of it starting this summer .

Senate Republicans want to call Hunter Biden as a witness to explain how he got appointed to the board of Burisma. The media has reported occasionally on James Biden, Joe’s older brother, and how he used perceived access to the vice president to cash in on the family name as well as get Hunter an income stream. Today, ABC News takes a closer look at yet another Biden who scored off the family name, and who openly bragged about it … for a while.
Meet Frank Biden, Joe’s younger brother, and a man who made a fortune on charter school contracts that turned out to be controversial:
Frank Biden, a longtime real estate developer in the state, accepted the offer, and over the years, he touted his famous last name and prominent connections in Washington to help land the company a series of charter contracts from local officials in Florida to open charter schools, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars over a five-year period from the company in the process. In media interviews at the time, Frank Biden was unabashed – calling his last name “a tremendous asset” because of the family’s record of “taking care of people who need help,” and telling people it brought him “automatic acceptance” as he sought government approvals for the for-profit Mavericks in Education. Claims of mismanagement would ultimately bog down many of those schools, which focused on educating at-risk teens with troubled backgrounds. In at least two separate lawsuits, Mavericks schools faced allegations of inflating enrollment as part of a scheme to garner more government funding. The charters were eventually sold and the schools reorganized under new management. Critics suggest that when Frank Biden touted his family name to promote the Mavericks’ charter schools, it was just one example of the Biden family actively benefiting from sharing a name with the vice president. Now it could pose challenges for the former VP as he seeks the Democratic Party nomination for president, even when Joe Biden has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
“They brought him in for his name,” said one former Mavericks board member, and Frank had no problem playing the part. He wore cufflinks with the presidential seal on them just to make sure everyone knew that the Biden name was no coincidence. At a 2011 Palm Beach school board meeting in which the Mavericks charter school application was questioned over its business plan, ABC News has video showing Biden telling them that “I give you my word of honor, on my family name, that this system is sustainable.”
Was it? Apparently not:
A 2014 lawsuit filed by two Pinellas County school district executives – which named Frank Biden as a defendant – accused Mavericks of “falsely inflating the operating expenses associated with the operations of the charter schools” in an effort to “divert funds from the education of the students to the owners of [Mavericks]” – to the tune of $22 million. The lawsuit was ultimately dropped. In 2012, a former teacher at the Mavericks school in Palm Beach filed a whistleblower lawsuit accusing her supervisors at the company of altering student enrollment records in an effort to secure more government funding. This case was settled out of court. The terms of the settlement were kept private. A pair of audits by the state of Florida in 2012 and 2014 found that Mavericks schools operated in Palm Beach and Broward Counties were beset by similar issues. Pegg said those audits led school districts to develop corrective action plans for Mavericks, which the company followed.
Yikes. That’s not a good look for Biden in a cycle dominated by populist distrust of Washington establishment. Many pols have a Billy Carter-esque relative who’s willing to cash in on their status as shirttail relative, but few seem to have quite so many as Sheriff Joe does. Are there any Bidens around who aren’t monetizing their connection to the man who’s been in Washington for nearly 50 years?
Still, although this ABC report is both amusing and enlightening, it’s probably not going to mean much overall. Unless ABC can tie Frank to an official intervention by Joe, no one will be able to pin the blame for Frank on his older brother. The Hunter Biden narrative is much more compelling because of the obvious interventions that took place, and not just in Ukraine or for that matter in China too. How did Joe’s buddy Sen. Thomas Carper get the idea of appointing Hunter to the board of Amtrak, for instance, one of Joe’s biggest hobby horses during his time in the Senate? And how did Hunter score $130 million in the TERF program’s bailout loans that his father pushed as VP?
Those are the questions that will matter to voters in the end, assuming Biden manages to win the nomination in the first place. That’s the kind of cashing in that will anger Americans the most, and Team Trump must be salivating at the prospect of beating Biden over the head with all of it starting this summer.


hotair--2020-01-17--Robert Hyde: I was climbing volcanoes in Ecuador when I sent those texts about surveilling Yovanovit

Robert Hyde: I was climbing volcanoes in Ecuador when I sent those texts about surveilling Yovanovitch to Lev Parnas

After watching this I ’ m inclined to believe him .
Picture the sort of guy whom you might imagine is capable of orchestrating the surveillance of a U.S. ambassador from thousands of miles away .
This guy is not the guy you ’ re picturing , I promise .
Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow a few nights ago that Hyde was drunk every time he met him and that he never believed Hyde was actually tracking Yovanovitch ’ s movements .
The way Parnas explained it , Hyde was a wannabe who knew Roger Stone somehow and hung around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movers and shakers in TrumpWorld known to congregate there .
( “ It was like a breeding ground.
” ) Presumably Hyde , who ’ s now running for Congress ( ! )
, recognized Parnas as a conduit to Giuliani and thus a guy who could potentially introduce him to other Trump cronies if only Hyde made himself useful to Parnas somehow .
Thus was born the pretend plot to stalk Marie Yovanovitch .
At first that seemed too convenient , another Parnas lie aimed at keeping him from getting into even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minutes of Hyde here , it now seems to me like a probable truth .
I don ’ t follow completely what he ’ s saying there .
I think he ’ s claiming that he was in contact with some guy who said he was in intelligence but whom Hyde now suspects was an anti-Trumper , feeding him nonsense about Yovanovitch which he simply copied and pasted in the texts to Parnas with which we ’ re now all familiar .
Did Hyde think the guy was really surveilling Yovanovitch , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big prank on Parnas , why did he need to copy/paste anything from a third party ?
He could have just made up some nonsense and texted that to Parnas himself .
He also complains repeatedly that Schiff should release the texts that were sent to him by the intel guy who was allegedly monitoring Yovanovitch .
But … there ’ s no reason to think Schiff has those texts .
He has Hyde ’ s texts to Parnas because Parnas turned over his phone to Schiff ’ s committee .
He could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his phone , I assume , but if Hyde wants to expedite the process he could just release the texts himself .
It ’ s within his own power to show the world that there ’ s no cause for suspicion here .
As an aside : How do people like this keep finding Trump , and how does Trump keep finding them ?
The president is rich and extraordinarily powerful , a man who could insist on only the highest-caliber , most capable hangers-on in his retinue .
Instead he ends up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani and , tangentially , this dude .
Who , if we ’ re lucky , will be called as a witness at his impeachment trial and entertain the country for hours on end with his testimony .
Speaking of cronies , a dispute has arisen between Trump and Parnas as to whether the president knows him or not .
No idea who he is , Trump told reporters yesterday .
I take photos with people all the time .
Right , but he ’ s taken several with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the point that Parnas is now threatening to release a new photo of him and the president every time Trump denies knowing him .
( Parnas ’ s lawyer has been posting some over the last week or so , including photos of his client with assorted Trump family members and top officials . )
Parnas was able to get close to him even after Trump had been elected president : There ’ s also this curious email obtained from Parnas ’ s phone by Schiff ’ s committee : Parnas also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a pro-Trump Super PAC in spring 2018 that was attended by the president and that he broached the idea of firing Yovanovitch directly with Trump , claiming that she was badmouthing him .
Trump supposedly then turned to an aide and said , “ Fire her .
Get rid of her , ” although Yovanovitch wasn ’ t actually recalled until a year later , when the pressure campaign on Zelensky ’ s government first got going .
Whether that sort of interaction on Ukraine policy was standard for Trump and Parnas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump was just humoring a donor is unclear .
But it wasn ’ t a one-off thing , according to Parnas : Among the many guests who had their pictures taken with President Donald Trump at the White House ’ s annual Hanukkah party [ in 2018 ] were two Soviet-born businessmen from Florida , Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman… At one point during the party that night , Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting… Eventually , according to what Parnas told his confidants , the topic turned to Ukraine that night .
According to those two confidants , Parnas said that “ the big guy , ” as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation , talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as “ a secret mission ” to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter .
It ’ d be easy to dismiss that as a Hyde-like flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a la Hyde , idolized Trump and wanted to inflate his relationship with him — if not for the fact that Parnas actually is a known crony of the president ’ s lawyer and was receiving voicemails from the likes of Victoria Toensing right around the time Marie Yovanovitch was finally being recalled as ambassador last spring .
“ Hey Lev .
VT here .
We ’ ve got a request to talk to the big one , ” Toensing said in a voicemail left for Parnas the day before Yovanovitch was fired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s not a complete wannabe like Hyde appears to be .
So how much of what he ’ s saying is true and how much isn ’ t ?

After watching this I’m inclined to believe him. Picture the sort of guy whom you might imagine is capable of orchestrating the surveillance of a U.S. ambassador from thousands of miles away.
This guy is not the guy you’re picturing, I promise.
Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow a few nights ago that Hyde was drunk every time he met him and that he never believed Hyde was actually tracking Yovanovitch’s movements. The way Parnas explained it, Hyde was a wannabe who knew Roger Stone somehow and hung around at Trump’s hotel mingling with movers and shakers in TrumpWorld known to congregate there. (“It was like a breeding ground.”) Presumably Hyde, who’s now running for Congress(!), recognized Parnas as a conduit to Giuliani and thus a guy who could potentially introduce him to other Trump cronies if only Hyde made himself useful to Parnas somehow. Thus was born the pretend plot to stalk Marie Yovanovitch.
At first that seemed too convenient, another Parnas lie aimed at keeping him from getting into even deeper criminal trouble. Having absorbed two minutes of Hyde here, it now seems to me like a probable truth.
https://twitter.com/rfhyde1/status/1218231487256055808
Note the socks.
I don’t follow completely what he’s saying there. I think he’s claiming that he was in contact with some guy who said he was in intelligence but whom Hyde now suspects was an anti-Trumper, feeding him nonsense about Yovanovitch which he simply copied and pasted in the texts to Parnas with which we’re now all familiar.
Did Hyde think the guy was really surveilling Yovanovitch, though? If it was all just a big prank on Parnas, why did he need to copy/paste anything from a third party? He could have just made up some nonsense and texted that to Parnas himself.
He also complains repeatedly that Schiff should release the texts that were sent to him by the intel guy who was allegedly monitoring Yovanovitch. But … there’s no reason to think Schiff has those texts. He has Hyde’s texts to Parnas because Parnas turned over his phone to Schiff’s committee. He could get Hyde’s texts by subpoenaing his phone, I assume, but if Hyde wants to expedite the process he could just release the texts himself. It’s within his own power to show the world that there’s no cause for suspicion here.
As an aside: How do people like this keep finding Trump, and how does Trump keep finding them? The president is rich and extraordinarily powerful, a man who could insist on only the highest-caliber, most capable hangers-on in his retinue. Instead he ends up with the likes of Michael Cohen and Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani and, tangentially, this dude.
Who, if we’re lucky, will be called as a witness at his impeachment trial and entertain the country for hours on end with his testimony.
Speaking of cronies, a dispute has arisen between Trump and Parnas as to whether the president knows him or not. No idea who he is, Trump told reporters yesterday. I take photos with people all the time. Right, but he’s taken several with Parnas at various times and places, to the point that Parnas is now threatening to release a new photo of him and the president every time Trump denies knowing him. (Parnas’s lawyer has been posting some over the last week or so, including photos of his client with assorted Trump family members and top officials.) Parnas was able to get close to him even after Trump had been elected president:
Here’s the “I don’t know him at all, don’t know what he’s about, don’t know where he comes from, know nothing about him” guy, w Lev Parnas & Roman Nasirov, former head of Ukrainian Fiscal Service, at Mar-a-Lago 12/16. @POTUS .@realDonaldTrump @Acosta #LevRemembers #LetLevSpeak pic.twitter.com/5B5QY2DJEg — Joseph A. Bondy (@josephabondy) January 16, 2020
There’s also this curious email obtained from Parnas’s phone by Schiff’s committee:
Parnas also claims that he was at a fundraiser for a pro-Trump Super PAC in spring 2018 that was attended by the president and that he broached the idea of firing Yovanovitch directly with Trump, claiming that she was badmouthing him. Trump supposedly then turned to an aide and said, “Fire her. Get rid of her,” although Yovanovitch wasn’t actually recalled until a year later, when the pressure campaign on Zelensky’s government first got going. Whether that sort of interaction on Ukraine policy was standard for Trump and Parnas when they saw each other or whether Trump was just humoring a donor is unclear. But it wasn’t a one-off thing, according to Parnas:
Among the many guests who had their pictures taken with President Donald Trump at the White House’s annual Hanukkah party [in 2018] were two Soviet-born businessmen from Florida, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman… At one point during the party that night, Parnas and Fruman slipped out of a large reception room packed with hundreds of Trump donors to have a private meeting with the President and Giuliani, according to two acquaintances in whom Parnas confided right after the meeting… Eventually, according to what Parnas told his confidants, the topic turned to Ukraine that night. According to those two confidants, Parnas said that “the big guy,” as he sometimes referred to the President in conversation, talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as “a secret mission” to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
It’d be easy to dismiss that as a Hyde-like flight of fancy by a guy who, a la Hyde, idolized Trump and wanted to inflate his relationship with him — if not for the fact that Parnas actually is a known crony of the president’s lawyer and was receiving voicemails from the likes of Victoria Toensing right around the time Marie Yovanovitch was finally being recalled as ambassador last spring. “Hey Lev. VT here. We’ve got a request to talk to the big one,” Toensing said in a voicemail left for Parnas the day before Yovanovitch was fired. He may be a liar but he’s not a complete wannabe like Hyde appears to be. So how much of what he’s saying is true and how much isn’t?


hotair--2020-01-17--9th Circuit dismisses climate change lawsuit brought by kids

Back in 2015 a group called Our Children ’ s Trust filed a climate change lawsuit on behalf of a group of kids and teens .
The lawsuit asked the court to order the Obama administration ( at the time it was filed ) to take action to prevent climate change .
Today a panel of three Obama-appointed judges dismissed the lawsuit in a 2-1 decision : In a 2-1 decision , the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs , who were 8 to 19 when the lawsuit began in 2015 , lacked legal standing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Hurwitz said the majority reached its conclusion “ reluctantly , ” given the “ compelling ” evidence that the government had long promoted fossil fuels despite knowing they could cause catastrophic climate change , and that failing to change policies could hasten an “ environmental apocalypse.
” … Hurwitz said the case left “ little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace , ” but that addressing it required “ complex policy decisions entrusted , for better or worse , to the wisdom and discretion ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That last bit is the one that led the court to dismiss the case for standing , i.e .
did the court have constitutional authority to redress the grievances in this case .
Two of the judges concluded the court did not .
The crux of the plaintiffs ’ requested remedy is an injunction requiring the government not only to cease permitting , authorizing , and subsidizing fossil fuel use , but also to prepare a plan subject to judicial approval to draw down harmful emissions .
The plaintiffs thus seek not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority expressly granted by Congress , see , e.g.
, 30 U.S.C .
§ 201 ( authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to lease land for coal mining ) , but also to enjoin Congress from exercising power expressly granted by the Constitution over public lands… There is much to recommend the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change , both as a policy matter in general and a matter of national survival in particular .
But it is beyond the power of an Article III @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or implement the plaintiffs ’ requested remedial plan .
As the opinions of their experts make plain , any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted , for better or worse , to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches .
This was a point which the government made months ago : Plaintiffs did not ask the district court to resolve anything resembling the kind of dispute that gave rise to jurisdiction at common law or the adoption of Article III ; Plaintiffs instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the representative branches ’ programs and regulatory decisions relating to climate change over the past several decades and then pass upon their constitutionality in the aggregate .
No federal court has the power to perform such a sweeping policy review , and no federal court has ever done anything close to what Plaintiffs seek here .
But one of the judges on the panel , Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California , dissented and argued the court could have provided some relief .
The judge ’ s language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , impassioned .
“ In these proceedings , the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity , ” the judge wrote .
She continued , “ It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses .
Seeking to quash this suit , the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation .
” 60 Minutes did a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can watch here .
And here ’ s Kelsey Juliana , the oldest of the kids on whose behalf the case was originally filed , discussing it in September 2018 :

Back in 2015 a group called Our Children’s Trust filed a climate change lawsuit on behalf of a group of kids and teens. The lawsuit asked the court to order the Obama administration (at the time it was filed) to take action to prevent climate change. Today a panel of three Obama-appointed judges dismissed the lawsuit in a 2-1 decision:
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs, who were 8 to 19 when the lawsuit began in 2015, lacked legal standing to sue the United States. Circuit Judge Andrew Hurwitz said the majority reached its conclusion “reluctantly,” given the “compelling” evidence that the government had long promoted fossil fuels despite knowing they could cause catastrophic climate change, and that failing to change policies could hasten an “environmental apocalypse.”… Hurwitz said the case left “little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace,” but that addressing it required “complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion” of the White House and Congress.
That last bit is the one that led the court to dismiss the case for standing, i.e. did the court have constitutional authority to redress the grievances in this case. Two of the judges concluded the court did not.
The crux of the plaintiffs’ requested remedy is an injunction requiring the government not only to cease permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use, but also to prepare a plan subject to judicial approval to draw down harmful emissions. The plaintiffs thus seek not only to enjoin the Executive from exercising discretionary authority expressly granted by Congress, see, e.g., 30 U.S.C. § 201 (authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to lease land for coal mining), but also to enjoin Congress from exercising power expressly granted by the Constitution over public lands… There is much to recommend the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change, both as a policy matter in general and a matter of national survival in particular. But it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.
This was a point which the government made months ago:
Plaintiffs did not ask the district court to resolve anything resembling the kind of dispute that gave rise to jurisdiction at common law or the adoption of Article III; Plaintiffs instead asked the district court to review all of the representative branches’ programs and regulatory decisions relating to climate change over the past several decades and then pass upon their constitutionality in the aggregate. No federal court has the power to perform such a sweeping policy review, and no federal court has ever done anything close to what Plaintiffs seek here.
But one of the judges on the panel, Judge Josephine L. Staton of the Central District of California, dissented and argued the court could have provided some relief. The judge’s language on this point was, shall we say, impassioned. “In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity,” the judge wrote. She continued, “It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the
government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation. ”
60 Minutes did a piece on the lawsuit last year which you can watch here. And here’s Kelsey Juliana, the oldest of the kids on whose behalf the case was originally filed, discussing it in September 2018: