hotair--2020-02-07--WaPo wonders: Where'd Joe go? Update: Dunn?

Where , indeed ?
According to the Washington Post , Joe Biden has disappeared from New Hampshire ahead of next week ’ s first-in-the-nation primary .
Biden hasn ’ t surfaced in South Carolina either this week , his vaunted firewall in the Democratic primaries .
Instead , he ’ s back home in Delaware , in a very strange use of rapidly diminishing time to right the ship after it foundered in Iowa : Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying , his campaign bus was parked and ready for events .
But on Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary here , the candidate was nowhere to be found .
Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington , Del.
, seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy , beginning with a debate Friday night .
He held no public events .
Even worse , Biden has begun appearing less in South Carolina as the polling narrows in the Palmetto State .
They moved up ad spending to stanch the bleeding in Nevada , apparently : Biden will no doubt be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publishes , because he has to attend tonight ’ s debate in Manchester .
Losing even a day of retail politicking in the Granite State ahead of Tuesday ’ s primary is , to quote Joe himself , a big f****g deal , though .
It ’ s all but conceding a poor performance in the Granite State , where he had been running in second place in the polls before his collapse this week in Iowa : If you missed it before now , be sure to read Allahpundit ’ s post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hawkeye Hork , though , Biden was running a solid second place with Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren duking it out for a close third .
Buttigieg had actually been on the wane for the past month .
Biden could have picked up some delegates here and gone into Nevada and South Carolina with some wind behind him .
Instead , he ’ s spent the last couple of days off the campaign trail and trying to figure out where it ’ s all gone wrong .
That has left his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking advantage of it , too : Buttigieg tells us Iowa was the first chance for the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates to prove their “ electability ” and show they can defeat Donald Trump … and he did it in spades .
Biden , on the other hand , took a pretty hard L. Pete says he ’ s focused on keeping the momentum going in the New Hampshire primary and beyond , and though he says he won ’ t tell Biden how to run his campaign … he hints Joe should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ d be the upstart mayor of South Bend telling the 48-year Beltway veteran and former Vice President to wake up and smell the café latté .
What happens next ?
The Post article advises readers to look for reshuffling of campaign staffs , and for Biden to go on the attack .
He began to do so on Wednesday , trying to draw contrasts between himself and Buttigieg and Warren in particular , cutting against an earlier pledge to remain positive about fellow Democrats .
Another measure of Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spends his Sunday mornings .
So far he ’ s eschewed those appearances , but Biden might not have the luxury of being picky about getting screen time .
It doesn ’ t replace retail politicking , but Biden ’ s not been doing much of that , either .
All of this depends in large part on his performance tonight .
In previous debates , Biden has only needed to coast to protect his front-runner status , and has been content to let everyone else attack each other .
The situation has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has to deliver a strong performance tonight across the whole event in order to recharge confidence and enthusiasm in his campaign .
If he coasts through tonight ’ s debate , Biden won ’ t have to worry about getting attacked — he ’ ll have to worry about getting left behind .
Finally , one has to wonder whether Biden got torpedoed by House and Senate Democrats .
Just how much of this erosion comes from the constant drumbeat of Ukraine-Gate , Hunter Biden ’ s connections , and the curiosity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting richer ?
Peter Beinart ’ s not happy about what he sees as an unfair attack , but he ’ s also wondering just how much the impeachment effort has kneecapped the party ’ s heir presumptive — and how much it ’ s helped Donald Trump : Frankly , all of this was very predictable .
Democrats went down that road anyway .
And now Biden might be paying the price , and Democrats may have laid out a path for Trump ’ s re-election because of it .
Update : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harpootlian advised Biden to get “ sharper elbows ” involved .
Presto , here comes Anita “ War on Fox News ” Dunn to the rescue : If Democrats want to boost Biden to hold off the Bernie Bro socialist horde , hiring someone who spoke approvingly of Mao is an odd move for that strategy .
At any rate , Biden ’ s opponents had better be prepared for a lot more attacks coming their way .

Where, indeed? According to the Washington Post, Joe Biden has disappeared from New Hampshire ahead of next week’s first-in-the-nation primary. Biden hasn’t surfaced in South Carolina either this week, his vaunted firewall in the Democratic primaries. Instead, he’s back home in Delaware, in a very strange use of rapidly diminishing time to right the ship after it foundered in Iowa:
Outside the castle-themed Radisson Hotel where Joe Biden has been staying, his campaign bus was parked and ready for events. But on Thursday, just five days before the crucial primary here, the candidate was nowhere to be found. Biden spent Thursday gathered with his top advisers at his home in Wilmington, Del., seeking a reset and perhaps a last-ditch effort to save his candidacy, beginning with a debate Friday night. He held no public events.
Even worse, Biden has begun appearing less in South Carolina as the polling narrows in the Palmetto State. They moved up ad spending to stanch the bleeding in Nevada, apparently:
In one troublesome sign for the financially strapped campaign, it canceled nearly $150,000 in television ads in South Carolina, which votes Feb. 29, and moved the spending to Nevada, whose Feb. 22 contest follows New Hampshire’s. The move seemed to acknowledge that Biden’s campaign cannot sustain a continued run of bad news.
Biden will no doubt be in New Hampshire by the time this post publishes, because he has to attend tonight’s debate in Manchester. Losing even a day of retail politicking in the Granite State ahead of Tuesday’s primary is, to quote Joe himself, a big f****g deal, though. It’s all but conceding a poor performance in the Granite State, where he had been running in second place in the polls before his collapse this week in Iowa:
If you missed it before now, be sure to read Allahpundit’s post on the latest NH polling. Before the Hawkeye Hork, though, Biden was running a solid second place with Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren duking it out for a close third. Buttigieg had actually been on the wane for the past month. Biden could have picked up some delegates here and gone into Nevada and South Carolina with some wind behind him. Instead, he’s spent the last couple of days off the campaign trail and trying to figure out where it’s all gone wrong.
That has left his campaign with a messaging vacuum. Buttigieg is taking advantage of it, too:
Buttigieg tells us Iowa was the first chance for the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates to prove their “electability” and show they can defeat Donald Trump … and he did it in spades. Biden, on the other hand, took a pretty hard L. Pete says he’s focused on keeping the momentum going in the New Hampshire primary and beyond, and though he says he won’t tell Biden how to run his campaign … he hints Joe should read the political tea leaves.
Oooof. That’d be the upstart mayor of South Bend telling the 48-year Beltway veteran and former Vice President to wake up and smell the café latté.
What happens next? The Post article advises readers to look for reshuffling of campaign staffs, and for Biden to go on the attack. He began to do so on Wednesday, trying to draw contrasts between himself and Buttigieg and Warren in particular, cutting against an earlier pledge to remain positive about fellow Democrats. Another measure of Biden’s thought processes may be where he spends his Sunday mornings. So far he’s eschewed those appearances, but Biden might not have the luxury of being picky about getting screen time. It doesn’t replace retail politicking, but Biden’s not been doing much of that, either.
All of this depends in large part on his performance tonight. In previous debates, Biden has only needed to coast to protect his front-runner status, and has been content to let everyone else attack each other. The situation has changed dramatically now, though, and Biden has to deliver a strong performance tonight across the whole event in order to recharge confidence and enthusiasm in his campaign. If he coasts through tonight’s debate, Biden won’t have to worry about getting attacked — he’ll have to worry about getting left behind.
Finally, one has to wonder whether Biden got torpedoed by House and Senate Democrats. Just how much of this erosion comes from the constant drumbeat of Ukraine-Gate, Hunter Biden’s connections, and the curiosity over how Joe’s relatives keep getting richer? Peter Beinart’s not happy about what he sees as an unfair attack, but he’s also wondering just how much the impeachment effort has kneecapped the party’s heir presumptive — and how much it’s helped Donald Trump:
Amazingly, impeachment appears to have hurt Biden more than Trump. Since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initiated the impeachment inquiry on September 24, Trump’s approval rating has generally risen. It stood at 40 percent in the first Gallup poll after Pelosi’s announcement. In Gallup’s latest survey, Trump stands at 49 percent. According to RealClearPolitics’ polling average, Trump’s rating dropped a bit during the first month of the impeachment fight but has climbed ever since, and is now almost 45 percent—nearly as high as it has been during his entire presidency. As Aaron Blake has pointed out in The Washington Post, Trump has also seen a spike in the intensity of his support, while the intensity of public opposition has declined. Since late October, according to a recent Washington Post–ABC News poll, the percentage of Americans who strongly approve of Trump’s job performance has jumped five points, while the percentage who strongly disapprove has fallen eight points.
This spike in intensity is also reflected in fundraising. The Democratic National Committee raised roughly the same amount in May through August—the four months preceding the impeachment inquiry—as it did in September through December. (Figures are not yet available for January.) The Republican National Committee’s haul, meanwhile, grew during that span by almost $25 million. Combine the RNC’s fundraising with the Trump reelection campaign’s fundraising, and you see similar post-impeachment growth: from $105 million in the second quarter of 2019 to $125 million in the third quarter—when the impeachment inquiry began—to $154 million in the fourth quarter, during which the House voted to impeach. The leading Democratic presidential candidates, by contrast—with the exception of Sanders—did not see consistent fundraising growth during that period. Pete Buttigieg raised more money in the second quarter, before the impeachment inquiry began, than he did in the third quarter, once it got under way. So did Joe Biden. Elizabeth Warren saw her fundraising dip in the fourth quarter, as the House impeachment inquiry reached its climax.
Frankly, all of this was very predictable. Democrats went down that road anyway. And now Biden might be paying the price, and Democrats may have laid out a path for Trump’s re-election because of it.
Update: In the Washington Post article, Dick Harpootlian advised Biden to get “sharper elbows” involved. Presto, here comes Anita “War on Fox News” Dunn to the rescue:
Shake up: @JoeBiden campaign is elevating former Obama admin official Anita Dunn to top campaign role, three sources w/knowledge confirm to @CBSNews. She has already talked to donors this week & is expected to join the camp full time. W/@edokeefe — Bo Erickson CBS (@BoKnowsNews) February 7, 2020
If Democrats want to boost Biden to hold off the Bernie Bro socialist horde, hiring someone who spoke approvingly of Mao is an odd move for that strategy. At any rate, Biden’s opponents had better be prepared for a lot more attacks coming their way.


hotair--2020-02-07--Matt Gaetz: It's time to expel Romney from the Senate Republican caucus

I ’ m gon na be charitable and assume that Gaetz doesn ’ t really support this exceedingly stupid idea .
It ’ s something he ’ s saying to impress Trump , like 90 percent of the things of he says .
Watch , then read on .
I just gone done writing a post about another politician who let her pique towards an enemy lead her into doing something foolish that could weaken her majority .
Mitch McConnell would never be so stupid as to hand an already independent-minded Republican senator an excuse to vote more frequently with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not like he has a 25-seat margin over Senate Democrats .
He needs every vote he can get .
In fact , he made that point himself on Wednesday when asked about Romney ’ s defection : And that ’ s why he ’ s one of the most effective majority leaders in Senate history .
That line , right there .
What McConnell also knows , and what Gaetz probably knows , is that Romney had been a good soldier for the party since joining the Senate until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s comments last night and flagged this handy FiveThirtyEight chart tracking how often senators on both sides have voted in line with Trump ’ s own position on various issues .
Romney clocks in at 78.8 percent , not wildly different from MAGA fan Josh Hawley ’ s 84.8 percent .
There are four Republican senators with worse scores than him , including the “ good ” senator from Utah , Mike Lee .
In fact , per FiveThirtyEight , Romney votes with Trump slightly more often than you ’ d expect him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory in his home state in 2016 .
As Luntz said , if Romney ’ s a “ Democrat , ” presumably so are the four GOPers who support Trump less often than he does .
Which means Chuck Schumer has … a Senate majority ?
You can read Gaetz ’ s comments here in one of two ways .
( Or both , I guess .
They ’ re not mutually exclusive . )
It could be that he ’ s just enforcing the rules of Trump-era Republicanism while elder statesman Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcing pre-Trump rules .
To McConnell , the point of the Republican Party is advancing a conservative agenda .
To Gaetz , it ’ s enforcing personal loyalty to Donald Trump .
Romney is of use to McConnell but not to Gaetz so expulsion is no big deal to the latter .
Or it could be that Gaetz is trying to get out of a “ doghouse ” of his own with a little light demagoguery of one of the president ’ s most despised enemies .
The irony of him attacking Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sh*t list recently for having the balls to cast a righteous lonely vote of his own , against the Republican tide in the House .
That came last month when he supported Pelosi ’ s resolution to limit the president ’ s power to go to war with Iran without congressional approval .
That was commendable , and Gaetz felt so strongly about his position that his staff took to lobbying other House Republicans to join him in crossing the aisle .
In the end only two did , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being blackballed by the White House from the impeachment trial for his surprising show of disloyalty .
Gaetz ( R-Fla. ) was in the mix to become one of Trump ’ s impeachment advisers , a group of House Republicans who are expected to assist the White House with messaging and strategy throughout the Senate impeachment trial .
But Gaetz — a conservative firebrand who caught Trump ’ s eye through his feisty appearances and memorable sound bites on cable news — did not make the final list , which comprises eight other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know why it would serve someone in the White House to manufacture a divide between the president and one of his best communicators during impeachment , ” Gaetz said in an interview .
When asked to respond to Gaetz ’ s allegations , [ White House legislative affairs director Eric ] Ueland did not comment directly .
But he did mention Gaetz ’ s support for a House resolution to halt further U.S. military action against Iran .
In the wake of that , Gaetz could have held his tongue about Romney , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legislator to cast a vote on principle that ’ s likely to earn Trump ’ s wrath .
Or he could have done what he did , seizing the opportunity to bash him in extravagant ways in order to atone to the president and re-pledge his fealty .
His dopey idea about filing ethics charges against Pelosi for tearing up her copy of Trump ’ s SOTU speech is part of the same strategy .
If Gaetz was obsequious towards the president before his gutsy Iran vote , he ’ ll just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to return to Trump ’ s good graces .
He ’ s on his way .

I’m gonna be charitable and assume that Gaetz doesn’t really support this exceedingly stupid idea. It’s something he’s saying to impress Trump, like 90 percent of the things of he says. Watch, then read on.
Matt Gaetz wants Mitt Romney expelled from the Republican Party: "I don't know what the difference is between Mitt Romney and a Democrat at this point" pic.twitter.com/W1oDyUPVNV — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) February 7, 2020
I just gone done writing a post about another politician who let her pique towards an enemy lead her into doing something foolish that could weaken her majority. Mitch McConnell would never be so stupid as to hand an already independent-minded Republican senator an excuse to vote more frequently with Democrats by ejecting him from the caucus. It’s not like he has a 25-seat margin over Senate Democrats. He needs every vote he can get.
In fact, he made that point himself on Wednesday when asked about Romney’s defection:
“I think Senator Romney has been largely supportive of most everything we’ve tried to accomplish,” he told reporters shortly after the vote. Asked how long Romney would be in the doghouse, McConnell laughed and added: “We don’t have any doghouses here. The most important vote is the next vote.”
And that’s why he’s one of the most effective majority leaders in Senate history. That line, right there.
What McConnell also knows, and what Gaetz probably knows, is that Romney had been a good soldier for the party since joining the Senate until Wednesday. Frank Luntz noticed Gaetz’s comments last night and flagged this handy FiveThirtyEight chart tracking how often senators on both sides have voted in line with Trump’s own position on various issues. Romney clocks in at 78.8 percent, not wildly different from MAGA fan Josh Hawley’s 84.8 percent. There are four Republican senators with worse scores than him, including the “good” senator from Utah, Mike Lee. In fact, per FiveThirtyEight, Romney votes with Trump slightly more often than you’d expect him to given Trump’s margin of victory in his home state in 2016.
As Luntz said, if Romney’s a “Democrat,” presumably so are the four GOPers who support Trump less often than he does. Which means Chuck Schumer has … a Senate majority?
You can read Gaetz’s comments here in one of two ways. (Or both, I guess. They’re not mutually exclusive.) It could be that he’s just enforcing the rules of Trump-era Republicanism while elder statesman Mitch McConnell is stuck in the past, enforcing pre-Trump rules. To McConnell, the point of the Republican Party is advancing a conservative agenda. To Gaetz, it’s enforcing personal loyalty to Donald Trump. Romney is of use to McConnell but not to Gaetz so expulsion is no big deal to the latter.
Or it could be that Gaetz is trying to get out of a “doghouse” of his own with a little light demagoguery of one of the president’s most despised enemies. The irony of him attacking Romney is that Gaetz himself landed on Trump’s sh*t list recently for having the balls to cast a righteous lonely vote of his own, against the Republican tide in the House. That came last month when he supported Pelosi’s resolution to limit the president’s power to go to war with Iran without congressional approval. That was commendable, and Gaetz felt so strongly about his position that his staff took to lobbying other House Republicans to join him in crossing the aisle. In the end only two did, but he stood his ground — and ended up being blackballed by the White House from the impeachment trial for his surprising show of disloyalty.
Gaetz (R-Fla.) was in the mix to become one of Trump’s impeachment advisers, a group of House Republicans who are expected to assist the White House with messaging and strategy throughout the Senate impeachment trial. But Gaetz — a conservative firebrand who caught Trump’s eye through his feisty appearances and memorable sound bites on cable news — did not make the final list, which comprises eight other House Republicans… “I don’t know why it would serve someone in the White House to manufacture a divide between the president and one of his best communicators during impeachment,” Gaetz said in an interview. When asked to respond to Gaetz’s allegations, [White House legislative affairs director Eric] Ueland did not comment directly. But he did mention Gaetz’s support for a House resolution to halt further U.S. military action against Iran.
In the wake of that, Gaetz could have held his tongue about Romney, knowing how difficult it can be for a legislator to cast a vote on principle that’s likely to earn Trump’s wrath. Or he could have done what he did, seizing the opportunity to bash him in extravagant ways in order to atone to the president and re-pledge his fealty. His dopey idea about filing ethics charges against Pelosi for tearing up her copy of Trump’s SOTU speech is part of the same strategy. If Gaetz was obsequious towards the president before his gutsy Iran vote, he’ll just have to be twice as obsequious afterward in order to return to Trump’s good graces. He’s on his way.


hotair--2020-02-07--More of James Carville panicking over Bernie Sanders and Democratic incompetence

Earlier this week James Carville went on MSNBC and told Democrats it was time to panic .
“ I mean , I ’ m 75 years old why am I here doing this ?
Because I am scared to death that ’ s why , ” Carville said .
The clip of Carville ’ s on-air panic went viral and today , Vox interviewed Carville and gave him a chance to revise and extend his remarks : Sean Illing Why are you “ scared to death ” about the 2020 election ?
James Carville Look , the turnout in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what we wanted .
Trump ’ s approval rating is probably as high as it ’ s been .
This is very bad .
And now it appears the party can ’ t even count votes .
What the hell am I supposed to think ?
… We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration .
They ’ re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking .
You ’ ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you think about any of that , or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election .
It ’ s not how you become a majoritarian party… I ’ m not sure Carville is personally that far off from Bernie ’ s positions on these issues , but he knows that winning an election means focusing on issues where you have an electoral advantage , not ones where the electorate is against you .
The counter-argument , which Vox ’ s Sean Illing makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so much that Sanders can win despite his far-left platform .
Sean Illing A lot of threads there .
First , a lot of people don ’ t trust the Democratic Party , don ’ t believe in the party , for reasons you ’ ve already mentioned , and so they just don ’ t care about that .
They want change .
And I guess the other thing I ’ d say is , 2016 scrambled our understanding of what ’ s possible in American politics .
Are we really sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carville Who the hell knows ?
But here ’ s what I do know : Sanders might get 280 electoral votes and win the presidency and maybe we keep the House .
But there ’ s no chance in hell we ’ ll ever win the Senate with Sanders at the top of the party defining it for the public .
Eighteen percent of the country elects more than half of our senators .
That ’ s the deal , fair or not .
So long as McConnell runs the Senate , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no chance we ’ ll change the courts and nothing will happen , and he ’ ll just be sitting up there screaming in the microphone about the revolution .
As another example of a losing issue , Carville brought up a viral video in which a voter confronted Elizabeth Warren over her college debt forgiveness plan : Here ’ s another stupid thing : Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness .
I ’ m not here to debate the idea .
What I can tell you is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way through school , sent their kids to school , paid off student loans .
They don ’ t want to hear this shit .
And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this .
It ’ s just not a winning message .
The core of Carville ’ s message is that you have to always be thinking about the persuadable voters because ultimately every election is about persuading a majority of voters with your most appealing issues .
As Carville sees it , there ’ s no alternative : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s persuadable , then let ’ s just have the revolution.
” As for the outcome in 2020 , Carville was asked if he sees anyone who can beat Trump and replied , “ I don ’ t know , I just don ’ t know.
” Carville will be ignored by Sanders ’ supporters , probably with a jaunty “ Ok , boomer.
” He ’ s old , he ’ s out of touch , he ’ s moderate—lots of reasons to ignore him .
But I think he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .

Earlier this week James Carville went on MSNBC and told Democrats it was time to panic. “I mean, I’m 75 years old why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death that’s why,” Carville said. The clip of Carville’s on-air panic went viral and today, Vox interviewed Carville and gave him a chance to revise and extend his remarks:
Sean Illing
Why are you “scared to death” about the 2020 election? James Carville
Look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted. Trump’s approval rating is probably as high as it’s been. This is very bad. And now it appears the party can’t even count votes. What the hell am I supposed to think?… We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. They’re talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. You’ve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesn’t matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments — talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party…
I’m not sure Carville is personally that far off from Bernie’s positions on these issues, but he knows that winning an election means focusing on issues where you have an electoral advantage, not ones where the electorate is against you. The counter-argument, which Vox’s Sean Illing makes, is that maybe things have changed so much that Sanders can win despite his far-left platform.
Sean Illing
A lot of threads there. First, a lot of people don’t trust the Democratic Party, don’t believe in the party, for reasons you’ve already mentioned, and so they just don’t care about that. They want change. And I guess the other thing I’d say is, 2016 scrambled our understanding of what’s possible in American politics. Are we really sure Sanders can’t win? James Carville
Who the hell knows? But here’s what I do know: Sanders might get 280 electoral votes and win the presidency and maybe we keep the House. But there’s no chance in hell we’ll ever win the Senate with Sanders at the top of the party defining it for the public. Eighteen percent of the country elects more than half of our senators. That’s the deal, fair or not. So long as McConnell runs the Senate, it’s game over. There’s no chance we’ll change the courts and nothing will happen, and he’ll just be sitting up there screaming in the microphone about the revolution.
As another example of a losing issue, Carville brought up a viral video in which a voter confronted Elizabeth Warren over her college debt forgiveness plan:
Here’s another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. I’m not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They don’t want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. It’s just not a winning message.
The core of Carville’s message is that you have to always be thinking about the persuadable voters because ultimately every election is about persuading a majority of voters with your most appealing issues. As Carville sees it, there’s no alternative: “look, if no one’s persuadable, then let’s just have the revolution.”
As for the outcome in 2020, Carville was asked if he sees anyone who can beat Trump and replied, “I don’t know, I just don’t know.”
Carville will be ignored by Sanders’ supporters, probably with a jaunty “Ok, boomer.” He’s old, he’s out of touch, he’s moderate—lots of reasons to ignore him. But I think he’s right about Sanders, at least so far.


hotair--2020-02-07--Two red-state Dems to Pelosi: Tearing up Trump's speech was disrespectful and inappropriate

What they mean is “ stupid ” and “ unhelpful ” but their phrasing is more tactful .
The most notable thing about Pelosi tearing up the speech was how uncharacteristic it was .
Not in the sense that she normally loves Trump but in the sense that she ’ s normally a bottom-line politician , just like McConnell .
Try to imagine Mitch McConnell letting his spite towards an opponent overcome him and lead him into doing something petty and unnecessary that would obviously make life harder for the most vulnerable members of his caucus .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even raise his voice .
He approaches each day with two directives in his CPU : ( 1 ) Confirm more conservative judges and ( 2 ) maximize the number of Republicans in the Senate after the next election .
Pelosi normally follows similar directives .
Normally .
You may remember the names Joe Cunningham and Ben McAdams from the big impeachment vote in December .
Cunningham represents Mark Sanford ’ s very red district in South Carolina ; McAdams represents Mia Love ’ s very red district in Utah .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Democratic wave of 2018 , and both were expected to vote no on impeachment for the sake of protecting themselves electorally .
Each is likely to lose this fall but a show of support for Trump in a big spot would have helped their chances by earning them some goodwill from Republican constituents .
Instead both ended up voting to impeach , along with every other endangered red-district Democratic freshman .
And , almost certainly , they did so because Pelosi demanded it .
She didn ’ t want to lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to formalize the impeachment inquiry and the final vote on impeachment , knowing that if she did Republicans would have crowed that Schiff ’ s witness pageant had succeeded only in dissuading some members of his own party .
In the end only Tulsi Gabbard flipped ( to “ present ” on the final vote ) .
The freshmen all did what the boss demanded .
So now here she was on Tuesday night , adding insult to injury in their home districts by disrespecting Trump on national television after his well-received speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : This is how she repays us ?
Does she … want us to lose ?
Reps. Joe Cunningham ( S.C. ) and Ben McAdams ( Utah ) together spoke to Pelosi for several minutes on the House floor before they cast votes to block the attempted reprimand .
McAdams said he told Pelosi that he thought the gesture “ was inappropriate and that we deserve better than that.
” “ I thought it was disrespectful , ” he said .
“ I found things that I agreed with and things that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s speech , but I thought that that was beneath us.
” Cunningham said he found “ some blame on both sides ” for the displays of partisanship at Tuesday ’ s address .
Pelosi always figures heavily in GOP attack ads in House races because party ad men know how much Republican voters dislike her .
Which clip of her will show up in the ads targeting Cunningham and McAdams this fall , do you suppose ?
Three possible explanations for her behavior .
One : She hates Trump so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She forgot herself in the moment .
The bile overload is giving her brain damage .
Two : She knew when she tore the speech up that freshmen like Cunningham and McAdams would pay the price , but she ’ s also resigned to the fact that they ’ re one-termers anyway .
Their impeachment votes sealed that deal ; no sense worrying about them now .
The flaw in that theory , though , is that there are plenty of other Dem freshmen from districts that are less solidly red who stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their support for impeachment .
Pelosi knifed them too by giving Republican voters extra motivation to oust them this fall .
Third : Maybe she *was* being bottom-line about this .
Politico noticed yesterday that House Democrats are crushing their Republican challengers in fundraising .
The roughly four dozen most endangered House Democratic incumbents raised a collective $ 28.5 million in the last three months of 2019 , a staggering total that is nearly twice the sum of all of their Republican challengers combined , according to a POLITICO review of the fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House GOP leaders have deemed an all-out crisis , throws the Democratic advantage into stark relief : 32 of the 42 swing-seat Democrats raised over $ 500,000 last quarter and 36 started the election year with at least $ 1 million in cash on hand .
Of the over 120 Republicans who filed to run against the so-called frontliners , just six had cleared that fundraising threshold , and three had that much in the bank .
“ This is quite a wake-up call for Republicans — no way getting around it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
“ There ’ s no panacea in this .
It ’ s going to take a lot more grinding work.
” … Buoyed by grassroots enthusiasm and the structural dominance of ActBlue , Democrats have moved the financial goal post , and privately many Republicans are at a loss about how to adapt .
Was it a fundraising stunt ?
The New York Post noticed that Pelosi began making little tears in her copy of Trump ’ s speech before she finally tore it up on camera at the end .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defiance and contempt right over Trump ’ s shoulder would excite Democratic donors , which would benefit the likes of Cunningham and McAdams financially even if it happened to cost them a little something in terms of rising opposition enthusiasm .
It ’ s not just Republican donors who reach for their wallets when they see one of their hate objects get disrespected in a big spot , after all .
Possibly Pelosi saw this as an opportunity to monetize hyperpartisanship on her own side in a quick lowbrow way .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think she just hates Trump and doesn ’ t care if Cunningham and McAdams have to pay the price .
McConnell must have chortled when he watched it .

What they mean is “stupid” and “unhelpful” but their phrasing is more tactful.
The most notable thing about Pelosi tearing up the speech was how uncharacteristic it was. Not in the sense that she normally loves Trump but in the sense that she’s normally a bottom-line politician, just like McConnell. Try to imagine Mitch McConnell letting his spite towards an opponent overcome him and lead him into doing something petty and unnecessary that would obviously make life harder for the most vulnerable members of his caucus. It’s impossible. The man doesn’t even raise his voice. He approaches each day with two directives in his CPU: (1) Confirm more conservative judges and (2) maximize the number of Republicans in the Senate after the next election.
Pelosi normally follows similar directives. Normally.
You may remember the names Joe Cunningham and Ben McAdams from the big impeachment vote in December. Cunningham represents Mark Sanford’s very red district in South Carolina; McAdams represents Mia Love’s very red district in Utah. They’re both freshmen, swept into office in the Democratic wave of 2018, and both were expected to vote no on impeachment for the sake of protecting themselves electorally. Each is likely to lose this fall but a show of support for Trump in a big spot would have helped their chances by earning them some goodwill from Republican constituents. Instead both ended up voting to impeach, along with every other endangered red-district Democratic freshman. And, almost certainly, they did so because Pelosi demanded it. She didn’t want to lose any votes between the initial House vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry and the final vote on impeachment, knowing that if she did Republicans would have crowed that Schiff’s witness pageant had succeeded only in dissuading some members of his own party. In the end only Tulsi Gabbard flipped (to “present” on the final vote). The freshmen all did what the boss demanded.
So now here she was on Tuesday night, adding insult to injury in their home districts by disrespecting Trump on national television after his well-received speech. Cunningham and McAdams must have wondered: This is how she repays us? Does she … want us to lose?
Reps. Joe Cunningham (S.C.) and Ben McAdams (Utah) together spoke to Pelosi for several minutes on the House floor before they cast votes to block the attempted reprimand. McAdams said he told Pelosi that he thought the gesture “was inappropriate and that we deserve better than that.” “I thought it was disrespectful,” he said. “I found things that I agreed with and things that I didn’t agree with in the president’s speech, but I thought that that was beneath us.” Cunningham said he found “some blame on both sides” for the displays of partisanship at Tuesday’s address.
Pelosi always figures heavily in GOP attack ads in House races because party ad men know how much Republican voters dislike her. Which clip of her will show up in the ads targeting Cunningham and McAdams this fall, do you suppose?
Three possible explanations for her behavior. One: She hates Trump so much that she lost her cool. She forgot herself in the moment. The bile overload is giving her brain damage. Two: She knew when she tore the speech up that freshmen like Cunningham and McAdams would pay the price, but she’s also resigned to the fact that they’re one-termers anyway. Their impeachment votes sealed that deal; no sense worrying about them now. The flaw in that theory, though, is that there are plenty of other Dem freshmen from districts that are less solidly red who stand a real chance of winning reelection despite their support for impeachment. Pelosi knifed them too by giving Republican voters extra motivation to oust them this fall.
Third: Maybe she *was* being bottom-line about this. Politico noticed yesterday that House Democrats are crushing their Republican challengers in fundraising.
The roughly four dozen most endangered House Democratic incumbents raised a collective $28.5 million in the last three months of 2019, a staggering total that is nearly twice the sum of all of their Republican challengers combined, according to a POLITICO review of the fundraising filings. This drastic disparity, which House GOP leaders have deemed an all-out crisis, throws the Democratic advantage into stark relief: 32 of the 42 swing-seat Democrats raised over $500,000 last quarter and 36 started the election year with at least $1 million in cash on hand. Of the over 120 Republicans who filed to run against the so-called frontliners, just six had cleared that fundraising threshold, and three had that much in the bank. “This is quite a wake-up call for Republicans — no way getting around it,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.). “There’s no panacea in this. It’s going to take a lot more grinding work.”… Buoyed by grassroots enthusiasm and the structural dominance of ActBlue, Democrats have moved the financial goal post, and privately many Republicans are at a loss about how to adapt.
Was it a fundraising stunt? The New York Post noticed that Pelosi began making little tears in her copy of Trump’s speech before she finally tore it up on camera at the end. Maybe she calculated that a showy act of defiance and contempt right over Trump’s shoulder would excite Democratic donors, which would benefit the likes of Cunningham and McAdams financially even if it happened to cost them a little something in terms of rising opposition enthusiasm. It’s not just Republican donors who reach for their wallets when they see one of their hate objects get disrespected in a big spot, after all. Possibly Pelosi saw this as an opportunity to monetize hyperpartisanship on her own side in a quick lowbrow way.
That seems too clever by half, though. I think she just hates Trump and doesn’t care if Cunningham and McAdams have to pay the price. McConnell must have chortled when he watched it.


hotair--2020-02-07--In Iowa, Bernie Sanders didn't expand the electorate and had no crossover appeal

Yesterday the Associated Press said it was unable to declare a victor in the race because of irregularities and DNC Chair Tom Perez called for a recanvass .
As it stands now the race is essentially a dead heat between Sanders and Buttigieg with each able to claim victory depending on which metric is used .
Here ’ s how Philip Bump as the Post summed it up this morning : As it stands , with all of the precincts in , Sanders leads on two metrics — support after the first alignment and support after the second alignment — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor Pete Buttigieg leads on the state-delegate equivalent metric .
Buttigieg put an emphasis on counties where the county delegates were worth more state-delegate equivalents , and it seems to have paid off .
Only barely , though .
He currently leads by a 564.02-to-562.44 margin , fewer than two state-delegate equivalents .
That narrow lead is in part a function of how the party interpreted the satellite caucus rules .
Incidentally , Sanders ’ s campaign put a focus on organizing those .
Even if Sanders didn ’ t quite win when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still had a good night .
Or did he ?
Over at NBC News , Chuck Todd , Mark Murray and Carrie Dann have a piece suggesting that the outcome of Iowa actually contained some bad news for Sanders .
Turnout was lower than expected .
And the entrance poll showed him with limited crossover appeal outside of his young , very liberal base .
Sanders got just 8 percent support from Iowa caucus-goers 45 and older .
And among seniors 65-plus , it was just 4 percent .
While he overperformed among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 percent ) , he underperformed among “ somewhat liberals ” ( 19 percent ) and moderates ( 12 percent ) .
He got just 12 percent support from white women college graduates — arguably the heart of the Dem resistance against Trump .
And maybe most concerning of all for Sanders , he won more than half of the Iowa caucus-goers who said they supported him in 2016 .
But he barely registered ( 7 percent ) among the 54 percent of all Iowa caucus-goers who said they backed Hillary Clinton four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters , you have to consider the context .
The left wing of the Democratic Party has been arguing , really for years , that nominating moderates was a mistake .
They believed there were a lot of potential voters who simply didn ’ t turn out when the nominee was a relative moderate like Hillary Clinton .
And the promise was that if you had a real progressive nominee like Sanders , suddenly there would be a big influx of new people going to the polls to support the bold progressive candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state director made exactly this case just before the caucuses : “ What we believe is that the only way we defeat Donald Trump is through people , ” said Sanders ’ Iowa State Director Misty Rebik in an interview with ABC News .
“ The way we strength the Democratic Party – to not only defeat Donald Trump or win back the senate and do all the other ambitious goal we need to do to transform this country – is to expand the electorate and that includes talking directly to working class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” … “ We have been trying to create new entry points into the political process this entire time .
We ’ ll see if it works , ” Rebik added .
Now that the results are in , it looks like Sanders failed to expand the electorate .
From NPR : Late Monday night , the party ’ s communications director , Mandy McClure , said , “ Early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016.
” With 71 % of precincts reporting at this point , that estimate looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 239,000 caucused in 2008 ’ s record-setting year .
In 2016 , it was the second-highest , but just 171,000 .
That ’ s disappointing for Democrats .
They were hoping , with their first contest of the nominating season , to show they had a high level of enthusiasm and that they are , to borrow a phrase , fired up and ready to go defeat President Trump .
In fact , it ’ s worse than that .
Not only was the overall turnout modest , there was a dip in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that Sanders can ’ t win the Democratic nomination .
But , unless something changes , he ’ s not expanding the electorate in a way that will make up for all the moderate and swing voters he ’ s turning off with his far-left agenda .
So when it comes to the general election , he could become America ’ s Jeremy Corbyn .
And that brings us to Jonathan Chait who has written a sequel to his previous post saying that nominating Sanders would be an act of insanity : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to say , before it gets totally black .
So it is for the American center-left right now .
Bernie Sanders is currently favored to win the nomination , a prospect that would make Donald Trump a heavy favorite to win reelection , and open the possibility of a Corbyn-esque wipeout .
While Sanders has not expanded beyond a minority of the party , he has consolidated support of the party ’ s left wing , and while its mainstream liberal wing is split between numerous contenders , it is hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve soon .
Indeed , it could get worse , much worse… At the moment , the party is melting down over a vote-reporting fiasco in Iowa .
In time , we liberals may look back at this moment as a high point .
This kind of doom and gloom is catnip for conservatives but the important point is that it ’ s not coming from conservatives , it ’ s coming from Democrats .
Hillary Clinton said pretty much the same thing yesterday .
Again , the caveat here is that Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
But as a first test of Sanders ’ promise to expand the electorate , Iowa was a failure .

Bernie Sanders has belatedly declared victory in Iowa:
Our unprecedented grassroots movement propelled us to victory in Iowa. Now help us build momentum in states around the nation. Use the BERN app: https://t.co/Gt1rdtpOxn Help knock 1 million doors: https://t.co/nV3LWZyzKA Help reach 15 million calls: https://t.co/QMWpC9wo9n pic.twitter.com/TZXQr8cpEt — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 7, 2020
Yesterday the Associated Press said it was unable to declare a victor in the race because of irregularities and DNC Chair Tom Perez called for a recanvass. As it stands now the race is essentially a dead heat between Sanders and Buttigieg with each able to claim victory depending on which metric is used. Here’s how Philip Bump as the Post summed it up this morning:
As it stands, with all of the precincts in, Sanders leads on two metrics — support after the first alignment and support after the second alignment — and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg leads on the state-delegate equivalent metric. Buttigieg put an emphasis on counties where the county delegates were worth more state-delegate equivalents, and it seems to have paid off. Only barely, though. He currently leads by a 564.02-to-562.44 margin, fewer than two state-delegate equivalents. That narrow lead is in part a function of how the party interpreted the satellite caucus rules. Incidentally, Sanders’s campaign put a focus on organizing those.
Even if Sanders didn’t quite win when it comes to state-delegate equivalents, he still had a good night.
Or did he?
Over at NBC News, Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann have a piece suggesting that the outcome of Iowa actually contained some bad news for Sanders.
Turnout was lower than expected. And the entrance poll showed him with limited crossover appeal outside of his young, very liberal base. Sanders got just 8 percent support from Iowa caucus-goers 45 and older. And among seniors 65-plus, it was just 4 percent. While he overperformed among “very liberal” Iowa Dems (43 percent), he underperformed among “somewhat liberals” (19 percent) and moderates (12 percent). He got just 12 percent support from white women college graduates — arguably the heart of the Dem resistance against Trump. And maybe most concerning of all for Sanders, he won more than half of the Iowa caucus-goers who said they supported him in 2016. But he barely registered (7 percent) among the 54 percent of all Iowa caucus-goers who said they backed Hillary Clinton four years ago.
To see why this matters, you have to consider the context. The left wing of the Democratic Party has been arguing, really for years, that nominating moderates was a mistake. They believed there were a lot of potential voters who simply didn’t turn out when the nominee was a relative moderate like Hillary Clinton. And the promise was that if you had a real progressive nominee like Sanders, suddenly there would be a big influx of new people going to the polls to support the bold progressive candidate. In fact, Sanders’ Iowa state director made exactly this case just before the caucuses:
“What we believe is that the only way we defeat Donald Trump is through people,” said Sanders’ Iowa State Director Misty Rebik in an interview with ABC News. “The way we strength the Democratic Party – to not only defeat Donald Trump or win back the senate and do all the other ambitious goal we need to do to transform this country – is to expand the electorate and that includes talking directly to working class people and meeting them where they are.”… “We have been trying to create new entry points into the political process this entire time. We’ll see if it works,” Rebik added.
Now that the results are in, it looks like Sanders failed to expand the electorate. From NPR:
Late Monday night, the party’s communications director, Mandy McClure, said, “Early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016.” With 71% of precincts reporting at this point, that estimate looks like it is still on track. Some 239,000 caucused in 2008’s record-setting year. In 2016, it was the second-highest, but just 171,000. That’s disappointing for Democrats. They were hoping, with their first contest of the nominating season, to show they had a high level of enthusiasm and that they are, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go defeat President Trump.
In fact, it’s worse than that. Not only was the overall turnout modest, there was a dip in first time voters:
The entrance poll showed just about a third of voters — 35 percent — caucusing this year are first-timers, a lower level than in 2016, when first-timers made up 44 percent of the Hawkeye State’s Democratic caucusgoers. And this year’s level of new participants is well shy of that in 2008, when a whopping 57 percent of Democrats said they had never caucused before.
None of that means that Sanders can’t win the Democratic nomination. But, unless something changes, he’s not expanding the electorate in a way that will make up for all the moderate and swing voters he’s turning off with his far-left agenda. So when it comes to the general election, he could become America’s Jeremy Corbyn. And that brings us to Jonathan Chait who has written a sequel to his previous post saying that nominating Sanders would be an act of insanity:
It is always darkest, John McCain used to say, before it gets totally black. So it is for the American center-left right now. Bernie Sanders is currently favored to win the nomination, a prospect that would make Donald Trump a heavy favorite to win reelection, and open the possibility of a Corbyn-esque wipeout. While Sanders has not expanded beyond a minority of the party, he has consolidated support of the party’s left wing, and while its mainstream liberal wing is split between numerous contenders, it is hard to see how the situation is likely to improve soon. Indeed, it could get worse, much worse… At the moment, the party is melting down over a vote-reporting fiasco in Iowa. In time, we liberals may look back at this moment as a high point.
This kind of doom and gloom is catnip for conservatives but the important point is that it’s not coming from conservatives, it’s coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton said pretty much the same thing yesterday. Again, the caveat here is that Iowa is only one state and things could change. But as a first test of Sanders’ promise to expand the electorate, Iowa was a failure.


hotair--2020-02-07--Tucker Carlson: House bill will end “prison to deportation pipeline”

FNC show host Tucker Carlson sounded the alarm on a bill pending in the House on Thursday night .
Previously flying under the radar , the New Way Forward Act would completely change how criminal illegal aliens are handled in the U.S. judicial system .
As of now , 44 House Democrats , including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , are sponsoring the legislation .
Remember how Barack Obama frequently told us that he intended to “ fundamentally change ” America ?
Well , the Democrats in the House are still working on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it than with the immigration system ?
It turns out that not only do our progressive betters want to abolish ICE and do away with deportations , the New Way Forward Act even has a clause in it that puts the American taxpayer on the hook for bringing illegal aliens who have been deported back into the United States .
I think it is safe to say that most Americans do not know about the New Way Forward Act now pending in the House of Representatives .
Besides going about day-to-day life , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than impeachment hysteria and the Democrat primary race .
While the Senate , under the expert guidance of Mitch McConnell , has been moving judicial nominations through confirmation votes at record speed , the progressive wing of the Democrat Party has been quietly moving a radical immigration bill through the House .
The good news is that the judges President Trump is putting on the bench will be a part of dealing with any immigration reforms being made by Congress .
The bad news is that progressive Democrats are bat poop crazy on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right response to legislation pushed by the opposition party in the House , even if it has little hopes of being passed in the Senate .
But in this case , it ’ s time to sit up and pay attention .
Carlson said that the New Way Forward Act “ makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.
” The legislation “ reforms ” include eliminating the current policy of deporting criminal aliens .
Felony convictions would no longer be a reason to deport illegal aliens .
Accordingly , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society .
Consider this : Under current law , immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery , fraud , or child sexual abuse – must be deported , regardless of the sentence they receive .
Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence .
But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president , there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation .
None .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be made immune from deportation , no matter what .
Because apparently 9/11 never happened , and we no longer care about fake government documents .
It doesn ’ t matter if the illegal immigrant commits murder , car theft , or rape – the criminal would receive a prison sentence and be allowed to remain in the country .
Also , he or she would be allowed to apply for citizenship .
The legislation gives new powers to immigration judges which allow them to nullify deportation orders .
But , wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill abolishes the current enforcement of immigration law at the border .
We know that the progressive left wants to abolish ICE and the Border Patrol , too , so this part shouldn ’ t come as a surprise .
It ’ s the fever dream of the open borders crowd to ignore the sovereignty of the United States and erase the southern border .
ICE would have to prove in court that an illegal alien is a flight risk or danger to society , but the catch is that previous criminal records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What could go wrong with that ?
Some detainees claiming to be gay or transgender , under 21 years of age , or unable to speak English are given extra protection .
The cherry on top of this unicorn-flavored sundae is that the American taxpayer will be expected to foot the bill to transport convicted criminal aliens back into the United States to resettle .
It ’ s a new right – the “ right to come home.
” The bill orders the government to create a “ pathway for those previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes and families in the United States , ” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law .
The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States .
Who will be eligible for these free flights ?
Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes .
Sexual abuse .
Robbery .
Assault .
Drug trafficking , weapons trafficking , human trafficking .
From 2002 to 2018 , 480,000 people were deported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And under this bill , you ’ d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back .
The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars , and that ’ s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals ’ free health care , too .
Which they plan to .
In a sane world , progressive Democrats would realize that if someone is bold enough to feel entitled to arrive in the United States without going through the proper procedure that immigrants have been required to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be expected to do is obey the laws of the land .
Instead , Democrats want to reward some really bad behavior with American citizenship , no matter the seriousness of the crime .
Anything less is labeled as white supremacism .
It ’ s nuts .
Fortunately , with Republicans in the majority in the U.S. Senate , there is no way that this legislation will pass there , much less any hopes of President Trump signing it into law .
This type of legislation is reason enough to increase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold the Senate , and make sure President Trump is re-elected in the November general election .
Believe these extremist Democrats when they tell you who they are .

FNC show host Tucker Carlson sounded the alarm on a bill pending in the House on Thursday night. Previously flying under the radar, the New Way Forward Act would completely change how criminal illegal aliens are handled in the U.S. judicial system. As of now, 44 House Democrats, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, are sponsoring the legislation.
Remember how Barack Obama frequently told us that he intended to “fundamentally change” America? Well, the Democrats in the House are still working on that goal and what better way to do it than with the immigration system? It turns out that not only do our progressive betters want to abolish ICE and do away with deportations, the New Way Forward Act even has a clause in it that puts the American taxpayer on the hook for bringing illegal aliens who have been deported back into the United States.
I think it is safe to say that most Americans do not know about the New Way Forward Act now pending in the House of Representatives. Besides going about day-to-day life, Americans have been bombarded with little more than impeachment hysteria and the Democrat primary race. While the Senate, under the expert guidance of Mitch McConnell, has been moving judicial nominations through confirmation votes at record speed, the progressive wing of the Democrat Party has been quietly moving a radical immigration bill through the House. The good news is that the judges President Trump is putting on the bench will be a part of dealing with any immigration reforms being made by Congress. The bad news is that progressive Democrats are bat poop crazy on the subject.
Sometimes alarm is the right response to legislation pushed by the opposition party in the House, even if it has little hopes of being passed in the Senate. But in this case, it’s time to sit up and pay attention. Carlson said that the New Way Forward Act “makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.” The legislation “reforms” include eliminating the current policy of deporting criminal aliens. Felony convictions would no longer be a reason to deport illegal aliens. Accordingly, the criminals would just be released back into society.
Consider this: Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery, fraud, or child sexual abuse – must be deported, regardless of the sentence they receive. Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence. But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation. None. And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation, no matter what. Because apparently 9/11 never happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents.
It doesn’t matter if the illegal immigrant commits murder, car theft, or rape – the criminal would receive a prison sentence and be allowed to remain in the country. Also, he or she would be allowed to apply for citizenship. The legislation gives new powers to immigration judges which allow them to nullify deportation orders.
The only requirement is that “the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In other words, anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders. No vote required.
But, wait, there’s more. The bill abolishes the current enforcement of immigration law at the border. We know that the progressive left wants to abolish ICE and the Border Patrol, too, so this part shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s the fever dream of the open borders crowd to ignore the sovereignty of the United States and erase the southern border. ICE would have to prove in court that an illegal alien is a flight risk or danger to society, but the catch is that previous criminal records would not be allowed into the argument. What could go wrong with that? Some detainees claiming to be gay or transgender, under 21 years of age, or unable to speak English are given extra protection.
The cherry on top of this unicorn-flavored sundae is that the American taxpayer will be expected to foot the bill to transport convicted criminal aliens back into the United States to resettle. It’s a new right – the “right to come home.”
The bill orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States,” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law. The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States. Who will be eligible for these free flights? Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes. Sexual abuse. Robbery. Assault. Drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking. From 2002 to 2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or re-entry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back. The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals’ free health care, too. Which they plan to.
In a sane world, progressive Democrats would realize that if someone is bold enough to feel entitled to arrive in the United States without going through the proper procedure that immigrants have been required to do for generations, the very least they could be expected to do is obey the laws of the land. Instead, Democrats want to reward some really bad behavior with American citizenship, no matter the seriousness of the crime. Anything less is labeled as white supremacism. It’s nuts.
Fortunately, with Republicans in the majority in the U.S. Senate, there is no way that this legislation will pass there, much less any hopes of President Trump signing it into law. This type of legislation is reason enough to increase the number of Republicans in the House, hold the Senate, and make sure President Trump is re-elected in the November general election. Believe these extremist Democrats when they tell you who they are.


hotair--2020-02-07--Appeals court: Dems have no standing to sue Trump over the Emoluments Clause

Activist groups and unions didn ’ t have standing to sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause .
States and private competitors didn ’ t have standing to sue either , the 4th Circuit ruled last year .
If Democrats in Congress don ’ t have standing to sue over alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause , then who does ?
Nobody , says the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision , because this is an institutional dispute rather than an individual one .
The court also strongly hints in its opinion in Blumenthal et al v @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue for the legislative and executive branches to hash out between themselves : A federal appeals court in Washington threw out a lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally profiting off his private businesses while in office , ruling that the Democratic lawmakers who brought the suit lack standing to sue .
A three-judge panel on the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday said in a brief 12-page decision that the dispute centering around the Constitution ’ s emoluments clauses has no place in the court system .
… The decision is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike every recent president , has refused to relinquish control over his business assets by placing them in a blind trust .
First off , the court notes repeatedly , the case fails on its face because it involves political power , and only a minority of Congress is participating in the lawsuit : The district court erred in holding that the Members suffered an injury based on “ [ t ] he President .
.
.
depriving [ them ] of the opportunity to give or withhold their consent [ to foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their roles as members of Congress.
” Id .
at 62 ( quotation marks omitted ) .
After Raines and Bethune-Hill , only an institution can assert an institutional injury provided the injury is not “ wholly abstract and widely dispersed.
” Raines , 521 U.S. at 829 .
… Here , regardless of rigor , our conclusion is straightforward because the Members—29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives—do not constitute a majority of either body and are , therefore , powerless to approve or deny the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States v. Ballin , 144 U.S. 1 , 7 ( 1892 ) ( “ The two houses of [ C ] ongress are legislative bodies representing larger constituencies .
Power is not vested in any one individual , but in the aggregate of the members who compose the body [ . ]
” ) .
For standing , the Members ’ inability to act determinatively is important , see Raines , 521 U.S. at 829 , and , conversely , the size of their cohort is not—so long as it is too small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assess this complaint—filed by 215 Members—no differently from our assessment of a complaint filed by a single Member .
If Congress filed the lawsuit as a body , it might have standing to pursue their claims .
However , the opinion also hints that this is a political rather than legal issue , even beyond the technical problems of standing under Raines .
They stress that the plaintiffs still have political recourses open to them to pursue their argument , and then state that this case doesn ’ t present an opening for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and likely will , continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people , their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself , all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit .
But we will not—indeed we can not —participate in this debate .
The Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither .
That sounds as though the court would dismiss a lawsuit even if authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emoluments Clause claim .
It ’ s not difficult to see why , either .
Congress has never really addressed the Emoluments Clause through legislation except to require financial disclosures by senior executive branch officials , including the president .
It hasn ’ t even required the release of tax returns nor mandated the use of blind trusts by presidents , practices that are voluntary if heavily impacted by political pressure .
Congress can act by defining emoluments in statute , assuming they can do so with a presidential signature or a veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then review if challenged by future presidents .
As long as it remains a constitutional dispute rather than a legal dispute , the court implies , it ’ s a question to resolve between the legislative and executive branches .
Where does that leave us on the Emoluments Clause ?
Basically nowhere in this moment .
Congress could take it up through impeachment , but House Democrats have really emptied their ammunition stores on that mechanism , politically speaking .
Voters elected a businessman to be president without any worry over whether he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in office .
They have an opportunity to express their displeasure with his choices at the ballot box in November .
Democrats can make the Emoluments Clause argument to the people , the court says , and leave it to them .
A future Congress could — and probably should — work on a clearer consensus definition of emoluments , in case voters decide to keep sending moguls to the White House , and quit demanding that the judiciary do their job for them .
That ’ s the clear message sent by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Activist groups and unions didn’t have standing to sue Donald Trump under the Emoluments Clause. States and private competitors didn’t have standing to sue either, the 4th Circuit ruled last year. If Democrats in Congress don’t have standing to sue over alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause, then who does?
Nobody, says the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision, because this is an institutional dispute rather than an individual one. The court also strongly hints in its opinion in Blumenthal et al v Trump that it’s a political issue for the legislative and executive branches to hash out between themselves:
A federal appeals court in Washington threw out a lawsuit accusing President Trump of illegally profiting off his private businesses while in office, ruling that the Democratic lawmakers who brought the suit lack standing to sue. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday said in a brief 12-page decision that the dispute centering around the Constitution’s emoluments clauses has no place in the court system. … The decision is a major win for Trump, who unlike every recent president, has refused to relinquish control over his business assets by placing them in a blind trust.
First off, the court notes repeatedly, the case fails on its face because it involves political power, and only a minority of Congress is participating in the lawsuit:
The district court erred in holding that the Members suffered an injury based on “[t]he President . . . depriving [them] of the opportunity to give or withhold their consent [to foreign emoluments], thereby injuring them in their roles as members of Congress.” Id. at 62 (quotation marks omitted). After Raines and Bethune-Hill, only an institution can assert an institutional injury provided the injury is not “wholly abstract and widely dispersed.” Raines, 521 U.S. at 829. … Here, regardless of rigor, our conclusion is straightforward because the Members—29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives—do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President’s acceptance of foreign emoluments. See United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1, 7 (1892) (“The two houses of [C]ongress are legislative bodies representing larger constituencies. Power is not vested in any one individual, but in the aggregate of the members who compose the body[.]”). For standing, the Members’ inability to act determinatively is important, see Raines, 521 U.S. at 829, and, conversely, the size of their cohort is not—so long as it is too small to act. That is, we assess this complaint—filed by 215 Members—no differently from our assessment of a complaint filed by a single Member.
If Congress filed the lawsuit as a body, it might have standing to pursue their claims. However, the opinion also hints that this is a political rather than legal issue, even beyond the technical problems of standing under Raines. They stress that the plaintiffs still have political recourses open to them to pursue their argument, and then state that this case doesn’t present an opening for judicial intervention anyway:
The Members can, and likely will, continue to use their weighty voices to make their case to the American people, their colleagues in the Congress and the President himself, all of whom are free to engage that argument as they see fit. But we will not—indeed we cannot—participate in this debate. The Constitution permits the Judiciary to speak only in the context of an Article III case or controversy and this lawsuit presents neither.
That sounds as though the court would dismiss a lawsuit even if authorized by both chambers of Congress on the Emoluments Clause claim. It’s not difficult to see why, either. Congress has never really addressed the Emoluments Clause through legislation except to require financial disclosures by senior executive branch officials, including the president. It hasn’t even required the release of tax returns nor mandated the use of blind trusts by presidents, practices that are voluntary if heavily impacted by political pressure. Congress can act by defining emoluments in statute, assuming they can do so with a presidential signature or a veto override, laws which the judiciary could then review if challenged by future presidents. As long as it remains a constitutional dispute rather than a legal dispute, the court implies, it’s a question to resolve between the legislative and executive branches.
Where does that leave us on the Emoluments Clause? Basically nowhere in this moment. Congress could take it up through impeachment, but House Democrats have really emptied their ammunition stores on that mechanism, politically speaking. Voters elected a businessman to be president without any worry over whether he continued to operate his business empire while in office. They have an opportunity to express their displeasure with his choices at the ballot box in November. Democrats can make the Emoluments Clause argument to the people, the court says, and leave it to them.
A future Congress could — and probably should — work on a clearer consensus definition of emoluments, in case voters decide to keep sending moguls to the White House, and quit demanding that the judiciary do their job for them. That’s the clear message sent by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals today.


hotair--2020-02-07--Two new New Hampshire polls show Biden sliding to ... fourth

I know no one wants to spend a few hours on a Friday night watching another party ’ s presidential debate but you need to appreciate the opportunity tonight presents .
Rarely will you get a chance to see a universally known politician go from de facto frontrunner to Hindenburg disaster in the span of five days .
The flop sweat from Biden onstage tonight will be so profuse they ’ ll have to lay down a tarp beforehand .
Imagine how many phone calls Obama has gotten since Monday night from liberals begging him to endorse and prevent Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now or never , Barack .
But you know what ?
It might already be too late .
New from Suffolk : Bernie Sanders is holding steady at 24 percent , but Buttigieg is up four points over last night with 23 percent , a virtual tie in a survey with a margin of error of 4.4 percent .
Elizabeth Warren takes over third place with 13 percent , and Joe Biden slips to fourth with 11 percent… Among women , Warren is down four points from Wednesday night and Buttigieg is up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a core source of Biden backers , Buttigieg has doubled his support overnight , a 16 point jump .
That ’ s a great irony of this race .
The oldest candidate in the field is indisputably the favorite of the youngest cohort of voters whereas the youngest candidate in the field is surging past Biden to become the favorite of the oldest cohort .
A second new poll , this one from Emerson , sees the same dynamic : Bernie leads Buttigieg 44/17 among voters under 50 .
Buttigieg leads Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now third in that group , his alleged base , with 17 percent .
And if you look again at that graph , you ’ ll see that his hold on fourth place is tenuous , with Klobuchar right behind him .
What happens if he slides to fifth on Tuesday night ?
He ’ s counting on South Carolina to revive him before Super Tuesday , but if we get another Bernie-Buttigieg one-two ( or two-one ) finish in New Hampshire *and* Nevada , I don ’ t know how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ballot on Joe .
His argument all along has been that he ’ s electable ; by the time South Carolina votes , we might have three elections in the bag in which Biden finished fourth .
What ’ s left of the electability case for Joe at that point ?
And where does the money come from that ’ ll help him run competitive campaigns in Super Tuesday states ?
The Atlantic has a premortem of Joe 2020 out today .
Title : “ How Biden Blew It.
” [ F @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s now an open question whether Biden will have the cash to pay for his charter plane to fly him around the 14 Super Tuesday states that vote on March 3… After a disastrous summer of fundraising , plans from the team in Iowa and other states would linger with national headquarters for weeks , then come back without approval for the spending being requested .
Other candidates were quickly hiring staff—particularly Buttigieg , who in June had all of four staffers in the state but went into the caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under an almost complete hiring freeze .
The campaign yanked its TV ads , leaving Biden dark for weeks and exponentially outspent in online advertising by Warren and Buttigieg , who soon had the rising poll numbers to show for it .
At one point , aides realized , Biden was on track to spend less on TV in Iowa in this race than in his 2008 run , when he finished as an asterisk , with 1 percent of the vote .
Biden aides who were being honest with themselves knew for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some didn ’ t want to believe it ; some couldn ’ t .
Others felt like they ’ d gotten into a taxi with a driver who was swerving all over the road , and they were just holding on and hoping they made it to the end .
Mike Bloomberg is shrewdly trying to choke off the available supply of big donors and other Democratic movers and shakers who might conceivably help revive Biden ’ s campaign , holding meetings with them and stressing that he wants their support but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need it and won ’ t accept it , he tells them .
All he wants is their endorsements , which will help mainstream his longshot bid and , more importantly , take those people off the chess board so that Biden can ’ t play them instead .
If his plan works , he ’ ll watch Joe slowly starve from lack of donations before Super Tuesday .
Increasingly it seems like even the expected victory in South Carolina won ’ t help him much in terms of either momentum or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long campaign afterwards .
In fact , a Biden victory from SC ’ s mostly black electorate has seemed so certain for so long that anything short of a dominating win will be treated by the media as another sign of weakness .
A close second-place finish by Bernie Sanders in which he wins a surprisingly large minority of the black vote would make Bernie the winner for “ narrative ” purposes afterward .
( “ He ’ s not just ‘ the white candidate ’ anymore !
” ) Especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s campaign right now and smelling blood .
I know I said this last night but it can ’ t be stressed enough : It is uh-may-zing how efficiently Buttigieg is eliminating Bernie ’ s rivals for him .
There ’ s a fair chance right now that Warren is done after Nevada and Biden is done after South Carolina , mainly because Mayor Pete swooped in and somehow convinced anti-Bernie moderates that he ’ s a better bet than a twice-elected vice president *and* a twice-elected senator .
Uh-may-zing .

I know no one wants to spend a few hours on a Friday night watching another party’s presidential debate but you need to appreciate the opportunity tonight presents. Rarely will you get a chance to see a universally known politician go from de facto frontrunner to Hindenburg disaster in the span of five days. The flop sweat from Biden onstage tonight will be so profuse they’ll have to lay down a tarp beforehand.
Imagine how many phone calls Obama has gotten since Monday night from liberals begging him to endorse and prevent Biden’s collapse. It’s now or never, Barack.
But you know what? It might already be too late. New from Suffolk:
Bernie Sanders is holding steady at 24 percent, but Buttigieg is up four points over last night with 23 percent, a virtual tie in a survey with a margin of error of 4.4 percent. Elizabeth Warren takes over third place with 13 percent, and Joe Biden slips to fourth with 11 percent… Among women, Warren is down four points from Wednesday night and Buttigieg is up six. And among voters over 65, a core source of Biden backers, Buttigieg has doubled his support overnight, a 16 point jump.
That’s a great irony of this race. The oldest candidate in the field is indisputably the favorite of the youngest cohort of voters whereas the youngest candidate in the field is surging past Biden to become the favorite of the oldest cohort. A second new poll, this one from Emerson, sees the same dynamic:
Bernie leads Buttigieg 44/17 among voters under 50. Buttigieg leads Bernie 31/20 among voters over 50. Biden is now third in that group, his alleged base, with 17 percent. And if you look again at that graph, you’ll see that his hold on fourth place is tenuous, with Klobuchar right behind him.
What happens if he slides to fifth on Tuesday night? He’s counting on South Carolina to revive him before Super Tuesday, but if we get another Bernie-Buttigieg one-two (or two-one) finish in New Hampshire *and* Nevada, I don’t know how many voters in SC will want to waste a ballot on Joe. His argument all along has been that he’s electable; by the time South Carolina votes, we might have three elections in the bag in which Biden finished fourth. What’s left of the electability case for Joe at that point?
And where does the money come from that’ll help him run competitive campaigns in Super Tuesday states?
The Atlantic has a premortem of Joe 2020 out today. Title: “How Biden Blew It.”
[F]orget about advertising and campaign staff: It’s now an open question whether Biden will have the cash to pay for his charter plane to fly him around the 14 Super Tuesday states that vote on March 3… After a disastrous summer of fundraising, plans from the team in Iowa and other states would linger with national headquarters for weeks, then come back without approval for the spending being requested. Other candidates were quickly hiring staff—particularly Buttigieg, who in June had all of four staffers in the state but went into the caucuses with 170—while Biden’s team was under an almost complete hiring freeze. The campaign yanked its TV ads, leaving Biden dark for weeks and exponentially outspent in online advertising by Warren and Buttigieg, who soon had the rising poll numbers to show for it. At one point, aides realized, Biden was on track to spend less on TV in Iowa in this race than in his 2008 run, when he finished as an asterisk, with 1 percent of the vote. Biden aides who were being honest with themselves knew for months that they were in trouble. Some didn’t want to believe it; some couldn’t. Others felt like they’d gotten into a taxi with a driver who was swerving all over the road, and they were just holding on and hoping they made it to the end.
Mike Bloomberg is shrewdly trying to choke off the available supply of big donors and other Democratic movers and shakers who might conceivably help revive Biden’s campaign, holding meetings with them and stressing that he wants their support but not their money. He doesn’t need it and won’t accept it, he tells them. All he wants is their endorsements, which will help mainstream his longshot bid and, more importantly, take those people off the chess board so that Biden can’t play them instead. If his plan works, he’ll watch Joe slowly starve from lack of donations before Super Tuesday. Increasingly it seems like even the expected victory in South Carolina won’t help him much in terms of either momentum or the money he’d need to run a long campaign afterwards.
In fact, a Biden victory from SC’s mostly black electorate has seemed so certain for so long that anything short of a dominating win will be treated by the media as another sign of weakness. A close second-place finish by Bernie Sanders in which he wins a surprisingly large minority of the black vote would make Bernie the winner for “narrative” purposes afterward. (“He’s not just ‘the white candidate’ anymore!”) Especially among a press that’s looking at Biden’s campaign right now and smelling blood.
I know I said this last night but it can’t be stressed enough: It is uh-may-zing how efficiently Buttigieg is eliminating Bernie’s rivals for him. There’s a fair chance right now that Warren is done after Nevada and Biden is done after South Carolina, mainly because Mayor Pete swooped in and somehow convinced anti-Bernie moderates that he’s a better bet than a twice-elected vice president *and* a twice-elected senator. Uh-may-zing.


hotair--2020-02-07--Hmmm: Did Mueller #2 admit to setting a perjury trap for Trump?

Inadvertent admission of corrupt intent , or discussion of business as usual ?
This clip between Robert Mueller ’ s chief deputy Andrew Weissmann and MSNBC ’ s Nicolle Wallace yesterday is making the rounds today as proof that the Mueller team plotted Donald Trump ’ s removal via a perjury trap .
Is that what it is , though — or just a standard prosecutor ’ s take in any other case ?
Prompted by Trump ’ s characterization of his opponents as “ evil , ” Weissmann told Wallace that it was “ noticeable ” that Trump never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with perjury .
“ Noticeable , ” in this case , being a synonym for “ smart ” : WEISSMANN : It is noticeable that the president mouths off today about this , but where was he in the House ?
Where was he in the Senate ?
He never submitted to an interview , he never testified under oath .
It ’ s true — the same happened in the Mueller case .
WALLACE : Why do you think that is ?
WEISSMANN : Well , I think there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors , to the House , to the Senate .
So if you notice , the president is happy to talk today about ‘ oh , this is evil and these people are corrupt , ’ but when it came time for him to sort of put up or shut up , which is , “ Are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview , ” he ’ s completely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classic way of dealing with this is is to say , “ You know , a lot of your people testified , and they were willing to come in and say something under oath , under the penalty of perjury .
Where were you ?
” So is this an admission that the entire special counsel probe was a corrupt scheme to set a perjury trap ?
Er , not really , unless every prosecutor interview , deposition , and testimony is corrupt .
This is what prosecutors do — they pin subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to catch them in contradictions .
Those then become leverage for later admissions , plea deals , and yes , perjury and obstruction charges .
That in itself is not evil or corrupt — it ’ s part of the job .
However , the motivation for that can be evil or corrupt , which is why the framers of our Constitution included the Fourth and Fifth Amendments , among others .
They understood — in some cases , by personal experience — that compelling testimony without recourse to silence would inevitably allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those rights force prosecutors to attempt to shame and pressure their subjects and targets into cooperation , one version of which Weissmann just put on display here .
What are you afraid of is a schoolground taunt that probably works in more cases than it doesn ’ t — unless the subject or target has a good attorney .
What ’ s notable here is that Weissmann ’ s complaining about Trump ’ s refusal to testify in an investigation that found no evidence on its core issue .
He also fails to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team got to talk to everyone else is that Trump waived executive privilege entirely for their investigation .
The reason why Trump didn ’ t want to testify is that ( a ) it was becoming clear that Mueller wanted to expand the scope of the probe beyond the unfounded Russia-collusion hypothesis , and ( b ) that cooperation wasn ’ t accelerating the end of the probe .
( And the House investigations have been even more political and unbalanced . )
Small wonder Trump relied on his constitutional rights to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was precisely why the founders added those protections to the Bill of Rights in the first place .
This isn ’ t an “ admission ” of anything except typical prosecutorial zeal .
It is , however , a reminder that everyone needs to be cognizant of their rights in any investigation , and that good legal representation is a must — as is following your attorney ’ s advice as to when to speak and when to remain silent .
Presidents aren ’ t the only people susceptible to perjury traps .

Inadvertent admission of corrupt intent, or discussion of business as usual? This clip between Robert Mueller’s chief deputy Andrew Weissmann and MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace yesterday is making the rounds today as proof that the Mueller team plotted Donald Trump’s removal via a perjury trap. Is that what it is, though — or just a standard prosecutor’s take in any other case?
Prompted by Trump’s characterization of his opponents as “evil,” Weissmann told Wallace that it was “noticeable” that Trump never put himself in position to get charged with perjury. “Noticeable,” in this case, being a synonym for “smart”:
Whether he realizes it or not, Andrew Weissmann just admitted what we always knew: The purpose of the Mueller investigation was "trying to get rid of" President Trump and laying a perjury trap The President didn't fall for it, and the truth WON pic.twitter.com/YcOWi9Bybz — Liz Harrington (@realLizUSA) February 6, 2020
WEISSMANN: It is noticeable that the president mouths off today about this, but where was he in the House? Where was he in the Senate? He never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath. It’s true — the same happened in the Mueller case. WALLACE: Why do you think that is? WEISSMANN: Well, I think there’s a classic reason. There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate. So if you notice, the president is happy to talk today about ‘oh, this is evil and these people are corrupt,’ but when it came time for him to sort of put up or shut up, which is, “Are you willing to actually say this under oath or even in an interview,” he’s completely silent. So to me, one classic way of dealing with this is is to say, “You know, a lot of your people testified, and they were willing to come in and say something under oath, under the penalty of perjury. Where were you?”
So is this an admission that the entire special counsel probe was a corrupt scheme to set a perjury trap? Er, not really, unless every prosecutor interview, deposition, and testimony is corrupt. This is what prosecutors do — they pin subjects and targets down under oath and try to catch them in contradictions. Those then become leverage for later admissions, plea deals, and yes, perjury and obstruction charges. That in itself is not evil or corrupt — it’s part of the job.
However, the motivation for that can be evil or corrupt, which is why the framers of our Constitution included the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, among others. They understood — in some cases, by personal experience — that compelling testimony without recourse to silence would inevitably allow corrupt prosecutors to become government persecutors. Those rights force prosecutors to attempt to shame and pressure their subjects and targets into cooperation, one version of which Weissmann just put on display here. What are you afraid of is a schoolground taunt that probably works in more cases than it doesn’t — unless the subject or target has a good attorney.
What’s notable here is that Weissmann’s complaining about Trump’s refusal to testify in an investigation that found no evidence on its core issue. He also fails to note that the reason Weissmann’s team got to talk to everyone else is that Trump waived executive privilege entirely for their investigation. The reason why Trump didn’t want to testify is that (a) it was becoming clear that Mueller wanted to expand the scope of the probe beyond the unfounded Russia-collusion hypothesis, and (b) that cooperation wasn’t accelerating the end of the probe. (And the House investigations have been even more political and unbalanced.) Small wonder Trump relied on his constitutional rights to protect himself from a fishing expedition, which was precisely why the founders added those protections to the Bill of Rights in the first place.
This isn’t an “admission” of anything except typical prosecutorial zeal. It is, however, a reminder that everyone needs to be cognizant of their rights in any investigation, and that good legal representation is a must — as is following your attorney’s advice as to when to speak and when to remain silent. Presidents aren’t the only people susceptible to perjury traps.