hotair--2020-01-19--ICE to NYC: This is not a request. It's a demand

Things are getting more than a little testy in the Big Apple between Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( ICE ) and Mayor Bill de Blasio .
New York ’ s sanctuary city policy has continued to release criminal illegal aliens , ignoring detainers filed by the federal agency .
A couple of those incidents resulted in tragedy , including the sexual assault and murder of 92-year-old Maria Fuertas of Queens by an illegal alien from Guyana who had been released in defiance of a federal detainer .
ICE has clearly reached the boiling point in trying to get the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One senior agency official said the agency has issued “ immigration subpoenas ” to find out the status of the criminal illegal aliens they are seeking .
And he clarified matters by saying this was not “ a request , ” but a demand .
The Mayor , however , seems to be standing firm in his defiance .
( Associated Press ) “ This is not a request — it ’ s a demand , ” Henry Lucero , a senior U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official , told The Associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resort for us .
Dangerous criminals are being released every single day in New York.
” Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s administration said Saturday the city would review the subpoenas .
“ New York City will not change the policies that have made us the safest big city in America , ” spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein said in an email .
The Mayor ’ s spokesperson is being completely disingenuous with his statement saying that their policies have made Gotham “ the safest big city in America.
” The truth is that de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime rates from his predecessors .
But since then , things have taken a turn , and not for the better .
Both murders and shootings have risen over the past three years , though thankfully not by huge amounts .
Rapes increased by 24 % in 2018 , leveling off at that rate last year .
Burglary and grand larceny were also up .
It ’ s impossible to pin down precisely how much crime was committed by illegal aliens , but the fact is that crime is edging up , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leadership .
But that ’ s really not the point being made here .
The fact is that even under New York ’ s insane sanctuary policies , the police are still supposed to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officials in cases of illegal aliens who are wanted for other serious crimes .
That simply hasn ’ t been happening on de Blasio ’ s watch , with the failures producing real damage .
One of the subpoenas involves a man from El Salvador who is wanted for homicide in his home country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested on other charges despite a detainer having been issued .
ICE has clearly had enough and they ’ ve been taking their case to the public .
They already released a list of illegal alien fugitives who have been cut loose in the city so the public could be aware of the danger .
( Washington Examiner ) One retired detective from Brooklyn was quoted as saying , “ Maria Fuertes ’ blood is on Mayor de Blasio ’ s hands.
” This all has to be worrying to the city ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the bad old days of the early 90s when the annual number of murders in the city was measured in the thousands , not the hundreds .
But all of these soft-on-crime policies being put in place by New York Democrats are having an effect .
And it ’ s precisely the opposite of what residents need if they are to feel secure there .
With all that in mind , we are forced to return to the same question that arises every time one of these stories comes up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year after year ?

Things are getting more than a little testy in the Big Apple between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Mayor Bill de Blasio. New York’s sanctuary city policy has continued to release criminal illegal aliens, ignoring detainers filed by the federal agency. A couple of those incidents resulted in tragedy, including the sexual assault and murder of 92-year-old Maria Fuertas of Queens by an illegal alien from Guyana who had been released in defiance of a federal detainer.
ICE has clearly reached the boiling point in trying to get the city government to act reasonably in these matters. One senior agency official said the agency has issued “immigration subpoenas” to find out the status of the criminal illegal aliens they are seeking. And he clarified matters by saying this was not “a request,” but a demand. The Mayor, however, seems to be standing firm in his defiance. (Associated Press)
“This is not a request — it’s a demand,” Henry Lucero, a senior U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official, told The Associated Press. “This is a last resort for us. Dangerous criminals are being released every single day in New York.” Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration said Saturday the city would review the subpoenas. “New York City will not change the policies that have made us the safest big city in America,” spokeswoman Freddi Goldstein said in an email.
The Mayor’s spokesperson is being completely disingenuous with his statement saying that their policies have made Gotham “the safest big city in America.” The truth is that de Blasio inherited a city with historically low crime rates from his predecessors. But since then, things have taken a turn, and not for the better. Both murders and shootings have risen over the past three years, though thankfully not by huge amounts. Rapes increased by 24% in 2018, leveling off at that rate last year. Burglary and grand larceny were also up.
It’s impossible to pin down precisely how much crime was committed by illegal aliens, but the fact is that crime is edging up, not down, under de Blasio’s leadership. But that’s really not the point being made here. The fact is that even under New York’s insane sanctuary policies, the police are still supposed to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officials in cases of illegal aliens who are wanted for other serious crimes.
That simply hasn’t been happening on de Blasio’s watch, with the failures producing real damage. One of the subpoenas involves a man from El Salvador who is wanted for homicide in his home country. He too was released after being arrested on other charges despite a detainer having been issued.
ICE has clearly had enough and they’ve been taking their case to the public. They already released a list of illegal alien fugitives who have been cut loose in the city so the public could be aware of the danger. (Washington Examiner)
ICE officials put pressure on New York City by distributing a list of illegal immigrant fugitives who were released by the city despite agency requests to hold them. “Make no mistake — it is this city’s sanctuary policies that are the sole reason this criminal was allowed to roam the streets freely and end an innocent woman’s life,” acting ICE Director Matthew Albence said.
One retired detective from Brooklyn was quoted as saying, “Maria Fuertes’ blood is on Mayor de Blasio’s hands.” This all has to be worrying to the city’s residents because nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of the early 90s when the annual number of murders in the city was measured in the thousands, not the hundreds. But all of these soft-on-crime policies being put in place by New York Democrats are having an effect. And it’s precisely the opposite of what residents need if they are to feel secure there.
With all that in mind, we are forced to return to the same question that arises every time one of these stories comes up. How do these jackwagons keep getting elected year after year?


hotair--2020-01-19--Warren: I'm the only one running with executive experience

Wow .
I thought Joe Biden was the one plagued by “ senior moments ” on the campaign trail .
But maybe we should be keeping a closer eye on Elizabeth Warren .
The Massachusetts Senator seemed to lose track of the plot briefly during a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday night .
When asked how she would wield executive power ( rather than waiting for Congress to do something ) as President , Warren responded by saying that she was the only one in the running “ who ’ s actually been on the executive side.
” Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the rest of the current frontrunners , but Warren seems to really be stretching the definition of having been on the executive side .
( Washington Examiner ) Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she was the only White House hopeful who has spent any time in the executive branch on government at an Iowa rally , seemingly forgetting about a number of her rivals .
The remarks came after an audience member asked her when she plans on using presidential authority for some of her policy agenda instead of relying on Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good question .
Let me remind you , I think , I ’ m the only one running for president whose actually been on the executive side , ” Warren said Friday evening .
“ Remember , after the consumer agency was passed into law , Barack Obama , President Obama , asked me to set it up .
So I set up a federal agency .
We effectively went from two employees the day I walked in the door to about 1000 and spent a year getting it up and operational.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to even begin with this one .
First of all , “ executive experience , ” as typically understood in American politics , applies to a lot more than just the White House .
( Otherwise , former presidents and vice presidents would be the only ones who have it . )
The term applies to working in the executive branch of whichever level of government we ’ re discussing , as opposed to the legislative and judicial branches .
It applies to Governors , city mayors , county executives and the like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Buttigieg and Bloomberg all have direct executive experience .
And Biden was literally second in command at the federal level .
Heck , even Amy Klobuchar was elected County Attorney back home ( twice ! )
which is technically part of the county executive branch .
But what about Warren herself ?
She ’ s won precisely two elections in her life , both of them for the Senate seat she currently holds , putting her firmly in the legislative branch .
Her comments were obviously in reference to the CFPB , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Keep in mind that President Obama tasked her with setting up the bureau , but he appointed her as an Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury .
Hers was more of a hired gun , contracting position , responsible for building the infrastructure .
But at no time did she actually run the bureau or take responsibility for its operation .
That job went to Richard Cordray because it had become obvious to everyone ( including Barack Obama ) that Warren could never be confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her main competition short in terms of executive experience , but she was vastly pumping up her own resume .
So was she temporarily confused about these basic facts of governance ?
Does she not actually understand how the system works ?
Or was it just a cheap shot at her opponents in the heat of the moment ?
As of yet , there doesn ’ t seem to be any sign that she ’ s walking the statement back .
Perhaps some daring reporter will ask her about it before the @ @ @ @

Wow. I thought Joe Biden was the one plagued by “senior moments” on the campaign trail. But maybe we should be keeping a closer eye on Elizabeth Warren.
The Massachusetts Senator seemed to lose track of the plot briefly during a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday night. When asked how she would wield executive power (rather than waiting for Congress to do something) as President, Warren responded by saying that she was the only one in the running “who’s actually been on the executive side.” Not only will that come as news to all the rest of the current frontrunners, but Warren seems to really be stretching the definition of having been on the executive side. (Washington Examiner)
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she was the only White House hopeful who has spent any time in the executive branch on government at an Iowa rally, seemingly forgetting about a number of her rivals. The remarks came after an audience member asked her when she plans on using presidential authority for some of her policy agenda instead of relying on Congress. “That’s a really good question. Let me remind you, I think, I’m the only one running for president whose actually been on the executive side,” Warren said Friday evening. “Remember, after the consumer agency was passed into law, Barack Obama, President Obama, asked me to set it up. So I set up a federal agency. We effectively went from two employees the day I walked in the door to about 1000 and spent a year getting it up and operational.”
It’s hard to know where to even begin with this one. First of all, “executive experience,” as typically understood in American politics, applies to a lot more than just the White House. (Otherwise, former presidents and vice presidents would be the only ones who have it.) The term applies to working in the executive branch of whichever level of government we’re discussing, as opposed to the legislative and judicial branches. It applies to Governors, city mayors, county executives and the like.
With that in mind, Sanders, Buttigieg and Bloomberg all have direct executive experience. And Biden was literally second in command at the federal level. Heck, even Amy Klobuchar was elected County Attorney back home (twice!) which is technically part of the county executive branch. But what about Warren herself? She’s won precisely two elections in her life, both of them for the Senate seat she currently holds, putting her firmly in the legislative branch. Her comments were obviously in reference to the CFPB, but that’s not really applicable. Keep in mind that President Obama tasked her with setting up the bureau, but he appointed her as an Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Hers was more of a hired gun, contracting position, responsible for building the infrastructure. But at no time did she actually run the bureau or take responsibility for its operation. That job went to Richard Cordray because it had become obvious to everyone (including Barack Obama) that Warren could never be confirmed.
Not only was Warren selling all of her main competition short in terms of executive experience, but she was vastly pumping up her own resume. So was she temporarily confused about these basic facts of governance? Does she not actually understand how the system works? Or was it just a cheap shot at her opponents in the heat of the moment? As of yet, there doesn’t seem to be any sign that she’s walking the statement back. Perhaps some daring reporter will ask her about it before the impeachment trial starts.


hotair--2020-01-19--Sunday morning talking heads

Sunday morning talking heads

There ’ s but one topic on the Sunday shows this morning , the trial of the century , which won ’ t look much like a real trial and the outcome of which has been predetermined .
The star guest is Alan Dershowitz , the newest member of Trump ’ s impeachment defense “ dream team.
” He ’ ll be on “ This Week ” and “ State of the Union ” to explain that , although he ’ s on the team , he ’ s not really on the team .
He ’ s sufficiently on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the fact that he ’ s on the team .
Look at it that way .
Democrats will counter with not one , not two , not three , but four of their impeachment managers to preview the case against POTUS and push for John Bolton and Lev Parnas to be called as witnesses .
It ’ s ( who else ? )
Adam Schiff on “ This Week , ” Jerry Nadler on “ Face the Nation , ” Jason Crow on “ State of the Union , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” An obvious question for all : How long does the House intend to dribble out new evidence against Trump a la the phone materials from Parnas that were released this week ?
Republicans , meanwhile , will back up Dershowitz with a smattering of senators .
It ’ s Richard Shelby on “ This Week , ” David Perdue on “ Meet the Press , ” John Cornyn on “ Face the Nation , ” and Lindsey Graham on “ Fox News Sunday.
” They ’ ll each be pressed on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week to administer “ impartial justice ” in the matter ( say it with me : impeachment is a political process ) and what sort of timetable they ’ re looking at .
Is it really possible the trial could be over before the State of the Union ?
The full line-up is at the AP .

There’s but one topic on the Sunday shows this morning, the trial of the century, which won’t look much like a real trial and the outcome of which has been predetermined. The star guest is Alan Dershowitz, the newest member of Trump’s impeachment defense “dream team.” He’ll be on “This Week” and “State of the Union” to explain that, although he’s on the team, he’s not really on the team.
He’s sufficiently on the team to accept national television appearances based on the fact that he’s on the team. Look at it that way.
Democrats will counter with not one, not two, not three, but four of their impeachment managers to preview the case against POTUS and push for John Bolton and Lev Parnas to be called as witnesses. It’s (who else?) Adam Schiff on “This Week,” Jerry Nadler on “Face the Nation,” Jason Crow on “State of the Union,” and Hakeem Jeffries on “Fox News Sunday.” An obvious question for all: How long does the House intend to dribble out new evidence against Trump a la the phone materials from Parnas that were released this week?
Republicans, meanwhile, will back up Dershowitz with a smattering of senators. It’s Richard Shelby on “This Week,” David Perdue on “Meet the Press,” John Cornyn on “Face the Nation,” and Lindsey Graham on “Fox News Sunday.” They’ll each be pressed on whether they really meant it when they swore this week to administer “impartial justice” in the matter (say it with me: impeachment is a political process) and what sort of timetable they’re looking at. Is it really possible the trial could be over before the State of the Union? The full line-up is at the AP.


hotair--2020-01-19--Who will campaign for Sanders and Warren while they sit on the impeachment trial?

The official impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump will gavel into session on Tuesday , for better or for worse .
And that means that several of the current candidates hoping to replace him will need to be sitting attentively in their seats , including Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , Amy Klobuchar , and that other guy .
This pretty much leaves the field free for Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg to dash around Iowa and New Hampshire trying to score some last minute points .
So what are these virtually imprisoned senators supposed to do about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for endorsements from both inside and outside the world of politics .
If they ’ re lucky , some high-profile names will back them up and perhaps even draw some crowds on the campaign trail in their absence .
( The Hill ) Warren ’ s endorsements include Rep. Joaquin Castro ( D-Texas ) , brother of Julián Castro who backed Warren after dropping out of the presidential race this month ; Rep. Katherine Clark ( D-Mass . )
, a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s ( D-Calif. ) leadership team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Raúl Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) , a former Progressive Caucus co-chairman who now heads the Natural Resources Committee… But Sanders , a self-described democratic socialist who helped found the Progressive Caucus in 1991 , has landed endorsements from nearly all of the current CPC leadership team .
This week , Co-Chairman Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) threw his support behind Sanders , declaring the senator ’ s “ authenticity , honesty , and movement for equality is the antidote our nation needs now.
” Meanwhile , Rep. Ro Khanna ( D-Calif. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been serving as co-chairman of Sanders ’ s 2020 presidential campaign and his top surrogate on Capitol Hill .
Three members of “ the squad ” — the four freshman women of color — also are on Team Bernie : Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) , Rashida Tlaib ( D-Mich. ) and Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) , who is the chief whip or vote-counter for the CPC .
With no offense intended to the endorsers , Warren ’ s stand-ins don ’ t exactly sound like a group that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in droves .
You won ’ t be able to hear the candidate tonight , but if you come out , you ’ ll get to meet… Raúl Grijalva of the Natural Resources Committee ?
Some of Bernie ’ s high-profile backers don ’ t sound much more exciting .
The exception there , of course , is AOC and a couple of her fellow “ squad ” members .
They seem to get the young kids excited , so I suppose he might make a splash by sending them in his stead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians to headline your campaign events seems like a missed opportunity to me .
That ’ s particularly true if their star power is significantly less than your own .
If Sanders , Warren and Klobuchar really want to make a splash in the early voting states while they hang around DC doing their jobs , wouldn ’ t it be smarter to call in some favors from their celebrity friends ?
Taking a look at the LA Times ’ guide to celebrity presidential endorsements , it seems like they could do better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bette Midler , Rob Reiner and Barbra Streisand in her corner .
I ’ m sure any one of them could fill quite a few seats and even pry loose some additional donations .
( Okay… you might want to make sure Schumer is relatively sober and doesn ’ t start taking her clothes off in the middle of the speech . )
Bernie Sanders has Danny DeVito , Susan Sarandon and Rhea Perlman ( along with several other people I ’ d not heard of ) backing him .
I suppose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years from their peak , but I bet they would draw more of a crowd than Mark Pocan .
Klobuchar has… well , the one that I ’ ve heard of is Jane Fonda .
Hanoi Jane may be a bit long in the tooth these days , but she ’ s still keeping her hand in the political game with things like her recent Fire Drill Fridays in Washington .
I realize she ’ s busy filming the next season of her Netflix show , but maybe she would take time out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any event , I ’ m sure they don ’ t need any advice from me and everything will work out just fine .
( /sarc ) But just as a reminder , at least one of these candidates won ’ t be spending all of their time in Washington .
As we discussed previously , Bernie Sanders plans to be burning the candle at both ends , attending the trial during the afternoon and then taking private jets to the early voting states to do evening appearances .
And this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as being the one that recently had a heart attack .
Hoo boy .

The official impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump will gavel into session on Tuesday, for better or for worse. And that means that several of the current candidates hoping to replace him will need to be sitting attentively in their seats, including Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, and that other guy. This pretty much leaves the field free for Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg to dash around Iowa and New Hampshire trying to score some last minute points.
So what are these virtually imprisoned senators supposed to do about it? Well, they will be scrounging for endorsements from both inside and outside the world of politics. If they’re lucky, some high-profile names will back them up and perhaps even draw some crowds on the campaign trail in their absence. (The Hill)
Warren’s endorsements include Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), brother of Julián Castro who backed Warren after dropping out of the presidential race this month; Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leadership team; several female freshman lawmakers; and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a former Progressive Caucus co-chairman who now heads the Natural Resources Committee… But Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who helped found the Progressive Caucus in 1991, has landed endorsements from nearly all of the current CPC leadership team. This week, Co-Chairman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) threw his support behind Sanders, declaring the senator’s “authenticity, honesty, and movement for equality is the antidote our nation needs now.” Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), CPC’s first vice chairman, has been serving as co-chairman of Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign and his top surrogate on Capitol Hill. Three members of “the squad” — the four freshman women of color — also are on Team Bernie: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who is the chief whip or vote-counter for the CPC.
With no offense intended to the endorsers, Warren’s stand-ins don’t exactly sound like a group that’s likely to bring people out in droves. You won’t be able to hear the candidate tonight, but if you come out, you’ll get to meet… Raúl Grijalva of the Natural Resources Committee?
Some of Bernie’s high-profile backers don’t sound much more exciting. The exception there, of course, is AOC and a couple of her fellow “squad” members. They seem to get the young kids excited, so I suppose he might make a splash by sending them in his stead.
Sending out another group of lesser-known politicians to headline your campaign events seems like a missed opportunity to me. That’s particularly true if their star power is significantly less than your own. If Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar really want to make a splash in the early voting states while they hang around DC doing their jobs, wouldn’t it be smarter to call in some favors from their celebrity friends? Taking a look at the LA Times’ guide to celebrity presidential endorsements, it seems like they could do better.
Elizabeth Warren has Amy Schumer, Bette Midler, Rob Reiner and Barbra Streisand in her corner. I’m sure any one of them could fill quite a few seats and even pry loose some additional donations. (Okay… you might want to make sure Schumer is relatively sober and doesn’t start taking her clothes off in the middle of the speech.)
Bernie Sanders has Danny DeVito, Susan Sarandon and Rhea Perlman (along with several other people I’d not heard of) backing him. I suppose their stars have dimmed a bit over the years from their peak, but I bet they would draw more of a crowd than Mark Pocan. Klobuchar has… well, the one that I’ve heard of is Jane Fonda. Hanoi Jane may be a bit long in the tooth these days, but she’s still keeping her hand in the political game with things like her recent Fire Drill Fridays in Washington. I realize she’s busy filming the next season of her Netflix show, but maybe she would take time out if she was asked nicely.
In any event, I’m sure they don’t need any advice from me and everything will work out just fine. (/sarc) But just as a reminder, at least one of these candidates won’t be spending all of their time in Washington. As we discussed previously, Bernie Sanders plans to be burning the candle at both ends, attending the trial during the afternoon and then taking private jets to the early voting states to do evening appearances. And this is the oldest candidate in the field, as well as being the one that recently had a heart attack. Hoo boy.


hotair--2020-01-20--Jeffries: Trust me, we took "no joy" from our "solemn" Genuine Souvenir Impeachment Pen Giveaway

Whom should we believe — Hakeem Jeffries , or our own lying eyes ?
This fun leftover from yesterday ’ s Fox News Sunday had Chris Wallace doing a double-take after Jeffries ’ double-talk over the signing ceremony for the articles of impeachment .
“ There was no joy in that ceremony , ” Jeffries says as Wallace plays footage of a smiling Nancy Pelosi and her souvenir-pen business .
“ We just saw the pictures , Congressman , ” Wallace objects : WALLACE : OK. One final question .
And that is , House Speaker Pelosi , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no joy in the impeachment of Donald Trump , she used the words that you have used , solemn , sober , serious , here she is .
[ clip plays ] Which is why even some Democrats were surprised to see the ceremony where she signed the Articles of Impeachment , handing out pens like it was a celebratory bill signing , and as we can see from these pictures here , all the participants look pretty happy .
Doesn ’ t that blow a hole in your narrative that the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effort to remove this president ?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES ( D-NY ) : I was at that ceremony .
And there was no joy in that ceremony .
WALLACE : Well , there — we — we just saw the — we just saw the pictures , Congressman .
JEFFRIES : There was no joy in that ceremony .
And from the very beginning , through the end , Speaker Pelosi has been clear that we are going to proceed in a very serious and solemn and sober fashion .
Wallace ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lines of don ’ t micturate on my noggin and tell me it ’ s raining .
It ’ s a nonsense argument , even from the still shots Wallace uses here , but the video makes Pelosi ’ s “ joy ” all the more apparent .
Here she is , smiling , laughing , joking , and posing for the cameras with the souvenir pens that she carefully used one letter at a time to produce the maximum number possible : Wallace is one of the few Fox News anchors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , too .
Unlike some of the others on the network , Wallace has maintained a significant level of journalistic distance from Trump , if not outright skepticism of him .
His tough coverage of the administration and the president might annoy and anger Fox News viewers , but it puts Wallace in much better position to call out House Democrats for their hypocritical nonsense and claims .
Since many of the other networks ’ show hosts would be loathe to challenge Jeffries on this , Wallace ’ s independent streak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to claim that this has nothing to do with disliking Trump , which causes another figurative eye-roll from Wallace : JEFFRIES : We don ’ t dislike this president .
We work with this president on criminal justice reform .
I did personally on the First Step Act .
We worked with this president to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement .
We worked with this president to fully fund the government .
We don ’ t dislike — WALLACE : But you ’ ve also been talking about impeaching , a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oath of office .
JEFFRIES : We don ’ t dislike Donald Trump , but we do love America , we do love democracy , we do love the Constitution .
And in America , no one is above the law .
Not even the president of the United States .
George Washington , in his farewell address , said the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all .
We ’ ve seen the pictures from House Democrats ’ calls for impeachment over the last three years , too , so it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fooling here .
But it does bring up an opportunity to play this clip from the 1998 impeachment follies , when House Democrats claimed that the case then was motivated by hatred and an attempt to overturn a legitimate election rather than constitutional concerns .
And guess what ?
You ’ ll see some of the same faces as at the souvenir pen giveaway , too :

Whom should we believe — Hakeem Jeffries, or our own lying eyes? This fun leftover from yesterday’s Fox News Sunday had Chris Wallace doing a double-take after Jeffries’ double-talk over the signing ceremony for the articles of impeachment. “There was no joy in that ceremony,” Jeffries says as Wallace plays footage of a smiling Nancy Pelosi and her souvenir-pen business.
“We just saw the pictures, Congressman,” Wallace objects:
WALLACE: OK. One final question. And that is, House Speaker Pelosi, who has been saying for weeks that she takes no joy in the impeachment of Donald Trump, she used the words that you have used, solemn, sober, serious, here she is. [clip plays] Which is why even some Democrats were surprised to see the ceremony where she signed the Articles of Impeachment, handing out pens like it was a celebratory bill signing, and as we can see from these pictures here, all the participants look pretty happy. Doesn’t that blow a hole in your narrative that the Democrats aren’t enjoying the impeachment and the effort to remove this president? REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): I was at that ceremony. And there was no joy in that ceremony. WALLACE: Well, there — we — we just saw the — we just saw the pictures, Congressman. JEFFRIES: There was no joy in that ceremony. And from the very beginning, through the end, Speaker Pelosi has been clear that we are going to proceed in a very serious and solemn and sober fashion.
Wallace’s tone clearly communicates a rebuke along the lines of don’t micturate on my noggin and tell me it’s raining. It’s a nonsense argument, even from the still shots Wallace uses here, but the video makes Pelosi’s “joy” all the more apparent. Here she is, smiling, laughing, joking, and posing for the cameras with the souvenir pens that she carefully used one letter at a time to produce the maximum number possible:
Wallace is one of the few Fox News anchors who can credibly call Jeffries out on this point, too. Unlike some of the others on the network, Wallace has maintained a significant level of journalistic distance from Trump, if not outright skepticism of him. His tough coverage of the administration and the president might annoy and anger Fox News viewers, but it puts Wallace in much better position to call out House Democrats for their hypocritical nonsense and claims. Since many of the other networks’ show hosts would be loathe to challenge Jeffries on this, Wallace’s independent streak does come in handy.
Jeffries then tried to claim that this has nothing to do with disliking Trump, which causes another figurative eye-roll from Wallace:
JEFFRIES: We don’t dislike this president. We work with this president on criminal justice reform. I did personally on the First Step Act. We worked with this president to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. We worked with this president to fully fund the government. We don’t dislike — WALLACE: But you’ve also been talking about impeaching, a lot of your remembers, since he took the oath of office. JEFFRIES: We don’t dislike Donald Trump, but we do love America, we do love democracy, we do love the Constitution. And in America, no one is above the law. Not even the president of the United States. George Washington, in his farewell address, said the Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all.
We’ve seen the pictures from House Democrats’ calls for impeachment over the last three years, too, so it’s not clear whom Jeffries thinks he’s fooling here. But it does bring up an opportunity to play this clip from the 1998 impeachment follies, when House Democrats claimed that the case then was motivated by hatred and an attempt to overturn a legitimate election rather than constitutional concerns. And guess what? You’ll see some of the same faces as at the souvenir pen giveaway, too:
CAUGHT-ON-TAPE: Dems on @BillClinton's Impeachment! Retweet! This Impeachment Hoax of @POTUS is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDOING of a legitimate 2016 election, and an UNLAWFUL HIJACK ATTEMPT of a 2020 REELECTION LANDSLIDE of @realDonaldTrump! Dems want POWER FIRST NOT PEOPLE FIRST! pic.twitter.com/7QZiOBAxeE — Oliver McGee PhD MBA (@OliverMcGee) January 20, 2020
Plus ça change, plus c’est le même chose …


hotair--2020-01-20--Trump in Austin: Harvesting the support of Farm Bureau members

President Trump addressed the convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Austin , Texas Sunday .
Thousands of farmers and ranchers were in attendance .
It was Trump ’ s 14th visit to Texas since he took office and he was fresh off a victory with the passage of the USMCA in Congress .
The trade agreement is a beautiful thing , Trump told the crowd .
Everyone wants a piece of the action .
“ I ’ m thrilled to be back in this incredible state of Texas , ” Trump said at the start of his hour-long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are known for being tough and strong and hardworking , loyal , fiercely patriotic , just like America ’ s incredible farmers.
” The new trade agreement , negotiated by Trump , was heralded as a win for farmers and ranchers in Texas , which has more ports of entry than any other state in the U.S. “ It ’ s being prepared now , beautifully prepared , ” Trump said of the legislation , which he is expected to sign this week .
“ Everyone wants to come back to America.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warm welcome from the members of the association .
His welcome could have been predicted if the results of a monthly poll released Sunday are accurate .
Farm Journal gave Trump the highest level of support since he took office .
Of the 5,000 ranchers and farmers polled , 1,286 responded .
Most were in Midwest states – Illinois , Iowa , Indiana , and Nebraska .
83 % of the respondents support Trump ’ s job performance .
“ We have heard repeatedly from farmers that they believe in the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said John Herath , news director at Farm Journal .
The uptick in farmer support comes following the signing of the so-called phase-one trade agreement in Washington on Wednesday .
The deal stipulates that China will purchase roughly $ 36 billion worth of U.S. agricultural exports in 2020 , and over $ 43 billion in 2021 .
Also playing a role in boosting farmer sentiment is the U.S. Senate passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on Thursday , the free-trade deal replacing the 26-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement .
“ This trade agreement comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranchers , increasing optimism that we ’ ll turn the corner in 2020 , ” said American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall in a statement Thursday following the Senate vote .
As he enjoyed the support of the convention-goers , he acknowledged that despite his successes , he has been impeached .
Freshman Rep. Sylvia Garcia , from Houston , is a member of the House team prosecuting the case in the Senate .
Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are strong defenders of Trump in the Senate and another Texan , Ken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s defense team .
And , he assured the farmers that he wants people to come here legally .
“ We want them [ people ] to come legally , and we want them to help the farmers , ” Trump said .
“ Just so you understand , I want them coming to help the farmers.
” Farmers who were interviewed before the president ’ s speech acknowledged their support for Trump , though it sometimes hasn ’ t been easy .
The trade war with China , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soybeans to plunge .
Farmers are willing to ride it out , though , and are pleased that Trump took the fight to the Chinese .
Stephanie Mackey , a soybean farmer from Kentucky , saw Trump speak at the Farm Bureau conventions in 2017 and 2018 .
This year , she brought her kids and one of her kids ’ friends .
Mackey said her soybean prices hit “ rock bottom ” during the U.S. trade war with China , but she ’ s hopeful the U.S.-China trade deal that Trump signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When you go to the market or try to get your contracts and the prices are just rock bottom , you ’ re just like , “ Come on , there ’ s got ta be something they can do , ’ ” Mackey said .
“ And Trump got it done.
” Trump knows of their struggles and thanked the farmers for sticking with him .
Trump during his speech acknowledged the hard times farmers have faced as a result of his policies , but promised “ the best days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmers and ranchers are yet to come.
” “ Thank you very much to the farmers and ranchers for staying with me and for saying , ‘ the President is right , ” Trump said .
‘ “ Yes , it ’ s tough right now , but the president is doing the right thing.
” ’ Farmers didn ’ t only have to contend with trade wars that drove down prices , they also had record levels of rainfall in many areas during the spring that brought about financial losses .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sign the USMCA when it comes to his desk .
Traders believe that China will start making big purchases soon and farmers will be on the road to recovery .
That ’ s a good thing , especially in an election year .

President Trump addressed the convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Austin, Texas Sunday. Thousands of farmers and ranchers were in attendance. It was Trump’s 14th visit to Texas since he took office and he was fresh off a victory with the passage of the USMCA in Congress.
The trade agreement is a beautiful thing, Trump told the crowd. Everyone wants a piece of the action.
“I’m thrilled to be back in this incredible state of Texas,” Trump said at the start of his hour-long speech. “This is where people are known for being tough and strong and hardworking, loyal, fiercely patriotic, just like America’s incredible farmers.” The new trade agreement, negotiated by Trump, was heralded as a win for farmers and ranchers in Texas, which has more ports of entry than any other state in the U.S. “It’s being prepared now, beautifully prepared,” Trump said of the legislation, which he is expected to sign this week. “Everyone wants to come back to America.”
By all reports, Trump received a warm welcome from the members of the association. His welcome could have been predicted if the results of a monthly poll released Sunday are accurate. Farm Journal gave Trump the highest level of support since he took office. Of the 5,000 ranchers and farmers polled, 1,286 responded. Most were in Midwest states – Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Nebraska. 83% of the respondents support Trump’s job performance. “We have heard repeatedly from farmers that they believe in the end of the trade fight with China,” said John Herath, news director at Farm Journal.
The uptick in farmer support comes following the signing of the so-called phase-one trade agreement in Washington on Wednesday. The deal stipulates that China will purchase roughly $36 billion worth of U.S. agricultural exports in 2020, and over $43 billion in 2021. Also playing a role in boosting farmer sentiment is the U.S. Senate passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on Thursday, the free-trade deal replacing the 26-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. “This trade agreement comes at a critical time for farmers and ranchers, increasing optimism that we’ll turn the corner in 2020,” said American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall in a statement Thursday following the Senate vote.
As he enjoyed the support of the convention-goers, he acknowledged that despite his successes, he has been impeached. Freshman Rep. Sylvia Garcia, from Houston, is a member of the House team prosecuting the case in the Senate. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz are strong defenders of Trump in the Senate and another Texan, Ken Starr, is serving as a member of Trump’s defense team.
“We’re achieving what no administration has ever achieved before,” Trump said. “And what do I get for it? I get impeached!” “But that’s OK the farmers are sticking with Trump,” he added.
And, he assured the farmers that he wants people to come here legally. “We want them [people] to come legally, and we want them to help the farmers,” Trump said. “Just so you understand, I want them coming to help the farmers.”
Farmers who were interviewed before the president’s speech acknowledged their support for Trump, though it sometimes hasn’t been easy. The trade war with China, for example, has caused the price of soybeans to plunge. Farmers are willing to ride it out, though, and are pleased that Trump took the fight to the Chinese.
Stephanie Mackey, a soybean farmer from Kentucky, saw Trump speak at the Farm Bureau conventions in 2017 and 2018. This year, she brought her kids and one of her kids’ friends. Mackey said her soybean prices hit “rock bottom” during the U.S. trade war with China, but she’s hopeful the U.S.-China trade deal that Trump signed last week will help farmers bounce back. “When you go to the market or try to get your contracts and the prices are just rock bottom, you’re just like, “Come on, there’s gotta be something they can do,’” Mackey said. “And Trump got it done.”
Trump knows of their struggles and thanked the farmers for sticking with him.
Trump during his speech acknowledged the hard times farmers have faced as a result of his policies, but promised “the best days for Americans and the best days for farmers and ranchers are yet to come.” “Thank you very much to the farmers and ranchers for staying with me and for saying, ‘the President is right,” Trump said. ‘“Yes, it’s tough right now, but the president is doing the right thing.”’
Farmers didn’t only have to contend with trade wars that drove down prices, they also had record levels of rainfall in many areas during the spring that brought about financial losses. Meanwhile, farmers and ranchers wait for Trump to sign the USMCA when it comes to his desk. Traders believe that China will start making big purchases soon and farmers will be on the road to recovery. That’s a good thing, especially in an election year.


hotair--2020-01-20--Dershowitz clarifies: You don't need a statutory crime to impeach but you do need "criminal-like con

Dershowitz clarifies: You don't need a statutory crime to impeach but you do need "criminal-like conduct"

Read Ed ’ s post from earlier this afternoon for the background here .
Quickie version : Dershowitz is going to argue on Trump ’ s behalf at the trial that there ’ s no crime in any meaningful sense in what he did with Ukraine , even if the Democratic theory of a quid pro quo is entirely true .
Adam Schiff went on TV yesterday and called that an “ absurdist ” idea .
Then CNN dug up a clip of Dershowitz from 1998 , during the Clinton impeachment saga , in which he appeared to contradict his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have to be a crime , ” said Dersh at the time about grounds for impeaching a president .
“ If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty , you don ’ t need a technical crime.
” However , in the same clip he went on to say that presidents shouldn ’ t be impeached except for “ great offenses of state , ” borrowing some British terminology .
Today , in response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he insisted that he ’ s saying the same thing now that he said then : It ’ s true , he referred to “ criminal-like conduct , ” not statutory crimes , as proper grounds for impeachment in his CNN interview yesterday .
We can split hairs about whether that ’ s meaningfully different from what he said 20 years ago but his point in both cases is clear enough .
You don ’ t impeach a president lightly .
If you ’ re going to go nuclear on the executive branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treason or bribery to justify it .
Which is unobjectionable .
Of course presidents shouldn ’ t be impeached lightly .
Whether you prefer Dersh ’ s concept of “ criminal-like conduct ” or House Dems ’ invocation of “ abuse of power , ” certainly not all presidential behavior is impeachable .
Only the big stuff .
My question for Dershowitz is , exactly how high is the bar to qualify as “ big stuff ” ?
I haven ’ t read his book but law prof Josh Chafetz claims this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If the president decided to allow the United States to be invaded due to some cockamamie irredentist belief he harbored on another country ’ s behalf , I ’ m thinking that would be plenty close enough to out-and-out treason to amount to “ criminal-like conduct.
” Even if it weren ’ t , Congress would be derelict in its own duty to represent the will of the people if it stood by and allowed an enemy power to swallow up U.S. territory because the president had somehow convinced himself that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s sovereignty in this case for whatever reason .
They ’ d impeach and they ’ d be right to , whether or not there ’ s a statutory crime or “ criminal-like conduct ” or however you care to define it .
Impeachment would be a “ break glass in case of emergency ” option in that scenario : Although normally we let the president serve his full term , there are some abuses of power that require an immediate intervention upon their being discovered , where it ’ s simply too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office .
Which sounds a lot like what 1998 Dershowitz believed .
But then how the hell did 2019 Dershowitz come up with the idea that it ’ s not an impeachable offense — a supreme dereliction of duty — for the president to let Russia invade ?
That would pose “ a great danger to our liberty , ” last I checked .
The fact that Dersh has raised the bar that high makes me think that , for all intents and purposes , he really does believe that only clear-cut statutory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove a president .
In theory he thinks gross misconduct of any sort will justify it , whether criminal or not , but in practice he ’ s willing to shrug at giving Russia the green light to take back Alaska because that misconduct somehow isn ’ t gross enough .
The weirdest part of arguing that only “ criminal-like conduct ” will suffice to justify impeachment is that it ’ s not hard to make that case in the Ukraine matter .
House Democrats even considered charging Trump with bribery instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power , ” remember .
As an analogy , imagine that a company applied for a building permit in a city and the mayor decided to block it unless the company gave him some insider information that he could use to trade their stock .
That would be clear-cut bribery , an attempt by a public official to corruptly enrich himself personally by using the perquisites of his office .
The Democratic case against Trump makes the same accusation , that the president tried to block a public benefit to Ukraine unless they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden that would directly benefit Trump personally in next year ’ s election .
It ’ s fine to find him innocent of the charge based on the evidence but I don ’ t know how Dersh arrives at the idea that that ’ s not sufficiently “ criminal-like.
” What he really means , I think , is that the alleged corruption in the Ukraine matter is just too petty .
We impeach for great offenses of state , remember ?
Not supposedly small-ball stuff like squeezing a foreign power for dirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a minor offense of state , I guess he ’ d say , even though allowing it would effectively encourage every president to treat other countries as a de facto oppo research firm against their opponents ahead of every election .
It ’ s weird to me that this weak argument about “ criminal-like conduct ” is somehow so compelling to Trump and his team that an entire hour needs to be carved out of the trial to let Dershowitz make it .
The basic point , that only the worst presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough but Congress is already keenly aware of that .
There ’ s a reason why House Democrats never impeached the much-hated George W. Bush and why House Republicans didn ’ t impeach the much-hated Barack Obama .
The House has to face the voters every 24 months ; if they impeach the president for frivolous reasons , not only is that effort likely to fail in the Senate but they ’ re apt to be punished severely by voters on Election Day .
( That ’ s Pelosi ’ s great fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
The argument over whether “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” amounts to “ criminal-like conduct ” or something more , or less , is silly in that sense .
Congress can and will impeach and remove the president to the extent that it believes it has public support to do so .
If 75 percent of the country were up in arms about Trump ’ s quid pro quo with Ukraine , removal would be a real possibility right now whether or not there was “ criminal-like conduct.
” The weirdest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly , and correctly , that impeachment is a political process .
That ’ s why McConnell ’ s admission that he ’ s not impartial as a juror isn ’ t disqualifying .
Schumer ’ s not impartial either !
There ’ s not even an impartial judge at the trial to rule on evidentiary matters : It ’ s the Senate , via a majority vote , that decides on whether and which witnesses are called , not John Roberts .
Politics dictates the process and politics will dictate the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and girls who understand that — except when Trump allies like Dershowitz start looking for ways to get him off the hook .
Suddenly what qualifies as a “ high crime or misdemeanor ” becomes a highly legalistic analysis about “ criminal-like conduct.
” In reality a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a supermajority of the electorate deems it to be .
If Trump did something so terrible that a wide majority of the public supported ousting him immediately for it , he ’ d be in trouble right now .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t .
Impeachment is a political process .
Go read Justin Amash ’ s rebuttal to Dershowitz on Twitter , quoting extensively from the Founders .
Exit question : Republicans would oppose Trump letting Russia retake Alaska , right ?
I can ’ t tell anymore exactly how loyal MAGA fans are expected to be .

Read Ed’s post from earlier this afternoon for the background here. Quickie version: Dershowitz is going to argue on Trump’s behalf at the trial that there’s no crime in any meaningful sense in what he did with Ukraine, even if the Democratic theory of a quid pro quo is entirely true. Adam Schiff went on TV yesterday and called that an “absurdist” idea. Then CNN dug up a clip of Dershowitz from 1998, during the Clinton impeachment saga, in which he appeared to contradict his current position. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime,” said Dersh at the time about grounds for impeaching a president. “If you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don’t need a technical crime.”
However, in the same clip he went on to say that presidents shouldn’t be impeached except for “great offenses of state,” borrowing some British terminology. Today, in response to the uproar over the old CNN clip, he insisted that he’s saying the same thing now that he said then:
There is no inconsistency between what I said during the Clinton impeachment and what I am saying now. I said then that there doesn’t have to be a “technical“ crime. I have said now there must be “criminal-like” conduct, or conduct “akin to treason and bribery.” — Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) January 20, 2020
It’s true, he referred to “criminal-like conduct,” not statutory crimes, as proper grounds for impeachment in his CNN interview yesterday. We can split hairs about whether that’s meaningfully different from what he said 20 years ago but his point in both cases is clear enough. You don’t impeach a president lightly. If you’re going to go nuclear on the executive branch, you need misconduct as grave as treason or bribery to justify it.
Which is unobjectionable. Of course presidents shouldn’t be impeached lightly. Whether you prefer Dersh’s concept of “criminal-like conduct” or House Dems’ invocation of “abuse of power,” certainly not all presidential behavior is impeachable. Only the big stuff.
My question for Dershowitz is, exactly how high is the bar to qualify as “big stuff”? I haven’t read his book but law prof Josh Chafetz claims this is a fair, in-context quote from it:
For everyone asking whether this is “real”–i.e., really from Dershowitz: yes. This is from his 2019 book, _The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump_, via Google Books: pic.twitter.com/irePAatKPI — Josh Chafetz (@joshchafetz) January 19, 2020
If the president decided to allow the United States to be invaded due to some cockamamie irredentist belief he harbored on another country’s behalf, I’m thinking that would be plenty close enough to out-and-out treason to amount to “criminal-like conduct.” Even if it weren’t, Congress would be derelict in its own duty to represent the will of the people if it stood by and allowed an enemy power to swallow up U.S. territory because the president had somehow convinced himself that he shouldn’t defend the country’s sovereignty in this case for whatever reason.
They’d impeach and they’d be right to, whether or not there’s a statutory crime or “criminal-like conduct” or however you care to define it. Impeachment would be a “break glass in case of emergency” option in that scenario: Although normally we let the president serve his full term, there are some abuses of power that require an immediate intervention upon their being discovered, where it’s simply too dangerous to let the president continue in office.
Which sounds a lot like what 1998 Dershowitz believed. But then how the hell did 2019 Dershowitz come up with the idea that it’s not an impeachable offense — a supreme dereliction of duty — for the president to let Russia invade?
That would pose “a great danger to our liberty,” last I checked.
The fact that Dersh has raised the bar that high makes me think that, for all intents and purposes, he really does believe that only clear-cut statutory crimes of the gravest import will suffice to remove a president. In theory he thinks gross misconduct of any sort will justify it, whether criminal or not, but in practice he’s willing to shrug at giving Russia the green light to take back Alaska because that misconduct somehow isn’t gross enough.
The weirdest part of arguing that only “criminal-like conduct” will suffice to justify impeachment is that it’s not hard to make that case in the Ukraine matter. House Democrats even considered charging Trump with bribery instead of the more generic “abuse of power,” remember. As an analogy, imagine that a company applied for a building permit in a city and the mayor decided to block it unless the company gave him some insider information that he could use to trade their stock. That would be clear-cut bribery, an attempt by a public official to corruptly enrich himself personally by using the perquisites of his office. The Democratic case against Trump makes the same accusation, that the president tried to block a public benefit to Ukraine unless they agreed to provide some information about Joe Biden that would directly benefit Trump personally in next year’s election. It’s fine to find him innocent of the charge based on the evidence but I don’t know how Dersh arrives at the idea that that’s not sufficiently “criminal-like.”
What he really means, I think, is that the alleged corruption in the Ukraine matter is just too petty. We impeach for great offenses of state, remember? Not supposedly small-ball stuff like squeezing a foreign power for dirt on the Democratic frontrunner. That’s a minor offense of state, I guess he’d say, even though allowing it would effectively encourage every president to treat other countries as a de facto oppo research firm against their opponents ahead of every election.
It’s weird to me that this weak argument about “criminal-like conduct” is somehow so compelling to Trump and his team that an entire hour needs to be carved out of the trial to let Dershowitz make it. The basic point, that only the worst presidential misconduct should warrant impeachment, is fair enough but Congress is already keenly aware of that. There’s a reason why House Democrats never impeached the much-hated George W. Bush and why House Republicans didn’t impeach the much-hated Barack Obama. The House has to face the voters every 24 months; if they impeach the president for frivolous reasons, not only is that effort likely to fail in the Senate but they’re apt to be punished severely by voters on Election Day. (That’s Pelosi’s great fear about the current impeachment, of course.) The argument over whether “high crimes and misdemeanors” amounts to “criminal-like conduct” or something more, or less, is silly in that sense. Congress can and will impeach and remove the president to the extent that it believes it has public support to do so. If 75 percent of the country were up in arms about Trump’s quid pro quo with Ukraine, removal would be a real possibility right now whether or not there was “criminal-like conduct.”
The weirdest part is that Senate Republicans have argued repeatedly, and correctly, that impeachment is a political process. That’s why McConnell’s admission that he’s not impartial as a juror isn’t disqualifying. Schumer’s not impartial either! There’s not even an impartial judge at the trial to rule on evidentiary matters: It’s the Senate, via a majority vote, that decides on whether and which witnesses are called, not John Roberts. Politics dictates the process and politics will dictate the result. We’re all big boys and girls who understand that — except when Trump allies like Dershowitz start looking for ways to get him off the hook. Suddenly what qualifies as a “high crime or misdemeanor” becomes a highly legalistic analysis about “criminal-like conduct.” In reality a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever a supermajority of the electorate deems it to be. If Trump did something so terrible that a wide majority of the public supported ousting him immediately for it, he’d be in trouble right now. But they don’t, so he isn’t. Impeachment is a political process.
Go read Justin Amash’s rebuttal to Dershowitz on Twitter, quoting extensively from the Founders. Exit question: Republicans would oppose Trump letting Russia retake Alaska, right? I can’t tell anymore exactly how loyal MAGA fans are expected to be.


hotair--2020-01-20--Migrant caravan crosses river into Mexico

Sunday , Jazz wrote about the latest caravan of Central American migrants headed for the United States .
About 2,500 people made their way onto a bridge over the river that forms the border between Mexico and Guatemala but the Mexican authorities refused to allow them to enter .
Today , the situation escalated with hundreds of migrants moving from the bridge to the river and wading across into Mexico : The migrants moved off the border bridge and toward the river after Mexican officials told them they would not be granted passage through the country .
Amid shouts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shallow river .
On the Mexican side , migrants ran from side to side along the river bank , kicking up dust and looking for an opening in the ranks of National Guard troops sent to meet them… The migrants want free passage across Mexico to the U.S. border and Mexico ’ s government on Monday rejected that .
While the government says the migrants are free to enter — and could compete for jobs if they want to stay and work — in practice , it has restricted such migrants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processed by a sluggish bureaucracy .
Those who do not request asylum or some protective status would likely be detained and deported .
Here ’ s what that looked like : There was a face off with Mexican police once they reached the other side of the river .
This next tweet reads “ In a desperate attempt to enter # Mexico , hundreds of Central Americans that make up a new # Caravana elements of the National Guard faced stones.
” Some real chaos on the Mexican side : Video posted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottles at uniformed security forces .
Troops surround and grapple with men in T-shirts and jeans while other men and women flee .
“ We only want to cross to the United States .
We don ’ t want to stay ” in Mexico , one migrant identified Ingrid said in a video interview with Reuters .
“ Let me pass .
I only want to work .
I ’ m a single mom and I don ’ t want to return to my country where there is nothing.
” This used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let migrants pass through , knowing they were headed for the US .
Now things are different .
Even those who get through the line of police at the river are likely to be picked up on the road north .
This RT clip gives a full view of what happened over the span of an hour .

Sunday, Jazz wrote about the latest caravan of Central American migrants headed for the United States. About 2,500 people made their way onto a bridge over the river that forms the border between Mexico and Guatemala but the Mexican authorities refused to allow them to enter. Today, the situation escalated with hundreds of migrants moving from the bridge to the river and wading across into Mexico:
The migrants moved off the border bridge and toward the river after Mexican officials told them they would not be granted passage through the country. Amid shouts and even some fireworks they began wading across the shallow river. On the Mexican side, migrants ran from side to side along the river bank, kicking up dust and looking for an opening in the ranks of National Guard troops sent to meet them… The migrants want free passage across Mexico to the U.S. border and Mexico’s government on Monday rejected that. While the government says the migrants are free to enter — and could compete for jobs if they want to stay and work — in practice, it has restricted such migrants to the southernmost states while their cases are processed by a sluggish bureaucracy. Those who do not request asylum or some protective status would likely be detained and deported.
Here’s what that looked like:
#BREAKING Migrants from new caravan cross Suchiate river and have reached Mexico. pic.twitter.com/CKCdFqsATP — teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) January 20, 2020
There was a face off with Mexican police once they reached the other side of the river. This next tweet reads “In a desperate attempt to enter #Mexico , hundreds of Central Americans that make up a new #Caravana elements of the National Guard faced stones.”
#Nacional // Cientos de Migrantes se enfrentan a pedradas a la Guardia Nacional En un desesperado intento por ingresar a #Mexico, cientos de centroamericanos que integran una nueva #Caravana se enfrentaron a pedradas a elementos de la Guardia Nacional. pic.twitter.com/j7HUswWFS1 — MV Noticias (@emevenoticias) January 20, 2020
Some real chaos on the Mexican side:
#ÚltimaHora Enfrentamiento entre migrantes y Guardia Nacional al pasar por el río Suchiate. Vía: Alejandro Gómez | Diario del Sur pic.twitter.com/dZotgGyjcI — Diario del Sur (@diariosur_oem) January 20, 2020
From the Washington Post:
Video posted on social media showed men throwing rocks and bottles at uniformed security forces. Troops surround and grapple with men in T-shirts and jeans while other men and women flee. “We only want to cross to the United States. We don’t want to stay” in Mexico, one migrant identified Ingrid said in a video interview with Reuters. “Let me pass. I only want to work. I’m a single mom and I don’t want to return to my country where there is nothing.”
This used to be how things operated. Mexico would let migrants pass through, knowing they were headed for the US. Now things are different. Even those who get through the line of police at the river are likely to be picked up on the road north.
This RT clip gives a full view of what happened over the span of an hour.


hotair--2020-01-20--Trump to take on birth tourism... finally

Now that we seem to be starting to get a handle on the immigration crisis on the southern border , reports have surfaced indicating that President Trump will turn his attention to another thorn in our side on the immigration front .
This one doesn ’ t crop up in the news quite as often , but so-called “ birth tourism ” is a very real thing and it results in a lot of children winding up with US citizenship even though neither they nor their parents have any legitimate ties to our country .
( Some estimates put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ born in this fashion . )
California is the home to some of the most frequent offenders , but it happens along both coasts and in Hawaii as well .
( Axios ) The Trump administration has a new target on the immigration front — pregnant women visiting from other countries — with plans as early as this week to roll out a new rule cracking down on “ birth tourism , ” three administration officials told Axios .
Why it matters : Trump has threatened to end birthright citizenship and railed against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule would be one of the first tangible steps to test how much legal authority the administration has to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of the 14th Amendment ’ s protection of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. “ This change is intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism , including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry , ” a State Department official told Axios .
The administration isn ’ t releasing any details of the new rules yet , but this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull off .
The majority of these birth tourists are women who enter the country temporarily on a Class B visa .
B-1 visas are issued for business trips and B-2 visas are for tourists .
It ’ s unclear how any useful restrictions would be placed on the application process .
Would the application be changed to ask the applicant if they are pregnant , and if so , how far along they are ?
That sounds like a change that would be ripe for an immediate court challenge from the usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump makes on the immigration front will be automatically challenged anyway , so I suppose that doesn ’ t matter .
I wrote about this subject almost one year ago , asking whether it was time to start cracking down on this activity .
At the time , however , I was struggling with the question of precisely what law is being broken and what can be done about it .
The groups who have been offering “ travel packages ” for pregnant women to do this have been arrested in some large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged with fraud .
Many of these groups are in California and they tend to provide these services primarily to women from China and Russia .
But even if you can ’ t find such an “ agent ” to help you , it ’ s still entirely possible to do this on your own .
The fact remains that it ’ s not against the law to visit the United States while pregnant , nor is it illegal to give birth in an American hospital while here on a legally obtained visa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be .
This practice is probably more common than some might think .
I ’ ll briefly revisit one story that really drove home the crux of this issue for me .
One of the podcasts I listen to regularly is hosted by two gentlemen from Australia .
Last year , one of them announced that he and his wife were expecting their first child .
But when the time arrived , he informed the audience that he would be missing from the show for a few episodes .
He then described how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawaii at the latest date her doctor would allow it and having their child there .
But after the child was born , he wound up being stuck there for weeks while the hospital sorted out some issues associated with issuing the birth certificate .
The couple made no bones about what they were doing .
This was all done specifically to ensure their son would have joint American and Australian citizenship , but neither of them lives or works here .
The entire situation is a tangled mess .
I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his team plan on tackling the issue because , at the moment , I can ’ t really imagine a legal solution that wouldn ’ t involve a constitutional amendment .

Now that we seem to be starting to get a handle on the immigration crisis on the southern border, reports have surfaced indicating that President Trump will turn his attention to another thorn in our side on the immigration front. This one doesn’t crop up in the news quite as often, but so-called “birth tourism” is a very real thing and it results in a lot of children winding up with US citizenship even though neither they nor their parents have any legitimate ties to our country. (Some estimates put the figure at 33,000 babies per year being born in this fashion.) California is the home to some of the most frequent offenders, but it happens along both coasts and in Hawaii as well. (Axios)
The Trump administration has a new target on the immigration front — pregnant women visiting from other countries — with plans as early as this week to roll out a new rule cracking down on “birth tourism,” three administration officials told Axios. Why it matters: Trump has threatened to end birthright citizenship and railed against immigrant “anchor babies.” The new rule would be one of the first tangible steps to test how much legal authority the administration has to prevent foreigners from taking advantage of the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship for anyone born in the U.S. “This change is intended to address the national security and law enforcement risks associated with birth tourism, including criminal activity associated with the birth tourism industry,” a State Department official told Axios.
The administration isn’t releasing any details of the new rules yet, but this is going to be a tricky maneuver to pull off. The majority of these birth tourists are women who enter the country temporarily on a Class B visa. B-1 visas are issued for business trips and B-2 visas are for tourists. It’s unclear how any useful restrictions would be placed on the application process.
Would the application be changed to ask the applicant if they are pregnant, and if so, how far along they are? That sounds like a change that would be ripe for an immediate court challenge from the usual suspects. Of course, any move Trump makes on the immigration front will be automatically challenged anyway, so I suppose that doesn’t matter.
I wrote about this subject almost one year ago, asking whether it was time to start cracking down on this activity. At the time, however, I was struggling with the question of precisely what law is being broken and what can be done about it. The groups who have been offering “travel packages” for pregnant women to do this have been arrested in some large raids, but they’re generally charged with fraud.
Many of these groups are in California and they tend to provide these services primarily to women from China and Russia. But even if you can’t find such an “agent” to help you, it’s still entirely possible to do this on your own. The fact remains that it’s not against the law to visit the United States while pregnant, nor is it illegal to give birth in an American hospital while here on a legally obtained visa. But the point is… it should be.
This practice is probably more common than some might think. I’ll briefly revisit one story that really drove home the crux of this issue for me. One of the podcasts I listen to regularly is hosted by two gentlemen from Australia. Last year, one of them announced that he and his wife were expecting their first child. But when the time arrived, he informed the audience that he would be missing from the show for a few episodes.
He then described how he and his wife were flying to Hawaii at the latest date her doctor would allow it and having their child there. But after the child was born, he wound up being stuck there for weeks while the hospital sorted out some issues associated with issuing the birth certificate. The couple made no bones about what they were doing. This was all done specifically to ensure their son would have joint American and Australian citizenship, but neither of them lives or works here.
The entire situation is a tangled mess. I’ll be very interested to see how Trump and his team plan on tackling the issue because, at the moment, I can’t really imagine a legal solution that wouldn’t involve a constitutional amendment.


hotair--2020-01-20--Gallup: Senate Trial Eve and all's ... pretty much the same

Gallup has some bad news for Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi on the eve of the Senate trial for Donald Trump ’ s impeachment .
The House action hasn ’ t made much of a change in public perception of Trump ’ s job performance , unless to make it maybe a skosh better .
Trump is actually near his record high in Gallup ’ s series , although that still isn ’ t an entirely great rating : As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins , 44 % of Americans approve of the job he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval rating has been steady in the past three polls — between 43 % and 45 % — slightly above the 39 % to 41 % ratings he received as the impeachment inquiry started in the fall .
Trump ’ s recent job approval ratings — though below the historical average 53 % for post-World War II presidents — are among the highest of his presidency .
His personal best is 46 % , while he has averaged 40 % job approval for his entire term .
Bear in mind too that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats controlled the process and the narrative .
Now that they have been forced to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate , Republicans control the process , at least .
The drip-drip-drip of leaks from intel sources likely indicates that Schiff is still trying to control the narrative , especially with Lev Parnas and his tainted public testimony last week .
At best , though , they can only compete on narrative — and their total control of both over the last three months has done them no good whatsoever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Actually , the news from Gallup is even worse on removal : Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office , while 51 % want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump will remain as president .
… As was the case for Clinton , the impeachment of Trump has not had a noticeably negative effect on his popular support .
In fact , for both presidents , impeachment had the opposite effect of increasing their public approval .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval rating immediately after being impeached .
Clinton ’ s higher rating may also have been aided by U.S. airstrikes against Iraq that occurred at the same time as the House impeachment vote .
The 46/51 result falls just outside the margin of error , which means Gallup has a 95 % confidence level that a majority of voters oppose the removal of Trump from office .
It ’ s not difficult to see why , either , given both the rushed and erratic process that generated the articles of impeachment and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats for more witnesses that they themselves declined to pursue only perpetuate those impressions , too .
One has to wonder precisely what House Democrats think they will gain from a trial under these circumstances , but with Republicans now controlling the process , it ’ s tough to see this as anything but their high-water mark .
This is just one poll series , though .
What about the rest of the polling ?
For that we turn to RealClearPolitics , which tracks both job approval and impeachment/removal polling .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t spectacular , but they ’ re also remarkably stable and moving up slightly over the last three months : Again , the news is worse on impeachment/removal polling .
Support for this has been declining since mid-December , and opposition has surpassed it and is ticking up with the Gallup results : Worth noting : none of the polling over the past three months in their aggregation has shown any significant bipartisan consensus for impeachment and removal .
In fact , the the last poll that wasn ’ t a YouGov or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality for impeachment/removal was a Fox News poll from mid-December ( +4 ) just after the articles got approved in the House .
Almost every poll showing a plurality of support came from either Morning Consult or YouGov , and even YouGov ’ s latest iteration shows No +1 over Yes .
Finally , let ’ s take a look at FiveThirtyEight ’ s tracker , which uses a different set of polls : Not only does this not show any overwhelming bipartisan support for removing a duly elected president , it shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past three months of Ukraine-Gate .
House Democrats literally changed no minds with their case ; their partisan investigation yielded a partisan result because it just played into existing partisan passions .
Now that House Democrats no longer control the process , it ’ s highly unlikely that these numbers will move in their favor — and they might end up moving against them .
This impeachment project has failed .
Under no circumstances will the Senate remove an elected president with this kind of partisan-only support , especially ahead of a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Gallup has some bad news for Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi on the eve of the Senate trial for Donald Trump’s impeachment. The House action hasn’t made much of a change in public perception of Trump’s job performance, unless to make it maybe a skosh better. Trump is actually near his record high in Gallup’s series, although that still isn’t an entirely great rating:
As the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump begins, 44% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. Trump’s approval rating has been steady in the past three polls — between 43% and 45% — slightly above the 39% to 41% ratings he received as the impeachment inquiry started in the fall. Trump’s recent job approval ratings — though below the historical average 53% for post-World War II presidents — are among the highest of his presidency. His personal best is 46%, while he has averaged 40% job approval for his entire term.
Bear in mind too that this comes after a three-month period in which House Democrats controlled the process and the narrative. Now that they have been forced to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Republicans control the process, at least. The drip-drip-drip of leaks from intel sources likely indicates that Schiff is still trying to control the narrative, especially with Lev Parnas and his tainted public testimony last week. At best, though, they can only compete on narrative — and their total control of both over the last three months has done them no good whatsoever in terms of public support for Trump.
Actually, the news from Gallup is even worse on removal:
Forty-six percent of Americans say they would like their senators to vote to convict Trump and remove him from office, while 51% want their senators to vote against conviction so Trump will remain as president. … As was the case for Clinton, the impeachment of Trump has not had a noticeably negative effect on his popular support. In fact, for both presidents, impeachment had the opposite effect of increasing their public approval. Clinton registered a personal best 73% approval rating immediately after being impeached. Clinton’s higher rating may also have been aided by U.S. airstrikes against Iraq that occurred at the same time as the House impeachment vote.
The 46/51 result falls just outside the margin of error, which means Gallup has a 95% confidence level that a majority of voters oppose the removal of Trump from office. It’s not difficult to see why, either, given both the rushed and erratic process that generated the articles of impeachment and the weak case it presents. Demands by House Democrats for more witnesses that they themselves declined to pursue only perpetuate those impressions, too. One has to wonder precisely what House Democrats think they will gain from a trial under these circumstances, but with Republicans now controlling the process, it’s tough to see this as anything but their high-water mark.
This is just one poll series, though. What about the rest of the polling? For that we turn to RealClearPolitics, which tracks both job approval and impeachment/removal polling. Trump’s job approval ratings aren’t spectacular, but they’re also remarkably stable and moving up slightly over the last three months:
Again, the news is worse on impeachment/removal polling. Support for this has been declining since mid-December, and opposition has surpassed it and is ticking up with the Gallup results:
Worth noting: none of the polling over the past three months in their aggregation has shown any significant bipartisan consensus for impeachment and removal. In fact, the the last poll that wasn’t a YouGov or Morning Consult poll to even show a plurality for impeachment/removal was a Fox News poll from mid-December (+4) just after the articles got approved in the House. Almost every poll showing a plurality of support came from either Morning Consult or YouGov, and even YouGov’s latest iteration shows No +1 over Yes.
Finally, let’s take a look at FiveThirtyEight’s tracker, which uses a different set of polls:
Not only does this not show any overwhelming bipartisan support for removing a duly elected president, it shows nearly no change at all over the past three months of Ukraine-Gate. House Democrats literally changed no minds with their case; their partisan investigation yielded a partisan result because it just played into existing partisan passions. Now that House Democrats no longer control the process, it’s highly unlikely that these numbers will move in their favor — and they might end up moving against them.
This impeachment project has failed. Under no circumstances will the Senate remove an elected president with this kind of partisan-only support, especially ahead of a national election where voters can choose for themselves.


hotair--2020-01-20--De Niro turns award acceptance speech into a political rally for unions

Actor Robert De Niro really does make it hard for a politically engaged conservative who has enjoyed his movies to like him anymore .
In the era of Trump , we ’ ve all come to expect political rants from De Niro as he accepts industry awards or gives interviews for television and in print .
He did it again during the 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild ( SAG ) Awards Sunday .
De Niro was honored with the SAG Life Achievement Award .
Typically , the honoree fakes enough humility to convince the audience that he or she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to make a living doing what he or she loves to do .
They talk about the craft of acting , the struggles to make it and usually end with an encouraging word or two to inspire the younger people coming after them .
That all goes out the window when politics take over .
De Niro is so filled with hatred for President Trump that he is no longer capable of speaking without dragging his resistance into the moment .
The twist during Sunday night ’ s performance from De @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the cojones to actually say Trump ’ s name , and he turned his rant into an expression of support for unions in general .
The union angle was obviously due to the origin of the awards themselves .
The Screen Actors Guild is the union that actors and others in the entertainment industry join in order to work .
Their membership entitles them to benefits that other unions provide , like health insurance .
So , in order to trash Trump , he lumped in all of us who less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tossed in what a “ dire situation ” he thinks we are in now .
He thanked SAG-AFTRA ( American Federation of Television and Radio Artists ) while noting “ hostility towards unions.
” I thank SAG-AFTRA for tirelessly fighting on our behalf for workplace and economic gains , and respect .
And that especially bears — [ Applause ] And that especially bears remembering these days when there ’ s so much hostility towards unions .
[ Applause ] Political leaders who support unions are more likely to support affordable health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a safe environment , a diverse citizenry , reproductive rights , sensible gun control , and fair wages and benefits .
[ Applause ] We owe them our support .
And we owe them our vote .
I can imagine some of you saying , all right , okay , stay out of politics .
That ’ s all right .
But we ’ re — we ’ re in such a dire situation , so deeply concerning to me and to so many others , I have to say something .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ well to Variety the other day , so I ’ m going to quote myself .
[ Laughter ] There ’ s right and there ’ s wrong , and there ’ s common sense , and there ’ s abuse of power , and as a citizen I have as much right as anybody , an actor , an athlete , a musician , or anybody else , to voice my opinion .
And if I have a bigger voice because of my situation , I ’ m going to use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
And that ’ s all I ’ m going to say about that tonight .
You ’ ll note that during that screed , he acknowledges that people are tired of hearing his political opinions , especially during awards shows .
He doesn ’ t care , though , and even goes on to quote himself .
His narcissism knows no boundaries .
De Niro presents himself as one who bravely , boldly speaks truth to power but he doesn ’ t carry through with that during this rant because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name , or conservatives in general , for that matter .
It would be nice if when De Niro says , “ And that ’ s all I ’ m going to say about that ” , he means it .
We are in the midst of awards season for the entertainment industry , though , so he ’ ll have other opportunities to insult conservatives and Trump supporters as he trolls the president .
There is no way an ego that size will remain silent in the months ahead , especially as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie industry finds itself coping with lagging ticket sales and a younger generation that prefers to stay home and stream movies instead of going out to movie theatres .
It seems like a bad business decision to insult half of a potential viewing audience , doesn ’ t it ?
Streaming and other leisure-time enticements appeared to take a bite out of movie ticket sales in 2019 , with total admissions declining nearly 5 % to 1.244 billion , according to the National Association of Theater Owners .
Although the 2019 tally was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 , the totals for both 2017 and 2019 rank as the worst years for movie ticket buying since 1995 .
While NATO has adamantly insisted that the rise of streaming only stimulates more theatrical moviegoing , there has never been a year like 2019 in terms of the caliber of features mounted by digital players .
Netflix received the most Oscar nominations of any company ( 24 ) for films like The Irishman and Marriage Story .
The prestige push was also accompanied by bold strokes at the streaming giant with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bay-directed Ryan Reynolds action movie .
De Niro is in The Irishman .
He ’ s working for Netflix these days like so many other actors .
You would think he would be sensitive to trying to encourage people to go out and purchase traditional movie tickets .
To be honest , I rarely go to the movies anymore .
Movies are offered on paid subscription channels or streaming services pretty quickly after they premiere in theatres .
I ’ ll end with offering a clip of De Niro ’ s speech via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll notice that the audience loved that he turned his speech into a political rally .

Actor Robert De Niro really does make it hard for a politically engaged conservative who has enjoyed his movies to like him anymore. In the era of Trump, we’ve all come to expect political rants from De Niro as he accepts industry awards or gives interviews for television and in print. He did it again during the 26th Annual Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards Sunday.
De Niro was honored with the SAG Life Achievement Award. Typically, the honoree fakes enough humility to convince the audience that he or she is just a regular person lucky enough to be able to make a living doing what he or she loves to do. They talk about the craft of acting, the struggles to make it and usually end with an encouraging word or two to inspire the younger people coming after them. That all goes out the window when politics take over. De Niro is so filled with hatred for President Trump that he is no longer capable of speaking without dragging his resistance into the moment.
The twist during Sunday night’s performance from De Niro was that he didn’t have the cojones to actually say Trump’s name, and he turned his rant into an expression of support for unions in general. The union angle was obviously due to the origin of the awards themselves. The Screen Actors Guild is the union that actors and others in the entertainment industry join in order to work. Their membership entitles them to benefits that other unions provide, like health insurance. So, in order to trash Trump, he lumped in all of us who less than enthusiastically support unions. De Niro even tossed in what a “dire situation” he thinks we are in now. He thanked SAG-AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) while noting “hostility towards unions.”
I thank SAG-AFTRA for tirelessly fighting on our behalf for workplace and economic gains, and respect. And that especially bears — [Applause] And that especially bears remembering these days when there’s so much hostility towards unions. [Applause] Political leaders who support unions are more likely to support affordable health care, equitable taxes, humane immigration regulations, a safe environment, a diverse citizenry, reproductive rights, sensible gun control, and fair wages and benefits. [Applause] We owe them our support. And we owe them our vote. I can imagine some of you saying, all right, okay, stay out of politics. That’s all right. But we’re — we’re in such a dire situation, so deeply concerning to me and to so many others, I have to say something. And I thought I said it pretty well to Variety the other day, so I’m going to quote myself. [Laughter] There’s right and there’s wrong, and there’s common sense, and there’s abuse of power, and as a citizen I have as much right as anybody, an actor, an athlete, a musician, or anybody else, to voice my opinion. And if I have a bigger voice because of my situation, I’m going to use it whenever I see a blatant abuse of power. And that’s all I’m going to say about that tonight.
You’ll note that during that screed, he acknowledges that people are tired of hearing his political opinions, especially during awards shows. He doesn’t care, though, and even goes on to quote himself. His narcissism knows no boundaries. De Niro presents himself as one who bravely, boldly speaks truth to power but he doesn’t carry through with that during this rant because he fails to call out President Trump by name, or conservatives in general, for that matter.
It would be nice if when De Niro says, “And that’s all I’m going to say about that”, he means it. We are in the midst of awards season for the entertainment industry, though, so he’ll have other opportunities to insult conservatives and Trump supporters as he trolls the president. There is no way an ego that size will remain silent in the months ahead, especially as the general election draws closer.
The movie industry finds itself coping with lagging ticket sales and a younger generation that prefers to stay home and stream movies instead of going out to movie theatres. It seems like a bad business decision to insult half of a potential viewing audience, doesn’t it?
Streaming and other leisure-time enticements appeared to take a bite out of movie ticket sales in 2019, with total admissions declining nearly 5% to 1.244 billion, according to the National Association of Theater Owners. Although the 2019 tally was slightly higher than the 1.236 billion recorded in 2017, the totals for both 2017 and 2019 rank as the worst years for movie ticket buying since 1995. While NATO has adamantly insisted that the rise of streaming only stimulates more theatrical moviegoing, there has never been a year like 2019 in terms of the caliber of features mounted by digital players. Netflix received the most Oscar nominations of any company (24) for films like The Irishman and Marriage Story. The prestige push was also accompanied by bold strokes at the streaming giant with titles like 6 Underground, the Michael Bay-directed Ryan Reynolds action movie.
De Niro is in The Irishman. He’s working for Netflix these days like so many other actors. You would think he would be sensitive to trying to encourage people to go out and purchase traditional movie tickets. To be honest, I rarely go to the movies anymore. Movies are offered on paid subscription channels or streaming services pretty quickly after they premiere in theatres.
I’ll end with offering a clip of De Niro’s speech via my colleague at NewsBusters/MRC. You’ll notice that the audience loved that he turned his speech into a political rally.