hotair--2020-01-21--Romney: I'm pretty cool with McConnell's rules; <span class=red>Update: "If everything is an outrage

Romney: I'm pretty cool with McConnell's rules; Update: "If everything is an outrage ..."

So … basically game , set , and match to Midnight Mitch ?
Mitt Romney ’ s statement from last night certainly appears to indicate that McConnell will win approval for his rules regardless of Senate Democrats ’ outrage today .
All McConnell needs is 51 votes to pass his rules as is , and Romney was perhaps the most reachable for Chuck Schumer .
In his statement , Romney cites the Bill Clinton precedent and the fact that McConnell ’ s rules “ align closely ” with them .
Close enough for government work , perhaps ?
The allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the House are extremely serious – did the President abuse his office for personal political gain , and did he obstruct Congress ’ investigation by blocking subpoenas ?
These allegations demand that the Senate put political biases aside , and make good faith efforts to listen to arguments from both sides and thoroughly review facts and evidence .
I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments , as occurred in the Clinton trial .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and overall , it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial .
If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments , I would oppose those efforts .
McConnell can only afford to lose two Republicans to pass his rules package .
If Romney votes in favor of them , then Schumer has to get Susan Collins , Lisa Murkowski , and a Republican to be named later to vote against them .
Who would be the third Senate Republican ?
Mike Lee and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , but not on this impeachment .
Cory Gardner is facing a tough re-election campaign in Colorado , but he ’ s not going to torch his right flank by handing control of the trial to Schumer and Adam Schiff .
Even if Schumer peels off Collins and Murkowski , then , the effort is doomed .
That ’ s not stopping Democrats from targeting Collins over this vote and a later one on witnesses : Democrats intent on unseating Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins want to make the Senate impeachment trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is of President Trump .
With the trial beginning in earnest Tuesday , an activist group plans to broadcast videos of Collins on a billboard truck outside the Capitol contrasting her comments during the 1999 Clinton impeachment and today , particularly regarding whether to call witnesses .
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created a website called , “ What ’ s Changed Susan ?
” to highlight her comments in favor of needing more evidence then versus now .
… Collins has long promoted herself as a rare moderate voice in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-LGBT issues has made her an ally for Democrats on the GOP side of the aisle during many social issue debates .
But when Collins voted in 2018 to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court , liberal activists mobilized against her .
That , however , is the problem for Democrats .
They burned whatever leverage they had with Collins when she voted for Kavanaugh .
There ’ s no way they ’ re not going after her tooth and nail in her re-election fight this year no matter which way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package and the later vote on witnesses .
At this point , she needs a big turnout from Trumpian populists to counter the Planned Parenthood onslaught that ’ s coming , so she ’ s unlikely to peel off against Trump .
The abortion brigades won ’ t let up even if she votes to remove Trump at this point , which means the political pressure is nowhere near what it might otherwise have been .
That ’ s not to say that Democrats won ’ t keep pushing it .
Adam Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules this morning , lamenting that the House won ’ t get a fair trial for its impeachment .
Did the House provide a fair process to get there in the first place ?
Er … .
Update : It doesn ’ t sound as if Democrats ’ pressure campaign is having its desired impact .
If anything , this sounds like a centrist deciding one side is significantly nuttier than the other : This looks like the same kind of miscalculation Schumer made when he tried negotiating the rules in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

So … basically game, set, and match to Midnight Mitch? Mitt Romney’s statement from last night certainly appears to indicate that McConnell will win approval for his rules regardless of Senate Democrats’ outrage today. All McConnell needs is 51 votes to pass his rules as is, and Romney was perhaps the most reachable for Chuck Schumer.
In his statement, Romney cites the Bill Clinton precedent and the fact that McConnell’s rules “align closely” with them. Close enough for government work, perhaps?
The allegations outlined in the articles of impeachment passed by the House are extremely serious – did the President abuse his office for personal political gain, and did he obstruct Congress’ investigation by blocking subpoenas? These allegations demand that the Senate put political biases aside, and make good faith efforts to listen to arguments from both sides and thoroughly review facts and evidence. I have made clear to my colleagues and the public that the Senate should have the opportunity to decide on witnesses following the opening arguments, as occurred in the Clinton trial. The organizing resolution released tonight includes this step, and overall, it aligns closely with the rules package approved 100-0 during the Clinton trial. If attempts are made to vote on witnesses prior to opening arguments, I would oppose those efforts.
McConnell can only afford to lose two Republicans to pass his rules package. If Romney votes in favor of them, then Schumer has to get Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and a Republican to be named later to vote against them. Who would be the third Senate Republican? Mike Lee and Rand Paul may have their differences with Trump, but not on this impeachment. Cory Gardner is facing a tough re-election campaign in Colorado, but he’s not going to torch his right flank by handing control of the trial to Schumer and Adam Schiff.
Even if Schumer peels off Collins and Murkowski, then, the effort is doomed. That’s not stopping Democrats from targeting Collins over this vote and a later one on witnesses:
Democrats intent on unseating Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins want to make the Senate impeachment trial as much an indictment of her as it is of President Trump. With the trial beginning in earnest Tuesday, an activist group plans to broadcast videos of Collins on a billboard truck outside the Capitol contrasting her comments during the 1999 Clinton impeachment and today, particularly regarding whether to call witnesses. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created a website called, “What’s Changed Susan?” to highlight her comments in favor of needing more evidence then versus now. … Collins has long promoted herself as a rare moderate voice in Congress. Her support for abortion rights and pro-LGBT issues has made her an ally for Democrats on the GOP side of the aisle during many social issue debates. But when Collins voted in 2018 to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, liberal activists mobilized against her.
That, however, is the problem for Democrats. They burned whatever leverage they had with Collins when she voted for Kavanaugh. There’s no way they’re not going after her tooth and nail in her re-election fight this year no matter which way she votes on McConnell’s rules package and the later vote on witnesses. At this point, she needs a big turnout from Trumpian populists to counter the Planned Parenthood onslaught that’s coming, so she’s unlikely to peel off against Trump. The abortion brigades won’t let up even if she votes to remove Trump at this point, which means the political pressure is nowhere near what it might otherwise have been.
That’s not to say that Democrats won’t keep pushing it. Adam Schiff accused McConnell of sandbagging House Democrats with the rules this morning, lamenting that the House won’t get a fair trial for its impeachment. Did the House provide a fair process to get there in the first place? Er ….
NEW: Rep. Adam Schiff on Sen. Mitch McConnell's proposed rules for impeachment trial: "We can see why this resolution was kept from us and the American people." https://t.co/C7AyPvvSTr pic.twitter.com/UyBjxFJWgK — ABC News (@ABC) January 21, 2020
Update: It doesn’t sound as if Democrats’ pressure campaign is having its desired impact. If anything, this sounds like a centrist deciding one side is significantly nuttier than the other:
Mitt Romney told me that Dems are making a “mistake” in their reaction to McConnell resolution “If everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage.” He says McConnell changes from Clinton trial rules are “modest” and he won’t be voting today on motions to call for witnesses — Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 21, 2020
This looks like the same kind of miscalculation Schumer made when he tried negotiating the rules in the media rather than directly with McConnell.


hotair--2020-01-21--Report: Trump lawyers, Senate GOP may force Bolton to testify secretly due to national security

Making his testimony secret is Plan B , actually .
Plan A , per WaPo , is to go to court and try to get an injunction barring Bolton from testifying entirely on executive privilege grounds .
I don ’ t think they ’ d win that fight , but the point wouldn ’ t be to win .
It would be to convince Collins , Murkowski , Romney , and Gardner that insisting on calling Bolton will be too much of a hassle , delaying the trial for weeks or months and leaving them all in impeachment limbo into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Team Trump can cause the Collins crew if they insist on subpoenaing Bolton , the less inclined they ’ ll be to do it .
But I don ’ t know .
Collins et al .
are also worried about Democrats screaming “ COVER UP !
” at them all year long on the campaign trail .
That ’ s destined to happen no matter what , but the accusation will be more or less persuasive to voters depending upon how transparent the trial is .
At last check 69 percent of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plurality of Republicans , and Bolton ’ s the most obvious witness to call .
If they go into closed session to hear his testimony and then Democrats and Republicans walk out and say , “ Can ’ t talk about it , it was classified ” and then the inevitable “ not guilty ” verdict is duly rendered , it ’ ll be tantamount to Bolton having not testified at all .
The public wouldn ’ t know whether his testimony was damning or exonerating .
Even the verdict wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in this case on either side aren ’ t impartial and will be voting their political interests rather than fairly assessing the evidence .
The only clue voters would have about Bolton ’ s testimony are the self-serving leaks to the media afterward .
How would that work out politically for the Collins crew ?
Team Trump knows who the real jury is in this trial .
If they can ’ t stop the Senate from hearing Bolton — and maybe they can !
— they can at least try to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One option being discussed , according to a senior administration official , would be to move Bolton ’ s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns , ensuring that it is not public… [ T ] he White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions , according to a senior administration official , who , like others interviewed for this article , was not authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the condition of anonymity… For now , if enough senators vote to call witnesses after the initial arguments by House Democratic managers and Trump ’ s team , McConnell is expected to ensure that those individuals are questioned in a closed-door session rather than a public setting , according to people close to the Senate GOP .
And a private session , these people said , would apply to Bolton and perhaps Hunter Biden , since Republicans would almost certainly agree to witnesses only if they could call their own .
Whether Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a closed deposition remains a point of negotiation , should Republicans ever reach that point .
Witnesses during the Clinton trial also testified via closed deposition , notes WaPo , but the transcripts were released afterward and some of the videotaped testimony was played during the trial .
Team Trump ’ s “ national security ” complaint seems designed to prevent that , to suppress Bolton ’ s testimony entirely on grounds that it would somehow endanger the United States to reveal whether the president was trying to squeeze a foreign government for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next election .
How ’ s that going to work with a closed deposition , though ?
Normally when natsec personnel testify before Congress they do it first in an open session , which the public can watch , and then follow up with a closed session from which the public is excluded so that sensitive national security information can be discussed .
But that ’ s live testimony .
Bolton ’ s testimony won ’ t be live , it ’ ll be videotaped and then shared with the Senate ; as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive natsec revelations in what he has to say , those could be individually redacted and the rest played at the trial for the public to see .
Think of the Muller report , which was released to the public mostly as-is with a few select passages here and there blacked and out .
That ’ s not how Team Trump wants this to go , I assume .
They want to use “ national security ” as a backdoor route to “ absolute immunity.
” Because Bolton was the NSA , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has to say risks damaging national security and therefore his entire testimony should be confidential .
That ’ s ludicrous , but again the point here isn ’ t to win a court battle on the issue .
It ’ s to give the Collins crew a reason to decline to call Bolton in the first place .
“ The White House won ’ t let us hear from him , ” they ’ ll tell voters , “ so whaddaya gon na do.
” Maybe that excuse will satisfy those voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wonder how Dems would counter if Team Trump failed to block Bolton from testifying altogether but succeeded in getting the Senate to treat his testimony as secret .
House Dems want that testimony out there , of course , and they ’ ll have a record of what Bolton said in the form of a videotape and/or transcript .
Would Schiff or Nadler stroll over to the House and read it ( or the unclassified parts of it ) into the record , relying on the Speech or Debate Clause to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyers have been pounding the table about executive privilege since the impeachment process began .
“ Well , ” Dems might say , “ we have our own constitutional privilege that entitles us to raise matters of public interest on the floor of the House without fear of retribution.
” Would they have the stones to do that ?
How would *that* play politically , with the White House howling that they ’ re endangering national security by sharing what Bolton said ?
Senate Republicans will end up taking a wait-and-see approach on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s always a chance that what he has to say will be good for Trump on balance .
( “ Is this guy who ’ s cheering on the president ’ s foreign policy right now really going to break ?
” said one Trump ally to WaPo . )
If it is , the White House ’ s “ national security ” concerns about his testimony will magically melt away and the Senate will decide that his testimony can be entered into the record anyway .
The substance of Hunter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect that calculation too .
The Collins crew will want to treat both witnesses similarly in the interest of “ fairness ” even though Bolton ’ s testimony obviously has greater natsec implications than Biden ’ s does .
If Bolton largely exonerates Trump and Biden comes off as shady , Collins et al .
will logically want both of their depositions to be made public .
If Bolton incriminates Trump and Biden has nothing interesting to say , obviously the Collins crew will swing around to preferring secrecy .
In lieu of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a late-90s highlight reel from the Media Research Center of journalists wanting to speed up Bill Clinton ’ s trial .

Making his testimony secret is Plan B, actually. Plan A, per WaPo, is to go to court and try to get an injunction barring Bolton from testifying entirely on executive privilege grounds. I don’t think they’d win that fight, but the point wouldn’t be to win. It would be to convince Collins, Murkowski, Romney, and Gardner that insisting on calling Bolton will be too much of a hassle, delaying the trial for weeks or months and leaving them all in impeachment limbo into the spring. The more political pain Team Trump can cause the Collins crew if they insist on subpoenaing Bolton, the less inclined they’ll be to do it.
But I don’t know. Collins et al. are also worried about Democrats screaming “COVER UP!” at them all year long on the campaign trail. That’s destined to happen no matter what, but the accusation will be more or less persuasive to voters depending upon how transparent the trial is. At last check 69 percent of Americans want to hear from witnesses, including a plurality of Republicans, and Bolton’s the most obvious witness to call. If they go into closed session to hear his testimony and then Democrats and Republicans walk out and say, “Can’t talk about it, it was classified” and then the inevitable “not guilty” verdict is duly rendered, it’ll be tantamount to Bolton having not testified at all. The public wouldn’t know whether his testimony was damning or exonerating. Even the verdict wouldn’t tell us since the “jurors” in this case on either side aren’t impartial and will be voting their political interests rather than fairly assessing the evidence. The only clue voters would have about Bolton’s testimony are the self-serving leaks to the media afterward. How would that work out politically for the Collins crew?
Team Trump knows who the real jury is in this trial. If they can’t stop the Senate from hearing Bolton — and maybe they can! — they can at least try to stop the voting public from hearing from him.
One option being discussed, according to a senior administration official, would be to move Bolton’s testimony to a classified setting because of national security concerns, ensuring that it is not public… [T]he White House has indicated in conversations with Republican lawmakers that it could appeal to federal courts for an injunction that would stop Bolton if he refuses to go along with their instructions, according to a senior administration official, who, like others interviewed for this article, was not authorized to speak publicly and so spoke on the condition of anonymity… For now, if enough senators vote to call witnesses after the initial arguments by House Democratic managers and Trump’s team, McConnell is expected to ensure that those individuals are questioned in a closed-door session rather than a public setting, according to people close to the Senate GOP. And a private session, these people said, would apply to Bolton and perhaps Hunter Biden, since Republicans would almost certainly agree to witnesses only if they could call their own. Whether Bolton’s testimony would be classified or a closed deposition remains a point of negotiation, should Republicans ever reach that point.
Witnesses during the Clinton trial also testified via closed deposition, notes WaPo, but the transcripts were released afterward and some of the videotaped testimony was played during the trial. Team Trump’s “national security” complaint seems designed to prevent that, to suppress Bolton’s testimony entirely on grounds that it would somehow endanger the United States to reveal whether the president was trying to squeeze a foreign government for dirt on his presumptive opponent in the next election.
How’s that going to work with a closed deposition, though? Normally when natsec personnel testify before Congress they do it first in an open session, which the public can watch, and then follow up with a closed session from which the public is excluded so that sensitive national security information can be discussed. But that’s live testimony. Bolton’s testimony won’t be live, it’ll be videotaped and then shared with the Senate; as such, if there are any truly sensitive natsec revelations in what he has to say, those could be individually redacted and the rest played at the trial for the public to see. Think of the Muller report, which was released to the public mostly as-is with a few select passages here and there blacked and out.
That’s not how Team Trump wants this to go, I assume. They want to use “national security” as a backdoor route to “absolute immunity.” Because Bolton was the NSA, I assume they’ll argue, *everything* he has to say risks damaging national security and therefore his entire testimony should be confidential. That’s ludicrous, but again the point here isn’t to win a court battle on the issue. It’s to give the Collins crew a reason to decline to call Bolton in the first place. “The White House won’t let us hear from him,” they’ll tell voters, “so whaddaya gonna do.” Maybe that excuse will satisfy those voters. Maybe it won’t.
I wonder how Dems would counter if Team Trump failed to block Bolton from testifying altogether but succeeded in getting the Senate to treat his testimony as secret. House Dems want that testimony out there, of course, and they’ll have a record of what Bolton said in the form of a videotape and/or transcript. Would Schiff or Nadler stroll over to the House and read it (or the unclassified parts of it) into the record, relying on the Speech or Debate Clause to protect them from prosecution? Trump and his lawyers have been pounding the table about executive privilege since the impeachment process began. “Well,” Dems might say, “we have our own constitutional privilege that entitles us to raise matters of public interest on the floor of the House without fear of retribution.” Would they have the stones to do that? How would *that* play politically, with the White House howling that they’re endangering national security by sharing what Bolton said?
Senate Republicans will end up taking a wait-and-see approach on whether to make his testimony public. There’s always a chance that what he has to say will be good for Trump on balance. (“Is this guy who’s cheering on the president’s foreign policy right now really going to break?” said one Trump ally to WaPo.) If it is, the White House’s “national security” concerns about his testimony will magically melt away and the Senate will decide that his testimony can be entered into the record anyway. The substance of Hunter Biden’s own closed-door deposition may affect that calculation too. The Collins crew will want to treat both witnesses similarly in the interest of “fairness” even though Bolton’s testimony obviously has greater natsec implications than Biden’s does. If Bolton largely exonerates Trump and Biden comes off as shady, Collins et al. will logically want both of their depositions to be made public. If Bolton incriminates Trump and Biden has nothing interesting to say, obviously the Collins crew will swing around to preferring secrecy.
In lieu of an exit question, here’s a late-90s highlight reel from the Media Research Center of journalists wanting to speed up Bill Clinton’s trial.


hotair--2020-01-21--Davos forum founder thanks Trump for optimism, Thunberg scowls

President Trump was billed as the keynote speaker at the opening of the Economic World Forum in Davos .
Trump struck a positive tone in his opening remarks to the world leaders and other movers and shakers .
Klaus Schwab , the founder , and chairman thanked Trump for “ injecting optimism ” with his speech .
“ We have many problems in the world , but we need dreams , ” he said .
Thanks to a good economy at home , President Trump is able to spread the word at Davos that the American economy is thriving and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-deserved victory lap and was welcomed by a receptive crowd , according to reports .
Specifically , Trump cautioned the others to not succumb to the fearmongering “ prophets of doom ” , which was a shot at the climate alarmists .
“ This is not a time for pessimism .
This is a time for optimism .
Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action , ” Trump said in his opening address at the World Economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Switzerland .
“ But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow , we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse , ” he continued .
“ They are the heirs of yesterday ’ s foolish fortune tellers .
And I have them , and you have them , and we all have them .
And they want to see us do badly , but we don ’ t let that happen.
” The annual gathering in Davos was once a renowned world economic forum but in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event advancing social issues like climate change .
Trump was there to state in no uncertain terms that he is not allowing that agenda to tank the U.S. economy .
Past predictions of doom and gloom were wrong , whether activists want to admit that or not .
He called himself a believer in the environment .
It ’ s all about how to deal with economic progress while addressing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases .
Excessive environmental regulations and ideas like carbon taxes are economic killers .
Teenage Greta Thunberg is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break during the Christmas holiday time and is now back and ready to scold adults again .
After last Friday ’ s weekly climate protest known as Fridays for Future in Lausanne , Switzerland , she told the crowd , “ To the world leaders and those in power , I would like to say that you have not seen anything yet.
” “ You have not seen the last of us , we can assure you that.
” She will participate on two panels .
She voiced impatience with the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on curbing climate change in the new decade .
We aren ’ t even a month into the new decade , but , whatever .
She has taken the message that nothing is being done about climate change to Davos .
It ’ s a childish exaggeration but no doubt the audience was receptive to her .
She has a report , you know , and she ’ s going to talk about its findings whether you like it or not .
“ Pretty much nothing has been done since the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Thunberg said .
“ [ I ] f you see it from that aspect , what has concretely been done , if you see it from a bigger perspective , basically nothing … it will require much more than this , this is just the very beginning.
” Asked what she wanted to see in the future , Thunberg said “ that we start listening to the science and that we actually start treating this crisis as the crisis it is.
” Thunberg said she ’ s spent a year trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Panel on Climate Change report that shows countries can only release another 420 gigatons of carbon dioxide in order to have the best chance at keeping the rise in global temperatures to under 1.5 degrees .
At current levels , that amount will be emitted within roughly eight and a half years .
“ I don ’ t think I have seen one media outlet or person in power communicating this or what it means , ” Thunberg said .
“ I know you don ’ t want to report on this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about this .
But I assure you I will continue to repeat these numbers until you do.
” Earlier this month , Greta and other young activists penned an op-ed demanding an immediate end to investments in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry .
This is where the absurdness of the demands of climate alarmists comes in .
It is completely unrealistic to promote an end to fossil fuels when the U.S. and the world , in general , are not equipped to live without them .
It is as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in the pre-industrial revolution days .
The inconvenient truth is that oil companies have been working on alternative sources of energy and innovations for many years now .
Nothing happens overnight for such big changes .
Meanwhile , the important message being delivered by President Trump is one made possible with the help of fossil fuels – America ’ s economy is thriving .
He advised world leaders to do what is best for their citizens .

President Trump was billed as the keynote speaker at the opening of the Economic World Forum in Davos. Trump struck a positive tone in his opening remarks to the world leaders and other movers and shakers. Klaus Schwab, the founder, and chairman thanked Trump for “injecting optimism” with his speech. “We have many problems in the world, but we need dreams,” he said.
Thanks to a good economy at home, President Trump is able to spread the word at Davos that the American economy is thriving and open for business. He took a well-deserved victory lap and was welcomed by a receptive crowd, according to reports. Specifically, Trump cautioned the others to not succumb to the fearmongering “prophets of doom”, which was a shot at the climate alarmists.
“This is not a time for pessimism. This is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope and joy and optimism and action,” Trump said in his opening address at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. “But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse,” he continued. “They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers. And I have them, and you have them, and we all have them. And they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen.”
The annual gathering in Davos was once a renowned world economic forum but in recent years has devolved into a politically correct event advancing social issues like climate change. Trump was there to state in no uncertain terms that he is not allowing that agenda to tank the U.S. economy. Past predictions of doom and gloom were wrong, whether activists want to admit that or not. He called himself a believer in the environment. It’s all about how to deal with economic progress while addressing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. Excessive environmental regulations and ideas like carbon taxes are economic killers.
Teenage Greta Thunberg is also an attendee. She took a winter break during the Christmas holiday time and is now back and ready to scold adults again. After last Friday’s weekly climate protest known as Fridays for Future in Lausanne, Switzerland, she told the crowd, “To the world leaders and those in power, I would like to say that you have not seen anything yet.” “You have not seen the last of us, we can assure you that.” She will participate on two panels. She voiced impatience with the lack of existance of progress, according to her, on curbing climate change in the new decade. We aren’t even a month into the new decade, but, whatever.
At the Lausanne rally, Thunberg bemoaned a continued lack of progress. “So, we are now in a new year and we have entered a new decade and so far, during this decade, we have seen no sign whatsoever that real climate action is coming and that has to change,” she said.
She has taken the message that nothing is being done about climate change to Davos. It’s a childish exaggeration but no doubt the audience was receptive to her. She has a report, you know, and she’s going to talk about its findings whether you like it or not.
“Pretty much nothing has been done since the global emissions of CO2 has not reduced,” Thunberg said. “[I]f you see it from that aspect, what has concretely been done, if you see it from a bigger perspective, basically nothing … it will require much more than this, this is just the very beginning.” Asked what she wanted to see in the future, Thunberg said “that we start listening to the science and that we actually start treating this crisis as the crisis it is.” Thunberg said she’s spent a year trying to publicize the findings of a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that shows countries can only release another 420 gigatons of carbon dioxide in order to have the best chance at keeping the rise in global temperatures to under 1.5 degrees. At current levels, that amount will be emitted within roughly eight and a half years. “I don’t think I have seen one media outlet or person in power communicating this or what it means,” Thunberg said. “I know you don’t want to report on this. I know you don’t want to talk about this. But I assure you I will continue to repeat these numbers until you do.”
Earlier this month, Greta and other young activists penned an op-ed demanding an immediate end to investments in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry. This is where the absurdness of the demands of climate alarmists comes in. It is completely unrealistic to promote an end to fossil fuels when the U.S. and the world, in general, are not equipped to live without them. It is as though the alarmists wish us to live as in the pre-industrial revolution days. The inconvenient truth is that oil companies have been working on alternative sources of energy and innovations for many years now. Nothing happens overnight for such big changes.
We demand that at this year’s forum, participants from all companies, banks, institutions and governments immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction, immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies and immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels. We don’t want these things done by 2050, 2030 or even 2021, we want this done now – as in right now.
Meanwhile, the important message being delivered by President Trump is one made possible with the help of fossil fuels – America’s economy is thriving. He advised world leaders to do what is best for their citizens.
“America is thriving; America is flourishing and yes, America is winning again like never before,” Trump told an audience of billionaires, world leaders and figures from academia, media and the kind of international organizations and think tanks for whom Trump’s “America First” nationalism is anathema.
Sorry, Greta.
Greta Thunberg breaks from panel question to read data on climate change: "I know you don't want to talk about this. But I assure you, I will continue to repeat these numbers until you do." #Davos2020 pic.twitter.com/nYkvop50sc — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 21, 2020


hotair--2020-01-21--Berned: Hillary rips Sanders, "Bernie Bros" as "all just baloney"

Once Berned , twice shy ?
Not if you ’ re Hillary Clinton .
Four years after Bernie Sanders ’ improbable trajectory from socialist crank to heavyweight Democratic presidential contender , the previous nominee still sounds bitter about Sanders ’ attempt to block her coronation .
In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter promoting a new four-hour documentary on Hillary ’ s favorite subject , she blasts Sanders as a “ career politician ” who “ got nothing done ” in that career .
And she has a few words about the “ Bernie Bros , ” too : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honest on Sanders : “ He was in Congress for years .
He had one senator support him .
Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done .
He was a career politician .
It ’ s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
” That assessment still hold ?
If he gets the nomination , will you endorse and campaign for him ?
I ’ m not going to go there yet .
We ’ re still in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will say , however , that it ’ s not only him , it ’ s the culture around him .
It ’ s his leadership team .
It ’ s his prominent supporters .
It ’ s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women .
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted , [ he ] seems to really be very much supporting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it , but you either don ’ t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you ’ re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [ Harris ] or after Elizabeth [ Warren ] .
I think that that ’ s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions .
Ahem .
This is a strange @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term “ basket of deplorables.
” In fact , it ’ s almost a rerun of that episode , only this time aimed at a faction within her own party ’ s coalition .
Clinton herself wasn ’ t too bad at engaging in “ relentless attacks ” on competitors , including Sanders , and on their supporters by claiming any criticism of herself was based on misogyny .
( Recall that Team Hillary — Hillary Sisters ?
— hinted at similar criticism of Barack Obama in the 2007-8 primary campaign , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels like nothing more than an extension of her 2016 campaign .
Or perhaps it ’ s just a continuum of her overall political life .
After all , Hillary blamed her loss in 2016 on misogyny in remarks just two months ago .
The threshold for this claim appears to be any time a male candidate criticizes a female competitor , which is self-serving at best and counterproductive at worst .
How do voters take female candidates seriously while they claim that any criticism is misogynistic ?
THR wants to know whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their current contretemps .
Want to bet which way she ’ s leaning ?
Then this argument about whether or not or when he did or didn ’ t say that a woman couldn ’ t be elected , it ’ s part of a pattern .
If it were a one-off , you might say , “ OK , fine.
” But he said I was unqualified .
I had a lot more experience than he did , and got a lot more done than he had , but that was his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had more experience than Bernie did in running for president , but that ’ s not saying much .
Hillary pretty much nails Sanders ’ resumé , but hers wasn ’ t much better .
She had eight years in the Senate and a four-year run as Secretary of State that was bookended by the Russia “ reset button ” and the decapitation of the Qaddafi government that turned Libya into a terror-ridden failed state on the Mediterranean , and which led to the debacle in Benghazi that cost four American lives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Clinton had no major diplomatic achievements other than her frequent-flier miles additions during her four years at the head of the State Department .
The interview goes on at length about Donald Trump , her marriage , and so on , but this part made me laugh out loud : Well , that would be a first .
And let ’ s not kid ourselves about the documentary she ’ s promoting with this interview , either — it ’ s called “ Hillary , ” so it ’ s all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fluff piece : Oh , it was the scandals and controversies that “ ensnared ” her rather than Hillary causing or exacerbating them herself ?
Maybe controversies are inherently misogynistic .

Once Berned, twice shy? Not if you’re Hillary Clinton. Four years after Bernie Sanders’ improbable trajectory from socialist crank to heavyweight Democratic presidential contender, the previous nominee still sounds bitter about Sanders’ attempt to block her coronation. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter promoting a new four-hour documentary on Hillary’s favorite subject, she blasts Sanders as a “career politician” who “got nothing done” in that career.
And she has a few words about the “Bernie Bros,” too:
In the doc, you’re brutally honest on Sanders: “He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.” That assessment still hold? Yes, it does. If he gets the nomination, will you endorse and campaign for him? I’m not going to go there yet. We’re still in a very vigorous primary season. I will say, however, that it’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.
Ahem. This is a strange criticism from the woman who coined the term “basket of deplorables.” In fact, it’s almost a rerun of that episode, only this time aimed at a faction within her own party’s coalition. Clinton herself wasn’t too bad at engaging in “relentless attacks” on competitors, including Sanders, and on their supporters by claiming any criticism of herself was based on misogyny. (Recall that Team Hillary — Hillary Sisters? — hinted at similar criticism of Barack Obama in the 2007-8 primary campaign, too.) In that sense, this feels like nothing more than an extension of her 2016 campaign.
Or perhaps it’s just a continuum of her overall political life. After all, Hillary blamed her loss in 2016 on misogyny in remarks just two months ago. The threshold for this claim appears to be any time a male candidate criticizes a female competitor, which is self-serving at best and counterproductive at worst. How do voters take female candidates seriously while they claim that any criticism is misogynistic?
THR wants to know whether Hillary believes Bernie or Elizabeth Warren in their current contretemps. Want to bet which way she’s leaning?
Then this argument about whether or not or when he did or didn’t say that a woman couldn’t be elected, it’s part of a pattern. If it were a one-off, you might say, “OK, fine.” But he said I was unqualified. I had a lot more experience than he did, and got a lot more done than he had, but that was his attack on me.
True, Clinton had more experience than Bernie did in running for president, but that’s not saying much. Hillary pretty much nails Sanders’ resumé, but hers wasn’t much better. She had eight years in the Senate and a four-year run as Secretary of State that was bookended by the Russia “reset button” and the decapitation of the Qaddafi government that turned Libya into a terror-ridden failed state on the Mediterranean, and which led to the debacle in Benghazi that cost four American lives. And speaking of getting nothing done, Secretary Clinton had no major diplomatic achievements other than her frequent-flier miles additions during her four years at the head of the State Department.
The interview goes on at length about Donald Trump, her marriage, and so on, but this part made me laugh out loud:
The end of the doc strikes a more hopeful tone, beginning with the women’s marches. You talk about not attending … Yeah, I didn’t want it to be about me.
Well, that would be a first. And let’s not kid ourselves about the documentary she’s promoting with this interview, either — it’s called “Hillary,” so it’s all about her. THR describes it as basically a fluff piece:
The end result, simply titled Hillary, is a largely flattering portrayal, even as it delves into the many scandals and controversies that have ensnared its 72-year-old subject.
Oh, it was the scandals and controversies that “ensnared” her rather than Hillary causing or exacerbating them herself? Maybe controversies are inherently misogynistic.


hotair--2020-01-21--Could the impeachment trial lead to recusals for John Roberts?

There ’ s a lot of debate taking place over precisely what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts ’ role will be in the impeachment trial that kicks off in full gear today .
I suppose that ’ s understandable since the only mention made of this matter in the Constitution simply says , “ When the President of the United States is tried , the Chief Justice shall preside.
” Sadly , this leaves a lot of room for interpretation over precisely what “ preside ” means in this context .
One of the key questions that will need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rulings Roberts is allowed to make .
The first bone of contention is over the question of calling witnesses .
While the GOP majority seems to want that handled by a vote , the Democrats would like Roberts to step in and rule that witnesses will be allowed .
But the Senate Republicans are warning that if Roberts does that , he may have to recuse himself from any future cases where the President claims executive privilege regarding testimony from such witnesses .
( The Hill ) Senate Democrats are pressing Chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of calling witnesses at President Trump ’ s impeachment trial , while Republicans argue it could force his recusal from potential Supreme Court cases .
Democrats say it ’ s simple : A trial can ’ t be a fair one without witnesses .
Republicans counter that if Roberts rules on witnesses , he will have to recuse himself from any Supreme Court case on Trump ’ s claims of executive privilege over potential witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is shooting themselves in the foot with this argument .
( Or at least undermining the President . )
There very well may be future cases involving Trump ’ s claims to executive privilege since the Democrats and their surrogates are constantly suing him over one thing or another .
And if those cases wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court , Trump will need all the votes he can get .
There ’ s also a question as to whether or not Roberts gets to cast a vote to break ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor for a vote .
That might sound curious to some , but there ’ s actually precedent for it .
During the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson , Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase broke two ties regarding procedural matters by casting a vote .
( As The Hill points out , one of those votes was a question as to whether or not he could vote to break ties . )
Normally , the Vice President would break any tie vote in the Senate , but that generally only happens when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President of the Senate after a tie occurs .
As far as the final impeachment vote goes , a two-thirds majority is required to convict , so a tie isn ’ t possible .
But for setting the rules and deciding procedural matters ( such as the rules for calling witnesses ) we could easily see a tie happen .
With Roberts presiding instead of the VP , would that apply ?
Or does Roberts inherit the Vice President ’ s vote ?
The other alternative , as some are arguing , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a tie simply results in the measure failing because they didn ’ t come up with 51 votes .
Or at least that ’ s the approach that Lisa Murkowski ( among others ) seems to be taking .
These are all good questions .
And as we ’ ve discussed here before , we ’ re stuck in a gray area largely because the Founders didn ’ t bother to provide many ( or any ) specifics as to how an impeachment trial is supposed to run .
They left it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide when writing their own rules .

There’s a lot of debate taking place over precisely what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ role will be in the impeachment trial that kicks off in full gear today. I suppose that’s understandable since the only mention made of this matter in the Constitution simply says, “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” Sadly, this leaves a lot of room for interpretation over precisely what “preside” means in this context.
One of the key questions that will need to be tackled first is what sort of rulings Roberts is allowed to make. The first bone of contention is over the question of calling witnesses. While the GOP majority seems to want that handled by a vote, the Democrats would like Roberts to step in and rule that witnesses will be allowed. But the Senate Republicans are warning that if Roberts does that, he may have to recuse himself from any future cases where the President claims executive privilege regarding testimony from such witnesses. (The Hill)
Senate Democrats are pressing Chief Justice John Roberts to rule in favor of calling witnesses at President Trump’s impeachment trial, while Republicans argue it could force his recusal from potential Supreme Court cases. Democrats say it’s simple: A trial can’t be a fair one without witnesses. Republicans counter that if Roberts rules on witnesses, he will have to recuse himself from any Supreme Court case on Trump’s claims of executive privilege over potential witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
It seems to me that the Senate majority is shooting themselves in the foot with this argument. (Or at least undermining the President.) There very well may be future cases involving Trump’s claims to executive privilege since the Democrats and their surrogates are constantly suing him over one thing or another. And if those cases wind up being appealed to the Supreme Court, Trump will need all the votes he can get.
There’s also a question as to whether or not Roberts gets to cast a vote to break ties on matters that he sends to the floor for a vote. That might sound curious to some, but there’s actually precedent for it. During the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase broke two ties regarding procedural matters by casting a vote. (As The Hill points out, one of those votes was a question as to whether or not he could vote to break ties.)
Normally, the Vice President would break any tie vote in the Senate, but that generally only happens when he is called in to preside as the President of the Senate after a tie occurs. As far as the final impeachment vote goes, a two-thirds majority is required to convict, so a tie isn’t possible. But for setting the rules and deciding procedural matters (such as the rules for calling witnesses) we could easily see a tie happen. With Roberts presiding instead of the VP, would that apply? Or does Roberts inherit the Vice President’s vote?
The other alternative, as some are arguing, is that there is no tie-breaking vote available and a tie simply results in the measure failing because they didn’t come up with 51 votes. Or at least that’s the approach that Lisa Murkowski (among others) seems to be taking.
These are all good questions. And as we’ve discussed here before, we’re stuck in a gray area largely because the Founders didn’t bother to provide many (or any) specifics as to how an impeachment trial is supposed to run. They left it up to the members of the Senate to decide when writing their own rules.


hotair--2020-01-21--Bernie Sanders would like everyone to know he's very sorry

It sure seems as if Senator Bernie Sanders is spending a lot of his time apologizing lately .
First , he had to “ clarify ” whether or not he ’ d told Elizabeth Warren that a woman couldn ’ t beat Trump .
Then he sort of apologized for taking dark money from his own PAC .
And now , just as the impeachment trial is getting underway , he ’ s been forced to apologize to Joe Biden .
And this time it was for something he didn ’ t even say himself .
( CBS News ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden on Monday for an op-ed written by one of his campaign surrogates that claimed Biden has a “ big corruption problem.
” “ It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way .
And I ’ m sorry that that op-ed appeared , ” Sanders told CBS News .
The op-ed , published in The Guardian by law professor Zephyr Teachout , claims Biden “ has perfected the art of taking big contributions , then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order , though perhaps not the one Uncle Joe wound up receiving .
The surrogate in question who accused Biden of corruption was Zephyr Teachout , and if you agree to sign her on as one of your surrogates you should buckle up and get ready for a potentially bumpy ride .
For those who may have forgotten , Teachout is a law professor from Fordham Law School and a perennial progressive/socialist agitator .
She ’ s also become something of a professional political candidate who can ’ t seem to figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran a primary against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2014 , tried for a congressional seat in 2016 and tried to become New York ’ s Attorney General in 2018 .
She failed all three times .
But in all of those efforts , she ’ s specialized in taking on her fellow Democrats more so than any Republican opponents .
She ’ s always ready to call out her colleagues for being insufficiently woke or insufficiently socialist .
She did it to Cuomo and now she ’ s apparently doing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s speaking on behalf of Bernie Sanders , he ’ s the one who winds up having to apologize .
The sad part is that , as usual , Teachout was going after Biden for what could have been a very valid reason , but she highlighted the wrong aspect of the former Vice President ’ s history .
The op-ed called out Biden for a history of taking large donations from generous corporate donors and then casting votes favorable to them later on in the Senate .
It ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d have to look long and hard to find any members of Congress from either party who haven ’ t engage in that sort of activity from time to time .
If she really wanted to call out Biden for something , perhaps she should have looked into the apparently forbidden subject of how Joe ’ s family members manage to do so well financially through the most unlikely of methods .
While most of the mainstream media doesn ’ t like to discuss this , we ’ ve already seen reports of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden clan have gotten quite wealthy through his connections .
Not least of these is his son , Hunter , of course .
Teachout could have brought up the curious way that Hunter landed a lucrative spot on the board of Ukranian energy firm Burisma despite having no experience in the energy industry , rarely if ever attending any meetings and supposedly being unable to even speak Ukranian .
And that was happening at the same time that his dad was not only Vice President but the Obama administration ’ s point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar arrangement in China at one point .
But I ’ m sure that was all just a coincidence and too distasteful for Teachout to bring up .
And now that Bernie has apologized for her rudeness it will all just be water under the bridge .

It sure seems as if Senator Bernie Sanders is spending a lot of his time apologizing lately. First, he had to “clarify” whether or not he’d told Elizabeth Warren that a woman couldn’t beat Trump. Then he sort of apologized for taking dark money from his own PAC. And now, just as the impeachment trial is getting underway, he’s been forced to apologize to Joe Biden. And this time it was for something he didn’t even say himself. (CBS News)
Senator Bernie Sanders apologized to former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday for an op-ed written by one of his campaign surrogates that claimed Biden has a “big corruption problem.” “It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I’m sorry that that op-ed appeared,” Sanders told CBS News. The op-ed, published in The Guardian by law professor Zephyr Teachout, claims Biden “has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.”
I suppose an apology was in order, though perhaps not the one Uncle Joe wound up receiving. The surrogate in question who accused Biden of corruption was Zephyr Teachout, and if you agree to sign her on as one of your surrogates you should buckle up and get ready for a potentially bumpy ride.
For those who may have forgotten, Teachout is a law professor from Fordham Law School and a perennial progressive/socialist agitator. She’s also become something of a professional political candidate who can’t seem to figure out the whole political thing. She ran a primary against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2014, tried for a congressional seat in 2016 and tried to become New York’s Attorney General in 2018. She failed all three times.
But in all of those efforts, she’s specialized in taking on her fellow Democrats more so than any Republican opponents. She’s always ready to call out her colleagues for being insufficiently woke or insufficiently socialist. She did it to Cuomo and now she’s apparently doing it to Joe Biden. But since she’s speaking on behalf of Bernie Sanders, he’s the one who winds up having to apologize.
The sad part is that, as usual, Teachout was going after Biden for what could have been a very valid reason, but she highlighted the wrong aspect of the former Vice President’s history. The op-ed called out Biden for a history of taking large donations from generous corporate donors and then casting votes favorable to them later on in the Senate. It’s the old pay-for-play thing, but you’d have to look long and hard to find any members of Congress from either party who haven’t engage in that sort of activity from time to time.
If she really wanted to call out Biden for something, perhaps she should have looked into the apparently forbidden subject of how Joe’s family members manage to do so well financially through the most unlikely of methods. While most of the mainstream media doesn’t like to discuss this, we’ve already seen reports of how as many as five members of the Biden clan have gotten quite wealthy through his connections.
Not least of these is his son, Hunter, of course. Teachout could have brought up the curious way that Hunter landed a lucrative spot on the board of Ukranian energy firm Burisma despite having no experience in the energy industry, rarely if ever attending any meetings and supposedly being unable to even speak Ukranian. And that was happening at the same time that his dad was not only Vice President but the Obama administration’s point man on Ukraine. He had a similar arrangement in China at one point.
But I’m sure that was all just a coincidence and too distasteful for Teachout to bring up. And now that Bernie has apologized for her rudeness it will all just be water under the bridge.


hotair--2020-01-21--Hoo boy: Guardian sources claim Jeff Bezos's phone was hacked by ... the crown prince of Saudi Arabi

Hoo boy: Guardian sources claim Jeff Bezos's phone was hacked by ... the crown prince of Saudi Arabia

When I say “ hacked by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia , ” I don ’ t mean by Saudi state intelligence services in the prince ’ s employ .
I mean by the prince himself .
If you believe the Guardian ’ s sources , Mohammed bin Salman was the operative who delivered the virus that infiltrated Bezos ’ s phone .
Someone on Twitter a few days ago remarked that the virtual reality which we all now inhabit seems to have only 40 or so major characters .
The cast of players in every major news story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 : Trump , Rudy Giuliani , Hillary , James Comey , about 35 others .
Somehow , at some point , Michael Avenatti made it into the group ; there ’ s a new story about him on the wires right now , naturally .
This Bezos/MBS thing seems to confirm the theory .
Whoever ’ s writing this sh*tshow we now live in wanted a plot line in which one character hacks another character ’ s phone .
And they had only 40 possibilities to choose from .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It could have been Taylor Swift hacking Putin ’ s phone or something like that .
The encrypted message from the number used by Mohammed bin Salman is believed to have included a malicious file that infiltrated the phone of the world ’ s richest man , according to the results of a digital forensic analysis .
This analysis found it “ highly probable ” that the intrusion into the phone was triggered by an infected video file sent from the account of the Saudi heir to Bezos , the owner of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been having a seemingly friendly WhatsApp exchange when , on 1 May of [ 2018 ] , the unsolicited file was sent , according to sources who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity .
Large amounts of data were exfiltrated from Bezos ’ s phone within hours , according to a person familiar with the matter .
The Guardian has no knowledge of what was taken from the phone or how it was used .
Does any of this ring a bell ?
It should .
Almost a year ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medium about the fact that some of his texts to his mistress had shown up in the National Enquirer .
Bezos hired investigators to find out how those messages had ended up in the Enquirer ’ s hands .
Allegedly , the Enquirer got wind of that investigation and threatened to publish more texts — and embarrassing photos taken by Bezos — if Bezos didn ’ t call a halt to it .
In particular , Bezos claimed , the Enquirer ’ s parent company , AMI , wanted him to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for suggesting that AMI ’ s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.
” But Bezos couldn ’ t and wouldn ’ t say that .
Instead , his post on the matter is filled with hints about some sort of connection between AMI and … Saudi Arabia .
“ Mr .
Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they ’ ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government , ” he notes at one point in reference to Enquirer chief — and Trump pal — David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noting that Pecker had attended a dinner at the Trump White House with a guest who had “ important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia.
” He points to the strange but true fact that in 2018 AMI published a glossy 97-page piece of propaganda aimed at American newsstands entitled “ The New Kingdom ” that celebrated bin Salman ’ s agenda for Saudi Arabia .
And he emphasizes that the paper he owns , the Washington Post , had been unsparing in its coverage of the Saudi operation to murder WaPo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Turkey .
“ For reasons still to be better understood , the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve ” with Pecker , Bezos claimed , theorizing about why the Enquirer would attempt to blackmail him .
And now here we are with the Guardian proposing that the hacking of Bezos ’ s phone was in fact a Saudi operation led by MBS himself .
Is that how the Enquirer ended up with the texts and racy photos on Bezos ’ s phone ?
Maybe not .
Daily Beast reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site is very confident in its previous reporting that the brother of Bezos ’ s mistress leaked the texts to the Enquirer .
But there ’ s a catch : Did the richest man in the world have his dick pics forward to Trump ’ s favorite tabloid by the de facto king of Saudi Arabia ?
More importantly : Can you read that sentence and not be completely convinced that we ’ re living in an increasingly stupid simulation of reality ?
It ’ s worth your time to read these two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get up to speed on the Bezos/Enquirer/Saudi triangle , since there ’ s destined to be tons of follow-up coverage of today ’ s Guardian scoop .
As for motive , those in the know were apparently unanimous in their best guess for the paper : “ Saudi experts – dissidents and analysts – told the Guardian they believed Bezos was probably targeted because of his ownership of the Post and its coverage of Saudi Arabia.
” Not only did WaPo publish Khashoggi ’ s columns criticizing MBS , they led the charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
If the Guardian story is true then it was probably a revenge op .
And if it can be proved it ’ ll certainly be blamed on “ rogue actors ” in the Kingdom who ’ ll be scapegoated for the prince ’ s misdeeds .
The same playbook as in the Khashoggi murder .
The funniest line in the Guardian piece : “ The possibility that the head of one of America ’ s leading companies was targeted by Saudi Arabia could pose a dilemma for the White House.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
America ’ s richest man being hacked by America ’ s foremost Sunni ally would be a diplomatic pickle .
Given the White House we have , though , Trump will surely allow his own antipathy to Bezos and the Washington Post and his fondness for MBS and the Saudi royals ( they buy lots of weapons from us , you know ) to guide his judgment on whether the evidence of bin Salman ’ s guilt is solid or not .
A guy who could stand next to Putin in Helsinki @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether Russia hacked the Democrats during the 2016 campaign will have no difficulty concluding that the Saudis are being framed , that maybe some 400-pound Iranian sitting in his basement somewhere is the real culprit .
There ’ s no “ dilemma ” for Trump or MBS ’ s buddy , Jared Kushner , on how to handle this .
Although there may be a dilemma in how to handle their own communications with bin Salman going forward .
MBS and Kushner are buddies , after all ; Jared is the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ royal family .
I wonder if he ’ s experiencing any nervous moments this afternoon scrolling through his archived text messages with bin Salman and looking for any unusual files that his friend Mo might have slipped into their chats .
If the Saudis are willing to mess with the world ’ s richest man for blackmail leverage , they ’ d certainly look for leverage over the world ’ s most powerful man .
Is that why Trump is always so solicitous towards the Saudis , refusing to condemn the Khashoggi operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kingdom when he ’ s supposed to be “ ending endless wars ” ?
He knows better than most humans from his long friendship/partnership with Pecker and the Enquirer how dirt can be weaponized to impugn others .
Conveniently in this case , the Saudis may have weaponized some dirt against his enemy Bezos .
What if the next target is closer to home ?

When I say “hacked by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia,” I don’t mean by Saudi state intelligence services in the prince’s employ.
I mean by the prince himself. If you believe the Guardian’s sources, Mohammed bin Salman was the operative who delivered the virus that infiltrated Bezos’s phone.
Someone on Twitter a few days ago remarked that the virtual reality which we all now inhabit seems to have only 40 or so major characters. The cast of players in every major news story is drawn from that same pool of 40: Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary, James Comey, about 35 others. Somehow, at some point, Michael Avenatti made it into the group; there’s a new story about him on the wires right now, naturally. This Bezos/MBS thing seems to confirm the theory. Whoever’s writing this sh*tshow we now live in wanted a plot line in which one character hacks another character’s phone. And they had only 40 possibilities to choose from.
This is the pairing we got.
Be grateful. It could have been Taylor Swift hacking Putin’s phone or something like that.
The encrypted message from the number used by Mohammed bin Salman is believed to have included a malicious file that infiltrated the phone of the world’s richest man, according to the results of a digital forensic analysis. This analysis found it “highly probable” that the intrusion into the phone was triggered by an infected video file sent from the account of the Saudi heir to Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post. The two men had been having a seemingly friendly WhatsApp exchange when, on 1 May of [2018], the unsolicited file was sent, according to sources who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. Large amounts of data were exfiltrated from Bezos’s phone within hours, according to a person familiar with the matter. The Guardian has no knowledge of what was taken from the phone or how it was used.
Does any of this ring a bell? It should. Almost a year ago, Bezos published a strange post on Medium about the fact that some of his texts to his mistress had shown up in the National Enquirer. Bezos hired investigators to find out how those messages had ended up in the Enquirer’s hands. Allegedly, the Enquirer got wind of that investigation and threatened to publish more texts — and embarrassing photos taken by Bezos — if Bezos didn’t call a halt to it. In particular, Bezos claimed, the Enquirer’s parent company, AMI, wanted him to say that he had “no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”
But Bezos couldn’t and wouldn’t say that. Instead, his post on the matter is filled with hints about some sort of connection between AMI and … Saudi Arabia. “Mr. Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they’ve taken on behalf of the Saudi Government,” he notes at one point in reference to Enquirer chief — and Trump pal — David Pecker. He flags a news story noting that Pecker had attended a dinner at the Trump White House with a guest who had “important ties to the royals in Saudi Arabia.” He points to the strange but true fact that in 2018 AMI published a glossy 97-page piece of propaganda aimed at American newsstands entitled “The New Kingdom” that celebrated bin Salman’s agenda for Saudi Arabia. And he emphasizes that the paper he owns, the Washington Post, had been unsparing in its coverage of the Saudi operation to murder WaPo columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey. “For reasons still to be better understood, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve” with Pecker, Bezos claimed, theorizing about why the Enquirer would attempt to blackmail him.
And now here we are with the Guardian proposing that the hacking of Bezos’s phone was in fact a Saudi operation led by MBS himself. Is that how the Enquirer ended up with the texts and racy photos on Bezos’s phone?
Maybe not. Daily Beast reporter Lachlan Markay tweeted this afternoon that his site is very confident in its previous reporting that the brother of Bezos’s mistress leaked the texts to the Enquirer. But there’s a catch:
https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1219734205560692737
Did the richest man in the world have his dick pics forward to Trump’s favorite tabloid by the de facto king of Saudi Arabia?
More importantly: Can you read that sentence and not be completely convinced that we’re living in an increasingly stupid simulation of reality?
It’s worth your time to read these two posts from February of last year to get up to speed on the Bezos/Enquirer/Saudi triangle, since there’s destined to be tons of follow-up coverage of today’s Guardian scoop. As for motive, those in the know were apparently unanimous in their best guess for the paper: “Saudi experts – dissidents and analysts – told the Guardian they believed Bezos was probably targeted because of his ownership of the Post and its coverage of Saudi Arabia.” Not only did WaPo publish Khashoggi’s columns criticizing MBS, they led the charge in exposing the Saudi plot to murder him. If the Guardian story is true then it was probably a revenge op.
And if it can be proved it’ll certainly be blamed on “rogue actors” in the Kingdom who’ll be scapegoated for the prince’s misdeeds. The same playbook as in the Khashoggi murder.
The funniest line in the Guardian piece: “The possibility that the head of one of America’s leading companies was targeted by Saudi Arabia could pose a dilemma for the White House.” For a normal White House, yes. America’s richest man being hacked by America’s foremost Sunni ally would be a diplomatic pickle. Given the White House we have, though, Trump will surely allow his own antipathy to Bezos and the Washington Post and his fondness for MBS and the Saudi royals (they buy lots of weapons from us, you know) to guide his judgment on whether the evidence of bin Salman’s guilt is solid or not. A guy who could stand next to Putin in Helsinki and contradict the entire U.S. intelligence community on whether Russia hacked the Democrats during the 2016 campaign will have no difficulty concluding that the Saudis are being framed, that maybe some 400-pound Iranian sitting in his basement somewhere is the real culprit. There’s no “dilemma” for Trump or MBS’s buddy, Jared Kushner, on how to handle this.
Although there may be a dilemma in how to handle their own communications with bin Salman going forward. MBS and Kushner are buddies, after all; Jared is the White House’s unofficial liaison to the royal family. I wonder if he’s experiencing any nervous moments this afternoon scrolling through his archived text messages with bin Salman and looking for any unusual files that his friend Mo might have slipped into their chats. If the Saudis are willing to mess with the world’s richest man for blackmail leverage, they’d certainly look for leverage over the world’s most powerful man. Is that why Trump is always so solicitous towards the Saudis, refusing to condemn the Khashoggi operation and duly dispatching more American troops to the Kingdom when he’s supposed to be “ending endless wars”? He knows better than most humans from his long friendship/partnership with Pecker and the Enquirer how dirt can be weaponized to impugn others. Conveniently in this case, the Saudis may have weaponized some dirt against his enemy Bezos. What if the next target is closer to home?


hotair--2020-01-21--Team Biden demands reporters debunk corruption claims against candidate

Team Biden delivered a memo to its cohorts in the press instructing them on how to cover Republican claims of corruption against either Joe Biden or his son Hunter during the impeachment trial in the Senate .
It may not surprise you to know that reporters are only too happy to oblige .
The memo went out the same day that the names of the House Republicans who have been added to Trump ’ s legal team were announced .
Those Republicans are all vocal defenders of the president : Reps. Doug Collins , Mike Johnson , Jim Jordan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ratcliffe , Elise Stefanik and Lee Zeldin .
All have voiced concerns about Hunter Biden ’ s appointment to the board of Burisma and of Joe Biden ’ s role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor during an investigation into Burisma .
Biden was the Obama administration ’ s point man in Ukraine and there is video evidence of good old Joe bragging to an audience that he was responsible for the man ’ s termination .
Biden even threatened to withhold America ’ s financial aid if the man wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all that .
Naturally , Team Biden wants to take full advantage of the absence of the Senators running for the Democrat nomination on the campaign trail while the impeachment trial in the Senate is underway .
He certainly doesn ’ t want his name or his son ’ s name to enter the record in terms of their own alleged corruption problems when Democrats are desperately trying to paint President Trump as corrupt .
The whole case for impeachment revolves around a phone call to the new President of Ukraine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the new leader was on the same page as Trump in wanting to eliminate the rampant corruption of the former Ukrainian administration before financial aid was delivered , well , wouldn ’ t that have been wrong for Biden , too ?
And , why was it allowed during the Obama administration for Vice-President Biden ’ s son to trade on the family name to get a sweet gig on Burisma ’ s board ?
Yes , I think all of that might come up in the impeachment trial from the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the press on Biden and instructions for the press to debunk any claims made by Republicans is quite detailed .
It came from Biden ’ s deputy campaign manager , Kate Bedingfield , and the campaign ’ s communications director .
Perhaps the name of Bedingfield is ringing a bell .
This isn ’ t the first time she has instructed the press on how they should write about Joe Biden .
It all smacks of an authoritarian directive .
The memo is not one that would be sent from defenders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walks through every possible charge the Republicans could make and tells reporters how to debunk them .
The best part of the memo is when it states that journalists not using Team Biden ’ s narrative are practicing journalistic “ malpractice ” .
That ’ s right – if anyone reports on the claim that Biden was involved in the removal of the prosecutor without debunking that claim using the campaign ’ s narrative , it ’ s malpractice .
The Biden campaign said Trump ’ s efforts to spread the theory is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said it would be “ malpractice ” for journalists to reference the allegations without also saying that they ’ ve been debunked , according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Hill .
“ [ Trump ’ s ] objective was to pressure the Ukrainian government into spreading a malicious and conclusively debunked conspiracy theory : that Vice President Biden engaged in wrongdoing when he executed official United States policy to remove a corrupt prosecutor from office , ” communications director Kate Bedingfield wrote in a memo to reporters and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any reporter who dares to question Biden ’ s actions must be stopped .
Remember when reporters didn ’ t take marching orders from campaigns , or at least they were clever enough to cover it up ?
Well , look no further than MSNBC ’ s Heidi Przybla and Katy Tur to hear how today ’ s reporters handle such a memo .
During her show , Tur allowed Przybla to repeat the same Biden talking points she delivered earlier in the day on NBC ’ s Morning Joe .
She sounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions to be brought up .
After Heidi Przybla sounded like a Biden press secretary earlier in the day , host Katy Tur trumpeted , “ Joe Biden ’ s warning to the media ahead of the President ’ s impeachment trial.
” She seemed to appreciate the order : “ In its most forceful push back yet , Joe Biden ’ s campaign has issued a warning to the media about disinformation on Ukraine and attacks on Hunter Biden.
” As though the “ warning ” from one presidential campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective fact , Przybyla reappeared to parrot : “ It is a preemptive strike against the disinformation that is really at the heart of the President ’ s defense.
” Regarding Senate Republicans bringing up what Hunter Biden did in relation to Ukraine , the journalist hyped Biden talking points as news judgment : “ This is a reminder , Katy , that the entire premise of the argument is debunked .
It is not just unsubstantiated.
” Justifying not wanting to talk about Hunter Biden , Przybyla dismissed : “ Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say it was not ethical for Hunter to trade on his father ’ s name and sit on the board of an energy company when he doesn ’ t know much about energy .
But was it illegal ?
No.
” It ’ s a sign of weakness that the Biden campaign has to preemptively tell the press how to cover topics that may arise in the impeachment trial .
We know that Quid Pro Joe isn ’ t the strongest of candidates and there is a real question if he can win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls are fluid and the top-ranking candidates move up and down with each new poll , it seems .
Joe and his team clearly thought this would be a cakewalk .
We ’ ll know soon if he ’ ll be able to close the deal with Democrat voters on a state to state basis or not .
It looks like he ’ ll get plenty of help from his friends in the press .
I ’ ll end with a tweet from another MSNBC contributor , following instructions .

Team Biden delivered a memo to its cohorts in the press instructing them on how to cover Republican claims of corruption against either Joe Biden or his son Hunter during the impeachment trial in the Senate. It may not surprise you to know that reporters are only too happy to oblige.
The memo went out the same day that the names of the House Republicans who have been added to Trump’s legal team were announced. Those Republicans are all vocal defenders of the president: Reps. Doug Collins, Mike Johnson, Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, Elise Stefanik and Lee Zeldin. All have voiced concerns about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Burisma and of Joe Biden’s role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor during an investigation into Burisma. Biden was the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine and there is video evidence of good old Joe bragging to an audience that he was responsible for the man’s termination. Biden even threatened to withhold America’s financial aid if the man wasn’t fired. So, there’s all that.
Naturally, Team Biden wants to take full advantage of the absence of the Senators running for the Democrat nomination on the campaign trail while the impeachment trial in the Senate is underway. He certainly doesn’t want his name or his son’s name to enter the record in terms of their own alleged corruption problems when Democrats are desperately trying to paint President Trump as corrupt. The whole case for impeachment revolves around a phone call to the new President of Ukraine. If Trump was wrong to want assurances that the new leader was on the same page as Trump in wanting to eliminate the rampant corruption of the former Ukrainian administration before financial aid was delivered, well, wouldn’t that have been wrong for Biden, too? And, why was it allowed during the Obama administration for Vice-President Biden’s son to trade on the family name to get a sweet gig on Burisma’s board? Yes, I think all of that might come up in the impeachment trial from the Republican side.
The memo demanding favorable coverage from the press on Biden and instructions for the press to debunk any claims made by Republicans is quite detailed. It came from Biden’s deputy campaign manager, Kate Bedingfield, and the campaign’s communications director. Perhaps the name of Bedingfield is ringing a bell. This isn’t the first time she has instructed the press on how they should write about Joe Biden. It all smacks of an authoritarian directive. The memo is not one that would be sent from defenders of the freedom of the press. It walks through every possible charge the Republicans could make and tells reporters how to debunk them.
The best part of the memo is when it states that journalists not using Team Biden’s narrative are practicing journalistic “malpractice”. That’s right – if anyone reports on the claim that Biden was involved in the removal of the prosecutor without debunking that claim using the campaign’s narrative, it’s malpractice.
The Biden campaign said Trump’s efforts to spread the theory is the reason the president is being impeached and said it would be “malpractice” for journalists to reference the allegations without also saying that they’ve been debunked, according to a copy of the memo obtained by The Hill. “[Trump’s] objective was to pressure the Ukrainian government into spreading a malicious and conclusively debunked conspiracy theory: that Vice President Biden engaged in wrongdoing when he executed official United States policy to remove a corrupt prosecutor from office,” communications director Kate Bedingfield wrote in a memo to reporters and editors.
Clearly Team Biden thinks that any reporter who dares to question Biden’s actions must be stopped. Remember when reporters didn’t take marching orders from campaigns, or at least they were clever enough to cover it up? Well, look no further than MSNBC’s Heidi Przybla and Katy Tur to hear how today’s reporters handle such a memo. During her show, Tur allowed Przybla to repeat the same Biden talking points she delivered earlier in the day on NBC’s Morning Joe. She sounds particularly defensive about the potential for Hunter’s actions to be brought up.
After Heidi Przybla sounded like a Biden press secretary earlier in the day, host Katy Tur trumpeted, “Joe Biden’s warning to the media ahead of the President’s impeachment trial.” She seemed to appreciate the order: “In its most forceful push back yet, Joe Biden’s campaign has issued a warning to the media about disinformation on Ukraine and attacks on Hunter Biden.” As though the “warning” from one presidential campaign to the other should be treated as objective fact, Przybyla reappeared to parrot: “It is a preemptive strike against the disinformation that is really at the heart of the President’s defense.” Regarding Senate Republicans bringing up what Hunter Biden did in relation to Ukraine, the journalist hyped Biden talking points as news judgment: “This is a reminder, Katy, that the entire premise of the argument is debunked. It is not just unsubstantiated.” Justifying not wanting to talk about Hunter Biden, Przybyla dismissed: “Now, ethics experts I talked to in Ukraine say it was not ethical for Hunter to trade on his father’s name and sit on the board of an energy company when he doesn’t know much about energy. But was it illegal? No.”
Good girl.
It’s a sign of weakness that the Biden campaign has to preemptively tell the press how to cover topics that may arise in the impeachment trial. We know that Quid Pro Joe isn’t the strongest of candidates and there is a real question if he can win the first primaries and caucuses. The polls are fluid and the top-ranking candidates move up and down with each new poll, it seems. Joe and his team clearly thought this would be a cakewalk. We’ll know soon if he’ll be able to close the deal with Democrat voters on a state to state basis or not. It looks like he’ll get plenty of help from his friends in the press.
I’ll end with a tweet from another MSNBC contributor, following instructions.


hotair--2020-01-21--SCOTUS to Dems: Your ObamaCare problem is not our emergency

So much for the Spring Showdown .
Two weeks ago , the Supreme Court appeared ready to jump into the middle of a 2020 election debate over ObamaCare , telling both sides of an appear to submit briefs over the possibility of an expedited review of a case where the law was ruled unconstitutional .
There was just enough time to add this to the calendar for this session — if the court wanted to stick their fingers into a political and electoral maelstrom .
To quote Emily Litella … never mind : The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge that could kill Obamacare , punting a resolution in the politically fraught case until after the presidential election .
The decision deals a blow to Democrats ’ hopes to elevate the issue in 2020 , but it will come as a relief to President Donald Trump and Republicans , who ’ ve been wary of the lawsuit ’ s potential to scramble their election hopes .
A coalition of blue states and the House of Representatives , which are defending the Affordable Care Act in the lawsuit , had pressed the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court last month refused to rule on the law ’ s constitutionality and sent the case back to a federal judge in Texas who had earlier issued a ruling knocking out the entire law .
… In deciding to immediately stay out of the fray , the justices sided with the Trump administration and group of red states leading the challenge to Obamacare .
They opposed an immediate Supreme Court review of the case , arguing that there was no “ emergency , ” even as Democrats argued that prolonging uncertainty around Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the law for insurance .
It could take years for lower courts to resolve the lawsuit .
This decision isn ’ t terribly surprising .
What ’ s surprising is that they signaled any openness to expediting this in the first place .
One has to assume that the court might have worried that an outright refusal to even consider it would be seen as a political act .
Having been burned once on this point over the Affordable Care Act , the court might have wanted to make sure that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dispensed with it only after due diligence .
If that ’ s the idea , it doesn ’ t really seem necessary .
The appellate court sent the original decision back to the district court to consider severability after not overturning the core decision that the law is unconstitutional .
There does not appear to be an appellate split yet on this specific question after the repeal of the individual mandate penalty .
That means the question isn ’ t yet ripe , and the lack of appellate review on severability means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level isn ’ t yet precedential even in the Fifth District .
It ’ s worth remembering , too , that it only takes four votes to grant cert .
If the court ’ s liberal wing was anxious to get the case so it could re-impose its imprimatur on ObamaCare , they didn ’ t demonstrate it .
For that matter , the conservative wing didn ’ t unite to get the case to overturn the ACA either .
While the court does not reveal the votes for these kinds of orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on votes to grant cert at two … and I ’ d take the under .
This might take a little pressure off Donald Trump in the 2020 cycle , as he would not have to deal with an instant dismantling of the health-insurance system erected over the last twelve years .
Otherwise , the ObamaCare question will remain acute as it was in 2018 , when Democrats rode it to a wave that gave them back the House .
Even with this SCOTUS punt , Trump and the GOP better have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with health care and health insurance before November .

So much for the Spring Showdown. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court appeared ready to jump into the middle of a 2020 election debate over ObamaCare, telling both sides of an appear to submit briefs over the possibility of an expedited review of a case where the law was ruled unconstitutional. There was just enough time to add this to the calendar for this session — if the court wanted to stick their fingers into a political and electoral maelstrom.
To quote Emily Litella … never mind:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Democrats’ plea to consider a high-stakes legal challenge that could kill Obamacare, punting a resolution in the politically fraught case until after the presidential election. The decision deals a blow to Democrats’ hopes to elevate the issue in 2020, but it will come as a relief to President Donald Trump and Republicans, who’ve been wary of the lawsuit’s potential to scramble their election hopes. A coalition of blue states and the House of Representatives, which are defending the Affordable Care Act in the lawsuit, had pressed the high court to intervene after a federal appeals court last month refused to rule on the law’s constitutionality and sent the case back to a federal judge in Texas who had earlier issued a ruling knocking out the entire law. … In deciding to immediately stay out of the fray, the justices sided with the Trump administration and group of red states leading the challenge to Obamacare. They opposed an immediate Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that there was no “emergency,” even as Democrats argued that prolonging uncertainty around Obamacare harms the millions of people who rely on the law for insurance. It could take years for lower courts to resolve the lawsuit.
This decision isn’t terribly surprising. What’s surprising is that they signaled any openness to expediting this in the first place. One has to assume that the court might have worried that an outright refusal to even consider it would be seen as a political act. Having been burned once on this point over the Affordable Care Act, the court might have wanted to make sure that they were seen to be considering the idea and dispensed with it only after due diligence.
If that’s the idea, it doesn’t really seem necessary. The appellate court sent the original decision back to the district court to consider severability after not overturning the core decision that the law is unconstitutional. There does not appear to be an appellate split yet on this specific question after the repeal of the individual mandate penalty. That means the question isn’t yet ripe, and the lack of appellate review on severability means that the original decision at the district level isn’t yet precedential even in the Fifth District.
It’s worth remembering, too, that it only takes four votes to grant cert. If the court’s liberal wing was anxious to get the case so it could re-impose its imprimatur on ObamaCare, they didn’t demonstrate it. For that matter, the conservative wing didn’t unite to get the case to overturn the ACA either. While the court does not reveal the votes for these kinds of orders, I’d put the over-under on votes to grant cert at two … and I’d take the under.
This might take a little pressure off Donald Trump in the 2020 cycle, as he would not have to deal with an instant dismantling of the health-insurance system erected over the last twelve years. Otherwise, the ObamaCare question will remain acute as it was in 2018, when Democrats rode it to a wave that gave them back the House. Even with this SCOTUS punt, Trump and the GOP better have an answer on what they intend to do with health care and health insurance before November.