hotair--2020-01-22--Denver Post columnist allegedly canned over more transgender madness

Here ’ s a maddening story that ’ s been making the rounds since yesterday .
At the Denver Post , there ’ s a conservative/libertarian columnist by the name of Jon Caldera .
Or at least there was until this week .
Jon was allegedly given the boot by his editor after his last column was published .
The reason ?
He committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that humanity is comprised of two genders .
And according to Caldara , that was enough to have him terminated from the position he ’ d held since 2016 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employment status on Facebook .
What seemed to be the last straw for my column was my insistence that there are only two sexes and my frustration that to be inclusive of the transgendered ( even that word isn ’ t allowed ) we must lose our right to free speech .
To be clear I am strongly pro-gay marriage , which has frustrated many of my socially conservative friends .
I have friends , family and employees from the LGBT community .
I don ’ t care who uses whose bathroom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify .
People from this community have rights which we must protect .
But to force us to use inaccurate pronouns , to force us to teach our kids that there are more than two sexes , to call what is plainly a man in a dress , well , not a man in a dress violates our right of speech .
As Zachary Evans at National Review pointed out , there may be some dispute as to how and why Caldara found himself no longer being published at the Post .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schrader ( who Caldara has nothing but kind , respectful words for and describes as his friend ) , was contacted about the situation .
She confirmed that Jon was no longer writing for the paper , but did not say whether he had been fired or resigned .
Similarly , she didn ’ t offer any reason for Caldara ’ s exit or confirm that it was because of that specific column .
Of course , she didn ’ t deny either claim either , and it ’ s rather hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distort a story in that fashion .
In case you ’ re wondering , this is the “ offensive ” column in question , Caldara ’ s last at the Denver Post .
It ’ s actually a long examination of transparency in both hospital billing and education , which doesn ’ t spend much time on the issue of transgender issues .
But this is the section that allegedly went over the line .
Democrats don ’ t want transparency in hospital billing and they certainly don ’ t want education transparency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convince your kid that there are more than two sexes , even if it ’ s against your wishes .
Among the most controversial laws that passed last year was the comprehensive human sexuality education mandate which ripped local control away from your neighborhood school board .
Now if your school district wants to teach even basic sex ed , the teacher must also teach the “ health needs ” of LGBT individuals .
And in the anti-free-speech style that the left now embraces , the new law bans discussions that “ employ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state ’ s new oversight board of LGBT activists consider “ stigmatizing.
” In case you hadn ’ t noticed , just about everything is stigmatizing to the easily triggered , perpetually offended .
Reading Jon ’ s full explanation on Facebook , I find that he falls pretty much into the same camp as me , as should be obvious from all of the coverage I ’ ve given this topic .
I too am not opposed to gay or straight marriage .
( I just don ’ t think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to regulate and tax it . )
I don ’ t care what anyone calls themselves , the pronouns they choose to use or how they dress , provided it ’ s within the limits of decency when in public .
But when they want to start telling me ( or worse , legislating ) which words I can use , that ’ s yet another case of an intolerant government going too far .
But Jon ’ s real “ sin ” here had nothing to do with supposedly offensive language .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ science that ’ s been known for as long as we ’ ve kept written records .
With the exception of thankfully rare intersex individuals born with aberrant chromosomal configurations , mankind is made up of two distinct genders , both required to achieve natural reproduction .
This is just scientific fact .
And yet , in 2020 , people can lose their jobs for saying something like that aloud or publishing those words in an opinion column .
If this is progress , we ’ re progressing toward madness .

Here’s a maddening story that’s been making the rounds since yesterday. At the Denver Post, there’s a conservative/libertarian columnist by the name of Jon Caldera. Or at least there was until this week. Jon was allegedly given the boot by his editor after his last column was published. The reason? He committed the unforgivable sin of suggesting that humanity is comprised of two genders. And according to Caldara, that was enough to have him terminated from the position he’d held since 2016. He initially announced his new (un)employment status on Facebook.
What seemed to be the last straw for my column was my insistence that there are only two sexes and my frustration that to be inclusive of the transgendered (even that word isn’t allowed) we must lose our right to free speech. To be clear I am strongly pro-gay marriage, which has frustrated many of my socially conservative friends. I have friends, family and employees from the LGBT community. I don’t care who uses whose bathroom, what you wear, or how you identify. People from this community have rights which we must protect. But to force us to use inaccurate pronouns, to force us to teach our kids that there are more than two sexes, to call what is plainly a man in a dress, well, not a man in a dress violates our right of speech.
As Zachary Evans at National Review pointed out, there may be some dispute as to how and why Caldara found himself no longer being published at the Post. The paper’s editorial editor, Megan Schrader (who Caldara has nothing but kind, respectful words for and describes as his friend), was contacted about the situation. She confirmed that Jon was no longer writing for the paper, but did not say whether he had been fired or resigned. Similarly, she didn’t offer any reason for Caldara’s exit or confirm that it was because of that specific column. Of course, she didn’t deny either claim either, and it’s rather hard to imagine why he would make up or distort a story in that fashion.
In case you’re wondering, this is the “offensive” column in question, Caldara’s last at the Denver Post. It’s actually a long examination of transparency in both hospital billing and education, which doesn’t spend much time on the issue of transgender issues. But this is the section that allegedly went over the line.
Democrats don’t want transparency in hospital billing and they certainly don’t want education transparency when it comes to their mandate to convince your kid that there are more than two sexes, even if it’s against your wishes. Among the most controversial laws that passed last year was the comprehensive human sexuality education mandate which ripped local control away from your neighborhood school board. Now if your school district wants to teach even basic sex ed, the teacher must also teach the “health needs” of LGBT individuals. And in the anti-free-speech style that the left now embraces, the new law bans discussions that “employ gender stereotypes,” or any language the state’s new oversight board of LGBT activists consider “stigmatizing.” In case you hadn’t noticed, just about everything is stigmatizing to the easily triggered, perpetually offended.
Reading Jon’s full explanation on Facebook, I find that he falls pretty much into the same camp as me, as should be obvious from all of the coverage I’ve given this topic. I too am not opposed to gay or straight marriage. (I just don’t think it’s the government’s business to regulate and tax it.) I don’t care what anyone calls themselves, the pronouns they choose to use or how they dress, provided it’s within the limits of decency when in public. But when they want to start telling me (or worse, legislating) which words I can use, that’s yet another case of an intolerant government going too far.
But Jon’s real “sin” here had nothing to do with supposedly offensive language. He referred to a fact from medical science that’s been known for as long as we’ve kept written records. With the exception of thankfully rare intersex individuals born with aberrant chromosomal configurations, mankind is made up of two distinct genders, both required to achieve natural reproduction. This is just scientific fact.
And yet, in 2020, people can lose their jobs for saying something like that aloud or publishing those words in an opinion column. If this is progress, we’re progressing toward madness.


hotair--2020-01-22--Schumer: McConnell did Trump's bidding in forcing votes late last night rather than this morning

Does anyone else have the impression that Donald Trump has less and less to do with the war between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell ?
After losing a series of votes on predictable party-line votes last night on amendments to McConnell ’ s rules package , the Senate Minority Leader complained this morning that McConnell didn ’ t postpone the votes until this morning .
Schumer accused McConnell of doing Trump ’ s bidding and claimed that the losses on his amendments as well as the decision to conduct the votes last night put the Senate trial under “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS : Schumer got the floor votes on the amendments .
He just lost the votes on them all , as everyone knew he would .
McConnell and all Senate Republicans made that much clear over the last couple of weeks .
They insisted that they would take up the questions of witnesses and evidentiary production after the case had been presented and questions asked of the managers .
That , McConnell has noted repeatedly , is the very same process that got 100-0 approval for Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer of New York .
That didn ’ t put Clinton ’ s trial “ under a cloud of unfairness , ” or does Schumer have an explanation for why the same process was fair for Clinton but not for Trump ?
One that doesn ’ t rely on the fact that the House didn ’ t do a proper and credible job in investigating Trump before impeaching him , that is ?
All this process does is put off those questions until later in the process ; it doesn ’ t eliminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no difference .
The other complaint is so silly that it beggars belief .
What possible difference did it make whether the vote took place last night or today ?
The results would have been the same anyway .
Schumer might have preferred to have them delayed so that Democrats could make hay out of them on television while people are watching , but that ’ s just as much a political calculation as keeping the session open to deal with the amendments immediately .
There ’ s no substantive difference on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately , encapsulates the partisan warfare that has overtaken the legislative branch over the last twenty-one years .
Both sides are so intent on primacy rather than policy that they have made Congress a wasteland at the expense of actual governance , and the impeachment is the nadir of that war .
As I warn in my column for The Week , this will either result in a backdoor parliamentary system or a truly imperial presidency .
And maybe both at the same time : We have spent the last 20-plus years coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in the Beltway , one that will determine whether the institutions matter more than party affiliation .
… It is this partisan escalation , in Capitol Hill in general and the Senate in particular , which has led the nation to this impasse .
Both sides are trying mightily to claim the moral high ground in the impeachment fight and rules debate , but both sides have also done their best to cook the process for their own ends .
Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley , who spoke in opposition to impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump in other respects ) , concluded on Tuesday afternoon that both parties have run this into the ground .
“ The tide of hypocrisy washing over the Hill today , ” Turley quipped on CBS , “ was enough to take the dome off its foundations.
” Given the partisan warfare around the impeachment , the trial outcome is all but certain .
Of more concern , however , should be the damage done to the legislative branch over the last two decades .
This poisonous atmosphere of majoritarian flexing has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either the wingman or the executioner of the president .
With this partisan war as context , succeeding House majorities will feel freer to impeach any president of the opposing party on any pretext , especially by launching constant investigations that encroach on the executive ’ s co-equal status and automatically considering any objection to be obstructive .
We will either have parliamentary systems with the executive under the thumb of the House , or presidencies entirely unencumbered by an independent legislature .
At some point , we need leadership on Capitol Hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prerogatives of the executive .
This would benefit both parties in the long run , and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy .
Unfortunately , after two decades in the trenches of the Democrat-Republican war , there doesn ’ t seem to be any leaders emerging of that quality — nor a lot of demand from anyone else to produce them .
Perhaps it truly is time to repeal the 17th Amendment and make the Senate responsive to state legislatures again , rather than party leadership and partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potential path to resetting the constitutional balance between the branches , and might force the House to focus on its own prerogatives rather than attempting to bully the Senate out of theirs .

Does anyone else have the impression that Donald Trump has less and less to do with the war between Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell? After losing a series of votes on predictable party-line votes last night on amendments to McConnell’s rules package, the Senate Minority Leader complained this morning that McConnell didn’t postpone the votes until this morning. Schumer accused McConnell of doing Trump’s bidding and claimed that the losses on his amendments as well as the decision to conduct the votes last night put the Senate trial under “a cloud of unfairness”:
Sen. Chuck Schumer: "It seems the only reason Sen. McConnell refused to move votes back a day is because it would interfere with the timeline he promised the president." "Not what's a fair trial…but just what Pres. Trump, the defendant here, wanted." https://t.co/C7AyPvvSTr pic.twitter.com/LtB5wcXeDV — ABC News (@ABC) January 22, 2020
After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied all 11 amendments, Schumer says the impeachment trial will begin today with a "cloud of unfairness." https://t.co/eijxvjdtk9 pic.twitter.com/tbcPmHaBP8 — CBS News (@CBSNews) January 22, 2020
Note to CBS: Schumer got the floor votes on the amendments. He just lost the votes on them all, as everyone knew he would. McConnell and all Senate Republicans made that much clear over the last couple of weeks. They insisted that they would take up the questions of witnesses and evidentiary production after the case had been presented and questions asked of the managers. That, McConnell has noted repeatedly, is the very same process that got 100-0 approval for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, including the enthusiastic support of one Charles Schumer of New York.
That didn’t put Clinton’s trial “under a cloud of unfairness,” or does Schumer have an explanation for why the same process was fair for Clinton but not for Trump? One that doesn’t rely on the fact that the House didn’t do a proper and credible job in investigating Trump before impeaching him, that is? All this process does is put off those questions until later in the process; it doesn’t eliminate the questions. Substantively, there’s no difference.
The other complaint is so silly that it beggars belief. What possible difference did it make whether the vote took place last night or today? The results would have been the same anyway. Schumer might have preferred to have them delayed so that Democrats could make hay out of them on television while people are watching, but that’s just as much a political calculation as keeping the session open to deal with the amendments immediately. There’s no substantive difference on this question, either.
This, unfortunately, encapsulates the partisan warfare that has overtaken the legislative branch over the last twenty-one years. Both sides are so intent on primacy rather than policy that they have made Congress a wasteland at the expense of actual governance, and the impeachment is the nadir of that war. As I warn in my column for The Week, this will either result in a backdoor parliamentary system or a truly imperial presidency. And maybe both at the same time:
We have spent the last 20-plus years coming to an inevitable war between Republicans and Democrats in the Beltway, one that will determine whether the institutions matter more than party affiliation. … It is this partisan escalation, in Capitol Hill in general and the Senate in particular, which has led the nation to this impasse. Both sides are trying mightily to claim the moral high ground in the impeachment fight and rules debate, but both sides have also done their best to cook the process for their own ends. Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley, who spoke in opposition to impeachment on institutional grounds (although no fan of Trump in other respects), concluded on Tuesday afternoon that both parties have run this into the ground. “The tide of hypocrisy washing over the Hill today,” Turley quipped on CBS, “was enough to take the dome off its foundations.” Given the partisan warfare around the impeachment, the trial outcome is all but certain. Of more concern, however, should be the damage done to the legislative branch over the last two decades. This poisonous atmosphere of majoritarian flexing has transformed Congress from a co-equal branch to either the wingman or the executioner of the president. With this partisan war as context, succeeding House majorities will feel freer to impeach any president of the opposing party on any pretext, especially by launching constant investigations that encroach on the executive’s co-equal status and automatically considering any objection to be obstructive. We will either have parliamentary systems with the executive under the thumb of the House, or presidencies entirely unencumbered by an independent legislature. At some point, we need leadership on Capitol Hill that restores its own prerogatives while respecting the prerogatives of the executive. This would benefit both parties in the long run, and it would return the federal government to actual representative democracy. Unfortunately, after two decades in the trenches of the Democrat-Republican war, there doesn’t seem to be any leaders emerging of that quality — nor a lot of demand from anyone else to produce them.
Perhaps it truly is time to repeal the 17th Amendment and make the Senate responsive to state legislatures again, rather than party leadership and partisan organizers. That would at least open a potential path to resetting the constitutional balance between the branches, and might force the House to focus on its own prerogatives rather than attempting to bully the Senate out of theirs.


hotair--2020-01-22--Schiff on calling Hunter Biden in exchange for John Bolton: "This isn't like some fantasy football t

Schiff on calling Hunter Biden in exchange for John Bolton: "This isn't like some fantasy football trade"; Update: "Off the table," says Schumer

Bro , if 51 senators decide they want to play fantasy football then the Senate ’ s going to play fantasy football .
Top overall draft pick : John Bolton .
Second pick : Hunter Biden .
Third pick : Mick Mulvaney .
Fourth pick : …Hunter Biden again , maybe ?
I don ’ t know who else Republicans reasonably expect to call .
The Collins crew isn ’ t going to give them Joe Biden or the whistleblower .
Consider this post a follow-up to Ed ’ s thread earlier .
Democrats are indeed weighing a Bolton-for-Biden deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it : Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
, asked about a potential deal during an interview with MSNBC , indicated he would not support a Biden-for-Bolton swap , calling Hunter Biden a “ total sideshow.
” “ Focusing on Hunter Biden just furthers the entire scheme … Trump put forward , ” Van Hollen said… Sen. Christopher Coons ( D-Del . )
, during an interview with CNN ’ s “ New Day , ” said such a deal “ would mean trading a relevant witness who should be testifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with the charges against the president.
” “ There was some mistake in reporting in another news outlet that suggested somehow , I was part of a group that was trying to cut some deal … I ’ m not involved in a conversation like that , ” he said .
*If* the Senate were deadlocked at 50/50 such that each side needed the other ’ s buy-in to call any individual witness , I think Dems would have no choice but to make the Bolton-for-Biden deal .
I ’ ve argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on balance since Bolton ’ s unlikely to produce a smoking gun against Trump whereas Biden ’ s testimony could deepen suspicions about Joe ’ s ethics .
But they ’ d have to make that trade anyway , just because they ’ re too deep into this process at this point to turn back now .
They know Trump ’ s getting acquitted .
And they have every reason to believe that he and the GOP won ’ t suffer much politically , if at all , from him being impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Democrats .
They ’ re down a score late in the fourth quarter , backed up at midfield .
They have to throw to the end zone and hope for the best , that Bolton will offer information so damaging to Trump that it ’ ll taint the GOP ’ s eventual “ not guilty ” verdict in the eyes of the public .
How ’ s that for a fantasy football analogy for you ?
So yes , if forced to make this trade in the name of putting Bolton on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But … they ’ re not actually forced to make any trade .
The Senate ’ s not deadlocked 50/50 .
The GOP has the votes to call any witness it wants if McConnell can put together a coalition of 51 .
It ’ s Collins and three other Republicans who ’ ll decide who gets called and who doesn ’ t , which means Democrats can vote however they like on each individual witness instead of compromising with the GOP .
They can all vote yes on Bolton and all vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ ll be the Collins contingent that decides which one , or both , we hear from .
As such , it makes no sense for any Democrat to even entertain the idea of calling Hunter .
What do they gain by doing so ?
If they ’ re worried about Joe Manchin covering his right flank in West Virginia , he can always vote with the GOP on a witness if he feels compelled to do so .
The only way this could get tricky for Democrats is if the Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Imagine if Collins approached them and said , “ Look , I ’ m willing to vote with you on Bolton .
But I ’ m not going to do it if all of you are committed to voting no on Hunter Biden .
I ’ m giving you cover by calling your star witness , I need a little cover from you on calling ours.
” Maybe Schumer would agree to let Manchin , Doug Jones , and Kyrsten Sinema vote in favor of calling Biden in that case , handing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenaed on a bipartisan vote .
But I don ’ t know .
If I were Schumer , I ’ d call her bluff .
Collins isn ’ t open to calling Bolton because she ’ s “ nice ” or believes in bipartisanship or whatever .
She ’ s open to it because she ’ s worried that voters in Maine will hold it against her in November if they come around to believing that Democrats are right about the trial being a sham and a cover up .
The latest poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , finds 71 percent in favor .
She wants Bolton on the stand so that she can go home and tell swing voters that her courageous vote to subpoena him proves she ’ s a true independent at heart , never mind that she ended up voting to acquit Trump in the end .
Knowing all that , then , why would Schumer make a deal with her ?
Logically he shouldn ’ t offer her anything on Hunter Biden .
“ If you want to vote against calling Bolton and be buried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads , Susan , be my guest.
” She ’ d cave .
Whether Schumer could find three more Republicans who ’ d also cave — ah , that ’ s trickier .
Stay tuned .
Update : Like I say , he doesn ’ t need to make a trade to achieve his goal of calling Bolton .
So why would he ?

Bro, if 51 senators decide they want to play fantasy football then the Senate’s going to play fantasy football.
Top overall draft pick: John Bolton. Second pick: Hunter Biden. Third pick: Mick Mulvaney.
Fourth pick: …Hunter Biden again, maybe? I don’t know who else Republicans reasonably expect to call. The Collins crew isn’t going to give them Joe Biden or the whistleblower.
Consider this post a follow-up to Ed’s thread earlier. Democrats are indeed weighing a Bolton-for-Biden deal. Annnnd they’re not liking it:
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), asked about a potential deal during an interview with MSNBC, indicated he would not support a Biden-for-Bolton swap, calling Hunter Biden a “total sideshow.” “Focusing on Hunter Biden just furthers the entire scheme … Trump put forward,” Van Hollen said… Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), during an interview with CNN’s “New Day,” said such a deal “would mean trading a relevant witness who should be testifying for a witness who has nothing to do with the charges against the president.” “There was some mistake in reporting in another news outlet that suggested somehow, I was part of a group that was trying to cut some deal … I’m not involved in a conversation like that,” he said.
*If* the Senate were deadlocked at 50/50 such that each side needed the other’s buy-in to call any individual witness, I think Dems would have no choice but to make the Bolton-for-Biden deal. I’ve argued that that trade might be bad for them on balance since Bolton’s unlikely to produce a smoking gun against Trump whereas Biden’s testimony could deepen suspicions about Joe’s ethics. But they’d have to make that trade anyway, just because they’re too deep into this process at this point to turn back now.
They know Trump’s getting acquitted. And they have every reason to believe that he and the GOP won’t suffer much politically, if at all, from him being impeached. Impeachment could even end up backfiring on Democrats. They’re down a score late in the fourth quarter, backed up at midfield. They have to throw to the end zone and hope for the best, that Bolton will offer information so damaging to Trump that it’ll taint the GOP’s eventual “not guilty” verdict in the eyes of the public.
How’s that for a fantasy football analogy for you?
So yes, if forced to make this trade in the name of putting Bolton on the stand, Democrats would make it. But … they’re not actually forced to make any trade. The Senate’s not deadlocked 50/50. The GOP has the votes to call any witness it wants if McConnell can put together a coalition of 51. It’s Collins and three other Republicans who’ll decide who gets called and who doesn’t, which means Democrats can vote however they like on each individual witness instead of compromising with the GOP. They can all vote yes on Bolton and all vote no on Biden and in the end it’ll be the Collins contingent that decides which one, or both, we hear from. As such, it makes no sense for any Democrat to even entertain the idea of calling Hunter. What do they gain by doing so? If they’re worried about Joe Manchin covering his right flank in West Virginia, he can always vote with the GOP on a witness if he feels compelled to do so.
The only way this could get tricky for Democrats is if the Collins crew tried to play hardball with them. Imagine if Collins approached them and said, “Look, I’m willing to vote with you on Bolton. But I’m not going to do it if all of you are committed to voting no on Hunter Biden. I’m giving you cover by calling your star witness, I need a little cover from you on calling ours.” Maybe Schumer would agree to let Manchin, Doug Jones, and Kyrsten Sinema vote in favor of calling Biden in that case, handing Collins a talking point that Hunter was subpoenaed on a bipartisan vote.
But I don’t know. If I were Schumer, I’d call her bluff. Collins isn’t open to calling Bolton because she’s “nice” or believes in bipartisanship or whatever. She’s open to it because she’s worried that voters in Maine will hold it against her in November if they come around to believing that Democrats are right about the trial being a sham and a cover up. The latest poll on calling witnesses, from Survey USA, finds 71 percent in favor. She wants Bolton on the stand so that she can go home and tell swing voters that her courageous vote to subpoena him proves she’s a true independent at heart, never mind that she ended up voting to acquit Trump in the end.
Knowing all that, then, why would Schumer make a deal with her? Logically he shouldn’t offer her anything on Hunter Biden. “If you want to vote against calling Bolton and be buried under ‘cover up!’ attack ads, Susan, be my guest.”
She’d cave. Whether Schumer could find three more Republicans who’d also cave — ah, that’s trickier. Stay tuned.
Here’s Schiff before today’s opening arguments.
Asked about any possible "witness exchange" in Senate trial, Rep. Adam Schiff says, "This isn't like some fantasy football trade." Pres. Trump's legal team wants "to use this trial to smear the Bidens," Schiff adds. "That's not the purpose of the trial." https://t.co/1sSAv0s8O0 pic.twitter.com/wvlmgQtYWj — World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) January 22, 2020
Update: Like I say, he doesn’t need to make a trade to achieve his goal of calling Bolton. So why would he?


hotair--2020-01-22--Greta Thunberg: 'Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction'

Yesterday , Karen wrote about the contrast between the statements made by President Trump and Greta Thunberg at the World Economic Forum in Davos .
The NY Times has published Thunberg ’ s full remarks at the forum and they are pretty striking .
In addition to her usual tone of condescension toward world leaders , Thunberg explained that the only solution was to completely abandon fossil fuels immediately .
She doesn ’ t want to talk about “ net zero ” emissions she wants to see “ real zero ” right now .
One year ago I came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on fire .
I said I wanted you to panic .
I ’ ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do .
But don ’ t worry .
It ’ s fine .
Trust me , I ’ ve done this before and I can assure you it doesn ’ t lead to anything… We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “ net zero emissions ” or “ carbon neutrality ” by cheating and fiddling around with numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ offset your emissions ” by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate… Let ’ s be clear .
We don ’ t need a “ low carbon economy.
” We don ’ t need to “ lower emissions.
” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target .
And , until we have the technologies that at scale can put our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forget about net zero .
We need real zero .
A bit later she spells it out : We demand at this year ’ s World Economic Forum , participants from all companies , banks , institutions and governments : Immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction .
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 .
There ’ s one paragraph in her speech which acknowledges this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the solutions are obviously not available within today ’ s societies .
Nor do we have the time to wait for new technological solutions to become available to start drastically reducing our emissions .
So , of course the transition isn ’ t going to be easy .
It will be hard .
And unless we start facing this now together , with all cards on the table , we won ’ t be able to solve this in time .
This is why adults shouldn ’ t be listening to children who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the world .
And no , the fact that Thunberg crosses the oceans on multi-million dollar sailboats as opposed to airplanes does not mean she ’ s taking this seriously .
What Thunberg is counseling—real zero , i.e .
an immediate end to the use of all fossil fuels—would , if enacted , destroy the world ’ s economy overnight .
What Thunberg doesn ’ t seem to grasp is that a significant portion of that energy goes toward things we would miss rather desperately , things like food , heat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one obvious example at random from the seemingly endless pile , trucks are used to transport food from places like California ’ s central valley to store shelves in San Francisco and Los Angeles .
What happens when there is suddenly no more diesel fuel for those trucks ?
You simply can ’ t cut off the transportation of food with no alternative on hand and expect no one will notice .
Obviously , all of the cars would be out of gas within a week or two if we went to real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can ’ t walk to their current place of employment is out of a job and unemployment leaps to never before seen levels .
Suddenly there are tens of millions of people who can no longer provide for themselves .
At the same time our social safety net would be most needed funding for it would collapse .
Along with cars and trucks you can forget about ambulances and fire engines which also require diesel fuel .
Maybe people will appreciate the burning buildings that never get put out .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the natural gas stops flowing into millions of homes for heating and cooking , it ’ s going to get chilly .
This would be a relatively minor inconvenience for me here in southern California but it would be more than that in , say , Canada .
And it ’ s not just heat .
What happens to the electricity that powers homes and industries ( and electric cars ) when power plants suddenly can ’ t purchase natural gas to power the turbines ?
About a third of US electricity generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2018 ) .
So if we follow Thunberg ’ s advice and go to real zero emissions tomorrow…welcome back to the 19th century !
But again , it won ’ t matter that you can ’ t cook or refrigerate anything because there probably won ’ t be any food available anyway .
And please don ’ t say I ’ m not being fair .
Teen Cassandra just said we need “ real zero ” emissions right freaking now .
That ’ s only possible if you ’ re a psychopath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Calling it a “ hard ” transition is underselling the raw carnage that would follow pretty significantly .

Yesterday, Karen wrote about the contrast between the statements made by President Trump and Greta Thunberg at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The NY Times has published Thunberg’s full remarks at the forum and they are pretty striking. In addition to her usual tone of condescension toward world leaders, Thunberg explained that the only solution was to completely abandon fossil fuels immediately. She doesn’t want to talk about “net zero” emissions she wants to see “real zero” right now.
One year ago I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic. I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do. But don’t worry. It’s fine. Trust me, I’ve done this before and I can assure you it doesn’t lead to anything… We are not telling you to keep talking about reaching “net zero emissions” or “carbon neutrality” by cheating and fiddling around with numbers. We are not telling you to “offset your emissions” by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate… Let’s be clear. We don’t need a “low carbon economy.” We don’t need to “lower emissions.” Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And, until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, then we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.
A bit later she spells it out:
We demand at this year’s World Economic 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.
There’s one paragraph in her speech which acknowledges this could make for difficult times:
All the solutions are obviously not available within today’s societies. Nor do we have the time to wait for new technological solutions to become available to start drastically reducing our emissions. So, of course the transition isn’t going to be easy. It will be hard. And unless we start facing this now together, with all cards on the table, we won’t be able to solve this in time.
This is why adults shouldn’t be listening to children who don’t know much of anything about the world. And no, the fact that Thunberg crosses the oceans on multi-million dollar sailboats as opposed to airplanes does not mean she’s taking this seriously.
What Thunberg is counseling—real zero, i.e. an immediate end to the use of all fossil fuels—would, if enacted, destroy the world’s economy overnight. What Thunberg doesn’t seem to grasp is that a significant portion of that energy goes toward things we would miss rather desperately, things like food, heat, light, etc.
Just to pick one obvious example at random from the seemingly endless pile, trucks are used to transport food from places like California’s central valley to store shelves in San Francisco and Los Angeles. What happens when there is suddenly no more diesel fuel for those trucks? You simply can’t cut off the transportation of food with no alternative on hand and expect no one will notice.
Obviously, all of the cars would be out of gas within a week or two if we went to real zero emissions. At that point everyone who can’t walk to their current place of employment is out of a job and unemployment leaps to never before seen levels. Suddenly there are tens of millions of people who can no longer provide for themselves. At the same time our social safety net would be most needed funding for it would collapse.
Along with cars and trucks you can forget about ambulances and fire engines which also require diesel fuel.
Maybe people will appreciate the burning buildings that never get put out. After all, it’s January. Once the natural gas stops flowing into millions of homes for heating and cooking, it’s going to get chilly. This would be a relatively minor inconvenience for me here in southern California but it would be more than that in, say, Canada.
And it’s not just heat. What happens to the electricity that powers homes and industries (and electric cars) when power plants suddenly can’t purchase natural gas to power the turbines? About a third of US electricity generation is powered by natural gas (as of 2018). So if we follow Thunberg’s advice and go to real zero emissions tomorrow…welcome back to the 19th century! But again, it won’t matter that you can’t cook or refrigerate anything because there probably won’t be any food available anyway.
And please don’t say I’m not being fair. Teen Cassandra just said we need “real zero” emissions right freaking now. That’s only possible if you’re a psychopath who enjoys seeing millions of people die. Calling it a “hard” transition is underselling the raw carnage that would follow pretty significantly.


hotair--2020-01-22--Broke: Cocaine Mitch. Woke: Midnight Mitch

Ed mentioned this the other day but it seems to be spreading .
It ’ s little more than a footnote in the entire impeachment follies , but some Democrats have been hoping to gain media traction by assigning a new nickname to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
After he unveiled plans for the lengthy Senate trial sessions that would last well into the night , his detractors in both the media and the minority took to referring to him as “ Midnight Mitch.
” Here ’ s one example from Maxine Waters .
Seriously ?
I understand you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but you don ’ t seem to be very good at it .
This phenomenon was noted by Andrew Stiles at the Free Beacon , prompting him to ask… why can ’ t these people stop giving Mitch McConnell badass nicknames ?
Democrats and journalists—to the extent that there is a meaningful difference—can ’ t stop coming up with nicknames for Mitch McConnell ( R. , Ky. ) that make the Senate majority leader sound like a total badass , which he is .
The latest , via lib journalist Carl Bernstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to the Senate impeachment trial rules McConnell recently proposed .
Some have criticized the rules because , among other reasons , the late-night schedule could make it harder for grandstanding Democratic senators to get video clips of their grandstanding played on evening news programs .
In any event , some users of the popular social networking website Twitter pointed out that “ Midnight Mitch ” is a pretty badass nickname .
Come on , guys .
Is this really the best you can manage ?
Surely you remember the time when one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Cocaine Mitch.
” What did McConnell do in response ?
He started answering the phone in his office by saying “ Cocaine Mitch , here.
” And to add insult to injury , he raised $ 70,000 for his campaign selling Cocaine Mitch shirts from his online store .
If you ’ re going to try to run down your opponent by assigning them an insulting and degrading nickname you really need to make an effort to ensure the name is actually… degrading or insulting .
Back in the day , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats used to call him “ the turtle ” which is at least a shot at his physical appearance , along with implying that he ’ s slow .
Conversely , “ Midnight Mitch ” sounds like a supervillain from the movies .
What are you going to call him next… Rambo ?
That ’ ll show him .
If you really need some help on this , perhaps you should spend a little time studying the guy in the Oval Office .
I realize you all hate the Bad Orange Man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but he really has his insult game running on all cylinders .
Little Rocket Man .
Lyin ’ Ted Cruz .
Sloppy Steve .
Little Adam Schiff .
Crazy Maxine Waters .
These are all entries on the list of Trump ’ s nicknames for his political opponents .
See how that ’ s done ?
Now run back to your offices and see if you can come up with something better .
Even if you can ’ t , you could always go back to “ turtle.
” It was better than @ @

Ed mentioned this the other day but it seems to be spreading. It’s little more than a footnote in the entire impeachment follies, but some Democrats have been hoping to gain media traction by assigning a new nickname to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. After he unveiled plans for the lengthy Senate trial sessions that would last well into the night, his detractors in both the media and the minority took to referring to him as “Midnight Mitch.” Here’s one example from Maxine Waters.
If #MidnightMitch & Trump think that all of us are going to be asleep during the trial, they have another thought coming because I and others will stay up all night long to hear the democratic team lay out the charges against this criminal enterprise in the White House! — Maxine Waters (@RepMaxineWaters) January 21, 2020
Seriously? I understand you’re trying to insult the guy, but you don’t seem to be very good at it. This phenomenon was noted by Andrew Stiles at the Free Beacon, prompting him to ask… why can’t these people stop giving Mitch McConnell badass nicknames?
Democrats and journalists—to the extent that there is a meaningful difference—can’t stop coming up with nicknames for Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) that make the Senate majority leader sound like a total badass, which he is. The latest, via lib journalist Carl Bernstein, is “Midnight Mitch”—a reference to the Senate impeachment trial rules McConnell recently proposed. Some have criticized the rules because, among other reasons, the late-night schedule could make it harder for grandstanding Democratic senators to get video clips of their grandstanding played on evening news programs. In any event, some users of the popular social networking website Twitter pointed out that “Midnight Mitch” is a pretty badass nickname.
Come on, guys. Is this really the best you can manage? Surely you remember the time when one of you decided to try calling him “Cocaine Mitch.” What did McConnell do in response? He started answering the phone in his office by saying “Cocaine Mitch, here.” And to add insult to injury, he raised $70,000 for his campaign selling Cocaine Mitch shirts from his online store.
If you’re going to try to run down your opponent by assigning them an insulting and degrading nickname you really need to make an effort to ensure the name is actually… degrading or insulting. Back in the day, you were a little better at this game. Democrats used to call him “the turtle” which is at least a shot at his physical appearance, along with implying that he’s slow. Conversely, “Midnight Mitch” sounds like a supervillain from the movies. What are you going to call him next… Rambo? That’ll show him.
If you really need some help on this, perhaps you should spend a little time studying the guy in the Oval Office. I realize you all hate the Bad Orange Man with every ounce of your souls, but he really has his insult game running on all cylinders. Little Rocket Man. Lyin’ Ted Cruz. Sloppy Steve. Little Adam Schiff. Crazy Maxine Waters. These are all entries on the list of Trump’s nicknames for his political opponents.
See how that’s done? Now run back to your offices and see if you can come up with something better. Even if you can’t, you could always go back to “turtle.” It was better than nothing.


hotair--2020-01-22--Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: March for Life, the Afghanistan Papers, impeachment, Virginia

Today's hot topics on Relevant Radio®: March for Life, the Afghanistan Papers, impeachment, Virginia 2A uprising, and more!

Once again , I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today !
The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air , as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows .
• Annette Lancaster and Lori Kelly of And Then There Were None talk about the March for Life and Coffee for Quitters , which celebrates those who leave the abortion industry • Dr. Geoffrey Shaw on what the Afghanistan Papers tell us about the war , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye to them • Former Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy discusses the impeachment trial and its latest developments • What does the latest science on fetal pain tell us about abortion ?
Dr. Monique Ruberu tells us what ’ s changed • Will the Rest of Virginia secede to West Virginia ?
Salena Zito discusses the 2nd Amendment rupture and how it might transform the Old Dominion .
• And more to come … stay tuned !
We may add more before the show starts today , plus we will have the chaplet of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149 .
You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world , so download it now .
I ’ ll look forward to talking with you !

Once again, I get to step outside the box and guest host the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio® from 3-6 ET today! The Catholic talk-radio network is heard nationwide on the air, as well as online and through their free mobile app that plays live and podcast shows.
Today’s Relevant Radio® show includes:
We may add more before the show starts today, plus we will have the chaplet of Divine Mercy in the second hour. We will also take your calls at 1-888-914-9149. You can also listen on the Relevant Radio® app no matter where you are in the world, so download it now. I’ll look forward to talking with you!


hotair--2020-01-22--WaPo: Dems may trade Hunter

WaPo: Dems may trade Hunter -- or Joe -- Biden for John Bolton after all

A great trade to nail Donald Trump , or the worst deal since Ernie Broglio for Lou Brock in 1964 ?
Some Senate Democrats apparently think forcing Hunter Biden to testify in order to get John Bolton on the record is a small price to pay for a long-shot bid for Trump ’ s removal .
In fact , they ’ re willing to throw the dice by potentially throwing in a presidential nominee to be named later , according to the Washington Post : But behind closed doors , a small group of Democratic senators and aides has begun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colleagues on whether to back a witness deal that could lead to testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton or other administration officials with possible firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine controversy , according to multiple Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions .
These Democrats said they believe having Hunter — or possibly Joe Biden — testify could backfire on Trump and the GOP , giving Biden and the party a platform to strike back and paint Republicans and the White House as obsessed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2020 presidential rivals .
Best guess : this is an exceedingly small group of Senate Democrats .
Anyone who has watched Hunter Biden answer questions in public while not under oath can not possibly believe that his testimony would backfire in any way on Republicans .
ABC ’ s Amy Robach did ask a few pointed questions during Hunter ’ s intended fluff piece to deflect attention away from his financial ties , and Hunter failed miserably at answering them .
Under oath and answering questions from GOP attorneys who will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ties to oligarchs in Ukraine , China , and elsewhere ?
Fuhgeddaboudit .
Perhaps this small group consists of Sherrod Brown , along with Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , and Amy Klobuchar .
That might be especially true if they offer up Joe Biden , who right now has the election road to himself .
The Washington Post obliquely notes that electoral considerations are part of this question : The discussions about the Bidens are being closely held , and the issue is fraught for Democrats , due to the differing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber stocked with presidential candidates and the clashing views on impeachment strategy .
In private conversations in recent days , there has been much loathing of the Republicans ’ spotlight on the Bidens among Senate Democrats , but also a fear that unless a witness deal is eventually struck , the trial could proceed without witnesses , according to party officials and Senate aides .
That predicament has led to discussions about whether , down the line , Hunter Biden or Joe Biden should be considered as part of a witness proposal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue publicly until Senate Democratic leaders signal interest , the officials and aides said .
Their sources claim that Joe Biden would be a dynamite witness , far better than Hunter would be .
I ’ m sure they believe that too , but Biden ’ s never been good at that sort of interrogation , and he ’ s not quite the same person as he was for 36 years in the Senate , either .
What political party would want to put their presidential frontrunner in a situation where he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his political opponents ?
That ’ s flat-out insane , even without his own questionable quid pro quo in Ukraine that Biden will have to explain under hostile and specific questioning .
This may be a deal floated for PR purposes only , though .
Mitch McConnell is making clear that he will fight against calling any witnesses that the House did not call themselves : On Tuesday , McConnell foreshadowed the case he is expected to reiterate in the coming days , warning that the Democratic demands for witness testimony would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ incentivize ” future House majorities to carry out “ frequent and hasty ” impeachment inquiries .
And he made explicit reference to an argument that has circulated behind closed doors for several days , according to GOP sources : that subpoenas for senior Trump administration national security officials will open up a scenario akin to an executive privilege Pandora ’ s box that Republicans should fear .
“ It could dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” McConnell told his colleagues on the floor Tuesday .
“ What ’ s more , some of the proposed new witnesses include executive branch officials whose communications with the President and with other executive branch officials lie at the very core of the President ’ s constitutional privilege , ” McConnell added .
“ Such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the presidency that senators would need to consider very , very carefully.
” It ’ s an argument McConnell allies hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they fight Democratic demands for subpoenas for four key witnesses , including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton .
Finally , the Post notes that neither of the Bidens are exactly thrilled with the idea of getting tied up in the Senate trial .
This “ small group ” in the Senate Democratic caucus are perhaps out over their skis on this deal , much like the Chicago Cubs were in 1964 .
The rest of them , noting that the idea first got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private GOP caucus meeting , see this as a distraction , and perhaps a trap : This is one trade that won ’ t happen .
Or at least it shouldn ’ t .

A great trade to nail Donald Trump, or the worst deal since Ernie Broglio for Lou Brock in 1964? Some Senate Democrats apparently think forcing Hunter Biden to testify in order to get John Bolton on the record is a small price to pay for a long-shot bid for Trump’s removal. In fact, they’re willing to throw the dice by potentially throwing in a presidential nominee to be named later, according to the Washington Post:
But behind closed doors, a small group of Democratic senators and aides has begun to question that logic, sounding out colleagues on whether to back a witness deal that could lead to testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton or other administration officials with possible firsthand knowledge of the Ukraine controversy, according to multiple Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions. These Democrats said they believe having Hunter — or possibly Joe Biden — testify could backfire on Trump and the GOP, giving Biden and the party a platform to strike back and paint Republicans and the White House as obsessed with trying to damage one of Trump’s 2020 presidential rivals.
Best guess: this is an exceedingly small group of Senate Democrats. Anyone who has watched Hunter Biden answer questions in public while not under oath cannot possibly believe that his testimony would backfire in any way on Republicans. ABC’s Amy Robach did ask a few pointed questions during Hunter’s intended fluff piece to deflect attention away from his financial ties, and Hunter failed miserably at answering them. Under oath and answering questions from GOP attorneys who will be much more motivated to explore Hunter’s ties to oligarchs in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere? Fuhgeddaboudit.
Perhaps this small group consists of Sherrod Brown, along with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar. That might be especially true if they offer up Joe Biden, who right now has the election road to himself. The Washington Post obliquely notes that electoral considerations are part of this question:
The discussions about the Bidens are being closely held, and the issue is fraught for Democrats, due to the differing levels of support for Biden in a chamber stocked with presidential candidates and the clashing views on impeachment strategy. In private conversations in recent days, there has been much loathing of the Republicans’ spotlight on the Bidens among Senate Democrats, but also a fear that unless a witness deal is eventually struck, the trial could proceed without witnesses, according to party officials and Senate aides. That predicament has led to discussions about whether, down the line, Hunter Biden or Joe Biden should be considered as part of a witness proposal. But there is hesitancy to raise the issue publicly until Senate Democratic leaders signal interest, the officials and aides said.
Their sources claim that Joe Biden would be a dynamite witness, far better than Hunter would be. I’m sure they believe that too, but Biden’s never been good at that sort of interrogation, and he’s not quite the same person as he was for 36 years in the Senate, either. What political party would want to put their presidential frontrunner in a situation where he would have to testify under oath under questioning from his political opponents? That’s flat-out insane, even without his own questionable quid pro quo in Ukraine that Biden will have to explain under hostile and specific questioning.
This may be a deal floated for PR purposes only, though. Mitch McConnell is making clear that he will fight against calling any witnesses that the House did not call themselves:
On Tuesday, McConnell foreshadowed the case he is expected to reiterate in the coming days, warning that the Democratic demands for witness testimony would raise constitutional concerns and set a precedent to “incentivize” future House majorities to carry out “frequent and hasty” impeachment inquiries. And he made explicit reference to an argument that has circulated behind closed doors for several days, according to GOP sources: that subpoenas for senior Trump administration national security officials will open up a scenario akin to an executive privilege Pandora’s box that Republicans should fear. “It could dramatically change the separation of powers between the House and the Senate if the Senate agrees we will conduct both the investigation and the trial of an impeachment,” McConnell told his colleagues on the floor Tuesday. “What’s more, some of the proposed new witnesses include executive branch officials whose communications with the President and with other executive branch officials lie at the very core of the President’s constitutional privilege,” McConnell added. “Such litigation could potentially have permanent repercussions for the separation of powers and the institution of the presidency that senators would need to consider very, very carefully.” It’s an argument McConnell allies hope will become a GOP rallying cry as they fight Democratic demands for subpoenas for four key witnesses, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.
Finally, the Post notes that neither of the Bidens are exactly thrilled with the idea of getting tied up in the Senate trial. This “small group” in the Senate Democratic caucus are perhaps out over their skis on this deal, much like the Chicago Cubs were in 1964. The rest of them, noting that the idea first got floated by Ted Cruz last week in a private GOP caucus meeting, see this as a distraction, and perhaps a trap:
Most Democrats see the proposal by Cruz — which has been echoed by other supporters of the president — as an obvious gambit to prod Democrats toward a deal that would swing the spotlight away from Trump.
This is one trade that won’t happen. Or at least it shouldn’t.


hotair--2020-01-22--Princeton historian: The 1619 Project is 'built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts' (U

Princeton historian: The 1619 Project is 'built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts' (Update)

Princeton ’ s Sean Wilentz is one of five historians who sent a letter to the NY Times last month requesting that the paper address factual errors in the 1619 Project .
In response , the NY Times published the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary .
Today , Wilentz has written a piece for the Atlantic in which he addresses three false claims in the 1619 Project in more detail .
He begins with the claim by lead-author Nikole Hannah-Jones that “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect the institution of slavery.
” Not so , says Wilentz .
In fact , he argues convincingly that British efforts to stop the international slave were inspired by prior colonial efforts : “ By 1776 , Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere , ” Hannah-Jones wrote .
But apart from the activity of the pioneering abolitionist Granville Sharp , Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system .
Sharp played a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stewart ruling , which declared that chattel slavery was not recognized in English common law .
That ruling did little , however , to reverse Britain ’ s devotion to human bondage , which lay almost entirely in its colonial slavery and its heavy involvement in the Atlantic slave trade .
Nor did it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either slavery or the slave trade .
As the historian Christopher Leslie Brown writes in his authoritative study of British abolitionism , Moral Capital , Sharp “ worked tirelessly against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Empire after 1772 , but for many years in England he would stand nearly alone.
” What Hannah-Jones described as a perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776 in fact did not exist .
“ In London , there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade , ” Hannah-Jones continued .
But the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787 , largely inspired , as Brown demonstrates in great detail , by American antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’ 70s .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London to abolish the trade as early as 1776 .
“ This would have upended the economy of the colonies , in both the North and the South , ” Hannah-Jones wrote .
But the colonists had themselves taken decisive steps to end the Atlantic slave trade from 1769 to 1774 .
During that time , Maryland , New Jersey , Pennsylvania , Connecticut , and Rhode Island either outlawed the trade or imposed prohibitive duties on it .
Measures to abolish the trade also won approval in Massachusetts , Delaware , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied by royal officials .
The colonials ’ motives were not always humanitarian : Virginia , for example , had more enslaved black people than it needed to sustain its economy and saw the further importation of Africans as a threat to social order .
But the Americans who attempted to end the trade did not believe that they were committing economic suicide .
Assertions that a primary reason the Revolution was fought was to protect slavery are as inaccurate as the assertions , still current , that southern secession and the Civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s much more to this section dealing with the Times ’ response to this criticism , all of which is worth a look .
Next , Wilentz moves on the Hannah-Jones ’ claims about Lincoln .
Again , this section is long so I ’ ll just consider a portion of his response to one specific claim from the 1619 Project : “ Like many white Americans , ” she wrote , Lincoln “ opposed slavery as a cruel system at odds with American ideals , but he also opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference between Lincoln and the white supremacists who opposed him .
Lincoln asserted on many occasions , most notably during his famous debates with the racist Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 , that the Declaration of Independence ’ s famous precept that “ all men are created equal ” was a human universal that applied to black people as well as white people .
Like the majority of white Americans of his time , including many radical abolitionists , Lincoln harbored the belief that white people were socially superior to black people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the right to eat the bread without the leave of anybody else , which his own hand earns , [ the Negro ] is my equal , and the equal of Judge Douglas , and the equal of every other man.
” To state flatly , as Hannah-Jones ’ s essay does , that Lincoln “ opposed black equality ” is to deny the very basis of his opposition to slavery .
Nor was Lincoln , who had close relations with the free black people of Springfield , Illinois , and represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known to treat black people as inferior .
After meeting with Lincoln at the White House , Sojourner Truth , the black abolitionist , said that he “ showed as much respect and kindness to the coloured persons present as to the white , ” and that she “ never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality ” than “ by that great and good man.
” Wilentz writes , “ particularly with regard to the ideas and actions of Abraham Lincoln , Hannah-Jones ’ s argument is built on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which combine to impart a fundamentally misleading impression.
” Near the end of the piece Wilentz reaffirms his own liberal bona fides and fondness for the NY Times : Despite this , many on the left clearly see these criticisms as a revanchist attempt to undo progressive gains in the retelling of American history .
I posted this example previously : I don ’ t think the critics are trying to “ bring down ” the 1619 Project .
Every one of them , including Wilentz , has said they think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of this ongoing argument ( the critics ) are trying to talk about a handful of specific facts while the other side ( the NY Times ) is trying to spin a grand narrative .
At the moment , the narrative seems to be winning out over the inconvenient facts .
Hopefully that won ’ t always be the case .
Update : I asked Nikole Hannah-Jones if she planned to respond to Wilentz ’ criticism : To her credit , she replied ( but has since deleted , here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a professor of American history at Cambridge .
He has written a lengthy thread replying to the piece .
I won ’ t include all of it but I will refer to the portions that are responsive to the criticisms I quoted above ( you can click on any tweet and read the whole thing ) : This doesn ’ t strike me as a definitive rebuttal of Wilentz so much as a plea for further discussion .
Guyatt seems to admit that Hannah-Jones hasn ’ t really substantiated it ’ s claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes it could do so given time and space .
That ’ s fair enough I guess but it ’ s a lot less cut and dried than the flat claims ( about the Revolutionary War , about Lincoln ) made in the 1619 Project .
It ’ s one thing to say ‘ there might be an alternative way to look at this which has validity.
’ It ’ s something else to state in America ’ s leading newspaper “ one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect the institution of slavery.
” That does sound like a claim about undeniable facts rather than a point open to vigorous debate .

Princeton’s Sean Wilentz is one of five historians who sent a letter to the NY Times last month requesting that the paper address factual errors in the 1619 Project. In response, the NY Times published the letter along with a lengthy response denying that any corrections were necessary. Today, Wilentz has written a piece for the Atlantic in which he addresses three false claims in the 1619 Project in more detail. He begins with the claim by lead-author Nikole Hannah-Jones that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” Not so, says Wilentz. In fact, he argues convincingly that British efforts to stop the international slave were inspired by prior colonial efforts:
“By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But apart from the activity of the pioneering abolitionist Granville Sharp, Britain was hardly conflicted at all in 1776 over its involvement in the slave system. Sharp played a key role in securing the 1772 Somerset v. Stewart ruling, which declared that chattel slavery was not recognized in English common law. That ruling did little, however, to reverse Britain’s devotion to human bondage, which lay almost entirely in its colonial slavery and its heavy involvement in the Atlantic slave trade. Nor did it generate a movement inside Britain in opposition to either slavery or the slave trade. As the historian Christopher Leslie Brown writes in his authoritative study of British abolitionism, Moral Capital, Sharp “worked tirelessly against the institution of slavery everywhere within the British Empire after 1772, but for many years in England he would stand nearly alone.” What Hannah-Jones described as a perceptible British threat to American slavery in 1776 in fact did not exist. “In London, there were growing calls to abolish the slave trade,” Hannah-Jones continued. But the movement in London to abolish the slave trade formed only in 1787, largely inspired, as Brown demonstrates in great detail, by American antislavery opinion that had arisen in the 1760s and ’70s. There were no “growing calls” in London to abolish the trade as early as 1776. “This would have upended the economy of the colonies, in both the North and the South,” Hannah-Jones wrote. But the colonists had themselves taken decisive steps to end the Atlantic slave trade from 1769 to 1774. During that time, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island either outlawed the trade or imposed prohibitive duties on it. Measures to abolish the trade also won approval in Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, and Virginia, but were denied by royal officials. The colonials’ motives were not always humanitarian: Virginia, for example, had more enslaved black people than it needed to sustain its economy and saw the further importation of Africans as a threat to social order. But the Americans who attempted to end the trade did not believe that they were committing economic suicide. Assertions that a primary reason the Revolution was fought was to protect slavery are as inaccurate as the assertions, still current, that southern secession and the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.
There’s much more to this section dealing with the Times’ response to this criticism, all of which is worth a look. Next, Wilentz moves on the Hannah-Jones’ claims about Lincoln. Again, this section is long so I’ll just consider a portion of his response to one specific claim from the 1619 Project:
“Like many white Americans,” she wrote, Lincoln “opposed slavery as a cruel system at odds with American ideals, but he also opposed black equality.” This elides the crucial difference between Lincoln and the white supremacists who opposed him. Lincoln asserted on many occasions, most notably during his famous debates with the racist Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, that the Declaration of Independence’s famous precept that “all men are created equal” was a human universal that applied to black people as well as white people. Like the majority of white Americans of his time, including many radical abolitionists, Lincoln harbored the belief that white people were socially superior to black people. He insisted, however, that “in the right to eat the bread without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, [the Negro] is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man.” To state flatly, as Hannah-Jones’s essay does, that Lincoln “opposed black equality” is to deny the very basis of his opposition to slavery. Nor was Lincoln, who had close relations with the free black people of Springfield, Illinois, and represented a number of them as clients, known to treat black people as inferior. After meeting with Lincoln at the White House, Sojourner Truth, the black abolitionist, said that he “showed as much respect and kindness to the coloured persons present as to the white,” and that she “never was treated by any one with more kindness and cordiality” than “by that great and good man.”
Wilentz writes, “particularly with regard to the ideas and actions of Abraham Lincoln, Hannah-Jones’s argument is built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts, which combine to impart a fundamentally misleading impression.”
Near the end of the piece Wilentz reaffirms his own liberal bona fides and fondness for the NY Times:
The New York Times has taken a lead in combatting the degradation of truth and assault on a free press propagated by Donald Trump’s White House, aided and abetted by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and spun by the far right on social media. American democracy is in a perilous condition, and the Times can report on that danger only by upholding its standards “without fear or favor.” That is why it is so important that lapses such as those pointed out in our letter receive attention and timely correction. When describing history, more is at stake than the past.
Despite this, many on the left clearly see these criticisms as a revanchist attempt to undo progressive gains in the retelling of American history. I posted this example previously:
Less influential publications that would never have thought of such a project on their own are desperate to bring down/steal shine from #the1619Project – and to reassert the traditional status quo. — Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) January 7, 2020
I don’t think the critics are trying to “bring down” the 1619 Project. Every one of them, including Wilentz, has said they think the Project is a worthy goal. One side of this ongoing argument (the critics) are trying to talk about a handful of specific facts while the other side (the NY Times) is trying to spin a grand narrative. At the moment, the narrative seems to be winning out over the inconvenient facts. Hopefully that won’t always be the case.
Update: I asked Nikole Hannah-Jones if she planned to respond to Wilentz’ criticism:
Granted this is the same critic, but his argument rebutting your claim about the causes of the Revolutionary War seems fairly clear cut and convincing. Isn't some equally detailed response to his points needed at some point? — John Sexton (@verumserum) January 22, 2020
To her credit, she replied (but has since deleted, here’s a screenshot):
Nicholas Guyatt is a professor of American history at Cambridge. He has written a lengthy thread replying to the piece. I won’t include all of it but I will refer to the portions that are responsive to the criticisms I quoted above (you can click on any tweet and read the whole thing):
In my professional (!) opinion, none of these assertions is marred by factual error. They are each plausible historical arguments which can be grounded in evidence and existing scholarship. Disagree with them if you wish, but “serious inaccuracies”? Let’s take a look. — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
In Wilentz’s view, the decision of Lord Mansfield in 1772 to free James Somerset had little impact in the colonies and less in Britain. Beyond Granville Sharp, he thinks there wasn’t much antislavery sentiment in GB before _American_ abolitionists got going in the 1780s. — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
The paths of transmission of these ideas — & of Somerset itself — require a greater & more careful analysis than keyword searching of newspaper databases. I hope to have something to share on this before too long, and would love to hear from others working in this area. — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
(See also Katherine Paugh’s fascinating work on the Mary Hylas case for a sense of how parallel legal decisions regarding gender and marriage freaked out planters in the colonies.) pic.twitter.com/vXyPkc6J1K — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
It’s impossible to say how many enslaved people already knew about Somerset; based on the work of Julius Scott & esp. Graham Hodges (below), we can conclude that Black maritime networks had already seeded the idea among African Americans that Britain was a liberating force. pic.twitter.com/whhto05JrR — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
This GB offer of freedom panicked and stiffened the spines of Patriots – including those in northern states who were told that the British were unleashing Black and Native violence on white people. Rob Parkinson thinks this racial ‘othering’ was the glue of the Revolution. pic.twitter.com/14Km1wGiVZ — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
Lincoln’s views on colonization & Black citizenship surely evolved; & as I’ve argued elsewhere colonization failed partly because Black people themselves refused to play the role they’d been offered by those ‘liberal’ whites who wanted them out of the U.S. https://t.co/NX65Vl2O8S — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
We can debate and respectfully disagree about this stuff — that’s what historians do. What we _don’t_ do is tell someone else that their interpretation contains “serious inaccuracies” just because they don’t arrange the evidence in the same way we might. — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
1619’s power is to shatter the complacency behind the freedom narrative and to invite us — especially those of us who are white – to consider how these historical experiences look from the perspectives of those who were treated most harshly by America. — Nicholas Guyatt (@NicholasGuyatt) January 22, 2020
This doesn’t strike me as a definitive rebuttal of Wilentz so much as a plea for further discussion. Guyatt seems to admit that Hannah-Jones hasn’t really substantiated it’s claim, it’s just that he believes it could do so given time and space. That’s fair enough I guess but it’s a lot less cut and dried than the flat claims (about the Revolutionary War, about Lincoln) made in the 1619 Project. It’s one thing to say ‘there might be an alternative way to look at this which has validity.’ It’s something else to state in America’s leading newspaper “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” That does sound like a claim about undeniable facts rather than a point open to vigorous debate.


hotair--2020-01-22--Hillary Clinton: "How could we have known" that Weinstein was a monster?

Today is the day when accused serial rapist and pedophile Harvey Weinstein will feebly push his walker into a New York City courtroom to begin his trial on five felony charges of rape and sexual assault .
Given the names of some of Weinstein ’ s longtime friends and associates , it ’ s not all that surprising that Hillary Clinton would be asked for her thoughts on the matter during her interview with the Hollywood Reporter .
Asked if she had any regrets over the relationship she and Bill had with the accused , Clinton seemed rather unconcerned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
Also , how could they have known ?
( Mediaite ) In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter , after being asked whether she has any “ regrets ” over her “ lengthy association with Harvey Weinstein , ” Clinton responded , “ How could we have known ?
” “ He raised money for me , for the Obamas , for Democrats in general .
And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense , ” she declared .
“ And of course , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know now , it would have affected our behavior.
” … According to the Washington Post , “ Weinstein and his family have given more than $ 1.4 million in political contributions to the Democratic Party since 1992 , including $ 10,000 to Barack Obama , and $ 46,350 to Clinton and HILLPAC , a political action committee that she used to support other Democrats while she was a senator.
” Yes indeed .
How could she or Bill possibly have known ?
I mean , it ’ s not like every attractive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone knew ( or should have known ) to steer clear of this creep for decades , right ?
Beyond that , back in 2017 , the New York Times reported that both Tina Brown and Lena Dunham ( both big supporters of the Clintons and Democrats in general ) had warned Hillary about Weinstein back in the day .
Dunham claims that she contacted Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign directly and said , “ I just want to let you know that Harvey ’ s a rapist and this is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her claim is accurate , that ’ s not exactly a subtle rebuke .
On top of that , Ronan Farrow claims that Hillary Clinton ’ s people tried to cancel an interview with him a couple of years ago after expressing “ concerns ” that he was working on a big story about Weinstein .
But those items are from the relatively recent past .
How about back in the 90s and early 2000s when Weinstein was infamously on the prowl ?
Well , if you go to the Clinton Presidential Library @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll find a veritable trove of search results for pictures of Weinstein with one or the other of the famous Clintons .
So there was obviously a relationship there that could easily have stretched beyond their gratitude for Weinsteins many generous donations to Democratic candidates .
Does that prove that Hillary Clinton absolutely knew that Weinstein was preying on young , aspiring actresses in Hollywood and beyond ?
I suppose not .
Saying that Bill had no idea seems considerably less plausible .
But if Bill and Harvey were hanging out together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea ” what was going on ?
Keep in mind that she once admitted during an interview that Bill was a hard dog to keep on the porch .
Absent some hidden recording from long ago surfacing , I suppose there ’ s no way we ’ ll ever know for sure .
But the idea that nobody knew what Weinstein was ( allegedly ) up to back then and the Clintons didn ’ t suspect anything strains credibility to say the least .

Today is the day when accused serial rapist and pedophile Harvey Weinstein will feebly push his walker into a New York City courtroom to begin his trial on five felony charges of rape and sexual assault. Given the names of some of Weinstein’s longtime friends and associates, it’s not all that surprising that Hillary Clinton would be asked for her thoughts on the matter during her interview with the Hollywood Reporter. Asked if she had any regrets over the relationship she and Bill had with the accused, Clinton seemed rather unconcerned, saying that it “made sense” at the time. Also, how could they have known? (Mediaite)
In an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, after being asked whether she has any “regrets” over her “lengthy association with Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton responded, “How could we have known?” “He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general. And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense,” she declared. “And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior.” … According to the Washington Post, “Weinstein and his family have given more than $1.4 million in political contributions to the Democratic Party since 1992, including $10,000 to Barack Obama, and $46,350 to Clinton and HILLPAC, a political action committee that she used to support other Democrats while she was a senator.”
Yes indeed. How could she or Bill possibly have known? I mean, it’s not like every attractive young actress in Hollywood has said that everyone knew (or should have known) to steer clear of this creep for decades, right? Beyond that, back in 2017, the New York Times reported that both Tina Brown and Lena Dunham (both big supporters of the Clintons and Democrats in general) had warned Hillary about Weinstein back in the day. Dunham claims that she contacted Hillary Clinton’s campaign directly and said, “I just want to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point.”
Assuming her claim is accurate, that’s not exactly a subtle rebuke.
On top of that, Ronan Farrow claims that Hillary Clinton’s people tried to cancel an interview with him a couple of years ago after expressing “concerns” that he was working on a big story about Weinstein.
But those items are from the relatively recent past. How about back in the 90s and early 2000s when Weinstein was infamously on the prowl? Well, if you go to the Clinton Presidential Library’s digital archives, you’ll find a veritable trove of search results for pictures of Weinstein with one or the other of the famous Clintons. So there was obviously a relationship there that could easily have stretched beyond their gratitude for Weinsteins many generous donations to Democratic candidates.
Does that prove that Hillary Clinton absolutely knew that Weinstein was preying on young, aspiring actresses in Hollywood and beyond? I suppose not. Saying that Bill had no idea seems considerably less plausible. But if Bill and Harvey were hanging out together, could Hillary realistically have had “no idea” what was going on? Keep in mind that she once admitted during an interview that Bill was a hard dog to keep on the porch.
Absent some hidden recording from long ago surfacing, I suppose there’s no way we’ll ever know for sure. But the idea that nobody knew what Weinstein was (allegedly) up to back then and the Clintons didn’t suspect anything strains credibility to say the least.


hotair--2020-01-22--It begins, and probably ends: Gabbard sues Hillary for defamation over "Russian asset" accusation

As a matter of law , this will go nowhere .
As a matter of politics , it ’ s Pass the Popcorn material .
And as a matter of entertainment , the complaint itself is golden .
With access to the next debate stage still within reach , Tulsi Gabbard announced that she has filed a defamation suit against Hillary Clinton in a New York federal court for calling her a “ Russian asset ” last October .
At the time , Gabbard ’ s attorneys warned that she might sue , and the congresswoman from Hawaii finally delivered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s campaign released this statement shortly after filing the lawsuit : Tulsi Gabbard , a United States Congresswoman , Army National Guard Major , and 2020 presidential candidate , today filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton .
Gabbard , a U.S. Representative for Hawaii ’ s 2nd congressional district , asserts in her complaint that Clinton deliberately and maliciously made false statements in an attempt to derail Rep. Gabbard ’ s campaign , by alleging that Gabbard is a “ Russian asset.
” The complaint was filed in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of New York by Brian Dunne and Dan Terzian , Rep. Gabbard ’ s legal counsel and partners at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP .
Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States , United States Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013 , a United States Senator for the State of New York from 2001 to 2009 , and the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001 .
On October 17 , 2019 , she publicly stated in an interview that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary … [ is a ] favorite of the Russians… Yeah , she ’ s a Russian asset.
” The press extensively republished and disseminated these statements , which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset .
The complaint seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting the further publication of Clinton ’ s defamatory statements .
That ’ s an interesting request , since it comes in a statement that itself republishes Hillary ’ s alleged slander .
Regardless of whether a court finds this actionably defaming , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on it , especially as part of their coverage of Gabbard ’ s lawsuit .
The big publicity push for the court action this morning shows that Gabbard is counting on publications to cover this extensively .
We ’ ll get back to the prospects for victory in court in a moment , but the complaint is perhaps the best payback Gabbard will get — and her attorneys make the most of it .
For instance , here is their description of the context for defamation : Fact check : True !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary ’ s motive is payback for endorsing Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary , and adds a little narrative zinger : Fact check : true , at least as regards the “ cutthroat ” description .
A later description of Clinton doesn ’ t stand up as well to scrutiny , however : As the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nominee in 2016 ; a former Secretary of State ; a former United States Senator ; and the former First Lady of the United States , Clinton is widely perceived by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to information and intelligence not available to ordinary Americans , and who would therefore know if Tulsi or anyone else were a Russian asset .
Not only that , but Clinton has campaigned for stopping false and misleading statements by election campaigns .
She portrays herself as a neutral , third-party observer .
These were not statements by someone who is well-known to speak in hyperbole .
Ahem .
The author of “ basket of deplorables ” and “ vast right-wing conspiracy ” is not “ someone … well-known to speak in hyperbole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we came , we saw , he died ” description of the Obama administration ’ s project to turn Libya into a terror-network-dominated failed state ?
While the rest of the insults dropped in like Easter eggs in this complaint are obviously for entertainment purposes , this last claim matters in the legal sense .
In order to prevail in a defamation case as a public person — it doesn ’ t get much more public than presidential candidate — Gabbard has to establish that Hillary Clinton acted with actual malice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times v Sullivan precedent .
This does not mean ill will or personal hatred , but instead means that Gabbard will have to prove that Hillary knew for a fact that it was a false accusation , or that she evinced “ reckless disregard ” for whether it was true or not .
The complaint recognizes these obstacles and attempts to get around them , chief among them “ proving ” Hillary ’ s state of mind , but Gabbard will have an uphill battle .
For instance , her endorsement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early 2017 , after inexplicably meeting with him during his war-crimes attacks on Syrian civilian centers , leaves her wide open to criticism over being at least a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin .
Even outside the confines of a presidential election , courts will almost certainly find “ Russian asset ” a hyperbolic use in context of political criticism , not a defamation in the Sullivan sense .
Gabbard is campaigning to run for the office which would control diplomatic policy ( at least when a Democrat holds it ) , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically critical .
In theory , a court might at some time rule that a national political figure exercised actual malice in intentionally defaming a presidential candidate with hyperbolic political criticism .
In practice , courts are not anxious to set themselves up as content referees in elections , and they ’ re not going to start with Gabbard and Clinton now .
This has no chance at all of winning .
That ’ s not really the point , though .
The next debate will take place in New Hampshire on February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of help to qualify for it .
Launching a splashy lawsuit against Clinton Inc will get Gabbard some much-needed media attention , if only briefly .
If that doesn ’ t put Gabbard on the ABC stage at Saint Anselm College , she ’ s out of plays and on her way out of the presidential race .

As a matter of law, this will go nowhere. As a matter of politics, it’s Pass the Popcorn material. And as a matter of entertainment, the complaint itself is golden. With access to the next debate stage still within reach, Tulsi Gabbard announced that she has filed a defamation suit against Hillary Clinton in a New York federal court for calling her a “Russian asset” last October. At the time, Gabbard’s attorneys warned that she might sue, and the congresswoman from Hawaii finally delivered on that threat this morning.
Gabbard’s campaign released this statement shortly after filing the lawsuit:
Tulsi Gabbard, a United States Congresswoman, Army National Guard Major, and 2020 presidential candidate, today filed a defamation lawsuit against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gabbard, a U.S. Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district, asserts in her complaint that Clinton deliberately and maliciously made false statements in an attempt to derail Rep. Gabbard’s campaign, by alleging that Gabbard is a “Russian asset.” The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Brian Dunne and Dan Terzian, Rep. Gabbard’s legal counsel and partners at Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP. Clinton was the 2016 Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, United States Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013, a United States Senator for the State of New York from 2001 to 2009, and the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001. On October 17, 2019, she publicly stated in an interview that “somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary … [is a] favorite of the Russians… Yeah, she’s a Russian asset.” The press extensively republished and disseminated these statements, which were interpreted widely as Clinton asserting that Gabbard is a Russian asset. The complaint seeks compensatory damages and an injunction prohibiting the further publication of Clinton’s defamatory statements.
That’s an interesting request, since it comes in a statement that itself republishes Hillary’s alleged slander. Regardless of whether a court finds this actionably defaming, the media will still be allowed to report on it, especially as part of their coverage of Gabbard’s lawsuit. The big publicity push for the court action this morning shows that Gabbard is counting on publications to cover this extensively.
We’ll get back to the prospects for victory in court in a moment, but the complaint is perhaps the best payback Gabbard will get — and her attorneys make the most of it. For instance, here is their description of the context for defamation:
Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain.
Fact check: True! Gabbard’s complaint then alleges that Hillary’s motive is payback for endorsing Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, and adds a little narrative zinger:
Clinton—a cutthroat politician by any account—has never forgotten this perceived slight. And in October 2019, she sought retribution by lying, publicly and loudly, about Tulsi Gabbard.
Fact check: true, at least as regards the “cutthroat” description. A later description of Clinton doesn’t stand up as well to scrutiny, however:
As the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2016; a former Secretary of State; a former United States Senator; and the former First Lady of the United States, Clinton is widely perceived by the public as someone who would have access to information and intelligence not available to ordinary Americans, and who would therefore know if Tulsi or anyone else were a Russian asset. Not only that, but Clinton has campaigned for stopping false and misleading statements by election campaigns. She portrays herself as a neutral, third-party observer. These were not statements by someone who is well-known to speak in hyperbole.
Ahem. The author of “basket of deplorables” and “vast right-wing conspiracy” is not “someone … well-known to speak in hyperbole”? How about Hillary’s “we came, we saw, he died” description of the Obama administration’s project to turn Libya into a terror-network-dominated failed state?
While the rest of the insults dropped in like Easter eggs in this complaint are obviously for entertainment purposes, this last claim matters in the legal sense. In order to prevail in a defamation case as a public person — it doesn’t get much more public than presidential candidate — Gabbard has to establish that Hillary Clinton acted with actual malice to defame her, according to the New York Times v Sullivan precedent. This does not mean ill will or personal hatred, but instead means that Gabbard will have to prove that Hillary knew for a fact that it was a false accusation, or that she evinced “reckless disregard” for whether it was true or not.
The complaint recognizes these obstacles and attempts to get around them, chief among them “proving” Hillary’s state of mind, but Gabbard will have an uphill battle. For instance, her endorsement of talks with Russian ally Bashar al-Assad in early 2017, after inexplicably meeting with him during his war-crimes attacks on Syrian civilian centers, leaves her wide open to criticism over being at least a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin. Even outside the confines of a presidential election, courts will almost certainly find “Russian asset” a hyperbolic use in context of political criticism, not a defamation in the Sullivan sense. Gabbard is campaigning to run for the office which would control diplomatic policy (at least when a Democrat holds it), which makes Clinton’s comments relevant and specifically critical.
In theory, a court might at some time rule that a national political figure exercised actual malice in intentionally defaming a presidential candidate with hyperbolic political criticism. In practice, courts are not anxious to set themselves up as content referees in elections, and they’re not going to start with Gabbard and Clinton now. This has no chance at all of winning.
That’s not really the point, though. The next debate will take place in New Hampshire on February 7th, and Gabbard needs a lot of help to qualify for it. Launching a splashy lawsuit against Clinton Inc will get Gabbard some much-needed media attention, if only briefly. If that doesn’t put Gabbard on the ABC stage at Saint Anselm College, she’s out of plays and on her way out of the presidential race.