hotair--2020-01-08--NBC, CNN: Senate Dems getting tired of Pelosi's delay tactics, too

Mitch McConnell delivered a message to Nancy Pelosi from the Senate floor this morning , and that message was — no haggling .
In a speech somewhat overshadowed by Donald Trump ’ s address on Iran , McConnell declared , “ the House Democrats ’ turn is over ” on impeachment , and so is his patience with dilatory tactics over perceived “ leverage.
” McConnell has no intention of negotiating away the Senate ’ s constitutional authority to set its own rules , and Pelosi ’ s delusional if she thinks she has any “ leverage ” to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the explanation for this shameless game-playing is that Speaker Pelosi wanted “ leverage ” to reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us .
I ’ ve made clear from the beginning that no such “ leverage ” exists .
It ’ s nonexistent .
And yesterday we made it clear it will never exist .
A majority of the Senate has decided that the first phase of an impeachment trial should track closely with the unanimous bipartisan precedent that all 100 senators supported for the first phase of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure .
We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment .
The House Democrats ’ turn is over .
The Senate has made its decision .
Just how much leverage does Pelosi have ?
Senate Democrats aren ’ t convinced she has as much as she thinks she does , either .
In fact , NBC News reports this morning that a few of them have also tired of this effort , with at least one of the independents calling for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as McConnell proposes : A growing number of Democratic senators are saying it ’ s time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , to submit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate .
“ We are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent , ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , told reporters Wednesday .
In an interview with MSNBC ’ s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday , Sen. Angus King , a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats , said he believes “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send ” the articles .
“ I don ’ t think her holding them puts any particular pressure on ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , King said .
“ I think the key vote will come in the middle of the trial.
” Count Dianne Feinstein among the unimpressed , too : When you ’ ve lost DiFi …To add insult to injury , CNN did an entire segment on how Pelosi ’ s losing credibility in the upper chamber rather than gaining leverage : Anyway , McConnell agrees with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for calling witnesses .
In fact , he notes that the rules allow for such a debate to take place once the House presents its case : MCCONNELL : The 1999 precedent does not guarantee witnesses or foreclose witnesses .
Let me say that again : it neither guarantees witnesses nor forecloses witnesses .
It leaves those determinations until later in the trial where they belong .
I fully expect the parties will raise questions about witnesses at the appropriate time .
I would remind my friends on the other side : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from .
So the Senate will address all these questions at the appropriate time .
That is for the Senate , and the Senate only , to decide .
Period .
… We all know that senators have a diversity of opinions about President Trump ; about the House inquiry ; about the optimal structure for a trial .
But notwithstanding all this , no senator — no senator — should want the House of Representatives to steamroll institutional norms and dictate our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough toxic new precedents been set in recent months ?
Hasn ’ t the House broken enough constitutional china already ?
Good question .
The more that Pelosi tries to “ leverage ” her way to dictating terms , the worse this will look to voters , especially given the partisan debacle that Pelosi set in motion to produce the articles .
That only helps McConnell , as I wrote in my column for The Week : This decision in light of Bolton ’ s statement signals that Senate Republicans have reached consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If they thought Bolton had testimony to truly impeachable conduct , neither Murkowski nor Collins would have gone out on a limb for McConnell at this stage — especially Collins , who faces a tough re-election fight this fall .
Even if Bolton could provide direct testimony about a quid pro quo for the aid to Ukraine , Republicans have argued that such an action doesn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
Therefore , testimony on these points is likely to be largely irrelevant anyway .
Republicans view @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruit of a poisoned process , an impression no doubt fueled by Pelosi ’ s attempts to withhold their transmission to force concessions out of McConnell .
In fact , Murkowski specifically referenced the House delaying action while discussing her decision to vote in support of McConnell ’ s plan .
When asked about Bolton ’ s testimony , Murkowski said that issue should be taken up after the House presents the case to the Senate , adding , “ So do you have any interesting news for me on that ?
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles ?
” McConnell didn ’ t waste any time after getting Collins and Murkowski on board , and later getting a renewed pledge of support from Mitt Romney as well .
The rules package will likely pass on a strict party-line vote in contrast with Republican cooperation with Daschle 21 years ago .
That too will likely sit poorly with the GOP majority after watching the House rush through its investigation to reach its predetermined conclusions .
They may vote to allow witnesses to testify , but it seems very unlikely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds on removal now .
Or anyone else , for that matter .
This is all Kabuki theater anyway , but Pelosi ’ s making that a lot clearer with her bizarre tactics — and making McConnell ’ s job easier to boot .

Mitch McConnell delivered a message to Nancy Pelosi from the Senate floor this morning, and that message was — no haggling. In a speech somewhat overshadowed by Donald Trump’s address on Iran, McConnell declared, “the House Democrats’ turn is over” on impeachment, and so is his patience with dilatory tactics over perceived “leverage.” McConnell has no intention of negotiating away the Senate’s constitutional authority to set its own rules, and Pelosi’s delusional if she thinks she has any “leverage” to use on this point:
MCCONNELL: Supposedly, the explanation for this shameless game-playing is that Speaker Pelosi wanted “leverage” to reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us. I’ve made clear from the beginning that no such “leverage” exists. It’s nonexistent. And yesterday we made it clear it will never exist. A majority of the Senate has decided that the first phase of an impeachment trial should track closely with the unanimous bipartisan precedent that all 100 senators supported for the first phase of the Clinton trial back in 1999. There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure. We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats’ turn is over. The Senate has made its decision.
Just how much leverage does Pelosi have? Senate Democrats aren’t convinced she has as much as she thinks she does, either. In fact, NBC News reports this morning that a few of them have also tired of this effort, with at least one of the independents calling for a witness vote after the presentment — as McConnell proposes:
A growing number of Democratic senators are saying it’s time for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to submit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump to the Senate. “We are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters Wednesday. In an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday, Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said he believes “it is time for the speaker to send” the articles. “I don’t think her holding them puts any particular pressure on” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., King said. “I think the key vote will come in the middle of the trial.”
Count Dianne Feinstein among the unimpressed, too:
Dianne Feinstein says it’s time for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the impeachment articles to the Senate. “If we’re going to do it, she should send them over,” the California Democrat said. “I don’t see what good delay does.” — Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) January 8, 2020
When you’ve lost DiFi …To add insult to injury, CNN did an entire segment on how Pelosi’s losing credibility in the upper chamber rather than gaining leverage:
CNN panel: Pelosi is “losing members of her own party” as she delays sending impeachment articles to the Senatehttps://t.co/eVBhMA6hxD pic.twitter.com/FqWfO4xYXu — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 8, 2020
Anyway, McConnell agrees with King’s point about the potential for calling witnesses. In fact, he notes that the rules allow for such a debate to take place once the House presents its case:
MCCONNELL: The 1999 precedent does not guarantee witnesses or foreclose witnesses. Let me say that again: it neither guarantees witnesses nor forecloses witnesses. It leaves those determinations until later in the trial where they belong. I fully expect the parties will raise questions about witnesses at the appropriate time. I would remind my friends on the other side: I strongly suspect that not all the potential witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from. So the Senate will address all these questions at the appropriate time. That is for the Senate, and the Senate only, to decide. Period. … We all know that senators have a diversity of opinions about President Trump; about the House inquiry; about the optimal structure for a trial. But notwithstanding all this, no senator — no senator — should want the House of Representatives to steamroll institutional norms and dictate our business to us. Haven’t enough toxic new precedents been set in recent months? Hasn’t the House broken enough constitutional china already?
Good question. The more that Pelosi tries to “leverage” her way to dictating terms, the worse this will look to voters, especially given the partisan debacle that Pelosi set in motion to produce the articles. That only helps McConnell, as I wrote in my column for The Week:
This decision in light of Bolton’s statement signals that Senate Republicans have reached consensus on more than just the rules. If they thought Bolton had testimony to truly impeachable conduct, neither Murkowski nor Collins would have gone out on a limb for McConnell at this stage — especially Collins, who faces a tough re-election fight this fall. Even if Bolton could provide direct testimony about a quid pro quo for the aid to Ukraine, Republicans have argued that such an action doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Therefore, testimony on these points is likely to be largely irrelevant anyway. Republicans view the articles of impeachment as the partisan fruit of a poisoned process, an impression no doubt fueled by Pelosi’s attempts to withhold their transmission to force concessions out of McConnell. In fact, Murkowski specifically referenced the House delaying action while discussing her decision to vote in support of McConnell’s plan. When asked about Bolton’s testimony, Murkowski said that issue should be taken up after the House presents the case to the Senate, adding, “So do you have any interesting news for me on that? Like when we might be able to get articles?” McConnell didn’t waste any time after getting Collins and Murkowski on board, and later getting a renewed pledge of support from Mitt Romney as well. The rules package will likely pass on a strict party-line vote in contrast with Republican cooperation with Daschle 21 years ago. That too will likely sit poorly with the GOP majority after watching the House rush through its investigation to reach its predetermined conclusions. They may vote to allow witnesses to testify, but it seems very unlikely that anyone in the Senate will change their minds on removal now. Or anyone else, for that matter.
This is all Kabuki theater anyway, but Pelosi’s making that a lot clearer with her bizarre tactics — and making McConnell’s job easier to boot.


hotair--2020-01-08--Audience applauds "good news" from Joy Behar: White nationalist Richard Spencer no longer supports T

Audience applauds "good news" from Joy Behar: White nationalist Richard Spencer no longer supports Trump after the Soleimani killing

This news was circulating last night on political Twitter and gave me a laugh .
“ There ’ s good news and bad news .
The good news is that Never Trump just gained a prominent new member.
” You don ’ t celebrate when Richard Spencer joins your team .
…unless you ’ re as crazed with antipathy to Trump as Joy here , in which case any anecdotal evidence of the president losing supporters is cause for celebration even when they ’ re objectively bad people .
The clip is so weird that when I first saw it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for having done something sufficiently virtuous to have finally scared away the Spencers of the world .
But no , of course that ’ s not what they ’ re doing .
Behar ’ s congratulating Spencer for having had the good sense to break with the president over Iran .
He and she share the belief that aggression towards Iran is a terrible idea , albeit for different reasons : Behar is anti-war , Spencer is anti-war towards Israel ’ s enemies .
But being anti-war and now anti-Trump is enough in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provoke some approving Pavlovian noises from the crowd by telling them that someone new had joined the Resistance .
We ’ re only eight days into the new year , but as a next-level example of the stupidity of American politics in 2020 , “ The View ” audience clapping for Richard Spencer ’ s sound moral judgment will be hard to top .
There ’ s Trump Derangement Syndrome and then there ’ s squealing “ take that , Drumpf ” because a well-known racist is mad that he took out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorists .
Next week they should bring on O.J .
and Ghislaine Maxwell and ask them how much they hate the Orange Man too .
After all , how else can we know whether they belong in polite company or not ?

This news was circulating last night on political Twitter and gave me a laugh.
“There’s good news and bad news. The good news is that Never Trump just gained a prominent new member.”
“What’s the bad news?”
“Uh…”
White supremacist leader Richard Spencer, welcome to the #Resistance pic.twitter.com/CLlENfMJIG — Siraj Hashmi in Gitmo (@SirajAHashmi) January 8, 2020
You don’t celebrate when Richard Spencer joins your team.
…unless you’re as crazed with antipathy to Trump as Joy here, in which case any anecdotal evidence of the president losing supporters is cause for celebration even when they’re objectively bad people.
The clip is so weird that when I first saw it I thought maybe they were applauding Trump for having done something sufficiently virtuous to have finally scared away the Spencers of the world. But no, of course that’s not what they’re doing. Behar’s congratulating Spencer for having had the good sense to break with the president over Iran. He and she share the belief that aggression towards Iran is a terrible idea, albeit for different reasons: Behar is anti-war, Spencer is anti-war towards Israel’s enemies. But being anti-war and now anti-Trump is enough in common apparently that she’s willing to provoke some approving Pavlovian noises from the crowd by telling them that someone new had joined the Resistance.
We’re only eight days into the new year, but as a next-level example of the stupidity of American politics in 2020, “The View” audience clapping for Richard Spencer’s sound moral judgment will be hard to top. There’s Trump Derangement Syndrome and then there’s squealing “take that, Drumpf” because a well-known racist is mad that he took out one of the world’s worst terrorists. Next week they should bring on O.J. and Ghislaine Maxwell and ask them how much they hate the Orange Man too. After all, how else can we know whether they belong in polite company or not?
https://twitter.com/johnrobertgage/status/1214947709146275843


hotair--2020-01-08--Reminder: Iran has been attacking the US since 1979

If you ’ ve spent any time on Twitter in the past week or so you ’ ve probably seen plenty of progressives worried about Trump ’ s strike on Gen. Soleimani .
There were many worried that WWIII was imminent and some confusion about why Trump would dare to attack an Iranian governmental figure .
Michael Moore made the case yesterday that most Americans hadn ’ t even heard of Soleimani .
Today Moore claimed that any Americans killed by Soleimani ( or on his orders ) were the fault of President Bush : Few have pushed the Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
!
idea as far as Michael Moore , but many on the left are embracing the idea that President Trump is responsible for all of our current woes because he pulled out of the Iran deal .
Until that moment , the world ’ s leading state sponsor of terrorism was well behaved : In response , the Washington Examiner published a helpful reminder about Iran ’ s long history of attacking the United States .
A more appropriate Iranian timeline begins with the 1979 seizure of our embassy in Tehran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more than a year .
It continues in Lebanon , with Iran ’ s April 1983 murder of 17 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut , and the October 1983 slaughter of 241 U.S. peacekeepers as they slept in their barracks .
Iran ’ s gripe with these public servants ?
They served a multisectarian cause that obstructed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ’ s subjugation of the Lebanese people .
Regrettably , in President Ronald Reagan ’ s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon , Iran and al Qaeda found a rationale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian agents attacked a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia , killing 19 Americans who had been working to maintain a no-fly zone against Iran ’ s nemesis , Saddam Hussein .
During the 2006 to 2009 period in Iraq , Soleimani ’ s Quds Force deployed explosively formed penetrator shells to Shiite militias in Iraq .
These weapons killed hundreds of Americans and maimed thousands more .
To be clear , Iran ’ s actions were not designed to end foreign intervention in Iraq but to push America out so that Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known , another Quds Force attack in 2007 saw four Americans kidnapped from a meeting with Iraqi officials in Karbala and executed while in handcuffs .
In Afghanistan , Iran provided weapons and logistics support to various insurgent groups , including the Taliban… Two years after [ President Obama ] had offered an outstretched hand to Tehran , seeking a new relationship , Iran attempted to blow up civilians in our nation ’ s capital .
In 2011 , under the direction of Soleimani , the Quds Force plotted to blow up the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Cafe Milano restaurant .
When the operations agent responsible for carrying out the attack told his Quds handler that the explosion might kill one hundred diners , he was told : “ F— ’ em.
” Yet that ’ s not all .
Both during nuclear negotiations and after the deal was signed , Iran helped Bashar Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his people in Syria .
The Quds Force and its allies have played a special role in starving Sunni-dominated settlements .
In Lebanon , Iran and its Hezbollah ally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to Tehran ’ s interference .
The list of victims includes many security officials and , most notably , former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri .
In Yemen , Iran has helped fuel the civil war by supporting Houthi extremists .
The editorial continues by pointing to this blockbuster article published by Politico in 2017 alleging that the Obama administration derailed an investigation of Hezbollah ’ s drug-running operation in order to help secure the Iran deal .
Asher for one , said Obama administration officials expressed concerns to him about alienating Tehran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear deal negotiations .
This was , he said , part of an effort to “ defang , defund and undermine the investigations that were involving Iran and Hezbollah , ” he said .
“ The closer we got to the [ Iran deal ] , the more these activities went away , ” Asher said .
“ So much of the capability , whether it was special operations , whether it was law enforcement , whether it was [ Treasury ] designations — even the capacity , the personnel assigned to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost to the last drop , by the end of the Obama administration.
” Iran has been attacking America since 1979 and has run up a significant body count over the decades .
The Iran deal ’ s proponents said at the time that it wasn ’ t intended to stop Iran ’ s bad behavior around the world , only to limit it ’ s nuclear ambitions ( temporarily ) .
The deal allowed Iran to use money freed up by the end of US sanctions to export terrorism to other parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitted this was possible .
So if Iran wasn ’ t firing rockets at the US during the deal it ’ s only because they wanted to continue bankrolling the firing of rockets elsewhere .
In any case , it ’ s pretty hard to argue that Soleimani in particular didn ’ t have it coming or that the world isn ’ t better off without him in it .
Here ’ s how Garry Kasparov ( who is definitely not a fan of President Trump ) put it :

If you’ve spent any time on Twitter in the past week or so you’ve probably seen plenty of progressives worried about Trump’s strike on Gen. Soleimani. There were many worried that WWIII was imminent and some confusion about why Trump would dare to attack an Iranian governmental figure. Michael Moore made the case yesterday that most Americans hadn’t even heard of Soleimani. Today Moore claimed that any Americans killed by Soleimani (or on his orders) were the fault of President Bush:
What Americans did Soleimani kill? Our troops, who were forced to invade Iraq, a country next to his which had nothing to do with 9/11? No.Our beloved troops were sent there to their deaths by Bush, Cheney &the 29 Democratic Senators who voted to commit this war crime. The Truth. — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 8, 2020
Few have pushed the Why are we being so mean to Iran?! idea as far as Michael Moore, but many on the left are embracing the idea that President Trump is responsible for all of our current woes because he pulled out of the Iran deal. Until that moment, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was well behaved:
Iran didn’t fire a single rocket at US interests in Iraq during the Iran Deal. Just look at what Iran has done since Trump pulled out of that Deal. Trump is lying relentlessly and he has made things much more dangerous. https://t.co/YucbzLHDLk — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 8, 2020
In response, the Washington Examiner published a helpful reminder about Iran’s long history of attacking the United States.
A more appropriate Iranian timeline begins with the 1979 seizure of our embassy in Tehran and the detention of dozens of U.S. diplomats for more than a year. It continues in Lebanon, with Iran’s April 1983 murder of 17 Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and the October 1983 slaughter of 241 U.S. peacekeepers as they slept in their barracks. Iran’s gripe with these public servants? They served a multisectarian cause that obstructed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s subjugation of the Lebanese people. Regrettably, in President Ronald Reagan’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon, Iran and al Qaeda found a rationale for new terrorism. In 1996, Iranian agents attacked a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 Americans who had been working to maintain a no-fly zone against Iran’s nemesis, Saddam Hussein. During the 2006 to 2009 period in Iraq, Soleimani’s Quds Force deployed explosively formed penetrator shells to Shiite militias in Iraq. These weapons killed hundreds of Americans and maimed thousands more. To be clear, Iran’s actions were not designed to end foreign intervention in Iraq but to push America out so that Iran could dictate Iraqi politics. Although little known, another Quds Force attack in 2007 saw four Americans kidnapped from a meeting with Iraqi officials in Karbala and executed while in handcuffs. In Afghanistan, Iran provided weapons and logistics support to various insurgent groups, including the Taliban… Two years after [President Obama] had offered an outstretched hand to Tehran, seeking a new relationship, Iran attempted to blow up civilians in our nation’s capital. In 2011, under the direction of Soleimani, the Quds Force plotted to blow up the Saudi ambassador at Washington, D.C.’s Cafe Milano restaurant. When the operations agent responsible for carrying out the attack told his Quds handler that the explosion might kill one hundred diners, he was told: “F— ’em.” Yet that’s not all. Both during nuclear negotiations and after the deal was signed, Iran helped Bashar Assad slaughter hundreds of thousands of his people in Syria. The Quds Force and its allies have played a special role in starving Sunni-dominated settlements. In Lebanon, Iran and its Hezbollah ally have blackmailed or bombed dozens of patriots opposed to Tehran’s interference. The list of victims includes many security officials and, most notably, former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. In Yemen, Iran has helped fuel the civil war by supporting Houthi extremists.
The editorial continues by pointing to this blockbuster article published by Politico in 2017 alleging that the Obama administration derailed an investigation of Hezbollah’s drug-running operation in order to help secure the Iran deal.
Asher for one, said Obama administration officials expressed concerns to him about alienating Tehran before, during and after the Iran nuclear deal negotiations. This was, he said, part of an effort to “defang, defund and undermine the investigations that were involving Iran and Hezbollah,” he said. “The closer we got to the [Iran deal], the more these activities went away,” Asher said. “So much of the capability, whether it was special operations, whether it was law enforcement, whether it was [Treasury] designations — even the capacity, the personnel assigned to this mission — it was assiduously drained, almost to the last drop, by the end of the Obama administration.”
Iran has been attacking America since 1979 and has run up a significant body count over the decades. The Iran deal’s proponents said at the time that it wasn’t intended to stop Iran’s bad behavior around the world, only to limit it’s nuclear ambitions (temporarily). The deal allowed Iran to use money freed up by the end of US sanctions to export terrorism to other parts of the world. Even John Kerry admitted this was possible. So if Iran wasn’t firing rockets at the US during the deal it’s only because they wanted to continue bankrolling the firing of rockets elsewhere. In any case, it’s pretty hard to argue that Soleimani in particular didn’t have it coming or that the world isn’t better off without him in it. Here’s how Garry Kasparov (who is definitely not a fan of President Trump) put it:


hotair--2020-01-08--Pelosi continues stalling. It's time to leave her behind

Earlier today , Ed Morrissey looked at the latest in the long line of excuses Speaker Nancy Pelosi has offered as to why she just can ’ t send those articles of impeachment over to the Senate yet .
( Subscription required . )
This time it has something to do with the Senate Majority Leader needing to “ explain ” a few things about the Senate rules for the trial or something .
As Ed noted , all of these excuses are predicated on the false notion that she is somehow involved in determining how the Senate handles the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At some point , perhaps a constitutional scholar will explain to the House Speaker that she has no role in setting Senate rules , just as the Senate has no role in setting the House ’ s .
She should be grateful for that ; plenty of Senate Republicans objected to the kangaroo court Adam Schiff conducted to produce these articles of impeachment .
The objections got so heated that pressure got put on Lindsey Graham to conduct a parallel set of hearings to deconstruct the Schiff Show , which he declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same question .
And while they tend to put on kid gloves and treat the Speaker a bit more gently , it was still impossible to avoid the obvious .
Pelosi ’ s refusal to transmit the articles across the Capitol continues a bizarre impasse between chambers : the House has impeached Trump three weeks ago but the Senate remains stuck in a holding pattern , unable to begin its trial .
McConnell ’ s power play was intended , in part , to pressure Pelosi to send over the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since the House impeached Trump Dec. 18 , charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
But Pelosi reiterated much of what she ’ s said in recent weeks to her caucus Tuesday night — she needs to know more about the “ arena ” in the Senate before moving forward .
This entire situation has been left doing a slow simmer on the back burner for too long .
The House has concluded their assigned duties in terms of their constitutional obligations for impeachment proceedings .
The Speaker has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what the rules say and what they don ’ t say .
The only reason to continue this charade at this point is to keep impeachment on the front page of the Washington Post and in CNN ’ s chyron for as long as possible into the election season .
The games need to come to an end .
What Politico and many MSM analysts likely know but are unwilling to say is that Pelosi has no real leverage , but Cocaine Mitch still has an ace up his sleeve .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nuclear option .
I discussed this on Monday , but the situation is quickly coming to a head now .
As Ed pointed out in the article linked above , McConnell has already rounded up enough votes to pass the same set of rules used for Clinton ’ s impeachment trial .
If they were good enough for the Democrats back then they should be good enough now .
And her claims that witnesses were deposed for Clinton ’ s trial are true , but that decision was only voted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same can happen this time .
So as far as I ’ m concerned , it ’ s time to pull the trigger .
If Pelosi won ’ t accept a deadline , McConnel needs to take up Lindsy Graham ’ s proposal and bring forward a revised version of the Senate impeachment rules that allow them to begin the trial “ after learning that the House has impeached.
” Remove all requirements for House managers to be appointed and deliver a physical copy of the articles .
But , as a courtesy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers if she wishes .
At that point , any “ leverage ” that Nancy Pelosi thought she had will completely evaporate and she ’ ll be left behind to watch the conclusion of the process on CNN with the rest of her friends .
And that ’ s precisely what McConnell should be working on immediately .
Out of respect for the office of the Speaker he could give her until Friday to appoint the managers and send them over .
But if she still refuses , let ’ s light the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over with .

Earlier today, Ed Morrissey looked at the latest in the long line of excuses Speaker Nancy Pelosi has offered as to why she just can’t send those articles of impeachment over to the Senate yet. (Subscription required.) This time it has something to do with the Senate Majority Leader needing to “explain” a few things about the Senate rules for the trial or something. As Ed noted, all of these excuses are predicated on the false notion that she is somehow involved in determining how the Senate handles the proceedings. But she isn’t.
At some point, perhaps a constitutional scholar will explain to the House Speaker that she has no role in setting Senate rules, just as the Senate has no role in setting the House’s. She should be grateful for that; plenty of Senate Republicans objected to the kangaroo court Adam Schiff conducted to produce these articles of impeachment. The objections got so heated that pressure got put on Lindsey Graham to conduct a parallel set of hearings to deconstruct the Schiff Show, which he declined to do.
Yesterday, Politico looked at the same question. And while they tend to put on kid gloves and treat the Speaker a bit more gently, it was still impossible to avoid the obvious.
Pelosi’s refusal to transmit the articles across the Capitol continues a bizarre impasse between chambers: the House has impeached Trump three weeks ago but the Senate remains stuck in a holding pattern, unable to begin its trial. McConnell’s power play was intended, in part, to pressure Pelosi to send over the articles, which she’s been holding since the House impeached Trump Dec. 18, charging him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But Pelosi reiterated much of what she’s said in recent weeks to her caucus Tuesday night — she needs to know more about the “arena” in the Senate before moving forward.
This entire situation has been left doing a slow simmer on the back burner for too long. The House has concluded their assigned duties in terms of their constitutional obligations for impeachment proceedings. The Speaker has been living in the swamp long enough to know what the rules say and what they don’t say. The only reason to continue this charade at this point is to keep impeachment on the front page of the Washington Post and in CNN’s chyron for as long as possible into the election season. The games need to come to an end.
What Politico and many MSM analysts likely know but are unwilling to say is that Pelosi has no real leverage, but Cocaine Mitch still has an ace up his sleeve. Think of it as a new version of the nuclear option. I discussed this on Monday, but the situation is quickly coming to a head now.
As Ed pointed out in the article linked above, McConnell has already rounded up enough votes to pass the same set of rules used for Clinton’s impeachment trial. If they were good enough for the Democrats back then they should be good enough now. And her claims that witnesses were deposed for Clinton’s trial are true, but that decision was only voted on after the Senate proceedings began. The same can happen this time.
So as far as I’m concerned, it’s time to pull the trigger. If Pelosi won’t accept a deadline, McConnel needs to take up Lindsy Graham’s proposal and bring forward a revised version of the Senate impeachment rules that allow them to begin the trial “after learning that the House has impeached.” Remove all requirements for House managers to be appointed and deliver a physical copy of the articles. But, as a courtesy, invite the Speaker to send over managers if she wishes.
At that point, any “leverage” that Nancy Pelosi thought she had will completely evaporate and she’ll be left behind to watch the conclusion of the process on CNN with the rest of her friends. And that’s precisely what McConnell should be working on immediately. Out of respect for the office of the Speaker he could give her until Friday to appoint the managers and send them over. But if she still refuses, let’s light the fuse on Monday and get this farce over with.


hotair--2020-01-08--"President and the pimp": Sun launches US edition with Clinton photos on Epstein's "Lolita Express"

Give the Murdochs credit for knowing how to make a splashy debut .
Their UK-based tabloid The Sun launched its US version today , called The US Sun , and keeps its tabloid sensibilities intact with an exposé of Bill Clinton ’ s journey on Jeffrey Epstein ’ s private jet .
No one alleges that specific improprieties took place on the 2002 flight , and in fact their key source describes Clinton as “ a great guy.
” However , anytime you ’ re explaining your photo ops with Ghislaine Maxwell and an Epstein victim , you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected pimp Ghislaine Maxwell – as the pair board pedophile Jeffrey Epstein ’ s notorious private jet .
The former US President is seen smiling on the steps of the plane – dubbed the Lolita Express – next to Maxwell , in astonishing pictures exclusively obtained by The Sun .
In another image he has his arm round Epstein ’ s personal masseuse and sex slave Chauntae Davies – who had been ordered to wear a ‘ pilot ’ shirt to look professional .
Other never-seen-before images show Clinton traveling on the infamous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chomping on a cigar .
Davies was one of the witness/victims that the FBI interviewed before arresting Epstein last year .
Described as his former masseuse , Davies accused Epstein of raping her , and then intimidating her with tales of his connections to the wealthy and powerful .
Now 40 years old , Davies would have been an adult at the time of these photos in 2002 , but the pilot ’ s uniform would have fooled no one .
Her first encounter with Epstein had taken place the year before when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” during a massage at a point where she was still getting training for such work .
Later , Davies has claimed , Epstein repeatedly raped her before she finally left his employment in 2005 .
Part of the reason she stayed was Epstein ’ s intimidation regarding his rich and powerful friends , Davies says .
Epstein particularly emphasized his friendship with Prince Andrew , but seeing Bill Clinton stroll onto Epstein ’ s private jet didn ’ t hurt Epstein ’ s argument either .
Neither did the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included Kevin Spacey ( ! )
, Chris Tucker , and Clinton ’ s Secret Service detail .
However , Davies doesn ’ t offer any juicy tidbits about Clinton ’ s activities on the flight , one of four trips with Epstein that the Clinton team acknowledges .
“ Clinton was a great guy on the trip , ” Davies recalls , writing in her diary at the time that she “ wished he could be president again.
” She even went out shopping with the former president for a gift for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t for the context of Epstein and Maxwell and Davies ’ own victimization , this would read like a fan ’ s “ my moment with a celeb ” recollection .
Still , the Epstein context does exist , as do lots of unanswered questions over who knew what and when .
Andrew ’ s denials don ’ t cut it with Davies , who insists that the royal had to have known exactly what Epstein was and what the women around him were being pressed into doing .
Davies doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but then again , she wasn ’ t around for Clinton ’ s other trips on the Lolita Express .
The number of his flights ranges from the four that Clinton has acknowledged to perhaps as many as twenty-six .
His contacts with Epstein go back nearly a decade earlier too , and are deeper than Davies might have known .
The Daily Beast reported on the threadbare denials last year : As early as 1993 , records show , Epstein donated $ 10,000 to the White House Historical Association and attended a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton .
Around the same time , according to a source familiar with the connection , Epstein visited presidential aide Mark Middleton several times at The White House .
Two years later , businesswoman Lynn Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about the financier .
… When the president released his initial statement on Epstein , he did not explain the multiple other trips he appears to have taken on the financier ’ s plane—including one flight to Westchester with Epstein , his alleged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnamed female.
” Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman , where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein , Don Johnson , and Jimmy Buffett .
( Nearby , at Epstein ’ s own Palm Beach mansion , the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls . )
The Clintons have never told the full truth about their Epstein/Maxwell connections .
There ’ s not much more new here than a few photos , but at least they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unanswered .

Give the Murdochs credit for knowing how to make a splashy debut. Their UK-based tabloid The Sun launched its US version today, called The US Sun, and keeps its tabloid sensibilities intact with an exposé of Bill Clinton’s journey on Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet. No one alleges that specific improprieties took place on the 2002 flight, and in fact their key source describes Clinton as “a great guy.” However, anytime you’re explaining your photo ops with Ghislaine Maxwell and an Epstein victim, you’re losing:
BILL Clinton poses side-by-side with suspected pimp Ghislaine Maxwell – as the pair board pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious private jet. The former US President is seen smiling on the steps of the plane – dubbed the Lolita Express – next to Maxwell, in astonishing pictures exclusively obtained by The Sun. In another image he has his arm round Epstein’s personal masseuse and sex slave Chauntae Davies – who had been ordered to wear a ‘pilot’ shirt to look professional. Other never-seen-before images show Clinton traveling on the infamous Boeing 727 jet while playing cards and chomping on a cigar.
Davies was one of the witness/victims that the FBI interviewed before arresting Epstein last year. Described as his former masseuse, Davies accused Epstein of raping her, and then intimidating her with tales of his connections to the wealthy and powerful. Now 40 years old, Davies would have been an adult at the time of these photos in 2002, but the pilot’s uniform would have fooled no one. Her first encounter with Epstein had taken place the year before when he committed an unspecified “sex act” during a massage at a point where she was still getting training for such work. Later, Davies has claimed, Epstein repeatedly raped her before she finally left his employment in 2005.
Part of the reason she stayed was Epstein’s intimidation regarding his rich and powerful friends, Davies says. Epstein particularly emphasized his friendship with Prince Andrew, but seeing Bill Clinton stroll onto Epstein’s private jet didn’t hurt Epstein’s argument either. Neither did the rest of the passenger list on the flight, which included Kevin Spacey (!), Chris Tucker, and Clinton’s Secret Service detail.
However, Davies doesn’t offer any juicy tidbits about Clinton’s activities on the flight, one of four trips with Epstein that the Clinton team acknowledges. “Clinton was a great guy on the trip,” Davies recalls, writing in her diary at the time that she “wished he could be president again.” She even went out shopping with the former president for a gift for his daughter Chelsea. If it wasn’t for the context of Epstein and Maxwell and Davies’ own victimization, this would read like a fan’s “my moment with a celeb” recollection.
Still, the Epstein context does exist, as do lots of unanswered questions over who knew what and when. Andrew’s denials don’t cut it with Davies, who insists that the royal had to have known exactly what Epstein was and what the women around him were being pressed into doing. Davies doesn’t make that assumption about Clinton, but then again, she wasn’t around for Clinton’s other trips on the Lolita Express. The number of his flights ranges from the four that Clinton has acknowledged to perhaps as many as twenty-six. His contacts with Epstein go back nearly a decade earlier too, and are deeper than Davies might have known. The Daily Beast reported on the threadbare denials last year:
As early as 1993, records show, Epstein donated $10,000 to the White House Historical Association and attended a donors’ reception hosted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Around the same time, according to a source familiar with the connection, Epstein visited presidential aide Mark Middleton several times at The White House. Two years later, businesswoman Lynn Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about the financier. … When the president released his initial statement on Epstein, he did not explain the multiple other trips he appears to have taken on the financier’s plane—including one flight to Westchester with Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell, and an “unnamed female.” Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein’s own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)
The Clintons have never told the full truth about their Epstein/Maxwell connections. There’s not much more new here than a few photos, but at least they remind us that those questions are still unanswered.


hotair--2020-01-08--More on that Ukrainian passenger jet that went down in Iran last night <span class=red>(Update:'all

More on that Ukrainian passenger jet that went down in Iran last night (Update:'all the earmarks of an intentional act')

As Jazz mentioned earlier , there was a plane crash last night in Iran which killed 176 people .
The crash happened just a couple hours after the Iranian attack on Iraqi bases where Americans are stationed .
Iranian state TV attributed the crash of the Ukrainian airliner to mechanical problems , however , the NY Times is now reporting that aviation experts aren ’ t so sure .
The alleged sequence of events , and a video of the crash raise questions about whether this might have been an attack of some kind : Though the evidence remained sketchy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known indicated that the plane could have been attacked .
Investigators should have that possibility “ at the top of their agenda , ” said Peter Goelz , a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States… Ukraine International Flight 752 left Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran at 6:12 a.m. on Wednesday and abruptly ceased the automatic transmission of flight data about two to three minutes later , though it remained in the air for a few minutes longer .
Experts say that is an extremely rare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic accident — and all the more unexpected in a relatively new plane , built in 2016 , of a model with a very good safety record… “ Planes just don ’ t blow up in mid air , ” said Richard Aboulafia , vice president for analysis at Teal Group , an aviation consulting firm .
“ It doesn ’ t work like that.
” A state-run news agency released this video which it claims shows the airliner going down and then exploding : That appears to be a plane on fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily rule out foul play .
The obvious question is why a new plane caught on fire just two minutes after takeoff .
As for the crew , ABC reports they were very experienced and that the Ukrainian company that owned the plane has never had a crash : The crew was highly experienced , according to the executives ; the captain , Volodymyr Gaponenko , had 11,600 flying hours , mostly spent on 737 aircraft , Ihor Sosnovsky , the airline ’ s vice president of operations , told reporters .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flying the same planes , he said .
“ Given the crew ’ s experience , error probability is minimal .
We do not even consider such a chance , ” Sosnovsky said .
According to the airlines , this is the first fatal crash since its founding in 1992 .
An Iranian official told a state news service that one of the plane ’ s engines had caught fire but passenger jets are designed to fly with one engine in an emergency .
If this was an engine fire , the plane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landing .
Also , the pilot never contacted ground control to say there was an emergency .
The black boxes were recovered from the crash site and should provide some insight into what happened , but Iran is refusing to send them to Boeing for analysis since Boeing is an American company .
It ’ s not clear if Iran will attempt to do the analysis itself or send the black boxes elsewhere .
As suspicious as all this sounds , the possibility of an intentional attack also doesn ’ t seem to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian airliner but it was full of Iranians flying out of Tehran .
Of the 176 people reportedly killed , Iran said 147 were Iranian .
Ukraine provided different figures which the NY Times suggests may be the result differently counting people with dual citizenship : “ Ukraine ’ s minister of foreign affairs , said there were 82 Iranians and 63 Canadians.
” As crazy as I think the Iranian regime is , shooting down a jet full of Iranians does not make much sense .
That still leaves several possibilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by mistake .
The crash happened hours after the Iranian attack on Iraq , an attack which appears to have been calculated to send a message without killing any US citizens .
Perhaps the plane was mistaken for a military aircraft and shot down by Iran ’ s own air defenses ?
For now it ’ s all just speculation .
What we can say is the official story doesn ’ t coming out of Iran doesn ’ t seem to explain all of the facts .
Here ’ s a BBC report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plane was delayed before takeoff : Update : From the Washington Post , a former FAA accident investigator says it looks deliberate : “ To me it has all the earmarks of an intentional act .
I don ’ t know whether it was a bomb or a missile or an incendiary device , ” he said .
If the video of the flaming plane is accurate , “ I can ’ t conceive of a failure that could cause that much of a conflagration , ” he said .
An engine fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial period “ to consume the airplane , ” said Guzzetti , who was an air safety investigator and engineering specialist at the National Transportation Safety Board for 18 years before joining the FAA .
The abrupt cutoff of flight-tracking data emitting from the plane also indicated that it was “ a sudden catastrophic event that created a power loss throughout the whole airplane , ” he said .

As Jazz mentioned earlier, there was a plane crash last night in Iran which killed 176 people. The crash happened just a couple hours after the Iranian attack on Iraqi bases where Americans are stationed. Iranian state TV attributed the crash of the Ukrainian airliner to mechanical problems, however, the NY Times is now reporting that aviation experts aren’t so sure. The alleged sequence of events, and a video of the crash raise questions about whether this might have been an attack of some kind:
Though the evidence remained sketchy, aviation experts said that what was known indicated that the plane could have been attacked. Investigators should have that possibility “at the top of their agenda,” said Peter Goelz, a former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States… Ukraine International Flight 752 left Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran at 6:12 a.m. on Wednesday and abruptly ceased the automatic transmission of flight data about two to three minutes later, though it remained in the air for a few minutes longer. Experts say that is an extremely rare sequence of events, even in a catastrophic accident — and all the more unexpected in a relatively new plane, built in 2016, of a model with a very good safety record… “Planes just don’t blow up in mid air,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president for analysis at Teal Group, an aviation consulting firm. “It doesn’t work like that.”
A state-run news agency released this video which it claims shows the airliner going down and then exploding:
نخستین ویدئو از سقوط هواپیمای اوکراینی اطراف شهریار pic.twitter.com/M3bZiLLryQ — خبرگزاری ایسنا (@isna_farsi) January 8, 2020
That appears to be a plane on fire but if so it doesn’t necessarily rule out foul play. The obvious question is why a new plane caught on fire just two minutes after takeoff. As for the crew, ABC reports they were very experienced and that the Ukrainian company that owned the plane has never had a crash:
The crew was highly experienced, according to the executives; the captain, Volodymyr Gaponenko, had 11,600 flying hours, mostly spent on 737 aircraft, Ihor Sosnovsky, the airline’s vice president of operations, told reporters. His two co-pilots also had several thousand hours flying the same planes, he said. “Given the crew’s experience, error probability is minimal. We do not even consider such a chance,” Sosnovsky said. According to the airlines, this is the first fatal crash since its founding in 1992.
An Iranian official told a state news service that one of the plane’s engines had caught fire but passenger jets are designed to fly with one engine in an emergency. If this was an engine fire, the plane should have been able to attempt a landing. Also, the pilot never contacted ground control to say there was an emergency. The black boxes were recovered from the crash site and should provide some insight into what happened, but Iran is refusing to send them to Boeing for analysis since Boeing is an American company. It’s not clear if Iran will attempt to do the analysis itself or send the black boxes elsewhere.
As suspicious as all this sounds, the possibility of an intentional attack also doesn’t seem to make much sense. This was a Ukrainian airliner but it was full of Iranians flying out of Tehran. Of the 176 people reportedly killed, Iran said 147 were Iranian. Ukraine provided different figures which the NY Times suggests may be the result differently counting people with dual citizenship: “Ukraine’s minister of foreign affairs, said there were 82 Iranians and 63 Canadians.” As crazy as I think the Iranian regime is, shooting down a jet full of Iranians does not make much sense.
That still leaves several possibilities, including that this plane was brought down by mistake. The crash happened hours after the Iranian attack on Iraq, an attack which appears to have been calculated to send a message without killing any US citizens. Perhaps the plane was mistaken for a military aircraft and shot down by Iran’s own air defenses?
For now it’s all just speculation. What we can say is the official story coming out of Iran doesn’t seem to explain all of the facts. Here’s a BBC report on the crash which notes that the plane was delayed before takeoff:
Update: From the Washington Post, a former FAA accident investigator says it looks deliberate:
Guzzetti, the retired head of the FAA’s accident investigation division, said the details of the crash publicly available suggested the plane was brought down deliberately.
“To me it has all the earmarks of an intentional act. I don’t know whether it was a bomb or a missile or an incendiary device,” he said. If the video of the flaming plane is accurate, “I can’t conceive of a failure that could cause that much of a conflagration,” he said. An engine fire, for example, would take a substantial period “to consume the airplane,” said Guzzetti, who was an air safety investigator and engineering specialist at the National Transportation Safety Board for 18 years before joining the FAA. The abrupt cutoff of flight-tracking data emitting from the plane also indicated that it was “a sudden catastrophic event that created a power loss throughout the whole airplane,” he said.


hotair--2020-01-08--Joe Manchin: The impeachment trial will be a sham if we don't hear from John Bolton

There ’ s no suspense over what the verdict in Trump ’ s trial will be .
There *is* suspense over whether the vote to acquit , or to remove , will be bipartisan .
( Could be both , of course . )
Republicans have been targeting three red-state Democrats — Doug Jones , Kyrsten Sinema , and ol ’ Joe Manchin — as potential acquittal votes .
Might be time to adjust those expectations now that Bolton ’ s rolled a grenade into the trial .
I should have anticipated this in my post about Bolton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
That news makes it somewhat harder for the Collins contingent in the Republican center to avoid calling him as a witness but it makes it a lot harder for Jones , Sinema , and Manchin to cross the aisle on the final vote .
Now that Schumer and Pelosi have framed the verdict as a “ cover up ” if it ’ s rendered without hearing from Bolton , any Democrat who votes with Trump will be viewed by the left as guilty of an even more heinous act of partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Behold Joe Manchin , who represents one of the Trumpiest states in the union , running in terror from acquittal in the wake of the Bolton news : “ How do you expect us to have a trial ?
How do you expect me as a jurist to make a decision and be able to vote one way or the other if I don ’ t have witnesses and if I don ’ t have any evidence at all ?
” Manchin asked “ I can ’ t see how anybody , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have John Bolton testify , whether a deposition , whatever , under oath so that we have the evidence first-hand .
That ’ s what I want to see .
If we don ’ t get that , then it ’ s a sham of a trial.
” “ So if you don ’ t hear from John Bolton , it will not be a fair trial ?
” Camerota asked .
“ I don ’ t see how it can be , ” Manchin answered .
If Trump and the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he wonders in the clip below , why wouldn ’ t the Senate seize the opportunity to make it fairer by hearing from witnesses with material information ?
Let ’ s be more thorough than the House was !
If the truth is within our grasp , there ’ s no excuse not to seize it .
What Bolton ’ s offer has done is given him , Sinema , and Jones a convenient excuse on process grounds not to vote for acquittal in the end .
Presumably they ’ ll vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , claiming that they can ’ t in good conscience declare the president not guilty when there ’ s a key witness who ’ s ready to testify whom the GOP refuses to call .
That puts added pressure on the Collins group to agree to call Bolton once the trial begins : Obviously , Collins and Cory Gardner would reeeeeeeally like to have some Democratic votes for acquittal that they can point to on the campaign trail next year when angry Democrats demand that they explain why they voted not guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not guilty as well , ” they ’ d say .
Manchin might be willing to provide them with that cover — but they ’ ll have to do him and his party a favor first by agreeing to hear from Bolton .
Which is a huge risk to Collins et al .
What if Bolton says something incriminating about Trump ?
Then , suddenly , Manchin , Sinema , and Jones would have cover to vote to remove and Collins would be hung out to dry , forced to cast an acquittal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if she had refused to call Bolton in the first place .
Anyway , Slate is correct that virtually every bit of messaging coming from Democrats lately , from Pelosi ’ s weird strategy of holding the articles of impeachment to Manchin ’ s chatter about a sham trial here , is aimed at delegitimizing the final “ not guilty ” verdict .
They ’ re going to lose the battle in the Senate but try to win the war for public opinion : And while the last phase of the impeachment fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial matters , and that it ought to include witnesses , the next phase will be about trying to convince the public to hold Republicans accountable where the Democrats could not .
Democrats think they can make the case that potentially vulnerable senators like Collins , Colorado ’ s Cory Gardner , North Carolina ’ s Thom Tillis , and Arizona ’ s Martha McSally have shirked their duty .
A Senate Democratic aide pointed to fresh surveys from a Democratic pollster that indicated that these four at least would be viewed unfavorably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses and documents .
But that polling took place in a context where Democrats were actively fighting for impeachment , rather than yielding to McConnell themselves .

There’s no suspense over what the verdict in Trump’s trial will be. There *is* suspense over whether the vote to acquit, or to remove, will be bipartisan. (Could be both, of course.) Republicans have been targeting three red-state Democrats — Doug Jones, Kyrsten Sinema, and ol’ Joe Manchin — as potential acquittal votes.
Might be time to adjust those expectations now that Bolton’s rolled a grenade into the trial.
I should have anticipated this in my post about Bolton’s announcement that he’s willing to testify. That news makes it somewhat harder for the Collins contingent in the Republican center to avoid calling him as a witness but it makes it a lot harder for Jones, Sinema, and Manchin to cross the aisle on the final vote. Now that Schumer and Pelosi have framed the verdict as a “cover up” if it’s rendered without hearing from Bolton, any Democrat who votes with Trump will be viewed by the left as guilty of an even more heinous act of partisan treason than they would have been otherwise. Behold Joe Manchin, who represents one of the Trumpiest states in the union, running in terror from acquittal in the wake of the Bolton news:
“How do you expect us to have a trial? How do you expect me as a jurist to make a decision and be able to vote one way or the other if I don’t have witnesses and if I don’t have any evidence at all?” Manchin asked “I can’t see how anybody, Democrat or Republican, cannot vote to have John Bolton testify, whether a deposition, whatever, under oath so that we have the evidence first-hand. That’s what I want to see. If we don’t get that, then it’s a sham of a trial.” “So if you don’t hear from John Bolton, it will not be a fair trial?” Camerota asked. “I don’t see how it can be,” Manchin answered.
If Trump and the GOP believe the House process was fundamentally unfair, he wonders in the clip below, why wouldn’t the Senate seize the opportunity to make it fairer by hearing from witnesses with material information? Let’s be more thorough than the House was! If the truth is within our grasp, there’s no excuse not to seize it.
What Bolton’s offer has done is given him, Sinema, and Jones a convenient excuse on process grounds not to vote for acquittal in the end. Presumably they’ll vote “present” now, or try to, claiming that they can’t in good conscience declare the president not guilty when there’s a key witness who’s ready to testify whom the GOP refuses to call. That puts added pressure on the Collins group to agree to call Bolton once the trial begins: Obviously, Collins and Cory Gardner would reeeeeeeally like to have some Democratic votes for acquittal that they can point to on the campaign trail next year when angry Democrats demand that they explain why they voted not guilty. “Um, three Democrats voted not guilty as well,” they’d say. Manchin might be willing to provide them with that cover — but they’ll have to do him and his party a favor first by agreeing to hear from Bolton.
Which is a huge risk to Collins et al. What if Bolton says something incriminating about Trump? Then, suddenly, Manchin, Sinema, and Jones would have cover to vote to remove and Collins would be hung out to dry, forced to cast an acquittal vote that now looked more dubious than if she had refused to call Bolton in the first place.
Anyway, Slate is correct that virtually every bit of messaging coming from Democrats lately, from Pelosi’s weird strategy of holding the articles of impeachment to Manchin’s chatter about a sham trial here, is aimed at delegitimizing the final “not guilty” verdict. They’re going to lose the battle in the Senate but try to win the war for public opinion:
And while the last phase of the impeachment fight was about convincing the public that a trial matters, and that it ought to include witnesses, the next phase will be about trying to convince the public to hold Republicans accountable where the Democrats could not. Democrats think they can make the case that potentially vulnerable senators like Collins, Colorado’s Cory Gardner, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, and Arizona’s Martha McSally have shirked their duty. A Senate Democratic aide pointed to fresh surveys from a Democratic pollster that indicated that these four at least would be viewed unfavorably in their home states if they blocked witnesses and documents. But that polling took place in a context where Democrats were actively fighting for impeachment, rather than yielding to McConnell themselves.
Here’s Manchin slowly backing away from a Bolton-less trial.


hotair--2020-01-08--<span class=red>Live blog and video: Trump's "Let's make a deal" pitch to Iran? Update: "Powerful ec

Live blog and video: Trump's "Let's make a deal" pitch to Iran? Update: "Powerful economic sanctions" coming; Update: Calls on NATO for greater engagement to deter Iran; Update: "Hypersonic missiles" on the table

Analysis : Trump left a little room for some negotiations , but this was not the off-ramp that people might have expected .
The imposition of new sanctions will provoke Iran into at least a refusal to discuss any options moving forward , even if the Soleimani strike has them second-guessing any further action .
The request for NATO intervention should raise some eyebrows in Tehran , too .
However , all of this could still be Trump trying to increase pressure to get Iran to the table .
Even the NATO request could be an opening ; most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran than we do , and some trade with Iran to the extent that sanctions allow .
The Iranians might feel better with NATO leadership than with the US driving these issues directly .
Trump still wants out of these military entanglements in the long run ; it ’ s up to Iran to use that knowledge to see what kind of deal Trump ’ s willing to cut .
Update : Replaced the live video stream with a VOA cut of the speech .
If it doesn ’ t start at 22:12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Update : An interesting reference to US development of “ hypersonic missiles.
” Iran doesn ’ t have sufficient defenses against our extant missile systems , which is why they were very careful not to provoke a response last night .
That was intended for another audience .
Vladimir Putin ?
Kim Jong-un ?
Both ?
Update : “ The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.
” A conciliatory note at the end of an emphatically not conciliatory speech .
Trump did discuss negotiations with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and very much on a comprehensive basis .
The JCPOA model is dead .
If Iran wants to talk , it had better pull in its tentacles , in other words .
Update : Trump gets around to negotiations with Iran , saying that the world needs to make clear that any such deal has to include prohibitions on terrorism and malign influence in the region .
Trump says he will call on NATO to engage much more directly in the Middle East to ensure that Iran ’ s support for terror comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least thus far , Trump doesn ’ t seem terribly interested in “ off-ramps.
” He called Qassem Soleimani the worst terrorist in the world , and that he should have been take out “ long ago.
” He also announced new “ powerful economic sanctions ” on the regime and recounted its earlier attacks in the region , including the attack on an American drone in international air space .
Update : No American or Iraqi casualties , Trump says , and also says that Iran appears to be “ standing down.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for the world , Trump says .
Update , 11:27 : They ’ re lining up now behind the podium , so here we go .
Mark Esper and Mike Pence are flanking the podium .
Update , 11:24 : NBC has Lester Holt introducing the speech now , so perhaps they ’ re about ready to send Trump to the podium .
Update , 11:19 : Sorta-but-not-really off topic , has anyone heard from Little Rocket Man lately ?
Hmmm : Update , 11:14 : Still no Trump , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even started with the stream yet .
I ’ m monitoring NBC ’ s feed at the same time .
Did getting rid of Qassem Soleimani count as an opening bid for a settlement with Iran ?
Donald Trump scheduled an 11 am ET speech this morning to respond after Tehran shot a handful of missiles in the general vicinity of US troops in Iraq .
It took a few minutes to get started , but it ’ s just about to get underway : Prior to the speech , Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had de-escalation in mind all along .
Sen. James Inhofe ( R-OK ) told CBS reporter Alan He that Trump was in high spirits after the missile attack .
“ This is going to open the door for negotiations , ” Trump told Inhofe , at least as he related it to He .
Mitch McConnell also took a moment out on the Senate floor prior to Trump ’ s speech to praise his “ patience and prudence ” : The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake wondered if Trump would take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak Iranian response : Iran responded Tuesday night to the U.S. government ’ s killing of one of its top military figures with missile attacks on two Iraqi military bases that house U.S. troops .
And while some are labeling that an escalation — and much could still change — it appears Iran may be giving Trump a politically palatable off-ramp from further clashes .
And it ’ s an off-ramp that Trump , according to his initial comments , appears inclined to take .
We could get a better sense of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address the nation about Iran at 11 a.m. Eastern .
… If this is the end of the retaliation — and that ’ s very much an open question , given Iran ’ s history of provocations and Khamenei ’ s comments — it would mean Iran ’ s response to the killing of its most important military figure will have been to inflict some damage on Iraqi military bases .
If you were given that trade at the start of the week , before Trump made the questionable decision to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to say you wouldn ’ t take it in a heartbeat .
And Trump sounds as though he sees it accordingly .
In a tweet Tuesday night , Trump began with “ All is well !
, ” perhaps revealing his satisfaction with the lack of a more serious Iranian response .
This would certainly fit with Trump ’ s overarching desire to disentangle the US from its lower-scale wars in the region .
He ’ s been itching to get out of the Syria/Iraq theater for more than a year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of Afghanistan too .
That would end a quasi-encirclement of Iran , so they certainly have some motivation to help Trump move in that direction .
We ’ ll update as the speech progresses .
You may want to open a second tab to catch the commentary without interrupting the video .
Updates will come in reverse chronological order at the top .

Analysis: Trump left a little room for some negotiations, but this was not the off-ramp that people might have expected. The imposition of new sanctions will provoke Iran into at least a refusal to discuss any options moving forward, even if the Soleimani strike has them second-guessing any further action. The request for NATO intervention should raise some eyebrows in Tehran, too.
However, all of this could still be Trump trying to increase pressure to get Iran to the table. Even the NATO request could be an opening; most of our NATO members have friendlier relations with Iran than we do, and some trade with Iran to the extent that sanctions allow. The Iranians might feel better with NATO leadership than with the US driving these issues directly. Trump still wants out of these military entanglements in the long run; it’s up to Iran to use that knowledge to see what kind of deal Trump’s willing to cut.
Update: Replaced the live video stream with a VOA cut of the speech. If it doesn’t start at 22:12, just skip forward to that part.
Update: An interesting reference to US development of “hypersonic missiles.” Iran doesn’t have sufficient defenses against our extant missile systems, which is why they were very careful not to provoke a response last night. That was intended for another audience. Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? Both?
Update: “The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.” A conciliatory note at the end of an emphatically not conciliatory speech. Trump did discuss negotiations with Iran, but very much on US terms and very much on a comprehensive basis. The JCPOA model is dead. If Iran wants to talk, it had better pull in its tentacles, in other words.
Update: Trump gets around to negotiations with Iran, saying that the world needs to make clear that any such deal has to include prohibitions on terrorism and malign influence in the region. Trump says he will call on NATO to engage much more directly in the Middle East to ensure that Iran’s support for terror comes to an end.
Update: At least thus far, Trump doesn’t seem terribly interested in “off-ramps.” He called Qassem Soleimani the worst terrorist in the world, and that he should have been take out “long ago.” He also announced new “powerful economic sanctions” on the regime and recounted its earlier attacks in the region, including the attack on an American drone in international air space.
Update: No American or Iraqi casualties, Trump says, and also says that Iran appears to be “standing down.” That’s “good news” for the world, Trump says.
Update, 11:27: They’re lining up now behind the podium, so here we go. Mark Esper and Mike Pence are flanking the podium.
Update, 11:24: NBC has Lester Holt introducing the speech now, so perhaps they’re about ready to send Trump to the podium.
Update, 11:19: Sorta-but-not-really off topic, has anyone heard from Little Rocket Man lately? Hmmm:
This week in 2016 — Kim Jong Un’s birthday week — the North Korean leader tested a nuclear weapon. This year, Chairman Kim hinted a “new strategic weapon” is coming soon. It’s been a quiet birthday week so far for Kim — no reported signs of a looming test, but the week isn’t over — Will Ripley (@willripleyCNN) January 8, 2020
Update, 11:14: Still no Trump, and the White House’s YouTube channel hasn’t even started with the stream yet. I’m monitoring NBC’s feed at the same time.
Original post follows …
=====
Did getting rid of Qassem Soleimani count as an opening bid for a settlement with Iran? Donald Trump scheduled an 11 am ET speech this morning to respond after Tehran shot a handful of missiles in the general vicinity of US troops in Iraq. It took a few minutes to get started, but it’s just about to get underway:
Prior to the speech, Republicans sent out a few signals that Trump had de-escalation in mind all along. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) told CBS reporter Alan He that Trump was in high spirits after the missile attack. “This is going to open the door for negotiations,” Trump told Inhofe, at least as he related it to He. Mitch McConnell also took a moment out on the Senate floor prior to Trump’s speech to praise his “patience and prudence”:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he spoke with President Trump last night: "I'm grateful for his patience and prudence as he and his Cabinet deliberate how to respond appropriately to the latest Iranian provocation." https://t.co/G9UFwBg2Yy pic.twitter.com/C7TWk9ZayV — ABC News (@ABC) January 8, 2020
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake wondered if Trump would take the “off ramp” offered by the weak Iranian response:
Iran responded Tuesday night to the U.S. government’s killing of one of its top military figures with missile attacks on two Iraqi military bases that house U.S. troops. And while some are labeling that an escalation — and much could still change — it appears Iran may be giving Trump a politically palatable off-ramp from further clashes. And it’s an off-ramp that Trump, according to his initial comments, appears inclined to take. We could get a better sense of that Wednesday morning, when Trump is slated to address the nation about Iran at 11 a.m. Eastern. … If this is the end of the retaliation — and that’s very much an open question, given Iran’s history of provocations and Khamenei’s comments — it would mean Iran’s response to the killing of its most important military figure will have been to inflict some damage on Iraqi military bases. If you were given that trade at the start of the week, before Trump made the questionable decision to take Soleimani out, it’s very difficult to say you wouldn’t take it in a heartbeat. And Trump sounds as though he sees it accordingly. In a tweet Tuesday night, Trump began with “All is well!,” perhaps revealing his satisfaction with the lack of a more serious Iranian response.
This would certainly fit with Trump’s overarching desire to disentangle the US from its lower-scale wars in the region. He’s been itching to get out of the Syria/Iraq theater for more than a year, and he’s close to pulling out of Afghanistan too. That would end a quasi-encirclement of Iran, so they certainly have some motivation to help Trump move in that direction.
We’ll update as the speech progresses. You may want to open a second tab to catch the commentary without interrupting the video. Updates will come in reverse chronological order at the top.


hotair--2020-01-08--CNN's coverage of their Covington Catholic settlement was really... something

Yesterday , John provided a roundup of the reactions to the news that CNN had settled the Covington Catholic lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann .
While plenty of Sandmann ’ s supporters were weighing in with approval , the network itself was largely quiet on the subject .
There were a few tweets from some of their on-air personnel and a few brief mentions , but no specifics were offered .
Later on , however , CNN did actually put an article up on their website .
If you were looking for it on the front page you would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it wound up in the business section .
CNN has settled a lawsuit with a Kentucky high school student who was at the center of a viral video controversy , a spokesperson for the news network confirmed Tuesday .
No other details were immediately available .
An attorney for the student , Nicholas Sandmann , did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
Sandmann only tweeted , “ Yes , we settled with CNN.
” The news was first reported by WXIX-TV .
The local outlet said a settlement figure was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Covington , Kentucky .
CNN ’ s Oliver Darcy went on to describe the agreement as one that would allow the network “ to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial.
” I ’ d say that ’ s putting it mildly .
Darcy goes on to describe the sequence of events playing out in the media , still apparently trying to make it sound as if CNN didn ’ t do anything wrong .
He talks about the first , truncated and misleading video and how it “ went viral.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more lengthy video emerge that “ provided additional context for the encounter.
” That may well be true , but if you ’ re supposed to be the world ’ s trusted source for news , wouldn ’ t it be incumbent upon you to speak to all the people involved , find that additional video and have the entire story before you start trashing a teenager just because he was wearing a MAGA hat ?
Getting back to the underlying question , why did CNN decide to settle when NBC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Many legal analysts have speculated that there are so many loopholes in our libel laws and such hesitancy to punish news outlets due to First Amendment concerns that they might still have prevailed .
There ’ s been one convincing theory gaining traction on social media , as typified in this tweet .
Given how awful the hot takes from some of the network ’ s reporters were that we saw in public , it ’ s not hard to imagine what they were saying in emails and text messages behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the lawsuit likely would have been a “ horror show ” for CNN .
Keep in mind that one of their own reporters suggested that Sandmann needed to be “ punched in the face.
” And that ’ s just what they were saying in public .
Just try to picture what was probably going on in the background .
I ’ m still trying to figure out what ’ s keeping NBC and the WaPo in the game .
Have they cleaned their closets thoroughly enough to make sure they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show during discovery ?
Or do they just not care anymore ?

Yesterday, John provided a roundup of the reactions to the news that CNN had settled the Covington Catholic lawsuit brought by Nick Sandmann. While plenty of Sandmann’s supporters were weighing in with approval, the network itself was largely quiet on the subject. There were a few tweets from some of their on-air personnel and a few brief mentions, but no specifics were offered.
Later on, however, CNN did actually put an article up on their website. If you were looking for it on the front page you would have been disappointed because, for some reason, it wound up in the business section.
CNN has settled a lawsuit with a Kentucky high school student who was at the center of a viral video controversy, a spokesperson for the news network confirmed Tuesday. No other details were immediately available. An attorney for the student, Nicholas Sandmann, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Sandmann only tweeted, “Yes, we settled with CNN.” The news was first reported by WXIX-TV. The local outlet said a settlement figure was not made public at a court hearing in Covington, Kentucky.
CNN’s Oliver Darcy went on to describe the agreement as one that would allow the network “to avoid a lengthy and potentially unpredictable trial.” I’d say that’s putting it mildly.
Darcy goes on to describe the sequence of events playing out in the media, still apparently trying to make it sound as if CNN didn’t do anything wrong. He talks about the first, truncated and misleading video and how it “went viral.” Only later, he explains, did a more lengthy video emerge that “provided additional context for the encounter.”
That may well be true, but if you’re supposed to be the world’s trusted source for news, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon you to speak to all the people involved, find that additional video and have the entire story before you start trashing a teenager just because he was wearing a MAGA hat?
Getting back to the underlying question, why did CNN decide to settle when NBC and the WaPo are still fighting it out? Many legal analysts have speculated that there are so many loopholes in our libel laws and such hesitancy to punish news outlets due to First Amendment concerns that they might still have prevailed. There’s been one convincing theory gaining traction on social media, as typified in this tweet.
CNN settled to avoid discovery. I can't even begin to imagine the hate and lies we would see from those internal messages. — Let's Start Our Own MAGA CHAZ! (@NolteNC) January 8, 2020
Given how awful the hot takes from some of the network’s reporters were that we saw in public, it’s not hard to imagine what they were saying in emails and text messages behind the scenes. So yes… the discovery process in the lawsuit likely would have been a “horror show” for CNN. Keep in mind that one of their own reporters suggested that Sandmann needed to be “punched in the face.” And that’s just what they were saying in public. Just try to picture what was probably going on in the background.
I’m still trying to figure out what’s keeping NBC and the WaPo in the game. Have they cleaned their closets thoroughly enough to make sure they don’t run into a similar horror show during discovery? Or do they just not care anymore?


hotair--2020-01-08--Putin in Syria. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence

While everyone is keeping an eye on the border between Iran and Iraq , a short distance to the west there is some other interesting activity taking place in Syria .
For once , we ’ re not talking about the Kurds and the Turks in the northeastern region of the largely collapsed country , but back in the capital of Damascus .
Syria ’ s tyrannical leader , Bashar al-Assad , has a special visitor in town .
Russian President Vladimir Putin has stopped by for a chat .
What could those two possibly have to talk about ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin traveled to Damascus on Tuesday for a meeting with President Bashar Assad , a rare visit that comes amid soaring tensions between Iran and United States following the U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general .
While the official statements made during the previously unannounced visit made no mention of the killing last week of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , the timing was conspicuous… Putin and Assad met at a Russian command post in Damascus , and were presented with military reports on the situation in different regions of Syria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AP ’ s description of the timing of this meeting as being “ conspicuous ” is a bit of an understatement .
Assad is one of the bad guys and we have virtually no diplomatic contacts with the Syrian regime .
But Syria has become incredibly important to Russia and Putin has been willing to invest heavily in the effort to keep Assad in power .
Russia now controls a warm-water port at Tartus , something they have long desired .
They also now have a strong and apparently permanent military presence at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Keep in mind that Iran ’ s now-deceased Qassem Soleimani was widely credited with galvanizing the pro-Syrian militias and funding their efforts at crushing the opposition in the Syrian civil war .
It ’ s long been in Iran ’ s best interests to remain close to Assad as their general goals in the region align .
The Russians are friendly with both nations in the modern era .
With Assad now effectively acting as Putin ’ s puppet , Russia continues to grow its new , unofficial alliance of authoritarian regimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are aligned with Iran and Syria , along with increasingly strong ties to our former NATO ally , Turkey .
That leaves the Kurds and the remaining American forces in Iraq effectively surrounded by Putin allies .
And as we ’ ve discussed here before , Putin has drawn North Korea and Venezuela into his sphere of influence .
And China has apparently made both economic and military peace with Russia , while not being subservient to them .
All of this adds up to a very disturbing picture in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Damascus at such a fraught time only adds to the anxiety .
NATO ’ s influence in the region clearly seems to be decreasing and Israel is looking increasingly isolated .
Many of the chess pieces on the world board have been shifting , and not in a good way for western interests .

While everyone is keeping an eye on the border between Iran and Iraq, a short distance to the west there is some other interesting activity taking place in Syria. For once, we’re not talking about the Kurds and the Turks in the northeastern region of the largely collapsed country, but back in the capital of Damascus. Syria’s tyrannical leader, Bashar al-Assad, has a special visitor in town. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stopped by for a chat. What could those two possibly have to talk about? (Associated Press)
Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to Damascus on Tuesday for a meeting with President Bashar Assad, a rare visit that comes amid soaring tensions between Iran and United States following the U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general. While the official statements made during the previously unannounced visit made no mention of the killing last week of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the timing was conspicuous… Putin and Assad met at a Russian command post in Damascus, and were presented with military reports on the situation in different regions of Syria, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
The AP’s description of the timing of this meeting as being “conspicuous” is a bit of an understatement. Assad is one of the bad guys and we have virtually no diplomatic contacts with the Syrian regime. But Syria has become incredibly important to Russia and Putin has been willing to invest heavily in the effort to keep Assad in power. Russia now controls a warm-water port at Tartus, something they have long desired. They also now have a strong and apparently permanent military presence at bases around various parts of the country.
Keep in mind that Iran’s now-deceased Qassem Soleimani was widely credited with galvanizing the pro-Syrian militias and funding their efforts at crushing the opposition in the Syrian civil war. It’s long been in Iran’s best interests to remain close to Assad as their general goals in the region align. The Russians are friendly with both nations in the modern era.
With Assad now effectively acting as Putin’s puppet, Russia continues to grow its new, unofficial alliance of authoritarian regimes around the world. In that region, they are aligned with Iran and Syria, along with increasingly strong ties to our former NATO ally, Turkey. That leaves the Kurds and the remaining American forces in Iraq effectively surrounded by Putin allies.
And as we’ve discussed here before, Putin has drawn North Korea and Venezuela into his sphere of influence. And China has apparently made both economic and military peace with Russia, while not being subservient to them.
All of this adds up to a very disturbing picture in general terms, and Putin’s arrival in Damascus at such a fraught time only adds to the anxiety. NATO’s influence in the region clearly seems to be decreasing and Israel is looking increasingly isolated. Many of the chess pieces on the world board have been shifting, and not in a good way for western interests.