Professor Andrew Parker of St John’s College at Oxford University is my new favorite person. The Times of London reports that a group of students wrote to Professor Parker to discuss demands being made by student protesters about fossil fuel divestment. His response wasn’t what they were expecting:
Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell. Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”
One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).” The best part of the story is the response from the organizer of the protest:
Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.”
Yes, it would be rash and “borderline dangerous” to do something like that.
Now step back and take notice how closely this small debate at one college is a microcosm of the larger debate taking place around the globe. The teenage face of the anti-fossil fuel movement, Greta Thunberg, recently demanded “real zero” emissions starting right now. Following her advice would be the equivalent of cutting off the gas that heats the campus in the middle of winter. It wouldn’t just be “borderline dangerous” it would almost certainly be catastrophic for millions of people. Despite this, I bet protest organizer Fergus Green thinks she’s part of a “mature discussion.” In any case, a lot of people like him seem to think so.
He should have offered to turn out the lights, too.
Maryland's oyster management process will be changed. Maryland lawmakers voted Thursday to override Governor Larry Hogan's veto of a bill that would manage the state's oyster management plan.
The process outlined in the legislation will bring together environmental advocates, scientists, watermen, and seafood sellers to work with an independent mediator to recommend policies aimed at increasing the overall oyster population in Maryland’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources will then be required to work with an advisory commission and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science to develop a package of consensus recommendations for improving the state's management plan for oysters.
The state’s adult oyster population dropped by about 50 percent from 1999 to 2018, according to the stock assessment released in December 2018.
Environmentalists are applauding the override, arguing the legislation requires the new oyster management plan to increase oyster abundance and end overfishing in areas where the stock assessment determines it is occurring.
"This important new law aims to stop the long-term decline of oysters in Maryland," Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Maryland Executive Director Alison Prost said in a statement. "More oysters mean cleaner water, more fish and crabs, and a healthier Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. It’s time to work together toward the common goal of increasing Maryland’s oyster population to improve the state’s environment and the fishery’s long-term outlook. Thanks to the members of the General Assembly for recognizing the importance of this needed legislation that will chart a new path for Maryland’s oysters.”
But not everyone believes the vote will bring a sustainable oyster fishery.
"Regardless of this misguided vote, we will continue to implement our Oyster Management Plan and remain focused on our goal of a sustainable harvest and population in eight to 10 years," Department of Natural Resources Secretary Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio said in statement. "The real consequences of this vote are delaying our ability to enhance our state-managed oyster sanctuaries and further straining the relationship between the very stakeholders the legislature wants to come to consensus. Both of these things will delay us from reaching our goals on oyster restoration."
I would be very surprised if "environmental advocates, scientists, watermen, and seafood sellers" can reach a consensus. I have little confidence in the "consensus management", but then, the management by DNR in the past has proven to be a failure. I guess need to just hope for the best.
. . .Since 2010, when the Obama administration enacted federal water quality requirements for the bay, 142 miles of streams have been repaired in its watershed, with about half of that work occurring in the District, Virginia and Maryland, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
A billion-dollar industry has emerged as local governments work to stay below EPA limits for urban runoff that allow them to qualify for storm water permits and that help determine federal funding to states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
But environmental scientists say it is unclear whether the high-cost projects are worth the investment. The work typically uses heavy machinery to clear old trees and plant new ones around re-engineered streams that contain boulders, wood and vegetation meant to absorb harmful pollutants.
In some cases, such projects may be hurting surrounding wildlife unnecessarily, some experts say.
“You modify the system so much that you risk transforming a stream ecosystem into something else. And the question becomes: Is that good?” said Solange Filoso, an aquatic biologist at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science who advocates for smarter stream restoration designs and a greater focus on the sources of urban runoff.
“These restorations are not so reliable that they justify changing a stream ecosystem so dramatically for a result that is not 100 percent guaranteed,” Filoso said. “I think that we may be losing a lot more than we’re gaining.”
Most stream restorations are geared toward state and federal mandates for reducing the amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments — byproducts of urban runoff — draining into the bay every year.
Filoso said there has been a tendency for projects to be done near the bottom of watersheds, based on the assumption that they will filter out greater quantities of pollutants, allowing local agencies to claim they are closer to meeting those mandates.
Some of the “wetland complexes” created by the restorations appear to be successful at absorbing nitrogen, she said, but are not as effective at keeping phosphorus and small particulates of solid waste from entering the bay.
“They’re trying to create little filters at the end that can solve all the problems in the watershed,” Filoso said. “It’s not happening.”
Thomas Jordan, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, said a fair amount of guesswork is involved in the effort. He cited a $1 million project on his center’s property in Anne Arundel County that initially caused the water to turn a rusty color — because of iron leaching out of rehydrated soil — and, later, appeared to be no more effective at removing pollutants than a beaver dam farther downstream.
“And the beavers do that free,” he said.
Jordan said growing urgency about the bay has allowed projects to go forward without conclusive evidence as to the best approach.
“They’re going to try some stuff, where it looks like it might work,” he said. “The rationale is: ‘We need to do something now.’ ”
For what it's worth, Tom is a former coworker, and still a friend (he plays harmonica in the band at my old work). I heard he got pretty significant push back on this article.
Indeed, beavers do a pretty good job on stream restoration, and the native state of streams in most of the country before colonization and the beaver felt top hat craze was a series of beaver ponds, but they make lousy neighbors. They really don't care if the pond they make floods your street or yard. And once a group gets started in an area, they progressively cut down and eat all the edible (and they have a generous idea of edible) woody vegetation starting near their den, and eventually reaching out about as far as they feel comfortable walking, about a 1/4 mile in all directions, before they move to an area with closer food.
"... he did not think the president’s actions were impeachable and would vote against considering new evidence in the impeachment trial. Mr. Alexander’s statement was a strong indication that Republicans had lined up the votes to block a call for more witnesses and documents on Friday and press toward a quick acquittal in the third presidential impeachment trial in history.... 'The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did,' Mr. Alexander said... 'I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.'...
I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.1/15
“In connection with an effort to counter the Trump campaign, Defendants undertook to develop opposition research regarding Trump and his campaign, including persons associated with that campaign,” the new lawsuit states. “As part of this effort, Defendants developed a dossier replete with falsehoods about numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign—especially Dr. Page. Defendants then sought to tarnish the Trump campaign and its affiliates (including Dr. Page) by publicizing this false information.”
The suit goes on to allege the parties named “misrepresented Dr. Page’s connections to and interactions with certain foreign nationals in order to create the false impression that Dr. Page —a law-abiding American citizen who served his country honorably in the United States Navy and in the private sector—was in fact an agent of a foreign power, Russia.”
The suit states: “Defendants leveraged these fabrications within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’) and the United States Department of Justice (‘DOJ’), leading these agencies to present false applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (‘FISC’).”
Asked whether, under the Dems' impeachment standard, the Clinton campaign's solicitation of the Steele dossier would be considered foreign interference, illegal, or impeachable, @RepJeffries says no -- because the Steele dossier "was purchased."
Given Chief Justice John Roberts' censorship of a senator in the discharge of the senator's duties, the following question must now be posed on the floor: In the event a chief justice were impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, who would preside over his trial?
John Roberts did nothing while the FISA court which he personally oversees illegally spied on an American citizen. He did nothing when DOJ determined the court was defrauded.
But when a senator asked a question? Roberts shut that down. Twice. What a disgraceful coward.
This is the “Streisand Effect” in action — by pretending that we have to treat Eric Ciaramella’s name like it’s top-secret classified information, Tapper and other Democrat operatives in the media have inadvertently made everyone curious to know the identity of the “whistleblower.”
Question asked about former NSC staff Sean Misko saying to the alleged Whistleblower “We need to do everything we can to take out the President” at an NSC meeting.
“Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky?” pic.twitter.com/46F3N6FcwH
Watching the Chief Justice a second time, I was able to see a subtle expression of feeling. If an actor could do this I'd be impressed. There's a pause at the point where he sees the disrespect in the question (as he's saying "witnesses"). There's a determination to simply move through it. When he's done, he puts the paper down with a slight throwing motion. He continues to look down and his lips are tight and almost frowning
re-upping Nov 11, 2019 tweet on Jan 19, 2016 meeting with Ukrainians hosted by Ciaramella, at which Ukrainians were told of linkage of IMF $1 billion to demand that Shokin be fired. Ukrainians at meeting also released Black Ledger against Manafort to aid Hillary. https://t.co/as7gnIMxfj
“If the whistleblower, as is alleged in some public reports, actually did work for then-Vice President Biden on Ukraine issues, exactly what was his role? What was his involvement when issues were raised — we know from testimony that questions were raised — about the potential conflict of interest that the vice president then had when his son was sitting on the board of Burisma,” Philbin asked. “Was the alleged whistleblower involved in any of that and in making decisions to not do anything related to that?” …
“Did he have some reason to want to put the deep-six on any question raising any issue about what went on with the Bidens and Burisma and firing Shokin and withholding a billion dollars in loan guarantees and enforcing a very explicit quid pro quo — you won’t get this billion dollars until you fire him?” Philbin asked, pointedly.
“We don’t know, and because Manager Schiff was guiding this whole process — because he was chairman in charge of directing the inquiry and directing it away from any of those questions — that creates a real due process defect in the record,” the president’s lawyer declared.
The Boys at the Bulwark have given up the pretense of conservatism, Who’s Afraid of Joe Biden? "Why is a Republican senator from Florida running attack ads against Biden in Iowa?" Why not?
Brian Kilmeade: "I don't like the idea of people making John Bolton out to be a liar. He's sat on this couch before. He's not a liar." pic.twitter.com/nowrpE6ul3
The king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) or kingfish, is a migratory species of mackerel of the western Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. It is an important species to both the commercial and recreational fishing industries.
The king mackerel is a medium-sized fish, typically encountered from 5 to 14 kg (30 lb), but is known to exceed 40 kg (90 lb). The entire body is covered with very small, hardly visible, loosely attached scales. The first (spiny) dorsal fin is entirely colorless and is normally folded back into a body groove, as are the pelvic fins. The lateral line starts high on the shoulder, dips abruptly at mid-body and then continues as a wavy horizontal line to the tail. Coloration is olive on the back, fading to silver with a rosy iridescence on the sides, fading to white on the belly. Fish under 5 kg (10 lb) show yellowish-brown spots on the flanks, somewhat smaller than the spots of the Atlantic Spanish mackerel, Scomberomorus maculatus. Its cutting-edged teeth are large, uniform, closely spaced and flattened from side to side.
The king mackerel is a subtropical species of the Atlantic Coast of the Americas. Common in the coastal zone from North Carolina to Brazil, it occurs as far south as Rio de Janeiro, and occasionally as far north as the Gulf of Maine and also found in Eastern coast (Chennai) and Western coast of India. Nonetheless, a preference for water temperatures in the range of 20 to 29 °C (68 to 84 °F) may limit distribution.
King mackerel commonly occur in depths of 12–45 m (40–150 ft), where the principal fisheries occur. Larger kings (heavier than 9 kg or 20 lb) often occur inshore, in the mouths of inlets and harbors, and occasionally even at the 180 m (590 ft) depths at the edge of the Gulf Stream.
King mackerel are among the most sought-after gamefish throughout their range from North Carolina to Texas. Known throughout the sportfishing world for their blistering runs, the king mackerel matches its distant relative, the wahoo, in speed. They are taken mostly by trolling, using various live and dead baitfish, spoons, jigs and other artificial lures. Commercial gear consists of run-around gill nets. They are also taken commercially by trolling with large planers, heavy tackle and lures similar to those used by sport fishers. Typically when using live bait, two hooks are tied to a strong metal leader. The first may be a treble or single and is hooked through the live bait's nose and/or mouth. The second hook (treble hook) is placed through the top of the fish's back or allowed to swing free. This must be done because king mackerel commonly bite the tail section of a bait fish. When trolling for kings using this method, it is important to make sure the baitfish are swimming properly. Typical tackle includes a conventional or spinning reel capable of holding 340 m (370 yd) of 13 kg (29 lb) test monofilament and a 2 m (6 ft 7 in), 13 kg (29 lb) class rod.
It's on my bucket list.
Darcizzle shows how to catch, clean and cook Kingfish:
In a letter to members of Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday maintained its support for Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts while criticizing Maryland, which has threatened to take the agency to court.
The letter was the latest salvo in an escalating battle over whether the federal agency is doing enough to prod Pennsylvania, which is far behind its Bay commitments, to take greater action.
It’s a dispute that appears increasingly likely to head to court. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation on Monday announced its intent to sue the EPA for failing to use its Clean Water Act authority against Pennsylvania.
That followed a Jan. 9 call from Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan calling for his state attorney general to initiate legal actions against Pennsylvania, citing the “obvious inadequacy” of its Bay cleanup plan, and against the EPA, which he said has “no intention” of forcing his northern neighbor to do more. Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has also said his state may take legal action.
The EPA’s letter said it “will continue to work diligently and professionally with all the jurisdictions and stakeholders engaged in supporting restoration of the Bay.”
But it also took aim at Maryland for threatening to sue the agency and Pennsylvania. “Diverting our collective resources to litigation will undoubtedly distract from efforts to restore the Bay and harm the existing partnership among the parties that has been the hallmark of the effort,” said the letter from EPA Region III Administrator Cosmo Servidio.
According to Sens. Grassley and Johnson, the reveal of the four footnotes in the report might further debunk the report’s own primary conclusion that there was no political bias motivating the FBI’s deep-state surveillance operation.
“The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” the senators wrote.
The IG report also did more than confirm the Crossfire Hurricane team accessed some Trump campaign communications: It established that accessing Page’s communications with the Trump campaign was the goal of the FISA order.
For instance, a case agent working the Crossfire Hurricane investigation explained to the IG’s team that because Page had just “returned from his trip to Russia” before the Republicans’ national convention, the FBI’s “belief was that Page was involved in the platform change [concerning Ukraine] and the team was hoping to find evidence of that in their review of the FISA collections of Page’s email accounts.”
In a just or fair system, the DOJ would not have searched for legal excuses to dismiss the lawsuit I filed to bring the abuses to light… in fact, there would be no need for me to pursue a civil court case because the DOJ would have already prosecuted the guilty parties.
Yet here we are.
What a stunning turn of events today to hear Adam Schiff declare from the well of the United States Senate that it is impeachable for a sitting President to allow the Department of Justice to investigate a political rival’s campaign 🤔
Reminder that the Clinton campaign and DNC secretly hired a group to put together a dossier with demonstrably false dirt on Donald Trump and its author claimed it was sourced to people linked to the Russian government.
Worth noting that Jake Tapper fumed at BuzzFeed's Ben Smith for publishing the bogus Steele dossier, because the truth about the dossier "damaged its impact" and made Tapper's own "reporting" about the dossier look ridiculous. https://t.co/f5RcR104gb
"... which I gave him despite many saying 'Don’t do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V., and many more mistakes of judgement, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?" Tweets President Trump a little while ago (1, 2).
I like his mild tone there. It's refreshing. To me, it's more convincing than the harsher name-calling. I appreciate that you didn't call him, say, Bolton the Snake... but... by the way... You knew he was a snake.
John Bolton in 2019: @realDonaldTrump's phone calls with President Zelensky were "very warm and cordial... the success of Ukraine ... [maintaining] a free market economy free of corruption ... is high priorit[y] of the US" pic.twitter.com/w6lAuDCKmR
Insty, WELL, THE ADMISSION BY BIDEN IS ON VIDEO: “Ukrainian ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin has demanded that the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) open criminal proceedings against former U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden for illegal influence on him as the prosecutor general of Ukraine.” At Da Week, Walther Matthew has a rather sympathetic view of The tragedy of Joe Biden
The Democrats, master propagandists that they are, are not trying to convince Senators – they’re playing to public opinion. Trying to increase Trump’s negatives and drive down his approval numbers. Their target audience, with the enemedia’s complicity, is the public... and secondarily the squishy-middle RINOs and NeverTrumpers.
Trump's defenders, honorable people, are trying a legal trial, presenting facts, reason, logic, precedent, etc., with a target audience of the Senators.
And this is how we lose. Time and again. We keep fighting by Marquis of Queensbury Rules, assuming an honorable opposition who is interested in a rational debate.
UNTIL WE GRASP THAT THE LEFT HAS NO HONOR, NO DECENCY, NO ETHICS OR MORALITY OR PATRIOTISM OR LOVE OF COUNTRY… BUT ONLY A LOVE OF POWER AND A WILLINGNESS TO TWIST THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND LANGUAGE ITSELF TO SERVE THEIR AIMS… WE WILL LOSE. GLOVES OFF. BRASS KNUCKLES ON. HITTING BELOW THE BELT IS NOT JUST AN OPTION, IT'S A NECESSITY. AND WHEN THEY’RE DOWN, KEEP BEATING.
Consider, as something I read briefly this morning, their calls for “a fair trial”. It’s the defendant who is to get a fair trial, not the prosecution. And after their sham hearings in the house, under rules that would have a banana republic Jones with envy, they talk about fairness??? Start bringing these to your next townhall with your representative and play with it, openly, as they talk. Be nakedly contemptuous as you hop the kangaroo around your lap, or table, right in front of them. (E.g., "Excuse me, that's distracting me from speaking" "Oh, I'm just giving you the same courtesy as you gave President Trump in your kangaroo court shampeachment".)
The Republican National Committee (RNC) launched a new digital campaign ad and a fundraiser on Tuesday in response to CNN’s Don Lemon mocking Trump supporters during a segment on his show that went viral on Monday night. . . .
The segment featured Lemon, far-left op-ed writer Wajahat Ali, and anti-Trump establishment Republican Rick Wilson who mocked Trump supporters as being uneducated rednecks who could not read, spell, or use maps.
“CNN anchor Don Lemon, The New York Times’ Wajahat Ali and winless carnival barker and scam PAC artist Rick Wilson let everyday Americans know what the establishment thinks about them: President Trump’s supporters are just a bunch of illiterate idiots deserving of the elites’ smug derision,” RNC Spokesman Steve Guest told The Daily Wire in a statement. “In a matter of seconds, CNN summed up the elite left’s disdain for half of America.”
Guest added, “Reminder for voters: As Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders campaign across the South for your vote, Lemon, Ali, and Wilson just summarized what these candidates really think of you as they shake your hand and pose for selfies.”
Oyster populations are at less than 1% of historic levels despite the expenditure of more than $100 million in public funds for planting spat-on-shell and establishing sanctuaries. The Oyster Recovery Partnership has failed to restore oyster populations. A 2018 stock assessment found a 50% decline in Maryland oysters from 1999-2018.
In 2019, the Department of Natural Resources developed a new fishery management plan for oysters knowing of this collapse but failed to do much to restrict harvest despite findings of collapse and that more than 50% of harvest areas are overfished and might be depleted of oysters without action.
Instead of pursuing closure or restrictions on the oyster harvest, especially from overfished areas, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and state Sen. Sarah Elfreth are leading the charge to override Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of a bill that does nothing to restore oysters and likely blocks meaningful restrictions for at least two years. SB 830 establishes a 25-member commission, with 60% of members from the oyster industry, to develop another oyster management plan that requires a 75% majority vote for any actions.
A 2011 study by the University of Maryland, Eastern Shore and other biologists called for a moratorium, concluding that if oyster harvest had stopped from 1980-2011, adult oyster abundance would be 15.8 times greater than in 2011. Instead, it declined by 92%.
On rockfish, the coastal management board — Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission — has forced states to act because of alarming rockfish declines. They found female biomass to be only 40% of the target goal and fishing mortality to be a whopping 55% greater than the target
The 2019 DNR survey of young rockfish found numbers significantly below the 66-year average, the third-lowest in 11 years. This means very poor prospects for adult rockfish in the future. Maryland waters are the cradle of rockfish reproduction.
DNR failed to act last year while Virginia eliminated its 2019 spring trophy season and significantly curtailed its fall fishery by capping sizes and limiting daily fish landings. DNR now appears to be taking the path of least resistance whereby they propose simply delaying the spring trophy season from April 18 to May and allowing recreational fishermen to keep two rockfish at a minimum of 19 inches. Nothing is proposed to curb the major commercial fishery.
. . .
DNR should act now to close the trophy season, reduce the commercial quota significantly, and follow the ASMFC proposals for a one fish creel limit and an 18-inch minimum size for recreational fisheries. The DNR requirement for hook changes has not stanched high mortality from recreational discards of rockfish. These rockfish litter the beaches where I live near Annapolis just below CBF headquarters. CBF has not proposed specific significant reductions on rockfish harvest.
Does the legislature have the courage to do what is necessary? If they vote to override the veto of SB 830, one thing you can be sure of: politicians and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and their followers will declare victory and tout their great success in helping restore the oyster to the bay.
Some lingering Russiagate as Lloyd Billingsley at Front Page compares Spygate to Ruby Ridge in Clues to the Coup Clan.
That’s the lesson of Ruby Ridge.
FBI big shots emerged unscathed and the FBI went on to deploy massive military force at Waco, Texas, which claimed 75 lives including 25 children. If Comey and McCabe don’t serve serious time, the Deep State is sure to deploy against a future president and his supporters.
I think it's time to end the FBI and roll its crime fighters into the Marshal's Service. Move the counterintelligence to DOD maybe. And speaking of federal crime, CNN's presidential contender and former attorney to Stormy Daniels, on trial for extorting Nike, Michael Avenatti Googled ‘insider trading’ before Nike meeting. I guess cyber security wasn't his forte.
Andrew McCarthy has been skeptical of this impeachment process (as have I) but he is highly critical of the Trump defense "strategy" - Bolton has been a joker in the deck for a while (his proposed book manuscript has been circulating in the White House since late December). Why risk surprises, or especially non-surprises?
For months, I’ve been arguing that the president’s team should stop claiming there was no quid pro quo conditioning the defense aid Congress had authorized for Ukraine on Kyiv’s conducting of investigations the president wanted. Trials and impeachment itself are unpredictable. You don’t know what previously undisclosed facts might emerge during the trial that could turn the momentum against you. So you want to mount your best defense, the one that can withstand any damaging new revelations.
Here, the president’s best defense has always been that Ukraine got its security aid, and President Volodymyr Zelensky got his coveted high-profile audience with the president of the United States (albeit at the U.N., rather than at the White House). Kyiv barely knew defense aid was being withheld, the very temporary delay had no impact whatsoever on Ukraine’s capacity to counter Russian aggression, and Zelensky was required neither to order nor to announce any investigation of the Bidens.
The headlines going around this evening, all to the effect that “McConnell doesn’t have the votes!”, are misleading when you read down into the stories themselves. Republicans sound much calmer and more resolute about ramming through an acquittal verdict without witnesses than they did 24 hours ago, in the first flush of the NYT’s story on Sunday night about Bolton’s book. McConnell doesn’t have the votes yet but as of Tuesday night Collins and Romney remain the only two Republicans willing to say it’s highly likely they’ll vote to call witnesses. Murkowski is interested in hearing from Bolton but won’t go any further than that now. And no one thinks Lamar Alexander’s going to blow up his buddy Mitch’s plans for a quick ending to the trial.
So McConnell’s way out it to force Democrats to reject a witness deal. That way, Democrats are the ones responsible for no new witnesses. It provides cover to people like Susan Collins who may be concerned how voting against witnesses my impact their reelection chances.
McConnell needs to go nuclear. Mutually Assured Destruction nuclear on witnesses — the Bidens or bust.
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama are undecided on whether to vote to remove the president from office and agonizing over where to land. It’s a decision that could have major ramifications for each senator’s legacy and political prospects — as well shape the broader political dynamic surrounding impeachment heading into the 2020 election.
All three senators remain undecided after hearing arguments from the impeachment managers and Trump’s defense team. But they could end up with a creative solution.
One or more senators may end up splitting their votes, borrowing a move from Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who voted for the abuse of power charge but against the one on obstruction of Congress.
I didn't give Dershowitz a question. To think in my lawprofessorly way about grades, I would have to infer a question that I might have asked.
I think that question should be: Restate the constitutional phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" into a workable standard that the House and the Senate can and should use today and in the future in all cases of presidential impeachment. Explain your choice using all of the methodologies of constitutional interpretation that you deem appropriate (and explain why you are deciding this approach to interpretation is appropriate).
Do you think he did that? Read the transcript.
Biden, who is a lawyer, originally denied having sex with Roberts.
But a DNA showed that the child was almost certainly his, and he stopped contesting paternity in the case.
So . . . Biden lied. He did not merely lie, but he lied to a court, and what happens to lawyers who lie in court? Isn’t disbarment appropriate? Perhaps there is some loophole for lying about sex, but whatever the case may be in terms of legal ethics, it is now established as a fact that you can never trust a Biden to tell the truth. Dishonesty is a hereditary trait, and yet every “mainstream” (i.e., liberal) news organization thinks we should just accept Joe Biden’s word that Hunter didn’t do anything wrong in accepting an $83,000-a-month “job” with Burisma
. . .
But there’s no corruption worth investigating when Democrats do it. Just the cocaine-addicted son of the former vice president, impregnating strippers while on the payroll of Ukrainian kleptocrats — you’re promoting a “right-wing conspiracy theory” if you want to investigate.
From Adam Freedman at City Journal, Abuse of Procedure, "The House Democrats make an underwhelming case for impeachment—one without a constitutional basis."
We might not align on all issues, but whooo doggies…. Rep. Elise Stefanik swings big timber and fights when needed during this impeachment fiasco. If I had a $10 budget for lunch, I’d send it to her reelection campaign and wait to eat til dinner…. she’s worth it.
The irrationally obsessed Schiff had a plan, as surely as the Crossfire Hurricane cabal had a plan, to take Trump down by hook or by crook. The Mueller Report failed to deliver, so he sought a new and fabricated reason to impeach.
Now that we see and hear Schiff's case be completely devastated by Trump's defense team, one has to wonder how the House managers had the gall to stand up and spew the lies each of them put forth over twenty-three hours. It is probably safe to assume that they did none of their own research, nor did they write their own presentations. Most likely, Schiff directed his own staff to prepare their carefully constructed speeches, which they came to the podium to read.
Had questions been asked of them about their arguments in favor of impeachment, it is doubtful they could have answered even one. Bottom line? These "managers" know far less about all that has taken place than the average American who has been paying attention. They live in an insulated bubble of Trump-hatred and are constitutional illiterates.
