Displaying posts published in

January 2020

Key GOP senator to vote against impeachment witnesses Jon Ward

 Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., announced Thursday night he will vote against calling witnesses to the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump, likely ending the last real suspense of the trial and opening the door for a speedy conclusion Friday or Saturday.

“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter,” Alexander said late Thursday in a statement, after another day-long session in the Senate, the ninth day of the trial overall.

Alexander said the charges against the president – that he inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens – had been “proved” by the House managers, and that the president had acted improperly.

Every Time Palestinians Say ‘No,’ They Lose Things rarely go well for those who try to live history backward.By Bret Stephens

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/opinion/middle-east-peace-plan.html?emc=rss&partner=rss

egarding President Trump’s peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the instant conventional wisdom is that it’s a geopolitical nonstarter, a gift to Benjamin Netanyahu and an electoral ploy by the president to win Jewish votes in Florida rather than Palestinian hearts in Ramallah.

It may be all of those things. But nobody will benefit less from a curt dismissal of the plan than the Palestinians themselves, whose leaders are again letting history pass them by.

The record of Arab-Israeli peace efforts can be summed up succinctly: Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less.

That was true after it rejected the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan, which would have created a Palestinian state on a much larger footprint than the one that was left after Israel’s war of independence. It was true in 1967, after Jordan refused Israel’s entreaties not to attack, which resulted in the end of Jordanian rule in the West Bank.

It was true in 2000, when Syria rejected an Israeli offer to return the Golan Heights, which ultimately led to U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty of that territory. It was true later the same year, after Yasir Arafat refused Israel’s offer of a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem, which led to two decades of terrorism, Palestinian civil war, the collapse of the Israeli peace camp and the situation we have now.

It’s in that pattern that the blunt rejection by Palestinian leaders of the Trump plan — the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, denounced it as a “conspiracy deal” — should be seen. Refusal today will almost inevitably lead to getting less tomorrow.

Trump’s game-changing speech of the century Those of us who trusted Trump not to pull such a stunt – since nothing in his behavior indicated he would – were not worried about the contents or upshot of the deal. Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trumps-game-changing-speech-of-the-century-616005

US President Donald Trump’s speech on Tuesday in which he outlined the “Deal of the Century” that has been three years in the making, was nothing short of Earth-shattering. The fact that Israelis across the political spectrum have been arguing over the proposal – called “Peace to Prosperity” – is thus as understandable as it was inevitable.

Unfortunately, however, much of the debate has been focused on the details and viability of the plan, rather than on the significance of how Trump presented it, and why his words were revolutionary. In an effort to downplay the momentousness of the event, his left-wing detractors ridiculed his mispronunciation of “al-Aqsa Mosque” and “United Arab Emirates” with memes and tweets.These are the same haters who have been accusing Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of conspiring to bolster each other’s chances of electoral success, the former in November and the latter on March 2.

These are the Israelis with the moral and occasional financial support of their counterparts abroad who blame the Jewish state for the plight and antisemitism of the Palestinians. Luckily, such people are in the minority, albeit a vocal one.

The majority of the populace came to realize long ago that the “land for peace” formula is nothing but a recipe for an escalation of the ongoing war against the very Jews begging to resolve the conflict through self-flagellation and appeasement.

Richard Baehr on Impeachment and Politics

There was never any chance that the Senate was going to convict Donald Trump.  In the House, the Democrats could not persuade a single  Republican and lost a few of their own members on the impeachment vote. What chance was there to persuade 20 Republican Senators, even assuming the Democrats could get all of their own 47 Senators to convict (which may not happen)? The entire process from start to finish was theater- designed by the Democrats to weaken Trump before the November election, and force some Republican Senators in competitive races,  to cast difficult votes (Collins, Gardner, Tillis, McSally, Ernst, among others). The case itself was the weakest presidential impeachment case ever considered in Congress.

The Democrats, buoyed by the 2018 midterm results, and two governors elections and the Virginia legislative elections in 2019, were confident that 2020 was going to be their year- win the White House, take control of the Senate, hold the House, and win control of  a bunch of state legislatures so as to manage redistricting after the census results were announced.  It is still over 9 months before the November elections, and anyone who thinks that the results are already baked in, is kidding himself or herself. Even Nate Silver says it is hazardous to predict the Iowa caucus results, which have been heavily polled, and are only 4 days away.  One state legislative race  in Texas was seen as a  possible harbinger of how Texas was changing, a state critical to the fortunes of the GOP, and whether Democratic electoral momentum in the suburbs was continuing.  Democrats spent a bunch of  money on the race,  and had a lot of big name surrogates campaign, and the results were to put it mildly, disappointing . In an open seat race, the GOP candidate won by a much bigger margin than Ted Cruz, who carried the district in 2018, or Trump, who won it in 2016.

https://pjmedia.com/election/bellwether-to-blowout-texas-house-district-gets-redder-to-lead-off-2020-elections/

Nate Silver on Iowa: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-happen/

The Democrats’ dirty secret? They don’t want witnesses Getting John Bolton to testify might only prolong their political misery Charles Lipson

https://spectator.us/democrats-dirty-secret-dont-want-witnesses/

The Senate leaders have stated their positions clearly and constantly. Chuck Schumer, who leads the Democratic minority, is demanding that John Bolton testify.

Mitch McConnell, who leads the Republicans’ narrow majority, responds that the Senate already has enough evidence to vote. If more was needed, the House should have gotten it when it had the chance. Anyway, the House managers have repeatedly boasted they have ‘overwhelming evidence’. The president’s lawyers add that, if any witnesses are called, they want to call some, too.

They want to hear from former Vice President Biden, his son Hunter, the whistleblower whose complaint started the impeachment, and Rep. Schiff and his staff, who apparently worked with the whistleblower. That’s really a threat, meant to deter the Democrats in two ways. A parade of witnesses would prolong the trial. It would introduce new evidence that might damage the House managers’ case and perhaps to Schiff and Biden personally.

Those are the declared positions. What about the political calculations below the surface? Actually, neither side wants witnesses. The Republicans say so openly. The Democrats cannot. It’s not just that they have been clamoring to hear from John Bolton and other Trump aides. It’s not just because their base wants satisfaction. It’s because their best political move now is to blame Trump’s near-certain acquittal on a ‘Republican cover-up’.