Delays in Results of Iowa Caucuses...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/us/politics/iowa-caucus-app.html

Delays in Results of Iowa Caucuses Frustrate Campaigns

By Nick Corasaniti and Sheera Frenkel

Updated 11:30 p.m. ET

DES MOINES — Results from the Iowa caucuses were significantly delayed on Monday night, with campaigns expressing frustration at the lack of results and the state Democratic Party admitting that it was experiencing delays because of “quality control” checks on the data. The party is also releasing three new sets of data as part of the results, instead of the final delegate count, which could contribute to the wait times.

Around 10:30 p.m. Eastern time, the state party called a representative from each campaign to come to its headquarters, where the party would update them on the delays.

A spokeswoman for the state party said about 25 percent of the results had been reported as of about 11 p.m.

“We have experienced a delay in the results due to quality checks and the fact that the IDP is reporting out three data sets for the first time,” said Mandy McClure, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Democratic Party. She added that “early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016.”

Reports from multiple county chairs said that they were struggling to use a new app that was commissioned to tabulate and report results, and were experiencing hold delays of up to an hour when calling into a phone hotline the party has used for decades.

The Floyd County chair said that he had three precincts completely unable to report results, trying both the app and the hotline. The caucus secretary for a precinct in Story County said he had been on hold for over an hour to report the results.

Earlier on Monday, reports that Iowa precinct chairs were struggling to use the app fueled conspiracy theories on social media and raised questions about how smoothly the high-stakes nominating contest would unfold.

Hours before the beginning of the contest, the headquarters of the Iowa Democratic Party received multiple calls from precinct chairs around the state reporting problems with the app.

The state party said at the time that nearly all of the calls were related to user-error problems, such as precincts in areas with bad cellphone service having problems downloading or logging into the app, or others simply asking about the app’s functionality. The party said then that it would not ultimately affect the reporting of results.

Yet those issues appeared to trigger speculation on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms that the app had been hacked, or that it was malfunctioning in a way that would benefit a certain candidate.

“One of the risks of introducing apps like this, and new technology more generally, into elections, is that problems occur, as they inevitably do,” said Matt Blaze, a professor of computer science and law at Georgetown University who studies election security. He added that while the problems could be malicious or just technical glitches, they added fuel to speculation that elections were not secure. “People might see this as evidence that the whole system is rigged and not vote at all. And that is the most tragic outcome.”

The rapid escalation of rumors and confusion across social media represents an early test for a Democratic Party still grappling with the effects of disinformation in elections as the party enters a critical stage of the 2020 primary race. Though the Democratic National Committee has devoted resources and has hired outside experts to help combat disinformation ahead of the 2020 election, multiple recent elections, including the Kentucky governor’s race in November, have been targeted by malicious campaigns.

Before the Iowa caucuses, officials at the D.N.C. and outside experts both cited disinformation as the greatest threat to the security of the caucuses. In the months leading up to caucus day, the D.N.C. held biweekly trainings and sessions with state officials on combating disinformation. This week, the national party sent multiple security officials to Iowa to monitor the threat.

Earlier on Monday, state party officials had emphasized that there would be no delays with results because of reported problems with the app.

“The I.D.P. is working with any precinct chairs who want to use the optional tabulation application to make sure they are comfortable with it,” Ms. McClure, the Iowa Democratic Party spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We’ve always been aware that many precinct chairs prefer to call in results via a secure hotline, and have systems in place so they can do so.”

Though a mobile app was used in the 2016 caucuses, the state party chose a new vendor and app for 2020 to submit results electronically. For months, the party has been holding in-person training sessions around the state to help precinct chairs get comfortable with the app.

But the Iowa Democratic Party, knowing that some of its precinct chairs have been running caucus locations for years based on a pen-and-paper system, kept open other lines for reporting, including the same phone-based hotline that has been used for years. The party also introduced a new preference card system for the caucuses that would create a rough paper trail.

The new app was designed to improve the speed and efficiency of reporting election results, and was tested by law enforcement and security officials. But details of the app, including the type of security it uses, its basic structure and even its name, were a closely held secret by Democratic officials, leading to rumors and confusion over how, exactly, the app functioned.

“The idea of keeping an app — particularly one that is going to be used by thousands of people at a public event — secret is really a fool’s errand,” Mr. Blaze said.

Serious attackers, Mr. Blaze said, would have no trouble finding or identifying an app that had been deployed to so large a group. Secrecy, he added, only prevented cybersecurity experts and outside parties who could help Democratic officials by scrutinizing the app and offering guidance on how to secure it.

Doubts over the app on social media began to surface last week, when news reports revealed that the app had been shared with precincts across Iowa. With little other information to go on, some candidates’ supporters began circulating rumors on Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms falsely claiming that the app was a ruse to allow the Democratic Party to secretly boost its candidate of choice.

Tweets claiming that results from certain districts, or for certain candidates, would be erased from the app were quickly shared, despite being debunked.

Democratic officials have struggled to contain other viral claims of voter fraud in the Iowa caucuses.

A widely disputed tweet and video by the nonprofit conservative group Judicial Watch claimed that eight Iowa counties had more caucusgoers registered to vote than actual caucusgoers in their districts. The tweet and video were dismissed by Paul Pate, the Iowa secretary of state, who posted a link to the county-by-county voter registration guide.

“They are updated monthly and available online for everyone to see,” he wrote on Twitter.

Facebook said it would not remove the video, but referred it to fact checkers. Neither Twitter nor YouTube responded to a request for comment, but as of Monday evening the video was available on all three social media platforms and had been viewed tens of thousands of times.

Social media companies have largely taken the position that they will only remove content that tries to suppress voters, such as by giving a false date or location for voting.

On the ground in Iowa, state party officials were using Twitter and other social channels to call attention to potential disinformation and to ask the public for help in identifying it.

“Reminder to folks on caucus day: if you see ANY misleading information, we want to know about it,” Kevin Geiken, the executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party, wrote on Twitter. “Email disinfo@iowademocrats.org or reply to this thread and we’ll investigate ASAP!”

Nick Corasaniti reported from Des Moines, and Sheera Frenkel from San Francisco.

Rush Limbaugh announces he has 'advanced lung cancer'

 Article by Brian Flood of "Fox News":

Talk radio king Rush Limbaugh stunned his 20-million member audience Monday with the announcement he's been diagnosed with "advanced lung cancer." The 69-year-old conservative talk pioneer closed his broadcast with the grim news, saying he will be leaving his golden EIB microphone for treatment, but hopes to return later this week.

“This day has been one of the most difficult days in recent memory, for me, because I’ve known this moment was coming,” Limbaugh said. “I’m sure that you all know by now that I really don’t like talking about myself and I don’t like making things about me… one thing that I know, that has happened over the 31-plus years of this program is that there has been an incredible bond that had developed between all of you and me.”

The conservative radio icon then told his audience that his job has provided him with the “greatness satisfaction and happiness” of his life.

“So, I have to tell you something today that I wish I didn’t have to tell you. It’s a struggle for me because I had to inform my staff earlier today,” he said. “I can’t help but feel that I’m letting everybody down. The upshot is that I have been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.” 

Limbaugh told listeners that the disease will keep him off the air on certain days when he receives treatment. He said the diagnosis has been confirmed by two medical institutions since he first realized something was wrong on January 12 when he experienced shortness of breath.

“I thought about not telling anybody,” he said. “It is what it is. You know me, I’m the mayor of Realville. This has happened and my intention is to come here every day I can, and do this program as normally and competently and expertly as I do each and every day because that is the source of my greatest satisfaction professionally, personally.”

“I told the staff today that I have a deeply personal relationship with God that I do not proselytize about, but I do, and I have been working that relationship tremendously,” he said. "I am, at the moment, experiencing zero symptoms."

Radio personality Rush Limbaugh introduces President Donald Trump at the start of a campaign rally Monday, Nov. 5, 2018, in Cape Girardeau, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Limbaugh said he will undergo further testing and plans to “push ahead and keep everything as normal” as he can.

“I felt that I had to tell you because that’s the kind of relationship that I feel like I have with those of you in this audience,” he said. “Over the years, a lot of people have been very nice, telling me how much this program has meant to them but, whatever that is, it pales in comparison to what you all have meant to me.”

The radio veteran -- widely considered one of the most powerful voices in conservative media -- said he “can’t describe” the feeling but he’s aware his audience understands him.

“The rest of the world may not,” Limbaugh said. “But I know that you do.”


Limbaugh called his listeners one of “the greatest sources of confidence” that he’s ever had in his life.

“I hope I will be talking about this as little as necessary in the coming days, but we’ve got a great bunch of doctors, a great team assembled, we’re at full speed ahead on this,” Limbaugh said. “It’s just now a matter of implementing what we are going to be told later this week.”

He said he “hopes” to be back on Thursday.

“If not, it’ll be as soon as I can,” Limbaugh said. “Every day I’m not here, I’ll be thinking of you and missing you.”

Limbaugh’s name began trending on social media within minutes of shocking announcement as countless users offered thoughts and prayers.“The Rush Limbaugh Show” reaches up to 27 million people per week on more than 600 stations, according to his website.

Limbaugh began the “The Rush Limbaugh Show” in 1988 and has since earned a variety of awards and honors. He is a five-time winner of the National Association of Broadcasters Marconi Award for “Excellence in Syndicated and Network Broadcasting,” a No. 1 New York Times bestselling author, a member of the Radio Hall of Face, National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame, was named one of Barbara Walters’ 10 Most Fascinating People in 2008, and one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009.

Limbaugh has been named to Forbes Magazine’s 50 Most Powerful Celebrities in the United States list, received the William F. Buckley, Jr. Award for media excellence, was named CPAC’s “Defender of the Constitution Award” in 2009 and was invited to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House by President George H. W. Bush.

He was also an honorary member of the House of Representatives Republican freshman class of 1995.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rush-limbaugh-advanced-lung-cancer

Trump Iowa goal: Win general election while Democrats struggle through caucuses

Byron York analysis at Washington Examiner

DES MOINES -- In February 1984, President Ronald Reagan, assured of his party's nomination for re-election, nevertheless decided to fly to Iowa to hold two rallies, one in Waterloo and the other here in Des Moines, on the day Democrats held their presidential caucuses.

Reagan's move frustrated Democratic leaders. The state party chairman called the visit a "stunt" and "not worthy of a president." Another Democrat, speaking anonymously to the New York Times, said, "Let's face it: Reagan's media event will clobber our media event."

Fast forward more than three decades. Last summer, Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, had a conversation with President Trump. "I reminded him that Ronald Reagan was in a very similar situation that he was -- an incumbent president who came to the Iowa caucuses and made a huge splash," Kaufmann told me. "It drove the Democrats nuts."

Kaufmann doesn't take sole credit for the idea; others may have suggested it, too. But the bottom line is that last Thursday, as the Democratic caucus campaign reached its peak, Air Force One flew into Iowa for a presidential rally at Drake University's Knapp Center in Des Moines. More than 7,000 people filled the center to capacity, with perhaps another 1,000 outside watching on a giant screen. 

The president used the opportunity to mock his Democratic challengers, from Joe Biden to Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren to Pete Buttigieg. "We're beating them all," he said. Like Reagan so many years before, he was messing with his opponents at a critical time.

But Trump was doing more than that. His visit was part of a carefully-planned campaign during the Iowa caucuses that focuses not on the caucuses but on the general election. Trump's campaign team knows well that Barack Obama won Iowa twice, in 2008 and 2012. Trump took it away from Democrats in 2016, and he will need to do it again in 2020.

So in addition to the visit, Trump is sending an A-list of his most prominent and reliable surrogates to spread across the state to speak at Monday's night's Republican caucuses. More than 80 of them, in fact, from the Trump family and the administration: Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Kimberly Guilfoyle, campaign manager Brad Parscale, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Housing Secretary Ben Carson, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, GOP Representatives Steve Scalise, Kevin Brady, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Mark Meadows, Elise Stefanik, Matt Gaetz, conservative leaders Ken Blackwell, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, Jr., and a long list of Iowa state officials. And don't forget Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy.

Trump is also ramping up his already-formidable social media presence around the caucuses. And then there are the phone calls, text messaging, and online advertising. In all, it will be a serious and unprecedented effort. In a similar situation in 2004, incumbent President George W. Bush did not do much in Iowa. The same for incumbent President Obama in 2012. But Trump is diving in.

"Monday's Iowa Republican caucuses will be the first time anyone in America will be able to express their preference for Donald Trump as president," said a senior campaign aide in a recent conversation. "This is a flexing of organizational muscles. The GOP caucuses are going to take place, so why not take the opportunity to make a show of force?"

Trump is not making the effort because he is afraid of his two hapless Republican challengers, former Rep. Joe Walsh and former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. Both are in Iowa seeking GOP support, but both are up against the wall of Trump's popularity among Iowa Republicans. And they face an unsolvable problem: they are too anti-Trump for Republicans, and too Republican for Democrats. So they appeal to very few voters.

Still, Trump has something to prove. Given his success in the 2016 GOP race, it is easy to forget that he started out by losing the Iowa caucuses to Ted Cruz. So he wants to make up for that. But more importantly, he wants to cement Iowans' support for his re-election. Plus, he wants to take advantage of the increased intensity of support among Republicans who believe Trump has been treated unfairly by Democrats in Washington. 

"It's a powerful one-two punch at a time when people think he's being treated unfairly with impeachment," said Jeff Kaufmann. "I think it's a knockout punch, to be honest with you."

A knockout punch in Iowa, that is. And if that is indeed the case, Trump will again capture the state's six electoral votes, which could be critical if the race is closer than 2016. So he is campaigning in Iowa in February, even with no threat in the caucuses.

The Trump effort is not a secret; after all, a presidential visit is not exactly under the radar. But the Democratic race is understandably receiving nearly all of the media coverage. So Trump has been able to make a major effort for the general election with very little controversy even as his Democratic rivals struggle to make it through their party's caucuses. The goal: Have a key swing state in the bag before Democrats even choose their candidate.

Why Do Democrats Not Trust...?

Kevin McCullough writing for Townhall

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and

do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

Why Do Democrats Not Trust 

(Even Their Own) 

Voters?

Source: AP Photo/Cheryl Senter

Why do Democrats mistrust voters?

Note that there exists zero doubt that they do.

But why?

After spending the better part of four years attempting to undo what the voters in 30 of 50 states clearly wished, they are back at it again attempting to taint and corrupt even their own party’s primary process to create an outcome they believe would be better.

But “who” is the “they” we refer to? And who pulls the trigger on such things?

When Democrats pursued “Russia collusion” they did so with a foundation of “evidence” that was debunked nearly as quickly as it was assembled. Yet someone believed it would be great to spend the better part of three years attempting to con the American people.

Not satisfied with that embarrassment someone else began running with the impeachment meme. But doing so on an even flimsier foundation. Thankfully that partisan sham of a process is exiting stage left.

For some reason, some people somewhere believed that instead of running against the administration with a set of ideas it would be better to merely repudiate the votes of the last election and through trickery attempt surgical removal of a president who was legally and overwhelmingly elected.

The vote of the people—in essence—means nothing to them.

This weekend the Bernie Sanders campaign got a second dose of these tactics.

Late Friday the Democratic National Committee waived a requirement for the upcoming debates. No longer does the candidate need to meet both a voter poll threshold and have a predetermined number of donors to qualify to participate. Sanders, Biden, and Warren have all met the thresholds.

Mike Bloomberg has not. Even if he meets the poll numbers before the Nevada cut off he still would not have come close to meeting the number-of-donors requirement. This is largely due to the fact that he is his own donor. He’s proven this by already blowing through more cash in just a handful of weeks on the campaign trail than President Trump spent for all of the campaign (both primary and general elections) of 2016.

But Mike Bloomberg (hopes somebody) might be the moderate candidacy that somebody believes can win the general election in the fall.

These somebodies believe they know better than the voters in their own primary. They cheated Bernie Sanders in 2016, and they have launched a new effort to cheat him in 2020.

In another development, over the weekend a story appeared in Politico that intimated that even if Sanders got to the convention with the votes needed, that there is already a move afoot to change procedures and rules there to stop him.

Similar to blind #NeverTrumpers that refuse to see what the president has done to keep his base intact (and is currently constantly welcoming new voters to the cause), these smug elitists in Democratic circles seem to believe they know what the voters want more than the voters themselves.

No one should really be shocked that such a band of disreputables would be caught trying to stab Bernie Sanders in the back.

The supposedly “neutral” Democratic pundits on television this week turned noticeably anti-Bernie as his poll numbers in five of the first six states have him ahead or tied.

The Democratic Party is fast chasing down anything and everything they can to bring him down, which I suppose is their prerogative.

If they wish to be the party that ignores the rights and voices of the voters it’s best to let the whole world see it. That they are still obsessed with taking the votes of 2016 away from the winner offers a glimpse. That they are ready to sacrifice their frontrunner by changing the rules in such a profoundly dishonest way should send a message to the people they are pleading with to support them.

Because for them it’s never been about trusting the will of the people to decide our nation’s future. Nope. For the left, the gaining of control is the most important priority.

To be in power, and to use that power to punish those who disagree with them, is their obsession.

They’ve tried every dishonest means in the book to wield this obsession against the president.

And now they willingly seek to massacre their own candidates and supporters in their crazed manic attempts to do so.

Contrast that with the claim of “promises made, promises kept.”

That contrast is the genuine choice this November and it is vital that we the people choose wisely!

Steve Bannon Discusses “The Crime of the Century” - the “Soft Coup”

Steve Bannon appears with Maria Bartiromo to discuss ongoing political events.  At the beginning of the interview Bannon focuses exactly on the issue that is paramount to the American population but is being avoided by politicians like Senator Lindsey Graham and institutional leaders like AG Bill Barr.

Until there is a process to bring a formal reckoning, sunlight upon the entire enterprise, there will be unending attacks by resistance operatives within the administrative state.

Steve Bannon also highlights the plan of the administrative state to diminish the successful accomplishments of President Trump and weaponize the Senate floor speeches to cast a cloud on the State of the Union speech. Indeed, Mitch McConnell has set up the schedule for maximum damage before acquittal.  Good Interview- Multiple Aspects:

John Kerry Concerned As Joe Biden Plummets

...Both had sons cash in on China & Ukraine

sundance at cth

Stuff happening fast now… 

This is all a response to surging Bernie and a failed coup.

Chris Heinz and Hunter Biden were friends in business together, each cashing-in on the influence held by their fathers’ John Kerry and Joe Biden.   Considering the likelihood Joe Biden was only running for President in order to: (1) shield himself from scrutiny, and (2) establish the cornerstone of the impeachment effort; it makes complete sense for John Kerry to be the participating campaign handler.

With Biden’s impeachment usefulness now exhausted by DC engineers, there’s no reason to prop-up his candidacy.  He’s dropping like a proverbial rock.  However the risk to Biden and Kerry still exists (see Lindsey Graham interview today), thus Kerry is anxious.  The schemes are running head-first into the reality of the primary election:

DES MOINES, Iowa — Former Secretary of State John Kerry — one of Joe Biden’s highest-profile endorsers — was overheard Sunday on the phone at a Des Moines hotel explaining what he would have to do to enter the presidential race amid “the possibility of Bernie Sanders taking down the Democratic Party — down whole.”

Sitting in the lobby restaurant of the Renaissance Savery hotel, Kerry was overheard by an NBC News analyst saying “maybe I’m f—ing deluding myself here” and explaining that in order to run, he’d have to step down from the board of Bank of America and give up his ability to make paid speeches. Kerry said donors like venture capitalist Doug Hickey would have to “raise a couple of million,” adding that such donors “now have the reality of Bernie.” (read more)

John Kerry tweeted then deleted:

Today in Iowa – Biden Rally – infamous Hillary Clinton operative Lanny Davis appears:

Dershowitz: "troubling is not the criteria for impeachment"

Zack Budryk writing at The Hill

Dershowitz: 

'Any citizen' would find Ukraine quid pro quo 'troubling if it were proved'

02/02/20

Alan Dershowitz, a member of President Trump’s defense team in his Senate impeachment trial, said Sunday that the president tying military aid to Ukraine to investigations of his rivals would be “troubling if it were proved” but that “troubling is not the criteria for impeachment.”

“On Election Day, as a citizen, I will allow that to enter into my decision,” Dershowitz said when asked by Fox News’s Chris Wallace if he would find the alleged quid pro quo at the center of the impeachment fight “troubling.”

Pressed by Wallace on whether he personally would be troubled, Dershowitz responded, “Of course any citizen would find that troubling if it were proved. Troubling is not the criteria for impeachment. ... According to [House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam] Schiff [D-Calif.], unless you do the right thing, you’re impeachable.”

“If a president linked aid to an ally to personal benefit that was not in the public interest, that would be wrong," he added. "That would be a reason for him not to vote for him.”

“You seem to be saying that what Donald Trump did was wrong and troubling but it wasn’t impeachable,” Wallace countered.

“No, what you said is if a president did it solely for his own interest” Dershowitz began before Wallace responded, “I never used the word solely.”

“I’m using it,” Dershowitz replied, using the example of the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, saying that while former Vice President Joe Biden was following official U.S. policy when he pushed for the firing, he also may have considered its benefit to his son Hunter Biden “in the back of his mind.” 

Dershowitz has spent much of the past week defending an argument he made Wednesday from the Senate floor that actions a president takes to win reelection are not impeachable as long as they haven't committed a criminal act and believe their election is in the public interest. The following day, defending his argument, he said a president's conduct is not impeachable if he has at least a “mixed motive” that is focused both on political gain and the national interest.

The theory was slammed by Democrats and several legal experts, but Dershowitz has since insisted the media and Democrats "willfully distorted" his words. 

“They characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his reelection was in the national interest, he can do anything,” Dershowitz, an opinion contributor to The Hill, said on Twitter Thursday.

“I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest,” he added.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/01/chief-justice-roberts-is-right-an-unelected-official-should-not-break-ties/?

Chief Justice Roberts Is Right: 

An Unelected Official Should Not Cast Tie-Breaking Votes

Roberts’ unwillingness to interfere in the proceedings of the trial will undoubtedly infuriate the left, but despite the hysteria, he's absolutely correct.

Erielle Davidson

On Friday evening, Chief Justice John Roberts announced that should a tie arise during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, he would not step in to break it. 

Given the near-even split of the Senate along party lines, Roberts’ comments put an end to the extensive speculation that had been bubbling around Washington.

Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer prompted Chief Justice Roberts by asking the Justice if he was aware of two instances in which Chief Justice Salmon Chase made tie-breaking votes in the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson’s impeachment was the first in our nation’s history, resulting from frequent clashes between the Republican-controlled Congress and then-President Johnson, who repeatedly vetoed legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves.

Roberts informed Schumer that he was aware of Chief Justice Chase’s voting history, but that he would not be conducting himself in the same manner, should a tie arise.

Chase’s two tie-breaking votes were with regards to a motion to adjourn and a motion to end deliberations. Roberts addressed the significance of these two scenarios by stating, “I do not regard those isolated episodes 150 years ago as sufficient to support a general authority to break ties.”

“If the members of this body, elected by the people and accountable to them, divide equally on a motion, normal rule is that the motion fails. I think it would be inappropriate for me, an unelected official from a different branch of government, to assert the power to change that result so that the motion would succeed,” he explained.

It is true that even if a certain act amounts to “precedent,” as in the case of Johnson’s impeachment, it doesn’t necessarily mean its correct. There are plenty of precedents that are fundamentally wrong and probably should be abandoned, but for a host of reasons, have not been.

At the time Roberts made his above statement, it was unclear as to how Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski would vote on the motion to allow more witnesses. Had she voted in favor of the motion (she ultimately did not), the resulting breakdown of votes would have been 50-50, leaving the possibility open for Chief Justice Roberts to step in and “save” the motion by casting a vote in its favor.

The motion to allow more witnesses ultimately failed early Friday evening by a 49-51 vote, but Roberts’ comments provide a window into what to possibly expect, should another motion garner such a close result. Given the Republican majority in the Senate, Roberts’ unwillingness to interfere in the proceedings of the trial will undoubtedly infuriate the left, but despite the hysteria to which we will all inevitably be subjected, the Chief Justice is absolutely correct.

To the credit of those initially skeptical of Roberts’ comments, the Constitution itself is somewhat vague on the parameters of an impeachment trial. Article I, Section III provides the blueprint, albeit a slim one, of the Chief Justice’s role during an impeachment trial. It reads:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The complication arises from the verb “preside.” In the context of an impeachment trial, what does that precisely entail? Traditionally, when there is a tied vote in the Senate, the vice president would be responsible for breaking that tie as the “President of the Senate.” Clearly, when impeaching the president, it would be uncouth to have the vice president casting such votes, given the warped incentive structure impeachment might present for the vice president.

There has been considerable debate over whether the vice president’s role as “President of the Senate” amounts to a violation of the separation of powers doctrine upon which our Constitution is structured. Thus, Roberts is correct in his unwillingness to invite the same confusion into this impeachment trial, especially given the “sole power” accorded to the Senate with regards to trying all impeachments.

Given the highly contentious nature of this impeachment and the political polarization it has come to represent, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which Roberts’ casting a vote to rescue a motion on behalf of the Democrats would not be seen as partisan or in the very least, “judicial activism.” With a trial of this nature, urging the Supreme Court to put its thumb on the scale should strike all reasonable viewers as yet another attempt by the Democrats to usurp our political processes in order to get the outcome they favor.

When they lost the presidential election in 2016, we heard endless cries from Democrats calling for the destruction of the electoral college. When President Trump began discussing his nominees to the Supreme Court, Democrats started proposing various court-packing scenarios, should a Democrat win in 2020. When Democrats learned that the Supreme Court was considering hearing a case on the Second Amendment, five Democratic Senators sent a shameful legal brief to the Supreme Court, accusing the five Republican appointees of being beholden to big money and GOP overlords.

The Democrats, akin to modern-day Alinskyites, are unconcerned with the process, caring only for what they perceive to be the “correct” outcome. If the parties were reversed in this impeachment trial, I would pen the exact same piece, as the sanctity of our separation of powers doctrine cannot be overstated. For people who have bemoaned this trial as being “unfair,” it’s deeply ironic Democrats are asking for Chief Justice Roberts to perform something that many would regard as a fundamental usurpation of our republic’s values. I commend him wholeheartedly for not doing so.

Erielle is a staff writer at The Federalist and a part-time law student at Georgetown University Law Center. 

CNN Article Says 'Trump Not Expected to Apologize or Admit Wrongdoing After Anticipated Acquittal'

This is NOT SATIRE.

Elizabeth Vaughn reporting for RedState

A CNN writer , “Unlike the last President to be acquitted, don’t expect Trump to apologize or express any contrition for his conduct. Instead, people close to the President say they anticipate he will claim vindication and continue to proclaim his complete and total innocence.”

No, they’re not kidding us.

Apparently, President Clinton told Americans he was “profoundly sorry” for his conduct.

CNN, “sources close to the President say Trump is likely to stick to his insistence that his conduct was “perfect.” One Republican close to Trump said, “I don’t see the President making a big statement one way or another that would indicate anything different than what he’s been saying for many months.”

Let me refresh CNN’s memory. Although impeachment wound up to be a disaster for the Republicans, Clinton had been accused of actual crimes. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Additionally, the House vote to impeach was bipartisan.

The House vote to approve Article I was 228-206. Five Democrats voted to approve and five Republicans voted against. For Article II, it was 221-212.

Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:

On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

1. the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;
2. prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;
3. prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and
4. his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice, alleged in part that:

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

1. … corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
2. … corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
3. … corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
4. … intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
5. … at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
6. … related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
7. … made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

President Trump was not charged with a crime. He was impeached only because the Democrats won the House majority which handed them the opportunity to run roughshod all over the President’s rights. It was not based on a crime, but on the Democrats’ irrational hatred of the man who occupies the White House.

Sorry CNN, there is no reason for the President to apologize. Actually, the Democrats should issue an apology to President Trump and to the American people. Instead, they’ll continue their foolish resistance, providing Americans with a strong incentive to vote Republican in November.

Recording shows Iran knew immediately it had shot down plane: Zelenskiy

February 3, 2020
By Natalia Zinets and Babak Dehghanpisheh
KIEV/DUBAI (Reuters) – A leaked audio recording of an Iranian pilot talking to the control tower in Tehran shows that Iran knew immediately it had shot down a Ukrainian airliner last month, despite denying it for days, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said.
On the recording, played on a Ukrainian television station late on Sunday, the pilot of another plane can be heard saying he saw “the light of a missile” in the sky before Ukrainian International Airways flight 752 crashed in an explosion.
Tehran blamed the Ukrainian authorities for leaking what it described as confidential evidence, and said it would no longer share material with Ukraine from the investigation into the crash.
All 176 people aboard the flight were killed when the plane crashed shortly after takeoff en route from Tehran to Kiev on Jan. 8.
The leaked audio “proves that the Iranian side knew from the start that our plane had been hit by a missile,” Zelenskiy said in a television interview.
“He says that ‘it seems to me that a missile is flying’, he says it in both Persian and English, everything is fixed there,” Zelenskiy said.
After denying blame for three days, Iran acknowledged shooting the plane down, saying it had done so by mistake while under high alert, hours after it had fired at U.S. targets in retaliation for a U.S. strike that killed an Iranian general.

Iran has said it worked as quickly as possible to determine what happened to the plane. The Iranian commander who first acknowledged the plane had been shot down said he informed the authorities on the day of the crash.
Iran has faced pressure from Ukraine and other countries whose citizens were on board the flight to send evidence abroad for international investigations.
The Iranian official in charge of accident investigations at Iran’s Civil Aviation Organization called it a “strange move” by Ukraine to release the confidential recording.
“This action by the Ukrainians led to us not sharing any more evidence with them,” the official, Hassan Rezaifar said, according to the semi-official Mehr news agency.
In the recording, a pilot for Aseman, an Iranian airline, can be heard radioing the control tower that he has seen what he believes is a missile.
“Is this an active area? There’s lights like a missile. Is there anything?” the pilot says.
“Nothing has been reported to us. What’s the light like?” the controller replies. The pilot says: “It’s the light of a missile.”
The control tower can be heard trying and failing to raise the Ukrainian airliner on the radio. The pilot of the Iranian plane then says he has seen “an explosion. In a very big way, we saw it. I really don’t know what it was.”

Ukraine International Airways said in a statement the recording provided “yet more proof that the UIA airplane was shot down with a missile, and there were no restrictions or warnings from dispatchers of any risk to flights of civilian aircraft in the vicinity of the airport.”
Rezaifar, the Iranian aviation official, said in the Mehr report that the Ukraine investigation team, as well as all other foreigners involved in the investigation, have left Iran.

https://www.oann.com/iran-not-sharing-evidence-from-airline-crash-with-ukraine-after-audio-leak-iran-official/

Ginsburg Drops Bomb On Impeachment...

ExplainLife

Ginsburg Drops Bomb On Impeachment – STUNS D.C.

February 2, 2020

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will never be mistaken for a conservative but even she has had enough of the Democrat games.

The 86-year-old justice is an old school liberal. One who believes that both parties should work together to find solutions.

That is a far distance from the modern liberal who believes that everyone must agree with them or be labeled a racist, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist.

The justice was speaking at an LBJ Foundation event on Thursday, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, when she made the stunning statements.

“Yes, that’s true… My hope is that someday there will be patriots on both sides of the aisle who are determined to stop the dysfunction we are now experiencing and will decide that their institutional government should work for the benefit of all of the people,” she said, Fox News reported.

The octogenarian justice was asked what her biggest fear was in the next decade for the United States. One might have thought she would have said President Trump, but that was not her answer.

“That is the fear that this polarization will continue, and my greatest hope is that it will end,” Ginsburg said.

“So you think back to how it was in ’93, the person who was my biggest supporter on the Senate Judiciary Committee was not the then-chairman, although the chairman was certainly in my corner; it was then-Senator Biden.

“But my greatest supporter was Orrin Hatch of Utah. And, Strom Thurmond gave me a supply of Strom Thurmond key chains, which has lasted until last year,” she said.

Thurmond was one of the top senators of his time and a prominent Republican from South Carolina.

The comments from the justice came on the same day that Democrat presidential candidate and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren denigrated the Supreme Court and the chief justice in a question she had him read to the Senate during the impeachment trial.

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?” she had Justice Roberts read.

It was a ridiculous question and a smack in the face to the court, but no one in the media derided her for attacking American institutions.

“It is the most collegial place I have ever worked. One symbol of it is every day before we sit to hear cases, and every day before we confer on cases, we go around the conference room, each justice shakes hands with every other,” Justice Ginsburg said.

“And that’s the way of saying ‘Yes, you circulated a pretty spicy dissent yesterday’ … but we’re all in this together and we know that the institution we serve is ever so much more important than our individual egos. So to make it work, we have to not just tolerate but genuinely appreciate each other,” she said.

Last year she stunned many when she defended President Trump Supreme Court picks, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Neil Siegel , law professor at Duke University, argued that “nominees for the Supreme Court are not chosen primarily anymore for independence, legal ability, personal decency, and I wonder if that’s a loss for all of us.”

“My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals,” Ginsburg responded, defending the Trump picks.

No one is ever going to see Justice Ginsburg as a champion for conservative causes, but with the direction the Democrat Party is headed in there is likely going to be a time where conservatives long for liberals like her again.