2) WSJ editpage has consistently advocated "parliamentary procedure, the rule of law, and national unity." We in fact did it during the hardest time--when too many other institutions abandoned these principles cuz they despised the U.S. electorate's choice for president (Trump)
3) We consistently wrote the truth on the Russia collusion hoax and called out the dangerous abuses of FBI/DOJ; stood for due process during Kavanaugh; scored last year's politicized impeachment process; called for judicial norms.
Imagine how helpful it would be if @JoeBiden were to show some grace, call on Democrats to stand down, practice the healing he keeps preaching. Why won't he?
2) I am struck by the responses to this from those on the left, insisting that Trump must be held "accountable"--no peace, no healing. Impeachment ho! That seems to forget the past three years, how we got here.
3) There are still tens of millions of conservatives still waiting for someone to be held "accountable" for three years of a Russia-collusion hoax--the Democrats' own effort to overturn the 2016 election. And yes, that is still on many, many Americans' minds.
1) It is something to watch Democrats express shock that Republican voters won't just trust the ballot counting. Especially because it was Democrats who set the stage for this lack of trust in the system. Remember . . .
2) It was Hillary/DNC that coopted FBI to try to run out a duly elected president last time. Ds insisted Rs should trust the system (the FBI would NEVER do anything bad!!!) until all the appalling details came out. It was one of the dirtiest political tricks in history.
3) It was Ds who for months prior to Election Day worked overtime to get courts/officials to override legislatures and change/water down election law. They said this was in the name of COVID, even as it was transparently to their political benefit.
1) Lot of folks saying (incorrectly) GOP wants to both "count" and "stop" ballots at same time. Let's be more precise. There are three categories. a) Rs calling to count votes that came in by election day or before, per state law. This is obvious.
2) b) R's calling to halt votes until GOP observers given access to vote counting. No one is suggesting these votes not be counted, only that Rs be allowed to witness the counting. Why not? Transparency is good. Will raise confidence in outcome.
3) c) Rs questioning states that want to count votes that contravene state-law on deadlines, etc. Left claiming this is disenfranchisement, but why? Laws are laws. We are all expected to follow them. And why shud some states get extra ( judicially granted) privileges, not others?
1) I am legitimately interested/confused by this. I checked, and the top number is indeed Wisconsin's active registered voter number as of Nov. 1. The bottom is approx. what has been counted. That is a (not feasible) 89% turnout.
2) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is claiming a 71% state turnout. I'm not sure where it gets this, but that would make more sense, given even populous Milwaukee didn't exceed 83% turnout, and Dane lower. (Do math on what rest of state wud need to bump up state avg to 89)
3) True, Wisconsin has same day voter registration. But to be at 71%, WI would have yesterday needed 900k same-day registrations. ( If I'm doing my math wrong--please tell me. 3,288,771 divided by 4,588,771 equals 71% . 4,588,771 minus 3,684,726 =900k)
1) I'd note a curious double-standard, namely that @Twitter hasn't slapped a warning label on the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story.
2)The word the partisans were searching for was "confirmed." Our editpage column went up first, then the news side story. Both pieces explain that: the China negotiations were real; Hunter was involved; a document suggests a stake was envisioned for Joe; the deal fell through.
3) The only substantive difference: the news side correctly said Joe's name wasn't on official records. Our column correctly said emails/docs existed suggesting a deliberate effort to ensure his name wasn't on official records. We invited Joe to clear up the confusion.
1) On this question of Joe Biden being somehow exonerated on the China deal, how so? WSJ news story correctly notes that his name isn't on documents. But those docs also suggest special care had been taken to make sure his name WASN'T visible.
2) The doc w/proposed equity stakes said Hunter was going to hold 10% for the "big guy." Tony Bobulinski, Hunter's partner, says the big guy is Joe--and Bobulinski presumably told that to the FBI today. Got to wonder why he'd risk a false statement charge if that wasn't true.
3)Note that Hunter's two other partners (Gilliar and Walker)did not respond to WSJ news question about who was "the big guy." A 2017 text from Gilliar warns Bobulinski: "don't mention Joe being involved."
1) @realDonaldTrump should do a virtual debate, but only under this condition: No moderator. The only rule: Trump's camera will be on for two minutes, then Biden's camera will be on for two minutes. Back and forth. 90 minutes.
2) That might prove one of the fairer and more illuminating debates in the history of the silly CPD. No moderator cutting people off or leading with loaded questions. No interruptions. And the format is one that works perfectly in a virtual setting.
3) If CPD is going to throw out the rules at this late stage, let's throw out the moderated format too. Let the American people hear both candidates speak to them and to each other for 90 minutes, equal time, equal footing.
1) There are two ways to think of debates.
a) Did you excite/enthuse base? On this, Trump wins. He was consistent, and made the points that he is running on in this election--law/order; economy; D corruption in terms of FBI investigation/Hunter; handling of virus. #Debates2020
2) Biden didn't help himself with base. Performance was OK, but he was forced several times to distance himself from policies that are baseline progressive demands--Medicare for All, defund police, Green New Deal. Never forget the D party is seriously divided. #Debates2020
3)Then b) Did u persuade anyone not already decided? WSJ recent polls suggests there weren't many persuadable watching this debate. Most have made up minds. Still, on that front, legitimate question if Trump steamroller style won him points with, say, suburban women. #Debate2020
1) BREAKING, per @CBS_Herridge and extraordinary.
So Christopher Steele's main source for the dossier? He was the subject of a nearly two-year long FBI counter-intel investigation (2009-2011), under suspicion of being a Russian spy and a "threat to national security."
2) Early in Obama admin, subsource "reportedly attempted to recruit two individuals connected to an influential foreign policy advisor" to Obama. Said if they got jobs in the administration and access to classified information, he could help them "make a little extra money."
3) FBI says he had previously contact with the Russian Embassy and Russian intelligence officers. Thanks to @paulsperry_ we know the name of this subsource, and that he for a period at this time at Brookings, Democratic think tank.
1) The Johnson-Grassley report raises the many and disturbing conflicts of interests surrounding Hunter's biz dealings while Joe was veep. But it also makes clear that the Democratic nominee is not being straight with the public.
2) Joe Biden last year: "I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings." That's pretty definitive, right? Yet according to testimony from former Obama official Amos Hochstein, he briefed Joe on his concerns about Hunter/Burisma in October 2015... AND
3) "Shortly after his conversation with Vice President Biden, Hunter Biden contacted Hochstein and
asked to meet. According to Hochstein, Hunter became aware of Hochstein’s West Wing conversation with the Vice President, who had mentioned it to Hunter." (Page 17 of report)
1) Hey @jessewegman !
You have two arguments. One, that the vote in NY should equal the vote in Texas. My point—that is not federalism. The question —since each state votes for prez—is do votes in texas equal votes in texas? Or votes in NY equal votes in NY? They do.
2) You argue states should wield power to name electors proportionally. But if winner-takes-all resonates with you nationally, what is wrong with states doing the same? Again, we are a federalist system. States are the voting units. I think people forget this
3) thanks for engaging. It is good to have debate.
Not really, Ivanka. Sometimes pharma companies hit presidents hard because they abandon free-market ideals. Trump’s drug price controls have been an unfortunate exception to good policy.
Us pharma rolls its money into life saving new breakthrough treatments. how about we regulate what every company can charge? Autos. Toasters. Pizza makers. I get drug prices are an emotional issue, but that doesn’t make them immune to free-market forces.
For every person we know who struggles with drug prices, there is another we know who is alive today (or got to stay with us a bit longer) because pharma has produced amazing breakthroughs. That can’t happen without patents and R&D.
2) From the start, the S Intel investigation was an exercise in Burr-Warner pretending to be the last "grown ups" in the room (yay, bipartisan), even as they produced a report that was the least grown-up of any committee in Congress.
3) Leaders like @ChuckGrassley@DevinNunes and @SenRonJohnson dug in, unraveled all-important facts: Clinton's involvement in dossier; Steele leaking; Strzok's bias; Russian disinformation. Burr spent four years under Warner direction, and revealed nothing. As D's hoped.
Oh, the memory hole. WaPo in Dec: Dropout Harris was an "uneven campaigner" engulfed by "internal turmoil" and "unable to provide a clear message." Today: a "vibrant and energetic" campaigner, and "vessel for Democratic hopes." wsj.com/articles/kamal… via @WSJ
The NYT last year as Harris dropped out, describing her "unraveled" campaign and explaining her aides had become “given to gallows humor about just how many slogans and one-liners she has cycled through.”
A SanFran newspaper reporting that Saturday Night Live was mocking her for her “ ‘viral moments’ desperation.”
1) This "all is lost" NYT story is a stunning reminder of how the press keeps moving the goalposts to other planets. The lede says it is finally "dawning" on Americans that the "epidemic is now unstoppable" nytimes.com/2020/07/29/hea…
2)We've failed at "contact tracing"; a vaccine won't arrive in time; doctors are in "shock." How can we have done so "poorly" it asks, with such "wealth and medical talent"? One explanation? : "National hubris and belief in American exceptionalism."
3)Now let's reread CDC's statement from mid-March: "CDC expects that widespread transmission of COVID-19 in the United States will occur. In the coming months, most of the U.S. population will be exposed to this virus."
1) A key question in the Flynn unmaskings is "how" they were done, and whether he was the victim of a sort of "reverse targeting." Remember, we eavesdrop on foreigners, who sometimes talk to Americans. We "mask" the U.S. names to protect U.S. privacy.
2) Intel professionals normally unmask in order to better understand an intel situation. But given huge # of Flynn unmaskings, question is whether FBI/political people were purposely combing transcripts, looking specifically for Flynn conversations, as part of investigation.
3) After all, it wouldn't be that hard to make educated guess that it was Flynn on the line on the basis of who was calling and words in the transcripts--especially during transition.
1) On the substance of the Flynn withdrawal: What separates our FBI from, say--ahem--Russian secret police is the requirement that they articulate the basis of an interview--an alleged crime. They can't just wander in an ask anybody anything.
2) FBI was hot on its Logan Act theory, but never opened an actual investigation on that basis. It instead used an open counterintelligence investigation (in which they'd found nothing on collusion) as its excuse to interview Flynn on completely unrelated points.
3) That's just not legit, and why DOJ now and correctly says that nothing Flynn said in that interview was "material" to the only open investigation--counterintelligence/collusion. DOJ is right to care about this important principle.
1)Here's another important--if largely overlooked--aspect of the new Flynn documents. One new email has former FBI lawyer Lisa Page meditating on how FBI shud deal with its "policy" of giving an admonishment to targets about the penalties of lying to law enforcement
2) She asks if "policy" requires an admonition up front, or only when a subject offers a false statement. She wonders if FBI couldn't skirt the rule by agents just "casually" slipping in the admonishment to Flynn. The clear suggestion is that maybe they can not make a deal of it
3) But let's remember that, in the end, according to Andy McCabe documents, the FBI decided to give NO admonishment whatsoever. Flynn was never warned about lying, and also was discouraged from having lawyer, after the FBI also deliberately set up meeting outside of WH counsel.
1) To really understand how outrageous are these new Flynn docs, you have to add to everything we already know. And key is remembering that the FBI had no REASON to interview Flynn. It already had transcripts of his conversations with Kislyak.
2) The new docs show FBI had already cleared Flynn of ludicrous claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017. But then DOJ cooked up the absurd Logan Act claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law.
3) Again if they thought he violated Logan, all they had to do was prosecute. They had the transcript. Their problem? They knew such ridiculousness would never fly. So how how else to nail Flynn? As the notes show, Logan just became the pretext for interview.
1) Democrats kept holding out these past days for.. (get this) a body that would have subpoena power to investigate all aspects of the Trump pandemic response. Unbelievable. (Impeachment mentality, still...) They didn't get their wish.
2) We instead get a "Congressional Oversight Committee" to review Treasury loans. Check out who will be on the board. The last "member" (E) ought to be fun. With luck, no one will ever agree, and we can forgo this newest exercise in politicized oversight.
3)Adding a caveat here. Am now seeing something in bill that looks very fishy--a body called the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee. Needs a lot more explanation.