thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Apple Responds To Barr’s Criticisms, ‘Rejects’ Suggestion That It’s Not Helping DOJ With Gunman’s iP

Apple Responds To Barr’s Criticisms, ‘Rejects’ Suggestion That It’s Not Helping DOJ With Gunman’s iPhones

Apple is rejecting Attorney General William Barr ’ s assertion that the company is unwilling to provide much assistance to the Justice Department ’ s effort to collect data from the Pensacola gunman ’ s iPhones .
“ We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation , ” Apple noted in a lengthy statement Monday night to the Daily Caller News Foundation .
The company ’ s statement came shortly after Barr suggested in a press conference Monday that Apple has not provided “ substantive assistance ” as investigators searched for materials from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iCloud account .
Alshamrani is a Saudi who killed three sailors during a Dec. 6 , 2019 , shooting in Pensacola , Florida .
( RELATED : AG Barr Pressures Apple , Says Company Needs To Provide Access To Pensacola Gunman ’ s Phones ) Justice Department officials said they need access to Alshamrani ’ s phones to see messages from encrypted apps , noting also that such intelligence might help them determine if Alshamrani was planning attacks with other people .
“ Within hours of the FBI ’ s first request on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety of information associated with the investigation .
From December 7th through the 14th , we received six additional legal requests and in response provided information including iCloud backups , account information and transactional data for multiple accounts , ” the statement added .
Apple said it only learned of a second iPhone after the FBI asked the company on Jan. 6 for additional assistance .
“ It was not until January 8th that we received a subpoena for information related to the second iPhone , which we responded to within hours.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and finding additional options , ” the statement reads .
Apple has a history of going toe-to-toe with the DOJ on privacy issues .
The company defied a court order to help law enforcement search the device of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in a terrorism attack in California in 2015 .
The FBI eventually found another company to bypass the iPhone ’ s encryption , a move that ultimately helped agents piece together the shooter ’ s motives .
Alshamrani , for his part , tried to destroy his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Force bases in Florida .
DOJ has not responded to the DCNF ’ s request for comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Apple is rejecting Attorney General William Barr’s assertion that the company is unwilling to provide much assistance to the Justice Department’s effort to collect data from the Pensacola gunman’s iPhones.
“We reject the characterization that Apple has not provided substantive assistance in the Pensacola investigation,” Apple noted in a lengthy statement Monday night to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The company’s statement came shortly after Barr suggested in a press conference Monday that Apple has not provided “substantive assistance” as investigators searched for materials from Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani’s iCloud account.
Alshamrani is a Saudi who killed three sailors during a Dec. 6, 2019, shooting in Pensacola, Florida. (RELATED: AG Barr Pressures Apple, Says Company Needs To Provide Access To Pensacola Gunman’s Phones)
Justice Department officials said they need access to Alshamrani’s phones to see messages from encrypted apps, noting also that such intelligence might help them determine if Alshamrani was planning attacks with other people.
“Within hours of the FBI’s first request on December 6th, we produced a wide variety of information associated with the investigation. From December 7th through the 14th, we received six additional legal requests and in response provided information including iCloud backups, account information and transactional data for multiple accounts,” the statement added.
Apple said it only learned of a second iPhone after the FBI asked the company on Jan. 6 for additional assistance. “It was not until January 8th that we received a subpoena for information related to the second iPhone, which we responded to within hours.”
Early outreach is critical to accessing information and finding additional options,” the statement reads.
Apple has a history of going toe-to-toe with the DOJ on privacy issues. The company defied a court order to help law enforcement search the device of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in a terrorism attack in California in 2015.
The FBI eventually found another company to bypass the iPhone’s encryption, a move that ultimately helped agents piece together the shooter’s motives. Alshamrani, for his part, tried to destroy his iPhones before opening fire at U.S. Air Force bases in Florida.
DOJ has not responded to the DCNF’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--SURVEY: 53% Of People In Alabama Support The Crimson Tide

A recent survey makes it seem like support for different football teams in Alabama isn ’ t very even .
AL.com reported that a survey from Samford revealed that 53 % of people in the state cheer for the Crimson Tide , 34 % pull for Auburn and 13 % support UAB .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Everybody tries to make you think the Crimson Tide and the Auburn Tigers have pretty even support .
Clearly , that might not be the case at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more fans , but they ’ re pulling down a majority of the fans in the state .
That ’ s a shade surprising .
I absolutely expected it to be more like 51/49 or something more along those lines .
I didn ’ t expect Auburn to be the 30s .
Not a great look for the War Eagle crowd .
As for the 13 % pulling for UAB , is that a joke ?
Who the hell would cheer for UAB while in the same state as Alabama and Auburn ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , that number is a complete joke .
Shout out to Nick Saban ’ s crew for running the state .
It ’ s not even close .

A recent survey makes it seem like support for different football teams in Alabama isn’t very even.
AL.com reported that a survey from Samford revealed that 53% of people in the state cheer for the Crimson Tide, 34% pull for Auburn and 13% support UAB. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Alabama Football (@alabamafbl) on Jan 4, 2020 at 3:32pm PST
Everybody tries to make you think the Crimson Tide and the Auburn Tigers have pretty even support. Clearly, that might not be the case at all.
Alabama doesn’t just have more fans, but they’re pulling down a majority of the fans in the state. That’s a shade surprising.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Alabama Football (@alabamafbl) on Jan 1, 2020 at 1:38pm PST
I absolutely expected it to be more like 51/49 or something more along those lines. I didn’t expect Auburn to be the 30s.
Not a great look for the War Eagle crowd.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Auburn Football (@auburnfootball) on Jan 7, 2020 at 3:51pm PST
As for the 13% pulling for UAB, is that a joke? Who the hell would cheer for UAB while in the same state as Alabama and Auburn?
That makes no sense at all. In fact, that number is a complete joke.
Shout out to Nick Saban’s crew for running the state. It’s not even close.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--OLOWSKI: Iran Targeted Four Embassies — American Fecklessness Isn’t An Option

Iran targeted four embassies in its ongoing war against the United States : the U.S. embassies in Baghdad , Kenya , Tanzania , and even an embassy in Washington , D.C. , belonging to the U.S.-allied government of Saudi Arabia .
Iran ’ s most recent embassy attack occurred over the New Year .
One of Iran ’ s paramilitary forces besieged the U.S. embassy in Baghdad for two days .
This echoed the 2012 embassy attack in Benghazi , where a terrorist-led mob murdered four Americans , including an ambassador .
Before that , Iran ’ s deadliest U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kenya and Tanzania .
There , Iran sponsored al Qaeda — the terrorist group that would eventually commit 9/11 — in two embassy bombings that slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians .
But Iran ’ s boldest embassy attack would have slain Americans in Washington , D.C. Iran targeted the U.S.-allied embassy of Saudi Arabia in a plot to assassinate the ambassador by bombing the restaurant Café Milano , knowing this would massacre 100–150 civilians in the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 , which killed about 3,000 innocents .
Iran ’ s Islamist revolutionaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassies .
Months after overthrowing the monarchy , the Islamic Republic ’ s founding father , Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini , invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 98 people hostage .
He called this “ a revolution bigger than the first revolution.
” President Trump alluded to more such embassy attacks , saying “ I believe it probably would ’ ve been four embassies ” when asked whether Iran has “ large scale attacks planned for other embassies ” besides Baghdad .
Trump can base his belief upon the public record .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies far more often than even these four embassy plots suggest .
The theory that Iran is not planning more of the same is naïve , and bears the burden of proof against Iran ’ s demonstrated record of terrorism .
To be sure , the United States may yet produce more specific evidence of planned or executed terrorist attacks by Iran against the United States and its allies .
Though interesting , such evidence is nonetheless superfluous to the case for American self-defense against Iran .
The United States rightly killed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump simultaneously struck Iranian terrorists Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the leader of the paramilitary force that had attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad the previous day .
It does not matter whether additional Iranian attacks were “ imminent.
” Soleimani already executed a campaign that killed about 600 American soldiers in Iraq and countless civilians around the world .
Terminating this behavior is necessary ; excusing it is reckless .
Politicians and media bleating for more evidence of Iranian terrorism are willfully ignorant of this publicly-available information .
Most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iranian aggression just to score cheap political points against Trump .
They attack Trump for defending the United States .
Yet , when Trump appeared disinclined to respond forcefully against Iranian aggression on prior occasions , these same politicians attacked Trump for showing weakness .
Some even accused Trump of cowardice during the latest embassy attacks only to then accuse him of escalation one day later when he responded with force .
But a targeted strike against enemy combatants without collateral damage is unobjectionable .
Sometimes it appears Trump ’ s political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get drawn into a land war against Iran .
Because this would be deeply unpopular , they could exploit it to the detriment of the president and his party , even though this would jeopardize national security .
It is a strategy from the political opposition playbook used under President George W. Bush during the Iraq war .
Failing that , media and politicians seem happy to settle for a different trick from the Bush era : hyping uncertainties in counterterrorism intelligence to insist the president lacks proof of an “ imminent ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend the country .
Unfortunately , such politicking misleads the public .
It leaves the false impression that America can only defend itself when a terrorist plot is underway and the United States possesses “ smoking gun ” proof of its imminence , scale , and location .
Waiting for a “ smoking gun ” means the bullet has already been fired .
Under this Goldilocks theory of national security , America can only defend itself when the circumstances are just right : acting too soon would be illegal because there is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting after-the-fact would be illegal and “ disproportionate ” for that same reason .
This approach is a fairy tale .
Practically , the United States must tolerate irreducible uncertainty in intelligence gathering and analysis .
Legally , the United States is entitled to respond in self-defense to enemy combatants , regardless of how “ imminent ” their next operation might be .
All that ’ s guaranteed is that enemies exist and the president is obligated to confront them .
Lew Olowski is an attorney and formerly a clerk to Radovan Karadzic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia .
Lew served under Peter Robinson , who is among the world ’ s premiere international criminal trial lawyers litigating war crimes , genocide , and crimes against humanity .
He is a graduate of Georgetown Law School .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller .

Iran targeted four embassies in its ongoing war against the United States: the U.S. embassies in Baghdad, Kenya, Tanzania, and even an embassy in Washington, D.C., belonging to the U.S.-allied government of Saudi Arabia.
Iran’s most recent embassy attack occurred over the New Year. One of Iran’s paramilitary forces besieged the U.S. embassy in Baghdad for two days. This echoed the 2012 embassy attack in Benghazi, where a terrorist-led mob murdered four Americans, including an ambassador.
Before that, Iran’s deadliest U.S. embassy attacks bombed the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. There, Iran sponsored al Qaeda — the terrorist group that would eventually commit 9/11 — in two embassy bombings that slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians.
But Iran’s boldest embassy attack would have slain Americans in Washington, D.C. Iran targeted the U.S.-allied embassy of Saudi Arabia in a plot to assassinate the ambassador by bombing the restaurant Café Milano, knowing this would massacre 100–150 civilians in the worst terrorist attack since 9/11, which killed about 3,000 innocents.
Iran’s Islamist revolutionaries have always taken pride in attacking American embassies. Months after overthrowing the monarchy, the Islamic Republic’s founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took 98 people hostage. He called this “a revolution bigger than the first revolution.”
President Trump alluded to more such embassy attacks, saying “I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies” when asked whether Iran has “large scale attacks planned for other embassies” besides Baghdad.
Trump can base his belief upon the public record. Iran attacks the United States and its allies far more often than even these four embassy plots suggest. The theory that Iran is not planning more of the same is naïve, and bears the burden of proof against Iran’s demonstrated record of terrorism.
To be sure, the United States may yet produce more specific evidence of planned or executed terrorist attacks by Iran against the United States and its allies. Though interesting, such evidence is nonetheless superfluous to the case for American self-defense against Iran.
The United States rightly killed “two birds with one drone” when Trump simultaneously struck Iranian terrorists Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the paramilitary force that had attacked the U.S. embassy in Baghdad the previous day.
It does not matter whether additional Iranian attacks were “imminent.” Soleimani already executed a campaign that killed about 600 American soldiers in Iraq and countless civilians around the world. Terminating this behavior is necessary; excusing it is reckless.
Politicians and media bleating for more evidence of Iranian terrorism are willfully ignorant of this publicly-available information. Most likely, they are exploiting voters’ unawareness of Iranian aggression just to score cheap political points against Trump.
They attack Trump for defending the United States. Yet, when Trump appeared disinclined to respond forcefully against Iranian aggression on prior occasions, these same politicians attacked Trump for showing weakness. Some even accused Trump of cowardice during the latest embassy attacks only to then accuse him of escalation one day later when he responded with force.
But a targeted strike against enemy combatants without collateral damage is unobjectionable.
Sometimes it appears Trump’s political opponents would like the United States to get drawn into a land war against Iran. Because this would be deeply unpopular, they could exploit it to the detriment of the president and his party, even though this would jeopardize national security. It is a strategy from the political opposition playbook used under President George W. Bush during the Iraq war.
Failing that, media and politicians seem happy to settle for a different trick from the Bush era: hyping uncertainties in counterterrorism intelligence to insist the president lacks proof of an “imminent” attack, and therefore cannot forcefully defend the country.
Unfortunately, such politicking misleads the public. It leaves the false impression that America can only defend itself when a terrorist plot is underway and the United States possesses “smoking gun” proof of its imminence, scale, and location. Waiting for a “smoking gun” means the bullet has already been fired.
Under this Goldilocks theory of national security, America can only defend itself when the circumstances are just right: acting too soon would be illegal because there is no proof of an imminent attack, and acting after-the-fact would be illegal and “disproportionate” for that same reason.
This approach is a fairy tale. Practically, the United States must tolerate irreducible uncertainty in intelligence gathering and analysis. Legally, the United States is entitled to respond in self-defense to enemy combatants, regardless of how “imminent” their next operation might be.
All that’s guaranteed is that enemies exist and the president is obligated to confront them.
Lew Olowski is an attorney and formerly a clerk to Radovan Karadzic, president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, at the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Lew served under Peter Robinson, who is among the world’s premiere international criminal trial lawyers litigating war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. He is a graduate of Georgetown Law School.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--House Will Vote Wednesday On Sending Impeachment Articles To Senate

The House will vote Wednesday on whether to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a private caucus meeting Tuesday .
Pelosi added during the meeting that she was “ not prepared to ” name the managers who will prosecute President Donald Trump , Politico reported .
Wednesday ’ s vote will move the impeachment articles to the Senate , name the managers and provide funding for the upcoming trial .
Trump was impeached in the House Dec. 18 on obstruction of Congress and abuse of power .
The impeachment inquiry is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden .
Pelosi announced Friday that she planned to release the articles of impeachment , Politico reported .
They have been held since Dec. 18 .
Around half a dozen House Democrats are reportedly going to serve as impeachment managers , Democratic sources said according to Politico .
( RELATED : Media Gloats After House Votes To Impeach Trump ) Trump has called for the trial to be dismissed and repeatedly called out the impeachment process as a sham .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles to the Senate Wednesday , the trial can begin .

The House will vote Wednesday on whether to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a private caucus meeting Tuesday.
Pelosi added during the meeting that she was “not prepared to” name the managers who will prosecute President Donald Trump, Politico reported. Wednesday’s vote will move the impeachment articles to the Senate, name the managers and provide funding for the upcoming trial.
Trump was impeached in the House Dec. 18 on obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. The impeachment inquiry is related to allegations that he pressured Ukraine to look into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
Pelosi announced Friday that she planned to release the articles of impeachment, Politico reported. They have been held since Dec. 18. Around half a dozen House Democrats are reportedly going to serve as impeachment managers, Democratic sources said according to Politico. (RELATED: Media Gloats After House Votes To Impeach Trump)
Trump has called for the trial to be dismissed and repeatedly called out the impeachment process as a sham. If the House votes to send the impeachment articles to the Senate Wednesday, the trial can begin.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Tickets To The NFC Championship Between The 49ers And Packers Cost As Much As $4,400

Tickets to the NFC championship game between the Packers and 49ers won ’ t come cheap .
As of this moment , the cheapest ticket to the game in San Francisco this Sunday on SeatGeek will run you $ 486 .
The most expensive will cost you about $ 4,400 with fees .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Not cheap at all , my friends .
Not cheap at all .
Shelling out several thousand dollars for every ticket will put a dent in the bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no question about that at all .
These tickets are going to run you a pretty penny .
Having said that , if you have the money , you should probably go to the game .
After all , both of these teams haven ’ t won a Super Bowl in a minute or two .
Even for Packers fans , I was a freshman in college last time they scooped up the Lombardi Trophy .
That was a long time ago .
I ’ m not sure I know anybody going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt it ’ ll be a wild time as the Packers and 49ers battle it out for a trip to the Super Bowl .
For those of you wanting to go , get ready to open up your wallet .

Tickets to the NFC championship game between the Packers and 49ers won’t come cheap.
As of this moment, the cheapest ticket to the game in San Francisco this Sunday on SeatGeek will run you $486. The most expensive will cost you about $4,400 with fees. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Green Bay Packers (@packers) on Jan 13, 2020 at 8:56am PST
Not cheap at all, my friends. Not cheap at all. Shelling out several thousand dollars for every ticket will put a dent in the bank account very quickly.
There’s no question about that at all. These tickets are going to run you a pretty penny.
Having said that, if you have the money, you should probably go to the game. After all, both of these teams haven’t won a Super Bowl in a minute or two.
Even for Packers fans, I was a freshman in college last time they scooped up the Lombardi Trophy. That was a long time ago.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by Green Bay Packers (@packers) on Jan 13, 2020 at 5:36am PST
I’m not sure I know anybody going to the game, but I have no doubt it’ll be a wild time as the Packers and 49ers battle it out for a trip to the Super Bowl.
For those of you wanting to go, get ready to open up your wallet.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Jay Cutler Tends Bar In Awesome Viral Twitter Video

Jay Cutler was bartending in an awesome video making the rounds on Twitter .
In a video posted by Mark Carman , the former Dolphins and Bears star can be seen handing out beers from behind the bar .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Is he the most enthusiast bartender we ’ ve ever seen ?
No , but he ’ s doing it exactly how you ’ d expect .
Give the great video a watch below .
I don ’ t know why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s awesome .
There ’ s never been a guy who seemed like he didn ’ t care about anything more than Jay Cutler does .
That dude has never appeared to give a damn .
He looks like a guy who just rips cigs and throws footballs .
He doesn ’ t do much else .
Yet , that ’ s probably why he has such a cult following .
You couldn ’ t make a guy up like him .
He just exists in his bizarre world .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the enjoyment of somebody about to be waterboarded .
It ’ s too bad he ’ s out of the NFL , but he ’ s still producing fire content .
In a world of want to be heroes , Cutler is the man who really gets the needle move .

Jay Cutler was bartending in an awesome video making the rounds on Twitter.
In a video posted by Mark Carman, the former Dolphins and Bears star can be seen handing out beers from behind the bar. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
Is he the most enthusiast bartender we’ve ever seen? No, but he’s doing it exactly how you’d expect. Give the great video a watch below.
Jay Cutler served up the @DosEquis and provided the lime seamlessly… and picked @LSUfootball… sort of. pic.twitter.com/pp4c7lle4I — Mark Carman (@thecarm) January 13, 2020
I don’t know why I find this so funny, but it’s awesome. There’s never been a guy who seemed like he didn’t care about anything more than Jay Cutler does.
That dude has never appeared to give a damn. He looks like a guy who just rips cigs and throws footballs. He doesn’t do much else.
Yet, that’s probably why he has such a cult following. You couldn’t make a guy up like him. He just exists in his bizarre world.
Now, he’s out here slinging beers with the enjoyment of somebody about to be waterboarded.
It’s too bad he’s out of the NFL, but he’s still producing fire content. In a world of want to be heroes, Cutler is the man who really gets the needle move.
Never change, buddy! Never change.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--REP. RIGGLEMAN: Killing Soleimani Made Us All Safer — Take It From This Veteran

Since President Trump took decisive action to eliminate Gen. Qasem Soleimani , Democrats in Congress have reacted predictably by deriding President Trump .
They attack our president for defending national security simply because they are a one-note band eager to detract from their impeachment charade .
First , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the killing of Soleimani “ provocative and disproportionate.
” Not surprisingly , her echo chamber of supporters followed suit .
The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal , said , “ President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani .
He had no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was concerned that we had simply killed a “ government official ” and conducted an “ assassination.
” I am a former United States Air Force Intelligence Officer who had the privilege of mission planning initial bombing runs into Afghanistan in direct response to 9/11 .
Later in my career , I led an intelligence team in tracking IED technology transfer , tactics , individual units , personnel training and trainer movement for multiple IED types , including explosively formed penetrators ( EFPs ) .
In short , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries who liked to blow up Americans .
The hypocrisy of the Democratic position is easy to see when President Trump ’ s actions are compared with former President Barack Obama .
Obama targeted bad Americans who threatened American lives when he authorized the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki .
Not surprisingly , many of my Democratic Party colleagues had a different view when it was Obama in the Oval Office using unmanned aerial vehicles ( UAV ) against an American terrorist overseas , or the hundreds of other UAVs sent to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Yemen , Afghanistan , Pakistan , Syria and Iraq .
Anyone willing to search the internet can plainly see the hypocrisy of Pelosi and her colleagues .
Pelosi obviously thought that the targeted killing program conducted by the Obama administration was neither provocative nor disproportionate .
The sophistication of the IED training , the advanced tactics , techniques and procedures , as well as the organized approach to securing and storing re-purposed battlefield munitions in Iraq were mostly attributable to Iran ’ s Quds Forces led by Soleimani .
Those who used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Quds Forces .
Soleimani killed Americans and was the leader of proxy forces that killed Americans and allies until Jan. 3 of this year .
Our response was not provocative and disproportionate .
It was “ necessary and proportionate.
” Soleimani was a major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) and , starting in 1998 , commander of the Quds Force .
Quds is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States , Canada , Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and directs unconventional warfare and terror operations for non-state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Lebanon ( Hezbollah ) , Yemen and the West Bank .
Quds also oversees Shia militia operations in multiple countries , including Iraq .
We had compelling evidence that Soleimani was planning an imminent , coordinated attack .
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , killed along with Soleimani , had three primary jobs .
He was Soleimani ’ s primary advisor , deputy chief of the Popular Mobilization Committee ( PMC ) and leader of Kata ’ ib Hezbollah , a Shia Militia Group ( SMG ) .
Why would Soleimani meet with al-Muhandis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could make him the center of the command and control infrastructure for Iranian backed SMGs inside Iraq .
Al-Muhandis planned and participated in the embassy attack , controlled and coordinated proxy forces and had a sordid history of firing missiles at US personnel .
Soleimani was meeting with a known threat and proxy mission planner .
Soleimani wasn ’ t simply a government official .
He was a terror leader with authority over a vast network of terror groups that posed a critical asymmetric threat to the United States and our allies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ still a terrorist .
Warren used the word “ assassination ” in an inflammatory way , suggesting an illegal and immoral action .
This was neither illegal nor immoral but necessary and justifiable .
If like me , Warren has friends and family currently serving , then I hope she wants their safety prioritized over all else , including killing one of the chief architects of IED technology transfer and training that maimed my compatriots serving in Iraq .
The United States must be prepared to fight terrorism with necessary , justifiable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorist on our target list — plain and simple .
And while he may have been a government official , terrorism doesn ’ t wear a distinguishable uniform or play by the same set of rules .
Denver Riggleman ( @ Denver4VA ) has represented Virginia as a Republican in the U.S. House since 2019 .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller .

Since President Trump took decisive action to eliminate Gen. Qasem Soleimani, Democrats in Congress have reacted predictably by deriding President Trump. They attack our president for defending national security simply because they are a one-note band eager to detract from their impeachment charade.
First, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the killing of Soleimani “provocative and disproportionate.” Not surprisingly, her echo chamber of supporters followed suit. The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, said, “President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani. He had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was concerned that we had simply killed a “government official” and conducted an “assassination.”
They are wrong.
I am a former United States Air Force Intelligence Officer who had the privilege of mission planning initial bombing runs into Afghanistan in direct response to 9/11. Later in my career, I led an intelligence team in tracking IED technology transfer, tactics, individual units, personnel training and trainer movement for multiple IED types, including explosively formed penetrators (EFPs).
In short, we targeted bad guys from Iran and other countries who liked to blow up Americans.
The hypocrisy of the Democratic position is easy to see when President Trump’s actions are compared with former President Barack Obama. Obama targeted bad Americans who threatened American lives when he authorized the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki. Not surprisingly, many of my Democratic Party colleagues had a different view when it was Obama in the Oval Office using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) against an American terrorist overseas, or the hundreds of other UAVs sent to kill thousands of people in Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Iraq. Anyone willing to search the internet can plainly see the hypocrisy of Pelosi and her colleagues. Pelosi obviously thought that the targeted killing program conducted by the Obama administration was neither provocative nor disproportionate.
The sophistication of the IED training, the advanced tactics, techniques and procedures, as well as the organized approach to securing and storing re-purposed battlefield munitions in Iraq were mostly attributable to Iran’s Quds Forces led by Soleimani. Those who used deadly IEDs were trained by his Iranian Quds Forces.
Soleimani killed Americans and was the leader of proxy forces that killed Americans and allies until Jan. 3 of this year.
He was a terrorist.
He was a target.
Our response was not provocative and disproportionate. It was “necessary and proportionate.”
Soleimani was a major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and, starting in 1998, commander of the Quds Force. Quds is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and directs unconventional warfare and terror operations for non-state actors, including supporting proxy terror organizations in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen and the West Bank. Quds also oversees Shia militia operations in multiple countries, including Iraq. We had compelling evidence that Soleimani was planning an imminent, coordinated attack.
Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killed along with Soleimani, had three primary jobs. He was Soleimani’s primary advisor, deputy chief of the Popular Mobilization Committee (PMC) and leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah, a Shia Militia Group (SMG). Why would Soleimani meet with al-Muhandis? The multiple hats worn by al-Muhandis could make him the center of the command and control infrastructure for Iranian backed SMGs inside Iraq. Al-Muhandis planned and participated in the embassy attack, controlled and coordinated proxy forces and had a sordid history of firing missiles at US personnel. Soleimani was meeting with a known threat and proxy mission planner.
Soleimani wasn’t simply a government official. He was a terror leader with authority over a vast network of terror groups that posed a critical asymmetric threat to the United States and our allies. A terrorist wearing an official uniform is still a terrorist. Warren used the word “assassination” in an inflammatory way, suggesting an illegal and immoral action. This was neither illegal nor immoral but necessary and justifiable. If like me, Warren has friends and family currently serving, then I hope she wants their safety prioritized over all else, including killing one of the chief architects of IED technology transfer and training that maimed my compatriots serving in Iraq.
The United States must be prepared to fight terrorism with necessary, justifiable, and lawful means. Soleimani was a terrorist on our target list — plain and simple. And while he may have been a government official, terrorism doesn’t wear a distinguishable uniform or play by the same set of rules.
He was a terrorist.
He was a target.
Denver Riggleman (@Denver4VA) has represented Virginia as a Republican in the U.S. House since 2019.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--‘Time For Other States To Step Up’: Texas AG Explains Why The State Isn’t Accepting Refugees

Ken Paxton , the Republican attorney general of Texas , defended his governor ’ s decision to not accept refugees in 2020 , noting that Texas has done more for refugees than any other state .
Paxton , who has served as the top lawyer for Texas since 2015 , appeared on Fox News to discuss GOP Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott ’ s decision to not accept refugees , becoming the first governor in the country to take up President Donald Trump ’ s offer .
Much like the governor ’ s own statement , Paxton argued that Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years than any other state , and it was time for other states to “ step up.
” “ I think the message is pretty simple from the governor .
Since 2010 , in the letter he makes it very clear , we ’ ve allowed more refugees into our state than any other state .
All the time we ’ ve been believing that Congress would fix our immigration problems , secure the borders .
They haven ’ t done that , ” Paxton said Tuesday on “ Fox & Friends.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue that we ’ ve been dealing with lots of immigrants coming in .
And I think the governor is saying , ‘ Hey , one — Congress , fix this .
Two — it ’ s time for other states to step up and help with this .
Texas has been doing their share for a long time , ' ” the attorney general continued .
Trump issued an executive order in 2019 that gave authority to state and local governments over whether they would want to accept refugees .
So far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would keep accepting refugees .
Abbott on Friday became the first governor to announce that he would put a plug on refugee resettlement .
Texas has accepted more refugees than any other state since fiscal year 2010 , and about 10 % of all refugees have been placed in the state , Abbott said .
The Republican governor went on to argue in his public statement that Texas has had “ to deal with the consequences ” of a broken immigration system that Congress has failed to fix .
Paxton concurred , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the “ right thing ” by taking refugees in .
The decision to accept refugees is done on an annual basis and does not necessarily mean the Texas government will permanently ban them .
( RELATED : Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost To Step Down ) “ We have done our share for a long time , and we ’ re going to continue to do our share given the fact that Congress is not reacting to the border crisis , ” the attorney general said .
“ And I am thankful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an issue on the border .
We are still dealing with that every single day in all kinds of ways.
” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, defended his governor’s decision to not accept refugees in 2020, noting that Texas has done more for refugees than any other state.
Paxton, who has served as the top lawyer for Texas since 2015, appeared on Fox News to discuss GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to not accept refugees, becoming the first governor in the country to take up President Donald Trump’s offer. Much like the governor’s own statement, Paxton argued that Texas has taken in more refugees over the years than any other state, and it was time for other states to “step up.”
“I think the message is pretty simple from the governor. Since 2010, in the letter he makes it very clear, we’ve allowed more refugees into our state than any other state. All the time we’ve been believing that Congress would fix our immigration problems, secure the borders. They haven’t done that,” Paxton said Tuesday on “Fox & Friends.”
“So we also have the border issue that we’ve been dealing with lots of immigrants coming in. And I think the governor is saying, ‘Hey, one — Congress, fix this. Two — it’s time for other states to step up and help with this. Texas has been doing their share for a long time,'” the attorney general continued.
Trump issued an executive order in 2019 that gave authority to state and local governments over whether they would want to accept refugees. So far, roughly 40 states have signaled that they would keep accepting refugees. Abbott on Friday became the first governor to announce that he would put a plug on refugee resettlement.
Texas has accepted more refugees than any other state since fiscal year 2010, and about 10% of all refugees have been placed in the state, Abbott said. The Republican governor went on to argue in his public statement that Texas has had “to deal with the consequences” of a broken immigration system that Congress has failed to fix.
Paxton concurred, noting that other, non-border states are doing the “right thing” by taking refugees in. The decision to accept refugees is done on an annual basis and does not necessarily mean the Texas government will permanently ban them. (RELATED: Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost To Step Down)
“We have done our share for a long time, and we’re going to continue to do our share given the fact that Congress is not reacting to the border crisis,” the attorney general said. “And I am thankful that the president is. We still have an issue on the border. We are still dealing with that every single day in all kinds of ways.”
WATCH:
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Antonio Brown Demands A Meeting With The Police After Latest Viral Incident

Disgraced NFL receiver Antonio Brown wants a meeting with the police after a Monday altercation .
Brown posted a video on social media of himself berating the police and the mother of his child when she arrived at his home to pick up the kid .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) You can watch a video of the incident below .
It ’ s absolutely mind-boggling .
Now , AB thinks he deserves a sit down with the police in Hollywood , Florida .
He tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t get it , he ’ s “ going to show their track record of my injustice consistently.
” This guy is such a clown .
He ’ s such an idiot .
He filmed himself berating the police and a woman , and now he thinks he deserves a sit down ?
Give me a break .
This joke stopped being funny about eight months ago .
Honestly , major props to those officers for handling the situation like true pros .
Despite the fact Brown was clearly trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headed the entire time .
It just goes to show that police officers aren ’ t the enemy , and it also shows they have to deal with a lot of very dumb people .
Please , just go away !
Nobody is enjoying this circus anymore from Antonio Brown .
He ’ s just the worst .

Disgraced NFL receiver Antonio Brown wants a meeting with the police after a Monday altercation.
Brown posted a video on social media of himself berating the police and the mother of his child when she arrived at his home to pick up the kid. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
You can watch a video of the incident below. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.
AB lost his damn mind this morning… @AB84 maybe it’s a good idea if he doesn’t come back to the @NFL it looks like he’s been hit upside the head one too many times #BrainBoomin #antoniobrown #losthismind pic.twitter.com/ZIgb9mXIAu — Blog Boy Takes (@BlogBoyTakes) January 13, 2020
Now, AB thinks he deserves a sit down with the police in Hollywood, Florida. He tweeted he wants a meeting, and if he doesn’t get it, he’s “going to show their track record of my injustice consistently.”
Hollywood police and I need a meeting unless I’m going to show their track record of my injustice consistently — AB (@AB84) January 13, 2020
This guy is such a clown. He’s such an idiot. He filmed himself berating the police and a woman, and now he thinks he deserves a sit down?
Give me a break. This joke stopped being funny about eight months ago.
Honestly, major props to those officers for handling the situation like true pros. Despite the fact Brown was clearly trying to bait them, they were level headed the entire time.
It just goes to show that police officers aren’t the enemy, and it also shows they have to deal with a lot of very dumb people.
Please, just go away! Nobody is enjoying this circus anymore from Antonio Brown. He’s just the worst.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Some Iowa Democrats Reportedly Worry Presidential Candidates Are Too Old, Young Or Far Left

As state caucuses near , some Iowa Democrats are reportedly worried that although they have a lot of presidential candidates to choose from , none one of them has the right stuff to win the 2020 election .
Voters are concerned that the candidates are either too old , too inexperienced or too far left to get elected in a general election , The New York Times reported Monday .
The paper conducted a series of interviews at Iowa campaign events that showed Democratic supporters in the state are anything but confident the party is fielding winning candidates , citing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old , former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg as inexperienced and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as too far to the left .
( RELATED : Sanders Surge : Bernie Takes Lead In Closely Watched Iowa Poll ) Democrat Lois Grier told the Times that it ’ s all about winning “ It ’ s important to narrow it in to somebody that can beat Trump , ” she said , adding that she plans to watch the Tuesday night debate in Des Moines to help her make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidates are saying the right things , ” she noted .
“ But are they strong enough ?
” The debate comes as Sanders is catching up to frontrunner Biden , but is in an increasingly acrimonious quarrel with Warren .
The Warren campaign claimed Monday that Sanders had told Warren that he didn ’ t believe a woman could win the presidency .
Sanders vehemently denied making the remark .
( RELATED : The Bernie Sanders Surge Is Definitely Real — Tucker Carlson And Guest Saagar Enjeti Agree ) Buttigieg was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowans ’ voting preferences .
Laura Hubka , the chairwoman of the Howard County Iowa Democrats , told the Times , “ It ’ s a mess .
Everyone is so all over the place .
”

As state caucuses near, some Iowa Democrats are reportedly worried that although they have a lot of presidential candidates to choose from, none one of them has the right stuff to win the 2020 election.
Voters are concerned that the candidates are either too old, too inexperienced or too far left to get elected in a general election, The New York Times reported Monday.
The paper conducted a series of interviews at Iowa campaign events that showed Democratic supporters in the state are anything but confident the party is fielding winning candidates, citing former Vice President Joe Biden as too old, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg as inexperienced and Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as too far to the left. (RELATED: Sanders Surge: Bernie Takes Lead In Closely Watched Iowa Poll)
Democrat Lois Grier told the Times that it’s all about winning
“It’s important to narrow it in to somebody that can beat Trump,” she said, adding that she plans to watch the Tuesday night debate in Des Moines to help her make a selection.
“A lot of the candidates are saying the right things,” she noted. “But are they strong enough?”
The debate comes as Sanders is catching up to frontrunner Biden, but is in an increasingly acrimonious quarrel with Warren. The Warren campaign claimed Monday that Sanders had told Warren that he didn’t believe a woman could win the presidency. Sanders vehemently denied making the remark. (RELATED: The Bernie Sanders Surge Is Definitely Real — Tucker Carlson And Guest Saagar Enjeti Agree)
Buttigieg was scoring impressive numbers in an October poll of Iowans’ voting preferences.
Laura Hubka, the chairwoman of the Howard County Iowa Democrats, told the Times, “It’s a mess. Everyone is so all over the place.”
Only 40% of Democrats likely to vote at state caucuses had made a decision about who to vote for, according to a Des Moines Register poll released earlier in January, and almost half of those said they would change their preference if provided the right reasons for doing so. As the first primary caucus, Iowa’s decision will be largely symbolic but symbolism can mean a lot in politics.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell Accuses CNN Of Bringing On Liars, Supporting Trump

MSNBC host Lawrence O ’ Donnell accused CNN of bringing on people who back President Donald Trump in a podcast Sunday , adding that his network won ’ t “ bring on liars.
” Former Democratic Minnesota Sen. Al Franken spoke with O ’ Donnell on “ The Al Franken Podcast ” and said CNN plays “ it down the middle , except we hate Trump.
” O ’ Donnell disagreed , replying that “ one third of the people on their payroll love Trump.
” “ So you ’ re guaranteed on any hour of CNN to … minimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supportive of Trump — someone on their payroll saying , ‘ Here ’ s why Trump ’ s right , ' ” O ’ Donnell said .
The host of “ The Last Word ” continued on to claim that Trump “ kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC.
” “ Because he knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him , ” O ’ Donnell said .
“ Because we don ’ t bring on liars .
I don ’ t bring on a liar .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then asked O ’ Donnell if defending Trump means “ you have to lie.
” O ’ Donnell said “ absolutely you do ” because that ’ s the only way to “ defend a liar.
” He continued to bash CNN , saying that the network “ has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies ” to the audience .
“ How else do you defend a liar — a pathological liar who lies about everything ?
You have to lie.
” O ’ Donnell said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who they pay to tell their lies to the CNN audience in the middle of a CNN hour for some number of minutes.
” “ And so Trump knows that if you watch CNN , ‘ at least you ’ ll hear someone lying in my favor . '
” ( RELATED : ‘ Are You People Insane ?
’ : CNN ’ s Don Lemon Reacts To Trump Team ’ s Meme ) CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller .

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell accused CNN of bringing on people who back President Donald Trump in a podcast Sunday, adding that his network won’t “bring on liars.”
Former Democratic Minnesota Sen. Al Franken spoke with O’Donnell on “The Al Franken Podcast” and said CNN plays “it down the middle, except we hate Trump.” O’Donnell disagreed, replying that “one third of the people on their payroll love Trump.”
“So you’re guaranteed on any hour of CNN to … minimum one third of the programming will be supportive of Trump — someone on their payroll saying, ‘Here’s why Trump’s right,'” O’Donnell said.
The host of “The Last Word” continued on to claim that Trump “kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC.”
“Because he knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him,” O’Donnell said. “Because we don’t bring on liars. I don’t bring on a liar. I won’t do that.”
Franken then asked O’Donnell if defending Trump means “you have to lie.” O’Donnell said “absolutely you do” because that’s the only way to “defend a liar.” He continued to bash CNN, saying that the network “has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies” to the audience.
“How else do you defend a liar — a pathological liar who lies about everything? You have to lie.” O’Donnell said. “So CNN has people on the payroll who they pay to tell their lies to the CNN audience in the middle of a CNN hour for some number of minutes.”
“And so Trump knows that if you watch CNN, ‘at least you’ll hear someone lying in my favor.'” (RELATED: ‘Are You People Insane?’: CNN’s Don Lemon Reacts To Trump Team’s Meme)
CNN did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Dana White Is Bringing Fired Hero Best Buy Employee To UFC 246 ‘For The Best Weekend’ Of Her ‘Life’

UFC president Dana White is pulling off an awesome move for a fired Best Buy security guard .
Summer Tapasa went super viral when she stopped somebody who was trying to steal from a Best Buy , but it unfortunately cost her the job she had with the company .
While Best Buy might not have been happy with Tapasa ’ s actions , White loved them , and tweeted that he was flying her out to UFC for McGregor/Cerrone .
He added that she was coming to Vegas “ for the best weekend ” of her “ life.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the man .
Best Buy wanted no part of that business , and White offered her a job and a free trip .
If you ’ re not a huge fan of Dana White , then the problem is with you .
It ’ s most certainly not with him !
He ’ s the man !
I hope like hell Summer has a blast of UFC 246 .
It ’ s a monster fight with McGregor and Vegas is a great place .
After being a hero and stopping a thief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say Summer has earned her trip with the UFC .

UFC president Dana White is pulling off an awesome move for a fired Best Buy security guard.
Summer Tapasa went super viral when she stopped somebody who was trying to steal from a Best Buy, but it unfortunately cost her the job she had with the company.
Look @ my MFN SISTER Bitch handled that shit like she played OLINE YEEES YOU FAKA So here a glimpse of what happens if you wanna steal @ BestBuy in Waimalu #TopFlightAP she her Fathers Daughter pic.twitter.com/ePrVSiQ2XM — S H A Y (@xshayts) December 24, 2019
While Best Buy might not have been happy with Tapasa’s actions, White loved them, and tweeted that he was flying her out to UFC for McGregor/Cerrone.
He added that she was coming to Vegas “for the best weekend” of her “life.”
This is Summer. She stopped this punk from getting away with stealing from BestBuy in Hawaii. She got fired for this. Flying her in this weekend and giving her tickets to the McGregor vs Cowboy fight. I WANT HER TO WORK FOR ME! Get ready for the best weekend of your life Summer pic.twitter.com/8yF5FLrlnU — Dana White (@danawhite) January 10, 2020
This right here is why Dana White is the man. Best Buy wanted no part of that business, and White offered her a job and a free trip.
If you’re not a huge fan of Dana White, then the problem is with you. It’s most certainly not with him! He’s the man!
I hope like hell Summer has a blast of UFC 246. It’s a monster fight with McGregor and Vegas is a great place.
After being a hero and stopping a thief, I think it’s safe to say Summer has earned her trip with the UFC.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Tulsi Gabbard Shades Elizabeth Warren In Wake Of Her Claims About Bernie Sanders

Gabbard , who unlike Sanders and Warren failed to qualify for Tuesday ’ s Democratic primary debate in Iowa , tweeted that when she approached Sanders about her intention to run in the 2020 election , he was nothing but supportive .
“ I also met with Bernie Sanders before announcing my candidacy , ” she wrote .
“ We had a nice one-on-one conversation and I informed him that I would be running for President.
” “ In that meeting , he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement , just as he always had.
” CNN published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when Warren approached Sanders about running in 2020 , he told her he didn ’ t think a woman could be elected president .
Sanders and his surrogates vehemently denied the claim after the report surfaced , which was widely criticized for its lack of context .
( RELATED : CNN Cites Four Anonymous Sources With No Direct Knowledge In Order To Call Bernie Sanders Sexist ) “ Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate , ” the statement reads .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreed .
I have no interest in discussing this private meting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry .
”

Democratic Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard poured cold water on Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s sexism allegations against Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Gabbard, who unlike Sanders and Warren failed to qualify for Tuesday’s Democratic primary debate in Iowa, tweeted that when she approached Sanders about her intention to run in the 2020 election, he was nothing but supportive.
I also met with @BernieSanders before announcing my candidacy. We had a nice one-on-one conversation and I informed him that I would be running for President. In that meeting, he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always has. — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 14, 2020
“I also met with Bernie Sanders before announcing my candidacy,” she wrote. “We had a nice one-on-one conversation and I informed him that I would be running for President.”
“In that meeting, he showed me the greatest respect and encouragement, just as he always had.”
CNN published a report Monday citing four anonymous sources claiming that when Warren approached Sanders about running in 2020, he told her he didn’t think a woman could be elected president. Sanders and his surrogates vehemently denied the claim after the report surfaced, which was widely criticized for its lack of context. (RELATED: CNN Cites Four Anonymous Sources With No Direct Knowledge In Order To Call Bernie Sanders Sexist)
Warren released a statement later that evening supporting CNN’s article.
In response to a great deal of questions we’ve had today, below is a statement from Elizabeth Warren: pic.twitter.com/PdBCHJQCJE — Kristen Orthman (@KristenOrthman) January 14, 2020
“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate,” the statement reads. “I though a woman could win; he disagreed. I have no interest in discussing this private meting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry.”


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--AG Barr Reveals Stricter Procedures For Counterintelligence Investigations Of Presidential Campaigns

The attorney general and FBI director will have to approve counterintelligence investigations of future presidential campaigns , Attorney General William Barr said at a press conference Monday .
“ The opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on and the attorney general would have to sign off on , ” Barr told reporters .
Barr announced the policy change in response to a question about a series of reforms that the FBI plans to implement in the wake of an inspector general ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ( FISC ) in order to get warrants to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page .
The report said the FBI withheld information from the FISC that undercut the notion that Page was a Russian agent .
Investigators also failed to tell the FISC about information that raised questions about the reliability of Christopher Steele , a former British spy whose dossier the FBI used in its wiretap applications .
( RELATED : Ex-FBI Official Picked To Oversee FISA Reform Was Ardent Defender Of Surveillance Of Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list of proposed reforms to the FISC on Jan. 10 .
A reporter asked Barr at the press conference whether he will propose other changes to how counterintelligence investigations are conducted .
The head of the FBI ’ s counterintelligence division opened the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , dubbed Crossfire Hurricane , on July 31 , 2016 .
Former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the investigation early on .
The inspector general ’ s report said that Loretta Lynch , who served as attorney general , did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

The attorney general and FBI director will have to approve counterintelligence investigations of future presidential campaigns, Attorney General William Barr said at a press conference Monday.
“The opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on and the attorney general would have to sign off on,” Barr told reporters.
Barr announced the policy change in response to a question about a series of reforms that the FBI plans to implement in the wake of an inspector general’s report that found that the bureau misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in order to get warrants to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
The report said the FBI withheld information from the FISC that undercut the notion that Page was a Russian agent. Investigators also failed to tell the FISC about information that raised questions about the reliability of Christopher Steele, a former British spy whose dossier the FBI used in its wiretap applications. (RELATED: Ex-FBI Official Picked To Oversee FISA Reform Was Ardent Defender Of Surveillance Of Carter Page)
WATCH:
FBI Director Christopher Wray submitted a list of proposed reforms to the FISC on Jan. 10. A reporter asked Barr at the press conference whether he will propose other changes to how counterintelligence investigations are conducted.
The head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division opened the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, on July 31, 2016. Former FBI Director James Comey was briefed on the investigation early on.
The inspector general’s report said that Loretta Lynch, who served as attorney general, did not recall being briefed on the existence of the investigation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--TOENSING: Forget Democracy — The Washington Post Is Killing Integrity In Darkness

Forget “ Democracy dies in darkness.
” The Washington Post editorial board ’ s motto is more aptly “ Damn the facts .
Full speed ahead.
” In seeking to protect former Vice President Joe Biden , the editors have employed double standards and ignored established facts .
The Post never accuses lawyers who represent the so-called White House “ whistleblower ” of getting “ dirt ” on the president .
Significantly , the whistleblower ’ s complaint failed to allege the president committed any criminal conduct .
By contrast , witnesses have provided me with an adequate “ factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , I am maligned as wanting to “ dig up dirt ” on them .
The Post has also given scant coverage to January 2016 Obama White House meetings with Ukrainian embassy officials who allegedly asked for “ dirt ” on the Trump campaign .
One Ukrainian participant , Andrii Telizhenko , reported it was clear during the meetings that the White House “ had an interest in reviving a closed investigation ” of Paul Manafort .
That request was followed a few weeks later by the “ discovery ” in Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleging payments to Manafort .
The paper has also ignored Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly ’ s written response to questions from John Solomon , whose reporting relayed “ DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government ” regarding Manafort .
Such are common tactics employed by those with bias : mischaracterize and ignore .
Even when confronted with the facts , the Post refuses to issue a full correction .
Another recent leading Post editorial claimed , “ Mr .
[ Rudy ] Giuliani dispatched [ Lev ] Parnas and … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dmitry ] Firtash ’ s help in obtaining dirt on Mr. Biden ” by “ urg [ ing ] him to hire ” my firm , diGenova & Toensing .
When informed that Giuliani never dispatched those persons to “ obtain dirt , ” and indeed , did not even know that Firtash had hired the law firm , The Post ’ s editors refused to retract the allegation .
They incredibly responded that its “ editorial doesn ’ t say that Giuliani asked Parnas and Fruman to ask Firtash to hire ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affidavit from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was “ shown to be false.
” Really ?
Shokin stated in a sworn affidavit submitted to an Austrian court that then-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko “ forced ” him out of his position because he “ was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma , ” the Ukrainian energy company that paid the unqualified Hunter Biden over $ 80,000 monthly to be a director .
Shokin averred that Poroshenko told him that Biden was “ refusing to release ” the $ 1 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was gone .
Please resign “ for the good of our country , ” Poroshenko pleaded .
What was the basis for The Post ’ s claim that Shokin ’ s statement was “ proven to be false ” ?
Without naming the witness or quoting him or her , the editors responded by citing “ sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.
” Not one State Department witness who testified to the committee had firsthand knowledge of Shokin ’ s conversation with Poroshenko .
The editors want us to believe that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the situation is more credible than the person who actually experienced the situation .
Shokin ’ s temporary successor , Yuriy Sevruk , also wrote a memo describing his meeting with Burisma ’ s legal team , which occurred only days after Shokin ’ s firing .
They apologized for “ false information ” made by “ U.S .
representatives ” and others about Shokin .
They wanted to settle the case .
Why would Burisma ’ s legal team meet with the prosecutor if there were no ongoing investigation ?
The case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Shokin ’ s March 2016 firing .
The only false allegation the editors were “ willing to work with ” us on was this : “ Firtash was the source of a $ 1 million transfer to the wife of Lev Parnas , who was working closely with Mr. Giuliani on the Biden affair.
” Maybe the willingness stemmed from the fact that The Post had been provided — prior to publishing their editorial — with a statement from Ralph Isenegger , a lawyer for Firtash , that he was the source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a home loan , and that Firtash had no knowledge of it .
Victoria Toensing served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department from 1984-1988 , where she established the department ’ s Terrorism Unit .
She is founding partner of the Washington , D.C. law firm diGenova & Toensing , LLP .
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller .

Forget “Democracy dies in darkness.” The Washington Post editorial board’s motto is more aptly “Damn the facts. Full speed ahead.” In seeking to protect former Vice President Joe Biden, the editors have employed double standards and ignored established facts.
The Post never accuses lawyers who represent the so-called White House “whistleblower” of getting “dirt” on the president. Significantly, the whistleblower’s complaint failed to allege the president committed any criminal conduct. By contrast, witnesses have provided me with an adequate “factual basis” for investigating the Bidens. Yet, I am maligned as wanting to “dig up dirt” on them.
The Post has also given scant coverage to January 2016 Obama White House meetings with Ukrainian embassy officials who allegedly asked for “dirt” on the Trump campaign. One Ukrainian participant, Andrii Telizhenko, reported it was clear during the meetings that the White House “had an interest in reviving a closed investigation” of Paul Manafort. That request was followed a few weeks later by the “discovery” in Ukraine of a black book of questionable origin alleging payments to Manafort.
The paper has also ignored Ukrainian Ambassador Valeriy Chaly’s written response to questions from John Solomon, whose reporting relayed “DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government” regarding Manafort.
Such are common tactics employed by those with bias: mischaracterize and ignore. Even when confronted with the facts, the Post refuses to issue a full correction.
Another recent leading Post editorial claimed, “Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani dispatched [Lev] Parnas and … Igor Fruman to solicit [my client Dmitry] Firtash’s help in obtaining dirt on Mr. Biden” by “urg[ing] him to hire” my firm, diGenova & Toensing.
When informed that Giuliani never dispatched those persons to “obtain dirt,” and indeed, did not even know that Firtash had hired the law firm, The Post’s editors refused to retract the allegation. They incredibly responded that its “editorial doesn’t say that Giuliani asked Parnas and Fruman to ask Firtash to hire” the firm.
Their editorial also claimed an affidavit from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was “shown to be false.” Really? Shokin stated in a sworn affidavit submitted to an Austrian court that then-President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko “forced” him out of his position because he “was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma,” the Ukrainian energy company that paid the unqualified Hunter Biden over $80,000 monthly to be a director.
Shokin averred that Poroshenko told him that Biden was “refusing to release” the $1 billion “promised to Ukraine” unless he was gone. Please resign “for the good of our country,” Poroshenko pleaded.
What was the basis for The Post’s claim that Shokin’s statement was “proven to be false”? Without naming the witness or quoting him or her, the editors responded by citing “sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.”
Not one State Department witness who testified to the committee had firsthand knowledge of Shokin’s conversation with Poroshenko. The editors want us to believe that a person who has no personal knowledge of the situation is more credible than the person who actually experienced the situation.
Shokin’s temporary successor, Yuriy Sevruk, also wrote a memo describing his meeting with Burisma’s legal team, which occurred only days after Shokin’s firing. They apologized for “false information” made by “U.S. representatives” and others about Shokin. They wanted to settle the case. Why would Burisma’s legal team meet with the prosecutor if there were no ongoing investigation? The case was settled in January 2017, long after Shokin’s March 2016 firing.
The only false allegation the editors were “willing to work with” us on was this: “Firtash was the source of a $1 million transfer to the wife of Lev Parnas, who was working closely with Mr. Giuliani on the Biden affair.”
Maybe the willingness stemmed from the fact that The Post had been provided — prior to publishing their editorial — with a statement from Ralph Isenegger, a lawyer for Firtash, that he was the source of the money, which was for a home loan, and that Firtash had no knowledge of it.
Editorial integrity dies in darkness.
Victoria Toensing served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department from 1984-1988, where she established the department’s Terrorism Unit. She is founding partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm diGenova & Toensing, LLP.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--LSU Is The First Team In College Football History To Beat Every Top 4 Team In The AP Preseason Poll

LSU pulled off an incredible accomplishment after beating Clemson for the national title Monday night .
According to ESPN , they ’ re the first team in the history of the sport to beat every single team in the top four of the AP preseason poll .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) The season the Tigers had is nothing short of incredible .
It might honestly be the greatest season in the history of college football .
The gauntlet they had to run on their way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fact they played every team in the top four and beat them all is very impressive .
They didn ’ t just beat some of them .
They dominated Oklahoma and Georgia .
The Sooners and Bulldogs are both elite programs , and the Tigers boat raced both of them .
It was a lot closer against Alabama and Clemson , but they still controlled both games .
Again , what Coach O , Joe Burrow and the Tigers did this past season was incredible .
I have no doubt at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remembered as one of the greatest teams to ever play , and it was a ton of fun watching them .
What an incredible 2019 for everybody in Louisiana .

LSU pulled off an incredible accomplishment after beating Clemson for the national title Monday night.
According to ESPN, they’re the first team in the history of the sport to beat every single team in the top four of the AP preseason poll. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
.@LSUfootball became the first team ever to beat each of the top four teams in the preseason AP poll. 1. Clemson, W 42-25
2. Alabama, W 46-41
3. Georgia, W 37-10
4. Oklahoma, 63-28#SCFacts pic.twitter.com/JQjPMhrJ1i — SportsCenter (@SportsCenter) January 14, 2020
The season the Tigers had is nothing short of incredible. It might honestly be the greatest season in the history of college football.
The gauntlet they had to run on their way to a national title is simply absurd. The fact they played every team in the top four and beat them all is very impressive.
They didn’t just beat some of them. They dominated Oklahoma and Georgia. The Sooners and Bulldogs are both elite programs, and the Tigers boat raced both of them.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by LSU Football (@lsufootball) on Jan 13, 2020 at 10:29pm PST
It was a lot closer against Alabama and Clemson, but they still controlled both games. Again, what Coach O, Joe Burrow and the Tigers did this past season was incredible.
I have no doubt at all that they’ll always be remembered as one of the greatest teams to ever play, and it was a ton of fun watching them.
What an incredible 2019 for everybody in Louisiana.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Watch ESPN Special On Carley McCord Following Her Tragic Death

ESPN released an emotional video prior to LSU ’ s win over Clemson for the national title about Carly McCord , and I can promise it ’ ll pull at your heart .
McCord , who was the daughter-in-law of Tigers OC Steve Ensminger , tragically died on her way to LSU ’ s game against Oklahoma .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Her death shook the college football world , and people from all different fan bases came together to support Ensminger and his family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from ESPN is a straight punch to the gut .
Give it a watch below .
Damn , I ’ d be lying if I said I wasn ’ t a little teary-eyed right now .
Listening to Coach O talk about Ensminger informing him of Carley ’ s death will make any grown man cry .
Imagine being in the LSU OC ’ s shoes .
Your daughter-in-law has died , and you ’ re the one reassuring Orgeron that everything is going to be okay .
I can ’ t imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to have inside of him to do that .
I ’ d like to say I could do the same , but I doubt I could .
McCord ’ s life was cut way too short , and her death will be remembered by the LSU family for decades to come .
The fact Ensminger and the Tigers won the title makes the whole situation that much more emotional .
Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire LSU family during this difficult time .
McCord sounds like she was a wonderful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love her will miss her terribly .

ESPN released an emotional video prior to LSU’s win over Clemson for the national title about Carly McCord, and I can promise it’ll pull at your heart.
McCord, who was the daughter-in-law of Tigers OC Steve Ensminger, tragically died on her way to LSU’s game against Oklahoma. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
Her death shook the college football world, and people from all different fan bases came together to support Ensminger and his family during the terrible time.
The video from ESPN is a straight punch to the gut. Give it a watch below.
As their team plays for a title, the LSU family also mourns. Win or lose, Carley McCord’s spirit lives on. pic.twitter.com/2nSkh5ZzOK — ESPN (@espn) January 14, 2020
Damn, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t a little teary-eyed right now. Listening to Coach O talk about Ensminger informing him of Carley’s death will make any grown man cry.
Imagine being in the LSU OC’s shoes. Your daughter-in-law has died, and you’re the one reassuring Orgeron that everything is going to be okay.
I can’t imagine the amount of strength a man must have to have inside of him to do that. I’d like to say I could do the same, but I doubt I could.
McCord’s life was cut way too short, and her death will be remembered by the LSU family for decades to come.
The fact Ensminger and the Tigers won the title makes the whole situation that much more emotional.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by LSU Football (@lsufootball) on Jan 13, 2020 at 10:03pm PST
Our thoughts and prayers are with the entire LSU family during this difficult time. McCord sounds like she was a wonderful woman, and I know those who love her will miss her terribly.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Houston Quarterback D’Eriq King Enters The Transfer Portal, Will He Go To Arkansas?

The Heisman caliber dual-threat quarterback tweeted late Monday night that he was in the transfer portal , and it was “ best for me and my family !
” ( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Well , I think we all saw this coming .
Even though there were reports King would stay with Houston after redshirting this season .
It was clear the moment he took a redshirt that he wasn ’ t going to stick around and keep playing for the Cougars .
Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard look at Arkansas after the Razorbacks hired Kendal Briles to be their new OC .
Briles coached King for a season at Houston , and the star quarterback balled out under his leadership .
Arkansas desperately needs some help at the quarterback position .
King could be the perfect fit , and he ’ d be back with his former coach .
I ’ m not saying it ’ s a guarantee , but I ’ m saying it makes a ton of sense for the former Houston gunslinger to end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he lands , but I think Arkansas is the early favorite .

Houston quarterback D’Eriq King is leaving the Cougars.
The Heisman caliber dual-threat quarterback tweeted late Monday night that he was in the transfer portal, and it was “best for me and my family!” (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
I’ve entered the portal I think it’s best for me and my family! — King (@DeriqKing_) January 14, 2020
Well, I think we all saw this coming. Even though there were reports King would stay with Houston after redshirting this season.
It was clear the moment he took a redshirt that he wasn’t going to stick around and keep playing for the Cougars.
That was incredibly obvious.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by D’Eriq King (@deriqking) on Oct 10, 2019 at 12:22pm PDT
Don’t be surprised if he takes a hard look at Arkansas after the Razorbacks hired Kendal Briles to be their new OC.
Briles coached King for a season at Houston, and the star quarterback balled out under his leadership.
Arkansas desperately needs some help at the quarterback position. King could be the perfect fit, and he’d be back with his former coach.
I’m not saying it’s a guarantee, but I’m saying it makes a ton of sense for the former Houston gunslinger to end up in Fayetteville.
View this post on Instagram A post shared by D’Eriq King (@deriqking) on May 26, 2019 at 1:51pm PDT
We’ll see where he lands, but I think Arkansas is the early favorite.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--ESPN Releases Chilling Video For The College Football Season Ending

ESPN dropped an incredible video to wrap the college football season , and it ’ s something fans don ’ t want to miss .
The past few months of action have been nothing short of incredible .
It was an awesome season of college football , and the video from ESPN perfectly put a bow on it .
( RELATED : David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football ) Now , we wait for several months before the end of August gets here .
I ’ ll be damned if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit .
Now , we ’ re counting down the days until kickoff .
The nights will seem longer , the days will seem colder , the beer won ’ t be as cold , the food won ’ t be as good and the women won ’ t be as attractive .
That ’ s what awaits us through the offseason .
The part of the year without college football isn ’ t a fun one .
It ’ s one we just hope to survive through .
Hold your family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you can to break down over the coming months , get your message board finger ready , stack up your season previews and do whatever else is necessary to make it to August .
We ’ ve done it before , and we can do it again .
There will be times in the coming months when it feels like we just can ’ t make it to week one of 2020 .
In those moments , grab a beer and fire up some highlights on YouTube .
It won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ football , but it ’ ll certainly ease it .
August will be here soon enough , folks !
2019 was a hell of a fun ride , and I have no doubt we ’ ll be sitting here next season saying the same thing .

ESPN dropped an incredible video to wrap the college football season, and it’s something fans don’t want to miss.
The past few months of action have been nothing short of incredible. It was an awesome season of college football, and the video from ESPN perfectly put a bow on it. (RELATED: David Hookstead Is The True King In The North When It Comes To College Football)
Give it a watch below.
This was a season was to remember. To everyone who joined us for the ride: Thank you pic.twitter.com/2ODKuuIh31 — ESPN College Football (@ESPNCFB) January 14, 2020
Now, we wait for several months before the end of August gets here. I’ll be damned if that doesn’t pull at my heart a bit.
Now, we’re counting down the days until kickoff.
Only 228 days until college football starts again. Can’t wait! — David Hookstead (@dhookstead) January 14, 2020
The nights will seem longer, the days will seem colder, the beer won’t be as cold, the food won’t be as good and the women won’t be as attractive.
That’s what awaits us through the offseason. The part of the year without college football isn’t a fun one.
It’s one we just hope to survive through.
Hold your family close, find as much game tape as you can to break down over the coming months, get your message board finger ready, stack up your season previews and do whatever else is necessary to make it to August.
We’ve done it before, and we can do it again. There will be times in the coming months when it feels like we just can’t make it to week one of 2020.
In those moments, grab a beer and fire up some highlights on YouTube. It won’t erase the pain of life without college football, but it’ll certainly ease it.
August will be here soon enough, folks! 2019 was a hell of a fun ride, and I have no doubt we’ll be sitting here next season saying the same thing.


thedailycaller--2020-01-14--Sen. McConnell Says Pelosi’s Impeachment Strategy Achieved ‘Absolutely Nothing’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s decision to sit on the articles of impeachment for a month is a “ strange gambit ” that “ produced absolutely nothing.
” McConnell described Pelosi ’ s strategy Monday as a “ one-woman blockade ” of the impeachment trial on the floor of the Senate , Fox News reported .
Pelosi told ABC News ’ s “ This Week ” on Sunday that she had achieved a victory of sorts by withholding the documents and claimed that she never wanted to sit on the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said I would send them over .
There shouldn ’ t be any mystery to that , ” she said .
“ What we did want though , and what we think we accomplished in the past few weeks is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses , witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened , documentation which the president has prevented from coming out to the Congress as we reviewed this.
” ( RELATED : Ted Cruz : Sitting On Impeachment Is ‘ An Admission Of Failure ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair trial , ” Pelosi said .
“ The senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not , they will have to be accountable.
” “ Now the ball is in their court to either do that or pay a price , ” she added .
Pelosi began musing about withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate soon after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump in December .
( RELATED : ‘ She Should Send Them Over ’ : Senate Democrats Want Pelosi To End Stalemate Of Impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has enough votes to proceed with a Senate impeachment trial without having to call additional witnesses .
For the last month , Democrats have been less than precise about how long Pelosi should withhold the articles of impeachment .
House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested in December that the Speaker could withhold the documents indefinitely if she couldn ’ t guarantee a “ fair ” trial .
Before Pelosi announced her decision Friday to finally deliver the articles to the Senate , Democratic lawmakers were urging her to do so quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Washington Rep. Adam Smith , the chairman of the Armed Services Committee , retracted comments he made Thursday morning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should allow a trial to begin .
Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein also flip-flopped on her call for Pelosi to move forward .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to sit on the articles of impeachment for a month is a “strange gambit” that “produced absolutely nothing.”
McConnell described Pelosi’s strategy Monday as a “one-woman blockade” of the impeachment trial on the floor of the Senate, Fox News reported.
Pelosi told ABC News’s “This Week” on Sunday that she had achieved a victory of sorts by withholding the documents and claimed that she never wanted to sit on the articles forever.
“I’ve always said I would send them over. There shouldn’t be any mystery to that,” she said. “What we did want though, and what we think we accomplished in the past few weeks is that we wanted the public to see the need for witnesses, witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what happened, documentation which the president has prevented from coming out to the Congress as we reviewed this.” (RELATED: Ted Cruz: Sitting On Impeachment Is ‘An Admission Of Failure’)
“It’s about a fair trial,” Pelosi said. “The senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable.”
“Now the ball is in their court to either do that or pay a price,” she added.
Pelosi began musing about withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate soon after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump in December. (RELATED: ‘She Should Send Them Over’: Senate Democrats Want Pelosi To End Stalemate Of Impeachment Documents)
McConnell said earlier in January that he has enough votes to proceed with a Senate impeachment trial without having to call additional witnesses.
For the last month, Democrats have been less than precise about how long Pelosi should withhold the articles of impeachment. House Majority Whip James Clyburn suggested in December that the Speaker could withhold the documents indefinitely if she couldn’t guarantee a “fair” trial.
Before Pelosi announced her decision Friday to finally deliver the articles to the Senate, Democratic lawmakers were urging her to do so quickly, although some tried to backtrack. Democratic Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, retracted comments he made Thursday morning that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should allow a trial to begin. Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein also flip-flopped on her call for Pelosi to move forward.