pbs--2020-01-08--House to vote Thursday on curbing Trump actions against Iran

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Speaker Nancy Pelosi set a House vote for Thursday on limiting President Donald Trump ’ s ability to take military action against Iran as Democratic criticism of the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general intensified .
Pelosi , D-Calif. , announced the plan in a one-page statement that said last week ’ s drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “ provocative and disproportionate.
” The Democratic measure seems certain to pass over solid Republican opposition .
A similar proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va. , faces an uphill fight in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute between the two parties , it was unclear whether Thursday ’ s vote would be a step toward binding Trump ’ s hands on Iran or a symbolic gesture of opposition by Democrats .
Republicans say the proposal — a special type of resolution that does not get the president ’ s signature — does not have the force of law .
Democrats say that under the 1973 War Powers Act , it would be binding if also approved by the Senate .
The matter has not been definitively decided by federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war powers resolution was scheduled shortly after a briefing on Iran Wednesday by top administration officials that many Democrats criticized as lacking specific justification for the killing .
Iran retaliated early Wednesday local time by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops .
No casualties were reported .
“ Members of Congress have serious , urgent concerns about the Administration ’ s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward , ” Pelosi said in her statement .
“ Congress hereby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military ” unless Congress declares war on that country or enacts legislation authorizing use of force to prevent an attack on the U.S. and its forces , the five-page resolution says .
The measure is being sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin , D-Mich. , a former CIA intelligence analyst who had served in Iraq .
The showdown between the White House and Capitol Hill was the latest example of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump did not consult with congressional leaders ahead of the attack that killed the Iranian general and afterward sent Congress a notification explaining the rationale , but kept it classified .
Trump , facing one of the greatest tests of his presidency , said Wednesday that Iran appeared to be “ standing down ” and said the U.S. response would be to put in place new economic sanctions “ until Iran changes its behavior.
” The strikes by Iran had pushed Tehran and Washington perilously close to all-out conflict and put the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he weighed whether to respond with more military force .
The Republican president delivered his remarks surrounded by his national security advisers in the foyer of the White House .
His comments came after a late-night tweet in which he insisted “ All is well !
” after the strikes .
Republicans have largely supported Trump ’ s actions , saying the president was well within his power to take out Iran ’ s architect of proxy operations against Americans in the Middle East .
The U.S. considered Soleimani a terrorist .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Americans did Soleimani need to kill before somebody supports taking him out ?
” asked Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise , the No .
2 Republican in the House .
The world is a safer place without Soleimani in it , he added .
Democrats were unconvinced that the threat posed by Soleimani was imminent or that other alternatives to the killing were pursued in good faith .
By not disclosing many details of the threat , Trump was asking the American public to trust the very intelligence reports he has often disparaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized the briefing by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top officials .
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said it was “ probably the worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , ” in the nine years he ’ s served in the Senate .
Lee called it “ distressing ” that officials suggested it would only embolden Iran if lawmakers debated the merits of further military action .
He walked into the briefing undecided , Lee said , but left it favoring the war powers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government … to come in and tell us that we can ’ t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran , ” Lee said .
“ It ’ s un-American , it ’ s unconstitutional , and it ’ s wrong .
”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Speaker Nancy Pelosi set a House vote for Thursday on limiting President Donald Trump’s ability to take military action against Iran as Democratic criticism of the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general intensified.
Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the plan in a one-page statement that said last week’s drone strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani was “provocative and disproportionate.”
The Democratic measure seems certain to pass over solid Republican opposition. A similar proposal by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., faces an uphill fight in the GOP-run Senate.
Because of a procedural dispute between the two parties, it was unclear whether Thursday’s vote would be a step toward binding Trump’s hands on Iran or a symbolic gesture of opposition by Democrats.
Republicans say the proposal — a special type of resolution that does not get the president’s signature — does not have the force of law. Democrats say that under the 1973 War Powers Act, it would be binding if also approved by the Senate. The matter has not been definitively decided by federal courts.
The House vote on a war powers resolution was scheduled shortly after a briefing on Iran Wednesday by top administration officials that many Democrats criticized as lacking specific justification for the killing. Iran retaliated early Wednesday local time by launching missiles at two military bases in Iraq that house American troops. No casualties were reported.
“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the Administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” Pelosi said in her statement.
“Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military” unless Congress declares war on that country or enacts legislation authorizing use of force to prevent an attack on the U.S. and its forces, the five-page resolution says.
The measure is being sponsored by freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a former CIA intelligence analyst who had served in Iraq.
The showdown between the White House and Capitol Hill was the latest example of Trump’s willingness to break the norms in Washington. Trump did not consult with congressional leaders ahead of the attack that killed the Iranian general and afterward sent Congress a notification explaining the rationale, but kept it classified.
Trump, facing one of the greatest tests of his presidency, said Wednesday that Iran appeared to be “standing down” and said the U.S. response would be to put in place new economic sanctions “until Iran changes its behavior.”
The strikes by Iran had pushed Tehran and Washington perilously close to all-out conflict and put the world’s attention on Trump as he weighed whether to respond with more military force. The Republican president delivered his remarks surrounded by his national security advisers in the foyer of the White House. His comments came after a late-night tweet in which he insisted “All is well!” after the strikes.
Republicans have largely supported Trump’s actions, saying the president was well within his power to take out Iran’s architect of proxy operations against Americans in the Middle East. The U.S. considered Soleimani a terrorist.
“How much is enough? How many more Americans did Soleimani need to kill before somebody supports taking him out?” asked Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, the No. 2 Republican in the House. The world is a safer place without Soleimani in it, he added.
Democrats were unconvinced that the threat posed by Soleimani was imminent or that other alternatives to the killing were pursued in good faith. By not disclosing many details of the threat, Trump was asking the American public to trust the very intelligence reports he has often disparaged, Democrats said.
Some Republicans also criticized the briefing by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other top officials. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said it was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue,” in the nine years he’s served in the Senate.
Lee called it “distressing” that officials suggested it would only embolden Iran if lawmakers debated the merits of further military action. He walked into the briefing undecided, Lee said, but left it favoring the war powers resolution being offered by Kaine.
“It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government … to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran,” Lee said. “It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong.”


pbs--2020-01-08--Democrats seek more details on what led Trump strike on Iran

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Trump administration made its case on Capitol Hill for killing a powerful Iranian general , but Democrats said Wednesday ’ s classified briefings were short on details and left them wondering about the president ’ s next steps in the volatile Mideast .
Democrats said that by not disclosing many details of the threat that prompted the U.S. to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , President Donald Trump is asking the American public to trust the very intelligence reports he has often disparaged .
Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly stressed that the undisclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mideast required action — that the president would have been negligent not to strike Iran .
But Democrats want more information about what led Trump to kill Soleimani — a man whose hands were “ drenched in both American and Iranian blood , ” according to Trump .
“ Trust us .
That ’ s really what it all boils down to , ” Rep. Eliot Engel , D-N.Y. , the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee , said after a classified briefing top administration officials gave members of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that ‘ trust me ’ is a satisfactory answer for me , ” Engel said .
In contrast , Sen. Jim Risch , the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee , called the Senate ’ s meeting “ one of the best briefings ” he ’ s had as a member of Congress .
He said the information was “ crystal clear.
” Some Republicans joined Democrats in criticizing the administration ’ s presentations .
Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , said it was “ probably the worst briefing I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the United States Senate.
” He said he found it “ insulting and demeaning ” for administration briefers to warn lawmakers against debating the merits of further military action against Iran because that would only embolden Tehran .
“ It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government … to come in and tell us that we can ’ t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran .
It ’ s un-American , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wrong , ” Lee said , adding that he now planned to support a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine , D-Va .
The House is expected to vote this week on a similar resolution to limit Trump ’ s military actions regarding Iran .
It reasserts Congress ’ s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further congressional action is taken , the administration ’ s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days .
Democrats also are skeptical of the timing of the strike , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate impeachment trial and at the start of a presidential election year .
It ’ s the same skepticism that some Republicans expressed in 1998 when they accused President Bill Clinton of using military strikes on Iraq to interrupt and delay a pending impeachment resolution against him .
A top defender of the president , Rep. Mark Meadows , R-N.C. , said afterward that “ there ’ s no question ” the killing was justified .
Asked if she was convinced by the briefing that Iranian attacks were imminent before the Soleimani strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ Yes .
My questions were answered and satisfied.
” “ There were so many important questions that they did not answer , ” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. Rep. Gerry Connolly , D-Va. , called the briefing “ profoundly unconvincing ” and said “ no case was made ” that the Iranian attacks were imminent .
“ I leave this ( briefing ) more troubled than I went into it.
” The White House so far has ignored calls to declassify the written notification that Trump sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as required by the 1973 War Powers Act .
Some lawmakers have said it was ” vague ” and inconsistent with details other administrations have provided Congress about military operations .
They wondered why it had to be classified in the first place .
One lawmaker , who has read the classified notification Trump sent Congress , and another individual familiar with it said the two-page document did not describe any imminent , planned attacks or contain any new information .
The lawmaker , who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an historic account of past attacks that have been reported publicly .
It ’ s unclear if more detailed information about the intelligence that led to the strike on Soleimani will ever be publicly released .
“ Whereas the gravity of the situation requires a clear explanation of the Iranian threat to Congress and the public , disclosure of any possible classified information does risk exposing sources and methods which could then leave us blind to Iran ’ s next threat to U.S. lives , ” ’ said Norman Roule , former national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Director of National Intelligence .
The lack of casualties from Iran ’ s retaliatory strikes Tuesday on Iraqi bases housing American troops could tamp down Democrats ’ demand for more information , but it might not silence critics who think Trump only embraces U.S. intelligence that fits his agenda .
While in office , Trump has repeatedly disagreed or refused to accept U.S. intelligence assessments on a range of key national security topics , including Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election , Iran ’ s compliance with the nuclear deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mohammed bin Salman in the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi .
Associated Press writers Alan Fram , Dustin Weaver , Laurie Kellman , Lisa Mascaro , Matthew Daly and Mary Claire Jalonick contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration made its case on Capitol Hill for killing a powerful Iranian general, but Democrats said Wednesday’s classified briefings were short on details and left them wondering about the president’s next steps in the volatile Mideast.
Democrats said that by not disclosing many details of the threat that prompted the U.S. to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, President Donald Trump is asking the American public to trust the very intelligence reports he has often disparaged.
Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly stressed that the undisclosed intelligence about imminent threats to Americans in the Mideast required action — that the president would have been negligent not to strike Iran. But Democrats want more information about what led Trump to kill Soleimani — a man whose hands were “drenched in both American and Iranian blood,” according to Trump.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said it was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.”
“Trust us. That’s really what it all boils down to,” Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said after a classified briefing top administration officials gave members of the House.
“But I’m not sure that ‘trust me’ is a satisfactory answer for me,” Engel said.
In contrast, Sen. Jim Risch, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the Senate’s meeting “one of the best briefings” he’s had as a member of Congress. He said the information was “crystal clear.”
Some Republicans joined Democrats in criticizing the administration’s presentations.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said it was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.”
He said he found it “insulting and demeaning” for administration briefers to warn lawmakers against debating the merits of further military action against Iran because that would only embolden Tehran.
“It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government … to come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It’s un-American, it’s unconstitutional, and it’s wrong,” Lee said, adding that he now planned to support a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.
The House is expected to vote this week on a similar resolution to limit Trump’s military actions regarding Iran. It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further congressional action is taken, the administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.
Democrats also are skeptical of the timing of the strike, which comes in the run-up to a Senate impeachment trial and at the start of a presidential election year. It’s the same skepticism that some Republicans expressed in 1998 when they accused President Bill Clinton of using military strikes on Iraq to interrupt and delay a pending impeachment resolution against him.
A top defender of the president, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said afterward that “there’s no question” the killing was justified.
Asked if she was convinced by the briefing that Iranian attacks were imminent before the Soleimani strike, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said, “Yes. My questions were answered and satisfied.”
Democrats weren’t convinced.
“There were so many important questions that they did not answer,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., called the briefing “profoundly unconvincing” and said “no case was made” that the Iranian attacks were imminent. “I leave this (briefing) more troubled than I went into it.”
The White House so far has ignored calls to declassify the written notification that Trump sent to Congress after the military operation, as required by the 1973 War Powers Act. Some lawmakers have said it was ”vague” and inconsistent with details other administrations have provided Congress about military operations. They wondered why it had to be classified in the first place.
One lawmaker, who has read the classified notification Trump sent Congress, and another individual familiar with it said the two-page document did not describe any imminent, planned attacks or contain any new information. The lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the classified document, said the letter gave an historic account of past attacks that have been reported publicly.
It’s unclear if more detailed information about the intelligence that led to the strike on Soleimani will ever be publicly released.
“Whereas the gravity of the situation requires a clear explanation of the Iranian threat to Congress and the public, disclosure of any possible classified information does risk exposing sources and methods which could then leave us blind to Iran’s next threat to U.S. lives,”’ said Norman Roule, former national intelligence manager for Iran at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The lack of casualties from Iran’s retaliatory strikes Tuesday on Iraqi bases housing American troops could tamp down Democrats’ demand for more information, but it might not silence critics who think Trump only embraces U.S. intelligence that fits his agenda.
While in office, Trump has repeatedly disagreed or refused to accept U.S. intelligence assessments on a range of key national security topics, including Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal and the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the 2018 assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Dustin Weaver, Laurie Kellman, Lisa Mascaro, Matthew Daly and Mary Claire Jalonick contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-08--Fears of Sanders win are growing among the Democratic establishment

DES MOINES , Iowa ( AP ) — Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party ’ s presidential nominee , establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party ’ s chances in premier House , Senate and governors ’ races .
The urgent warnings come as Sanders shows new signs of strength on the ground in the first two states on the presidential primary calendar , Iowa and New Hampshire , backed by a dominant fundraising operation .
The Vermont senator has largely escaped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his rivals doubted the quirky 78-year-old ’ s ability to win the nomination .
But less than a month before Iowa ’ s kickoff caucuses , the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously .
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel , previously a senior aide to President Barack Obama , warned Democrats that Sanders ’ status as a democratic socialist and his unwavering support for “ Medicare for All ” won ’ t play well among swing voters in the states that matter most in 2020 .
“ You need a candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win swing voters in battleground states , ” Emanuel said in an interview .
“ The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders candidacy .
It just gets a lot harder.
” The increasingly vocal concerns are coming from a number of political veterans tied to the Obama administration and the 2020 field ’ s moderate wing , including those backing former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet .
In some ways , the criticism is not surprising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform the nation ’ s political and economic systems , creating a long list of political adversaries along the way .
Many people connected to Hillary Clinton , for example , still blame Sanders for not working hard enough to support her after their long and bitter presidential primary feud in 2016 .
Some Democrats still accuse him of not being enough of a team player .
MORE : Bernie Sanders on Iran , health care and Democratic electability Sanders ’ chief strategist Jeff Weaver dismissed the growing criticism as a reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the last quarter — virtually all of it from small-dollar donors — and he ’ s considered a legitimate contender to win Iowa and New Hampshire next month .
“ People in establishment Washington are terrified of Bernie Sanders , ” Weaver said .
“ The truth of the matter is their centrist tacking over the years has led us to the place where someone like Donald Trump can get elected.
” Less than four weeks before Iowa ’ s Feb. 3 caucuses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to turn up the volume .
The ranks of the concerned include many Democrats tasked with preserving the party ’ s majority in the House and expanding its minority in the Senate and governors ’ mansions across the country .
California Rep. Ami Bera , a leader in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ’ s “ frontline ” program to protect vulnerable House members this fall , warned that a Sanders nomination would force more than 40 Democratic candidates in competitive districts — most of which were carried by Trump four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nominee.
” Specifically , Bera cited Sanders ’ signature health care plan , which would replace the nation ’ s private insurance system with a government-run Medicare for All system .
“ You have to take Sen. Sanders seriously , ” said Bera , who has endorsed Biden .
“ Those are going to be tough positions for our members to run on.
” Montana Sen. Jon Tester , who led the Senate Democrats ’ campaign arm the last time Trump was on the ballot , warned that Republicans “ are really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s at the top of the ticket.
” “ I come from a state that ’ s pretty damn red .
There is no doubt that having ‘ socialist ’ ahead of ‘ Democrat ’ is not a positive thing in the state of Montana , ” Tester , who has not endorsed any 2020 candidate , said of Sanders .
“ He can overcome that , but I think it ’ s something he ’ s going to have to do.
” Several Sanders critics noted that he has largely escaped intense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because some assumed that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , another progressive firebrand , was a stronger candidate who would cannibalize his support .
With Warren ’ s candidacy struggling to maintain momentum , however , those assumptions are now being questioned .
“ He has now emerged as somebody who ’ s got the ability to win the nomination , ” said former Obama aide Ben LaBolt , who isn ’ t aligned with any 2020 campaign but opposes Sanders .
LaBolt seized on what he called Sanders ’ short list of accomplishments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time , the senator wrote just a handful of bills that ultimately became law .
“ He ’ s more concerned about shouting in the wilderness to make an ideological point than getting things done , ” said LaBolt , whose communications firm has done work for the health insurance industry ’ s push to expand Obama ’ s health care law , the Affordable Care Act , at the expense of Sanders ’ preferred Medicare for All plan .
MORE : Sanders defends high cost of his ‘ Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s effected meaningful change in and out of Washington , pointing to accomplishments that include a resolution he authored last year to oppose U.S. involvement in the conflict in Yemen , which passed both chambers of Congress but was vetoed by Trump ; working with former Sen. John McCain of Arizona to shape a sweeping veterans bill that became law in 2014 ; and helping to secure billions of dollars for community health centers as part of the 2009 Affordable Care Act .
Sanders is also facing lingering questions about his age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
He is the oldest candidate in the race , and , if elected , he would be the oldest president in U.S. history .
Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart , who is supporting Bennet ’ s underdog bid , was reluctant to single out any of the candidates for criticism .
But he said Sanders wouldn ’ t be the strongest nominee and suggested it was fair to take Sanders ’ age into account .
“ I think health has become an issue , whether we like it or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an interview .
“ I ’ m older than Sen. Sanders , so I can say things like that .
I think it ’ s time for generational change.
” Marshall Matz , who was a policy adviser for Sen. George McGovern ’ s failed 1972 bid for president , was more direct in his warning for Democrats .
If they nominate Sanders , he said , the party should expect the same landslide loss that McGovern suffered decades ago to President Richard Nixon .
“ I think he would not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t think the country can afford that , ” Matz said , noting that McGovern generated large crowds and enthusiasm just as Sanders has .
Indeed , on the ground in Iowa , there are signs that Sanders is in a strong position as caucus day approaches .
Josh Kennedy , a 36-year-old Sanders supporter from West Branch , Iowa , said he had previously been curious about Warren but hadn ’ t been impressed by her on the campaign trail .
He ’ s back on board with Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get with him , ” Kennedy said .
Sanders drew consistently large crowds as he crisscrossed the state over the New Year holiday .
His campaign said he spoke to nearly 6,000 supporters across 16 events , with more than 1,300 people gathered for a Des Moines party on New Year ’ s Eve .
The supporters turned out in rural areas as well .
Tracy Freese , chair of the Grundy County Democratic Party and a Sanders supporter , said she counted around 250 people at the Grundy Center Community Hall for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called “ incredible.
” “ To put that many people in a room , in a small red county , for Bernie was crazy on a Saturday , ” she said .

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party’s presidential nominee, establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier House, Senate and governors’ races.
The urgent warnings come as Sanders shows new signs of strength on the ground in the first two states on the presidential primary calendar, Iowa and New Hampshire, backed by a dominant fundraising operation. The Vermont senator has largely escaped close scrutiny over the last year as his rivals doubted the quirky 78-year-old’s ability to win the nomination. But less than a month before Iowa’s kickoff caucuses, the doubters are being forced to take Sanders seriously.
Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, previously a senior aide to President Barack Obama, warned Democrats that Sanders’ status as a democratic socialist and his unwavering support for “Medicare for All” won’t play well among swing voters in the states that matter most in 2020.
“You need a candidate with a message that can help us win swing voters in battleground states,” Emanuel said in an interview. “The degree of difficulty dramatically increases under a Bernie Sanders candidacy. It just gets a lot harder.”
The increasingly vocal concerns are coming from a number of political veterans tied to the Obama administration and the 2020 field’s moderate wing, including those backing former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.
In some ways, the criticism is not surprising.
Sanders has spent decades fighting to transform the nation’s political and economic systems, creating a long list of political adversaries along the way. Many people connected to Hillary Clinton, for example, still blame Sanders for not working hard enough to support her after their long and bitter presidential primary feud in 2016. Some Democrats still accuse him of not being enough of a team player.
MORE: Bernie Sanders on Iran, health care and Democratic electability
Sanders’ chief strategist Jeff Weaver dismissed the growing criticism as a reflection of the strength of his candidacy.
He raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in the last quarter — virtually all of it from small-dollar donors — and he’s considered a legitimate contender to win Iowa and New Hampshire next month.
“People in establishment Washington are terrified of Bernie Sanders,” Weaver said. “The truth of the matter is their centrist tacking over the years has led us to the place where someone like Donald Trump can get elected.”
Less than four weeks before Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucuses, Sanders’ critics are making a concerted effort to turn up the volume.
The ranks of the concerned include many Democrats tasked with preserving the party’s majority in the House and expanding its minority in the Senate and governors’ mansions across the country.
California Rep. Ami Bera, a leader in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “frontline” program to protect vulnerable House members this fall, warned that a Sanders nomination would force more than 40 Democratic candidates in competitive districts — most of which were carried by Trump four years ago — “to run away from the nominee.”
Specifically, Bera cited Sanders’ signature health care plan, which would replace the nation’s private insurance system with a government-run Medicare for All system.
“You have to take Sen. Sanders seriously,” said Bera, who has endorsed Biden. “Those are going to be tough positions for our members to run on.”
Montana Sen. Jon Tester, who led the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm the last time Trump was on the ballot, warned that Republicans “are really good at making elections about who’s at the top of the ticket.”
“I come from a state that’s pretty damn red. There is no doubt that having ‘socialist’ ahead of ‘Democrat’ is not a positive thing in the state of Montana,” Tester, who has not endorsed any 2020 candidate, said of Sanders. “He can overcome that, but I think it’s something he’s going to have to do.”
Several Sanders critics noted that he has largely escaped intense scrutiny throughout the campaign, in part because some assumed that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another progressive firebrand, was a stronger candidate who would cannibalize his support. With Warren’s candidacy struggling to maintain momentum, however, those assumptions are now being questioned.
“He has now emerged as somebody who’s got the ability to win the nomination,” said former Obama aide Ben LaBolt, who isn’t aligned with any 2020 campaign but opposes Sanders.
LaBolt seized on what he called Sanders’ short list of accomplishments over three decades in Congress. Over that time, the senator wrote just a handful of bills that ultimately became law.
“He’s more concerned about shouting in the wilderness to make an ideological point than getting things done,” said LaBolt, whose communications firm has done work for the health insurance industry’s push to expand Obama’s health care law, the Affordable Care Act, at the expense of Sanders’ preferred Medicare for All plan.
MORE: Sanders defends high cost of his ‘Medicare for All’ plan
Sanders’ camp insists he’s effected meaningful change in and out of Washington, pointing to accomplishments that include a resolution he authored last year to oppose U.S. involvement in the conflict in Yemen, which passed both chambers of Congress but was vetoed by Trump; working with former Sen. John McCain of Arizona to shape a sweeping veterans bill that became law in 2014; and helping to secure billions of dollars for community health centers as part of the 2009 Affordable Care Act.
Sanders is also facing lingering questions about his age, having suffered a heart attack late last year. He is the oldest candidate in the race, and, if elected, he would be the oldest president in U.S. history.
Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who is supporting Bennet’s underdog bid, was reluctant to single out any of the candidates for criticism. But he said Sanders wouldn’t be the strongest nominee and suggested it was fair to take Sanders’ age into account.
“I think health has become an issue, whether we like it or not,” Hart, 83, said in an interview. “I’m older than Sen. Sanders, so I can say things like that. I think it’s time for generational change.”
Marshall Matz, who was a policy adviser for Sen. George McGovern’s failed 1972 bid for president, was more direct in his warning for Democrats. If they nominate Sanders, he said, the party should expect the same landslide loss that McGovern suffered decades ago to President Richard Nixon.
“I think he would not just lose but would lose badly — and I don’t think the country can afford that,” Matz said, noting that McGovern generated large crowds and enthusiasm just as Sanders has.
Indeed, on the ground in Iowa, there are signs that Sanders is in a strong position as caucus day approaches.
Josh Kennedy, a 36-year-old Sanders supporter from West Branch, Iowa, said he had previously been curious about Warren but hadn’t been impressed by her on the campaign trail. He’s back on board with Sanders.
“You know exactly what you get with him,” Kennedy said.
Sanders drew consistently large crowds as he crisscrossed the state over the New Year holiday. His campaign said he spoke to nearly 6,000 supporters across 16 events, with more than 1,300 people gathered for a Des Moines party on New Year’s Eve.
The supporters turned out in rural areas as well.
Tracy Freese, chair of the Grundy County Democratic Party and a Sanders supporter, said she counted around 250 people at the Grundy Center Community Hall for Sanders last weekend, a number she called “incredible.”
“To put that many people in a room, in a small red county, for Bernie was crazy on a Saturday,” she said.


pbs--2020-01-09--Presidential caucuses are complicated. Why do some states use them?

When the 2020 presidential nomination season kicks off in February , it won ’ t start with a primary — where voters go to their polling place and cast a secret ballot — but with caucuses .
While the vast majority of states hold primary elections , a few use these more complicated events to show their preferences for candidates .
In recent years , some states have ditched caucuses for primaries , but Iowa , Nevada and Wyoming are holdouts .
So why choose a caucus ?
Party caucuses have been used in various forms in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political topics .
In Iowa ’ s case , caucuses not only allow activists and voters to make a case for their preferred candidate , but also to talk about issues that could be incorporated into the state party platform , said Dennis Goldford , a political science professor with Drake University in Iowa .
They also attract enthusiastic party members .
Caucusing requires passion and a strong connection to a particular candidate , in contrast to the simple and private act of marking a ballot in a primary .
“ [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential candidates talk to voters as real , live , individual human beings , ” Goldford said .
Candidates meet with voters in a more personal way , he added , rather than using them as “ campaign props.
” Especially in early caucus states , a relatively small group of people wields a lot of power to influence average voters around the country .
But the dedication and time needed to participate means that not everyone can .
And the sometimes arcane rules about how caucuses operate and how delegates are awarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of our democracy .
As Iowa prepares to hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses on Feb. 3 , here ’ s what you need to know : What is the difference between a primary and a caucus ?
Primaries and caucuses differ primarily in how they are funded and operated .
State governments typically run primaries , which allows the state to dictate the parameters , such as who can participate .
For instance , some states have closed primary contests that only allow registered party members to vote ; open primary elections allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caucuses are meetings between registered party members , run by the political parties themselves .
Since 2016 , at least 10 states have switched from caucuses to a primary system .
In Kansas , for example , Democrats have opted for a “ party-run primary , ” which has elements of a secret ballot vote and a caucus .
What happens at a caucus ?
In each caucus state , Republicans and Democrats set their own rules , which can vary greatly , and produce some drama over how the results are calculated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrow results out of the Iowa caucuses between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton upset some Sanders supporters .
Zeroing in on Iowa , registered Republicans will gather on a weeknight evening at more than 1,000 locations around the state .
During the night , attendees will write down and submit their preferred candidate , as well as choose delegates to send to county conventions .
Iowa ’ s Democratic procedure is much more involved .
Registered party members also convene at about the same number of precincts around the state , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ split into groups based on their preferred candidates .
Undecided members can also form a group .
The individuals in each group are then counted , and typically candidates that receive at least 15 percent of the head count are considered “ viable ” or eligible to receive delegates .
Next , caucus-goers have the chance to “ realign , ” a 15-minute period during which members can try to convince others to join their group .
New Democratic rules for 2020 state that only members of nonviable groups can realign ; they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or combine to help a nonviable candidate reach the 15 percent threshold .
All the candidates who meet the 15 percent cutoff will be awarded delegates based on a formula put together by the Iowa Democratic Party .
These delegates go on to county conventions throughout the state .
Later , at Iowa ’ s state-wide Democratic convention , delegates for the Democratic National Convention will be chosen .
Delegates for the Republican National Convention are also picked at a state convention .
Both the Democrat and Republican Nevada caucuses operate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP canceled its 2020 caucuses as a show of support for President Donald Trump .
What do critics say about presidential caucuses ?
Presidential caucuses are frequently criticized for their complex rules and time commitment , which narrows who can participate .
In a primary , voters have a wider window of opportunity — let ’ s say between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. — to choose when they go to their polling place .
Caucusing can be an hours-long process that takes place at one designated time on a weeknight .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , caregivers , parents and others .
This year , Democrats have proposed new options to give more voters an opportunity to support their chosen candidate .
Both the Iowa and Nevada Democratic Parties proposed holding “ virtual caucuses , ” using a phone system in addition to the regular events .
That measure was blocked by the national party , citing security concerns .
Instead , Nevada Democrats will offer an in-person , early voting period , in addition to the main caucuses .
And Iowa will have “ satellite caucuses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but take place at 99 locations that seek to better accommodate people like students , seniors and foreign-language speakers .
Iowa ’ s prominence as the first nominating contest has been criticized for not being racially and culturally reflective of the entire country , yet still playing a big role in determining who gets nominated .
( Iowa ’ s population is about 85 percent white , while the national average is about 60 percent — excluding those who identify as Hispanic in the Census . )
To address this , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Western state — with a population that is about 48 percent non-Hispanic white — now has the third presidential nominating event .
Early caucuses in Iowa and Nevada , particularly the more procedurally complicated ones hosted by Democrats , have also faced accusations of flawed organization and poor management .
2020 may further test the process , as Democrats brace for anticipated higher voter turnout , a large field of candidates and adjusted rules on reporting results .
In Iowa , rather than reporting only the delegate equivalent numbers from caucus night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also report two raw counts — one for the statewide headcount total for each candidate after the first alignment , and one for the final alignment .
This could result in public pushback over the winners .
Former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro has been an outspoken critic of the Iowa caucuses , expressing concerns over diversity and the procedural restrictions .
He has also suggested reordering the Democratic primaries and caucuses with more diverse states earlier in the schedule .
“ People would think that Republicans designed the Iowa caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I don ’ t believe that we should have these caucuses.
” Over the years , caucuses have strayed from the initial model of promoting debate and persuasion among voters , says David Fott , a political science professor at the University of Nevada , Las Vegas .
“ People tend to come in with their minds made up and then leave with their minds made up , ” Fott said .
“ There ’ s no real attempt to win over other people .
… You might as well have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t get the sense that there ’ s a benefit from making people stay longer to cast their preferences.
” Why do the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada get so much attention ?
Simply put , early states receive more attention because they are the first indications of where real voters stand on the candidates outside of public polling .
While New Hampshire and South Carolina provide the first real elections , caucuses also offer insight from more knowledgeable , politically active members of the party .
These early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Candidates who do well receive more positive attention , boosting voter and donor confidence in their electability .
The true competition , however , is between the candidates and public expectation , Goldford said .
Someone finishing in first place as expected isn ’ t as much of a draw as an underdog story , he added .
“ You could finish second or even third , but if you had been nowhere , that ’ s a major ‘ man bites dog ’ story , ” Goldford said .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ were to come in that top three , that would be a major story , ” he said .
A candidate who exceeds expectations in Iowa has sometimes won it all .
An unexpected victory by Jimmy Carter at the 1976 Iowa caucuses changed their significance in the nomination process .
The surprising outcome propelled Carter from a little-known Georgia governor to the White House .
A more modern example is Barack Obama , who faced off against Hillary Clinton ’ s name recognition and political experience and won Iowa in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire primary , but still secured the Democratic nomination and later the presidency .
Since Carter ’ s victory , Iowa has fiercely protected its vaunted position as the first state ; even presidential candidates have defended its status .
In 1996 , Louisiana Republicans leapfrogged ahead in the calendar , holding caucuses in a small town called , fittingly , Iowa .
But the leading GOP candidates boycotted the caucuses in Iowa , Louisiana , to avoid angering voters in the state of Iowa .
Despite other proposals to switch up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place is unlikely to change anytime soon .

As the 2020 presidential nomination season kicks off in February, it won’t start with a primary — where voters go to their polling place and cast a secret ballot — but with caucuses. While the vast majority of states hold primary elections, a few use these more complicated events to show their preferences for candidates.
In recent years, some states have ditched caucuses for primaries, but Iowa, Nevada and Wyoming are holdouts. So why choose a caucus?
Party caucuses have been used in various forms in the United States since the 1800s to address a range of political topics. In Iowa’s case, caucuses not only allow activists and voters to make a case for their preferred candidate, but also to talk about issues that could be incorporated into the state party platform, said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor with Drake University in Iowa.
They also attract enthusiastic party members. Caucusing requires passion and a strong connection to a particular candidate, in contrast to the simple and private act of marking a ballot in a primary. “[The Iowa caucuses] make candidates and potential candidates talk to voters as real, live, individual human beings,” Goldford said. Candidates meet with voters in a more personal way, he added, rather than using them as “campaign props.” Especially in early caucus states, a relatively small group of people wields a lot of power to influence average voters around the country.
But the dedication and time needed to participate means that not everyone can. And the sometimes arcane rules about how caucuses operate and how delegates are awarded can result in confusion about an influential aspect of our democracy.
As Iowa prepares to hold its first-in-the-nation caucuses on Feb. 3, here’s what you need to know:
What is the difference between a primary and a caucus?
Primaries and caucuses differ primarily in how they are funded and operated. State governments typically run primaries, which allows the state to dictate the parameters, such as who can participate. For instance, some states have closed primary contests that only allow registered party members to vote; open primary elections allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well.
Caucuses are meetings between registered party members, run by the political parties themselves. Since 2016, at least 10 states have switched from caucuses to a primary system. In Kansas, for example, Democrats have opted for a “party-run primary,” which has elements of a secret ballot vote and a caucus.
What happens at a caucus?
In each caucus state, Republicans and Democrats set their own rules, which can vary greatly, and produce some drama over how the results are calculated. In 2016, confusion over the narrow results out of the Iowa caucuses between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton upset some Sanders supporters.
Zeroing in on Iowa, registered Republicans will gather on a weeknight at more than 1,000 locations around the state. During the night, attendees will write down and submit their preferred candidate, as well as choose delegates to send to county conventions.
Iowa’s Democratic procedure is much more involved. Registered party members also convene at about the same number of precincts around the state, and attendees at each location are asked to split into groups based on their preferred candidates. Undecided members can also form a group. The individuals in each group are then counted, and typically candidates that receive at least 15 percent of the head count are considered “viable” or eligible to receive delegates.
Next, caucus-goers have the chance to “realign,” a 15-minute period during which members can try to convince others to join their group.
New Democratic rules for 2020 state that only members of nonviable groups can realign; they can either join an already viable group, or combine to help a nonviable candidate reach the 15 percent threshold. All the candidates who meet the 15 percent cutoff will be awarded delegates based on a formula put together by the Iowa Democratic Party.
These delegates go on to county conventions throughout the state. Later, at Iowa’s state-wide Democratic convention, delegates for the Democratic National Convention will be chosen. Delegates for the Republican National Convention are also picked at a state convention.
Both the Democrat and Republican Nevada caucuses operate in similar ways to Iowa, though the GOP canceled its 2020 caucuses as a show of support for President Donald Trump.
What do critics say about presidential caucuses?
Presidential caucuses are frequently criticized for their complex rules and time commitment, which narrows who can participate. In a primary, voters have a wider window of opportunity — let’s say between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. — to choose when they go to their polling place. Caucusing can be an hours-long process that takes place at one designated time on a weeknight. These restrictions can limit participation from shift workers, caregivers, parents and others.
This year, Democrats have proposed new options to give more voters an opportunity to support their chosen candidate. Both the Iowa and Nevada Democratic Parties proposed holding “virtual caucuses,” using a phone system in addition to the regular events. That measure was blocked by the national party, citing security concerns. Instead, Nevada Democrats will offer an in-person, early voting period, in addition to the main caucuses. And Iowa will have “satellite caucuses,” which would operate like the others, but take place at 99 locations that seek to better accommodate people like students, seniors and foreign-language speakers.
Iowa’s prominence as the first nominating contest has been criticized for not being racially and culturally reflective of the entire country, yet still playing a big role in determining who gets nominated. (Iowa’s population is about 85 percent white, while the national average is about 60 percent — excluding those who identify as Hispanic in the Census.) To address this, the Nevada caucuses were moved up earlier. The Western state — with a population that is about 48 percent non-Hispanic white — now has the third presidential nominating event.
Early caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, particularly the more procedurally complicated ones hosted by Democrats, have also faced accusations of flawed organization and poor management.
2020 may further test the process, as Democrats brace for anticipated higher voter turnout, a large field of candidates and adjusted rules on reporting results. In Iowa, rather than reporting only the state delegate equivalent numbers, as is customary, Democratic precincts will also report two raw counts — one for the statewide headcount total for each candidate after the first alignment , and one for the final alignment. This could result in public pushback over the winners.
Former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro has been an outspoken critic of the Iowa caucuses, expressing concerns over diversity and the procedural restrictions. He has also suggested reordering the Democratic primaries and caucuses with more diverse states earlier in the schedule.
“People would think that Republicans designed the Iowa caucus,” Castro told MSNBC this month. “I don’t believe that we should have these caucuses.”
Over the years, caucuses have strayed from the initial model of promoting debate and persuasion among voters, says David Fott, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
“People tend to come in with their minds made up and then leave with their minds made up,” Fott said. “There’s no real attempt to win over other people. … You might as well have a primary. It’s quicker. I don’t get the sense that there’s a benefit from making people stay longer to cast their preferences.”
Why do the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada get so much attention?
Simply put, early states receive more attention because they are the first indications of where real voters stand on the candidates outside of public polling. While New Hampshire and South Carolina provide the first real elections, caucuses also offer insight from more knowledgeable, politically active members of the party.
These early results receive national news coverage and analysis. Candidates who do well receive more positive attention, boosting voter and donor confidence in their electability.
The true competition, however, is between the candidates and public expectation, Goldford said. Someone finishing in first place as expected isn’t as much of a draw as an underdog story, he added. “You could finish second or even third, but if you had been nowhere, that’s a major ‘man bites dog’ story,” Goldford said. For example, if Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., “were to come in that top three, that would be a major story,” he said.
A candidate who exceeds expectations in Iowa has sometimes won it all. An unexpected victory by Jimmy Carter at the 1976 Iowa caucuses changed their significance in the nomination process. The surprising outcome propelled Carter from a little-known Georgia governor to the White House. A more modern example is Barack Obama, who faced off against Hillary Clinton’s name recognition and political experience and won Iowa in 2008. He did not win the New Hampshire primary, but still secured the Democratic nomination and later the presidency.
Since Carter’s victory, Iowa has fiercely protected its vaunted position as the first state; even presidential candidates have defended its status.
In 1996, Louisiana Republicans leapfrogged ahead in the calendar, holding caucuses in a small town called, fittingly, Iowa. But the leading GOP candidates boycotted the caucuses in Iowa, Louisiana, to avoid angering voters in the state of Iowa.
Despite other proposals to switch up the order, Iowa’s prominent place is unlikely to change anytime soon.


pbs--2020-01-09--WATCH LIVE: Trump holds rally amid impeachment tensions, Iran turmoil

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — President Donald Trump heads into his first campaign rally of the election year flush with cash , chafing at impeachment and hoping to capitalize on his order to take out Iran ’ s top general .
Trump ’ s rally in Toledo , Ohio , is expected to start at 7 p.m .
ET .
Watch live in our player above .
Trump will be in northern Ohio for Thursday night ’ s rally , taking to the campaign trail a day after pulling back from the brink of war with Iran .
The campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spotlight before a friendly crowd his decision to order the fatal drone strike against Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani , while keeping the U.S. — at least for the moment — out of a wider military conflict .
The president ’ s reelection campaign has already used Facebook ads to highlight Trump ’ s decision to strike Soleimani , regarded as Iran ’ s second most powerful official .
“ We caught a total monster , and we took him out , and that should have happened a long time ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last week ’ s killing of Soleimani brought long , simmering tensions between the U.S. and Iran to a boil .
Iran , in retaliation , fired a barrage of missiles this week at two military bases in neighboring Iraq that house hundreds of U.S. troops .
But with no casualties to U.S. or Iraqi troops , Trump said he had no plans to take further military action against Iran and would instead enact more sanctions against the Islamic Republic .
The Iran crisis , which momentarily overshadowed Trump ’ s looming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new front in the 2020 presidential campaign for Trump , who in 2016 campaigned on a promise to end American involvement in “ endless wars.
” Trump enters the election year flush with more than $ 100 million in campaign cash , a low unemployment rate , and an unsettled Democratic presidential field .
Yet , polling shows he remains vulnerable .
In December , an AP-NORC poll showed Trump ’ s approval rating at 40 % .
There have not been more recent polls to gauge support for the president in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though opinions of Trump have changed little over the course of his presidency .
Trump has never fallen into historic lows for a president ’ s approval ratings , but Gallup polling shows his December rating registers lower than that of most recent presidents at the same point in their first terms .
Notably , approval of Trump and former President Barack Obama in the December before their reelection bid is roughly the same .
But Obama ’ s approval rating never fell below 40 % in Gallup polling , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his reelection to finish his first term with an average rating just below 50 % .
Trump ’ s approval rating has never been higher than 46 % in Gallup polling .
For Trump to win reelection , securing Ohio ’ s 18 electoral votes will be critical .
He won Ohio by 8 points in 2016 , after Obama held the state in 2008 and 2012 .
The visit to Toledo marks Trump ’ s 15th appearance in Ohio as president .
Trump has anchored his reelection messaging around a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of 3.5 % .
But parts of the industrial Midwest have been left behind , especially as the manufacturing sector has struggled over the past year in response to slower worldwide economic growth and trade tensions with China .
Labor Department figures show construction and factory jobs slumping in Ohio .
In nearby Michigan , manufacturers are shedding workers as well , but so are that state ’ s employers in the health care , education and social assistance sectors .
But the Toledo area points at an even more alarming trend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Glass City has lost more than 6 % of its white-collar jobs in the professional and business services sector over the past year , causing the total number of jobs to slump slightly from a year ago .
Still , Kaidon Woodbury , a Perrysburg resident who will turn 18 before the November election and plans to cast his first vote for Trump , was optimistic about the president ’ s chances .
Woodbury , among the supporters outside Toledo ’ s Huntington Center hours before the president ’ s arrival , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successes to win a second term .
“ He makes promises and follows through , ” Woodbury said .
As an incumbent , Trump has been able to use his position to build a massive campaign cash reserve at a time when Democrats are raising and spending theirs in a competitive primary .
Although many Democratic White House hopefuls , most notably Sen. Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg , have pulled in massive sums , there is no clear front-runner .
And many in the party are girding for a protracted contest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
Trump , meanwhile , raised $ 46 million in the final quarter of 2019 and had more than $ 102 million cash on hand at the end of the year .
The Republican National Committee , which doesn ’ t face as strict of contribution limits as the candidate , has raised even more .
It won ’ t have to release its December fundraising numbers until the end of the month .
Asked how much he is willing to spend on his reelection , Trump said , “ I literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He added : “ I will say this , because of the impeachment hoax , we ’ re taking in numbers that nobody ever expected .
You saw the kind of numbers we ’ re reporting .
We ’ re blowing everybody away.
” Associated Press writers Hannah Fingerhut , Brian Slodysko and Joshua Boak in Washington and Mike Householder in Toledo , Ohio , contributed to this report .

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — President Donald Trump used his first campaign election rally of 2020 to argue that he served up “American justice” by ordering a drone strike to take out Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, while jeering Democratic leaders for questioning his decision to carry out the attack without first consulting Congress.
Trump’s remarks on Thursday careened from mockery of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, who heads the House Intelligence Committee, to a suggestion that he should have won the Nobel Prize, a preview of the sharp-edged reelection campaign that he will wage.
The president made his comments shortly after the Democratic-controlled House approved a resolution asserting that Trump must seek approval from Congress before engaging in further military action against Iran.
Trump mocked Pelosi’s mental acuity and called Schiff a “pencil neck.” He also tagged Sen. Bernie Sanders as “Crazy Bernie” for raising objections to how he carried out the strike on Soleimani.
“We got a call. We heard where he was. He knew the way he was getting there,” Trump told cheering supporters in Toledo. “We didn’t have time to call up Nancy, who isn’t operating with a full deck.”
“They want us to tell them so they can leak it to their friends in the corrupt media,” Trump added.
Last week’s killing of Soleimani brought long, simmering tensions between the U.S. and Iran to a boil. Iran, in retaliation, fired a barrage of missiles this week at two military bases in neighboring Iraq that house hundreds of U.S. troops. But with no casualties to U.S. or Iraqi troops, Trump said he had no plans to take further military action against Iran and would instead enact more sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
The Iran crisis, which momentarily overshadowed Trump’s looming impeachment trial, has also opened a new front in the 2020 presidential campaign for Trump, who in 2016 campaigned on a promise to end American involvement in “endless wars.”
Vice President Mike Pence, who joined Trump for the rally, said the president deserved credit for taking out a “dangerous terrorist” while managing to keep the engagement from escalating into an all-out war.
“And when American lives were threatened by the most dangerous terrorist in the world, President Donald Trump took action and Qassem Soleimani is gone,” Pence said. “And in the wake of that attack, Iran responded, but thanks to the professionalism of the military, we suffered no American casualties and Iran appears to be standing down. That’s what leadership looks like.”
Trump also sought to compare his response to the recent attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to the 2012 attack on U.S. government facility in Benghazi. A U.S. ambassador to Libya, a foreign service officer and two CIA contractors were killed in the Benghazi attack, which led to a two-year Republican-led investigation into then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was not found to have committed wrongdoing.
No Americans were killed in the Baghdad assault. The protesters managed only to breach the edge of the sprawling embassy complex.
“This was the anti-Benghazi,” he said. “We got there very quickly. This is the exact opposite.”
Trump also turned to a topic that frequently rankles him: the fact that he has never won a Nobel Prize. Referencing the 2019 Nobel Prize winner, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, Trump said that he himself deserved the honor instead.
“I made a deal. I saved a country, and I just heard that the head of that country is now getting the Nobel Peace Prize for saving the country,” Trump said. “I said, ‘What?’ Did I have something to do with it? Yeah. But, you know, that’s the way it is. As long as we know, it’s all that matters.”
Abiy was awarded the prize in October for his sweeping reforms and surprising embrace of a bitter rival.
Trump enters the election year flush with more than $100 million in campaign cash, a low unemployment rate, and an unsettled Democratic presidential field. Yet, polling shows he remains vulnerable.
In December, an AP-NORC poll showed Trump’s approval rating at 40%. There have not been more recent polls to gauge support for the president in the wake of the targeted killing of Soleimani, though opinions of Trump have changed little over the course of his presidency.
Trump has never fallen into historic lows for a president’s approval ratings, but Gallup polling shows his December rating registers lower than that of most recent presidents at the same point in their first terms. Notably, approval of Trump and former President Barack Obama in the December before their reelection bid is roughly the same.
But Obama’s approval rating never fell below 40% in Gallup polling, and he recovered slightly in the months leading up to his reelection to finish his first term with an average rating just below 50%. Trump’s approval rating has never been higher than 46% in Gallup polling.
For Trump to win reelection, securing Ohio’s 18 electoral votes will be critical. He won Ohio by 8 points in 2016, after Obama held the state in 2008 and 2012. The visit to Toledo marked Trump’s 15th appearance in Ohio as president.
Associated Press writers Jill Colvin, Hannah Fingerhut, Brian Slodysko and Joshua Boak in Washington and Mike Householder in Toledo, Ohio, contributed to this report.


pbs--2020-01-09--Trump changes landscape of 2020 race with Iran turmoil

NEW YORK — The election was always going to be about Donald Trump .
But over the span of a few days , the yearslong focus on the Republican president ’ s performance on the economy , health care and immigration has been overtaken by an urgent debate over foreign policy and war .
And as the sprint to Iowa ’ s Feb. 3 caucuses begins , both Trump and his Democratic rivals are being forced to navigate a delicate and dangerous military conflict with Iran that injects a new level of uncertainty into the 2020 contest .
For Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play a major role in shaping how voters view the winnowing field .
And for Trump , who relentlessly cheerleads the American economy , it marked a departure from the standard fare of his rallies and tweets and became the most dangerous moment of his 3-year-old presidency .
In a carefully scripted speech , the brash president met the moment with a rare dose of restraint .
Less than 24 hours after missiles from Iran rained down on military bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq , he downplayed the impact of the attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to embrace peace with all who seek it , ” a solemn Trump declared .
The measured approach reflects the political sensitivity of a situation that Trump helped create by ordering the killing of Iran ’ s top general late last week .
The Republican president is leading a political party openly feuding with itself over America ’ s role in global affairs .
One faction is cheering his “ America First ” campaign promises to stop “ endless wars.
” Another wants Iran to pay a painful price for an attack that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a social media post days earlier .
For a day at least , Trump appeared to placate both factions with a speech that toed the line between humility and strength .
Fox News host Sean Hannity , who appeared to be cheering for a fierce U.S. counterattack before Trump ’ s speech , was unusually silent in the hours afterward .
Sen. Rand Paul , perhaps the Senate GOP ’ s most fervent isolationist , tweeted that he was “ pleased that President Trump has pulled back and taken the preferred path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase of the conflict has only just begun , however .
The president ’ s actions in the coming days and weeks will mean far more than the scripted words in one speech .
Trump , of course , has struggled with discipline and consistency throughout his presidency — especially on social media .
One misplaced tweet or off-handed comment at a political rally could shatter the fragile peace .
He is scheduled to face thousands of his supporters Thursday night in Ohio , where his thoughts on Iran almost certainly won ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Iran sends mixed signals as tensions with the U.S. ease “ Trump ’ s not out of the woods , ” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz , who predicted that remnants of the military conflict would help shape the 2020 election even if no further military action takes place .
Indeed , even if the infighting within his party dies down , Trump will face legitimate questions in the months ahead about his muddled foreign policy , which has scrambled alliances across the globe and emboldened some of America ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Korea .
After maligning NATO for much of his presidency , Trump on Wednesday called for the alliance of Western nations to take a greater role in the Middle East .
And he falsely blamed the Obama administration for providing funding for the Iranian missile attack , ignoring his own 2018 decision to abandon the international agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon .
During a campaign appearance in Chicago , Democratic White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg urged Trump not to act “ rashly or recklessly.
” The prospect of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the shift would mark a return to normalcy of sorts in presidential politics , at least in this century .
International affairs and military conflict have played a central role in almost every presidential contest since 2000 .
The 2004 contest came just a year after President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq .
Obama beat Republican war hero John McCain in a 2008 election shaped by voter fatigue over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan .
And in 2016 , Trump effectively turned the tables by casting Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would pursue endless wars .
While Trump sought to de-escalate on Wednesday , Democratic candidates sorted through what the conflict means for them .
No one stands to gain — or lose — more in a foreign policy election than former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ Biden just won the nomination , ” South Carolina-based Democratic strategist Boyd Brown , a Biden supporter , said as the first news reports revealed the extent of the Iranian missile attacks .
While Brown is far from objective , variations of his idea rippled through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rethink the terms of a 2020 nomination fight through the lens of war .
The party ’ s far-left wing , in particular , was forced to face the fact that the overwhelming strength of their preferred candidates , Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , lies in their grasp of domestic priorities like health care and income inequality , not international affairs .
For all his experience on the world stage , however , Biden has yet to put to rest stubborn questions about his 2003 vote as a Delaware senator to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that vote , followed by Bush ’ s invasion , that triggered nearly two decades of military conflict that shapes conditions in Middle East today .
But despite any questions Democrats will face , do not expect Trump to cede his leading role in the 2020 drama anytime soon .
As the world waits to see whether the peace with Iran will last , Trump ’ s impeachment trial in the Senate is just days away .

NEW YORK — The election was always going to be about Donald Trump.
But over the span of a few days, the yearslong focus on the Republican president’s performance on the economy, health care and immigration has been overtaken by an urgent debate over foreign policy and war. And as the sprint to Iowa’s Feb. 3 caucuses begins, both Trump and his Democratic rivals are being forced to navigate a delicate and dangerous military conflict with Iran that injects a new level of uncertainty into the 2020 contest.
For Democrats, the politics of war now could play a major role in shaping how voters view the winnowing field. And for Trump, who relentlessly cheerleads the American economy, it marked a departure from the standard fare of his rallies and tweets and became the most dangerous moment of his 3-year-old presidency.
In a carefully scripted speech, the brash president met the moment with a rare dose of restraint. Less than 24 hours after missiles from Iran rained down on military bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, he downplayed the impact of the attack.
“The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it,” a solemn Trump declared.
The measured approach reflects the political sensitivity of a situation that Trump helped create by ordering the killing of Iran’s top general late last week.
The Republican president is leading a political party openly feuding with itself over America’s role in global affairs. One faction is cheering his “America First” campaign promises to stop “endless wars.” Another wants Iran to pay a painful price for an attack that violated the clear red line Trump outlined in a social media post days earlier.
For a day at least, Trump appeared to placate both factions with a speech that toed the line between humility and strength.
Fox News host Sean Hannity, who appeared to be cheering for a fierce U.S. counterattack before Trump’s speech, was unusually silent in the hours afterward. Sen. Rand Paul, perhaps the Senate GOP’s most fervent isolationist, tweeted that he was “pleased that President Trump has pulled back and taken the preferred path of no further military action.”
This phase of the conflict has only just begun, however.
The president’s actions in the coming days and weeks will mean far more than the scripted words in one speech. Trump, of course, has struggled with discipline and consistency throughout his presidency — especially on social media.
One misplaced tweet or off-handed comment at a political rally could shatter the fragile peace. He is scheduled to face thousands of his supporters Thursday night in Ohio, where his thoughts on Iran almost certainly won’t be as scripted.
READ MORE: Iran sends mixed signals as tensions with the U.S. ease
“Trump’s not out of the woods,” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who predicted that remnants of the military conflict would help shape the 2020 election even if no further military action takes place.
Indeed, even if the infighting within his party dies down, Trump will face legitimate questions in the months ahead about his muddled foreign policy, which has scrambled alliances across the globe and emboldened some of America’s most dangerous adversaries, including Russia and North Korea.
After maligning NATO for much of his presidency, Trump on Wednesday called for the alliance of Western nations to take a greater role in the Middle East. And he falsely blamed the Obama administration for providing funding for the Iranian missile attack, ignoring his own 2018 decision to abandon the international agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
During a campaign appearance in Chicago, Democratic White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg urged Trump not to act “rashly or recklessly.”
The prospect of a wartime election may be new in 2020, but the shift would mark a return to normalcy of sorts in presidential politics, at least in this century. International affairs and military conflict have played a central role in almost every presidential contest since 2000.
The 2004 contest came just a year after President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. Obama beat Republican war hero John McCain in a 2008 election shaped by voter fatigue over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And in 2016, Trump effectively turned the tables by casting Democrat Hillary Clinton as an establishment-minded globalist who would pursue endless wars.
No one stands to gain — or lose — more in a foreign policy election than former Vice President Joe Biden.
While Trump sought to de-escalate on Wednesday, Democratic candidates sorted through what the conflict means for them. No one stands to gain — or lose — more in a foreign policy election than former Vice President Joe Biden.
“Biden just won the nomination,” South Carolina-based Democratic strategist Boyd Brown, a Biden supporter, said as the first news reports revealed the extent of the Iranian missile attacks.
While Brown is far from objective, variations of his idea rippled through the political stratosphere as Democratic voters paused to rethink the terms of a 2020 nomination fight through the lens of war. The party’s far-left wing, in particular, was forced to face the fact that the overwhelming strength of their preferred candidates, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, lies in their grasp of domestic priorities like health care and income inequality, not international affairs.
For all his experience on the world stage, however, Biden has yet to put to rest stubborn questions about his 2003 vote as a Delaware senator to authorize military force against Iraq. It was that vote, followed by Bush’s invasion, that triggered nearly two decades of military conflict that shapes conditions in Middle East today.
But despite any questions Democrats will face, do not expect Trump to cede his leading role in the 2020 drama anytime soon.
As the world waits to see whether the peace with Iran will last, Trump’s impeachment trial in the Senate is just days away.


pbs--2020-01-09--What are a U.S. president's war powers?

What are a U.S. president's war powers?

With a drone strike last week , President Donald Trump authorized the killing of a prominent Iranian military figure–Qassem Soleimani– and also reopened a potentially explosive debate about when presidents can use their military power without approval from Congress .
The House of Representatives is slated to vote on , and pass , a resolution aimed at limiting the president ’ s power to engage militarily with Iran .
It is not expected to pass the Senate .
READ MORE : WATCH LIVE : House to vote on restricting Trump ’ s actions against Iran As that debate swirls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at recent conflicts which were—or were not—authorized by Congress .
First , some important terms that you will likely hear more this week : Article II powers – this is a reference to the president ’ s powers enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution .
Article II designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military .
War powers resolution – this can be a broad term , referring to an act of Congress intended to grant , or more often limit , broad war powers of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to describe the 1973 War Powers Act , which set Congressional guidelines for the president ’ s deployment of military force .
Authority to Use Military Force – this is a resolution passed by each house of Congress which grants a president specific powers to launch military action , often against a specific group or location .
Korean War .
1950 – 1953 .
No Congressional authorization .
1.7 million U.S. troops deployed in theater .
Vietnam War .
1964 – 1974 .
No Congressional authorization .
3.4 million U.S. troops deployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress .
House 250-183 .
Senate 52-47 .
500,000 U.S. troops sent to Persian Gulf .
War on Terror .
2001 – present .
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress .
House 420 – 1 .
Senate 98 – 0 .
Initially included 775,000 troops sent to Afghanistan .
Iraq War .
2002 .
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress .
House 296 – 133 .
Senate 77 – 23 .
170,000 U.S. troops at peak deployment in @ @

The Senate approved a war powers resolution on Thursday that would curtail President Donald Trump’s authority to take military action in Iran without congressional approval in a bipartisan 55-45 vote.
Trump could still veto the resolution. It would then take two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 votes, to override him.
The House of Representatives passed a separate, nonbinding resolution last month after Trump ordered a drone strike that killed a prominent Iranian military figure–Qassem Soleimani. His decision reopened a potentially explosive debate about when presidents can use their military power without approval from Congress.
WATCH: House to vote on restricting Trump’s actions against Iran
As that debate swirls, we thought it might be helpful to look at recent conflicts which were—or were not—authorized by Congress.
First, some important terms that you will likely hear as part of the debate:
Article II powers – this is a reference to the president’s powers enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Article II designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military.
War powers resolution – this can be a broad term, referring to an act of Congress intended to grant, or more often limit, broad war powers of the president. But it also is a phrase used to describe the 1973 War Powers Act, which set Congressional guidelines for the president’s deployment of military force.
Authority to Use Military Force – this is a resolution passed by each house of Congress which grants a president specific powers to launch military action, often against a specific group or location.
Recent major hostilities and authorization or lack thereof:
Korean War. 1950 – 1953.
No Congressional authorization.
1.7 million U.S. troops deployed in theater.
Vietnam War. 1964 – 1974.
No Congressional authorization.
3.4 million U.S. troops deployed in theater.
Gulf War. 1991.
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress.
House 250-183. Senate 52-47.
500,000 U.S. troops sent to Persian Gulf.
War on Terror. 2001 – present.
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress.
House 420 – 1. Senate 98 – 0.
Initially included 775,000 troops sent to Afghanistan.
Iraq War. 2002.
Authorization for Use of Military Force granted by Congress.
House 296 – 133. Senate 77 – 23.
170,000 U.S. troops at peak deployment in Iraq.


pbs--2020-01-09--WATCH: Pelosi says she'll send impeachment articles to the Senate 'soon'

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she will “ soon ” transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump , but warned that Senate Republicans are rushing to acquittal without a fair trial .
Pelosi brushed back GOP claims that Democrats are afraid to send the impeachment case to the Senate .
And she said she has no concerns about the anxiety some House and Senate Democrats are showing over the standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the terms of delayed trial .
It ’ s now more than three weeks since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse and obstruction .
“ I ’ m not holding them indefinitely , ” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol .
“ I ’ ll send them over when I ’ m ready .
That will probably be soon.
” Pelosi said she ’ s waiting for what she wanted from the start — “ to see the arena ” and “ terms of the engagement ” that McConnell will use — before sending her House managers to present the articles of impeachment in the Senate .
“ We are proud of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States , ” Pelosi said .
“ We are concerned the senators will not be able to live up to the oath they take.
” The standoff over Trump ’ s impeachment trial deepened this week as McConnell said there will be “ no haggling ” with Democrats as Pelosi demands for more details and witnesses .
McConnell said on Thursday if Pelosi and House Democrats are “ too embarrassed ” to transmit the articles of impeachment , the Senate will simply move on next week to other business .
“ They do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into an unending groundhog day of impeachment without resolution , ” McConnell said as he opened the Senate .
WATCH : In Pelosi-McConnell standoff over Trump Senate trial , who has the upper hand ?
McConnell ’ s Senate majority has the leverage Republicans need to launch Trump ’ s trial toward swift acquittal of the charges , but Pelosi ’ s reluctance to transmit the articles of impeachment leaves the proceedings at a standstill .
What started as a seemingly minor delay over process and procedures is now a high-stakes showdown between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare impeachment trial , only the third in the nation ’ s history .
As Pelosi headed toward a morning meeting Thursday , Pelosi told reporters , “ I know exactly when ” she plans to send the impeachment articles over , but , “ I won ’ t be telling you right now.
” Asked if she had any concerns about losing support from Democrats for her strategy , she said : “ No.
” One top lawmaker , Rep. Adam Smith , D-Wash. , the chairman of the House Armed Services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s time ” to send over the charges .
But shortly afterward , he tweeted that he misspoke : “ If the Speaker believes that holding on to the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate , then I wholeheartedly support that decision.
” McConnell , who met with Trump late Wednesday at the White House , suggested last month it would be “ fine with me ” if the House never sent the articles .
More recently , he has drawn on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have the ultimate say on matters of impeachment .
He scoffed that Pelosi has ‘ ’ managed to do the impossible ” by uniting Democrats and Republicans who want the trial to begin .
“ There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure , ” McConnell , R-Ky. , said Wednesday before meeting with Trump at the White House .
“ We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment .
The House Democrats ’ turn is over.
” Trump tweeted Thursday that “ Pelosi doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Impeachment , which were fraudulently produced by corrupt politicians like Shifty Schiff in the first place , because after all of these years of investigations and persecution , they show no crimes and are a joke and a scam !
” Rep. Adam Schiff , D-Calif. , led the House impeachment inquiry .
Three weeks have passed since the House impeached Trump on the charge that he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine ’ s new leader to investigate Democrats , using as leverage $ 400 million in military assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia at its border .
Trump insists he did nothing wrong , but his defiance of the House Democrats ’ investigation led to an additional charge of obstruction of Congress .
Senators from both sides are eager to serve as jurors for Trump ’ s day in court .
The trial will be conducted in the Senate , where Republicans have a thin majority .
The impeachment timeline is complicating the political calendar , with the weekslong trial now expected to bump into presidential primaries .
Several Democratic senators are running for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the campaign trail , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, told reporters she was confident in Pelosi ’ s plan .
“ I have no doubt that she will get this right , ” Warren said .
” Some things are more important than politics , and the impeachment of a president is certainly one of those .
No one is above the law , not even the president.
” Another 2020 hopeful , Sen. Cory Booker , D-N.J. , said : “ Those articles will come over here for a vote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be resolved this week , lawmakers said , although Pelosi did not commit to a timetable .
The confrontation over a Senate trial had been building for weeks .
But McConnell gained ground when he announced Tuesday that he has support from the majority of senators to start a trial structured like the last one , against President Bill Clinton in 1999 .
Those proceedings also began without an agreement on witnesses .
It takes 51 votes for agreement on the trial proceedings , and with Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can hold GOP senators together .
Democrats are trying to peel off support from a few Republicans to support their demands .
McConnell , who has resisted calling new witnesses , expects a speedy trial that will end with Trump acquitted of the charges .
He complained about Pelosi ’ s “ endless appetite for these cynical games ” and said it will be up to senators to decide if they want more testimony .
On the Senate floor Wednesday , Democratic leader Chuck Schumer promised he would force votes on witnesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear from Trump former national security adviser John Bolton and others .
Some Senate Democrats have said the time has come for Pelosi to send the articles so the trial can begin .
But aides downplayed any riff between the leaders , saying senators are simply eager to have their say on Trump ’ s impeachment .
Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman , Mary Clare Jalonick and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report .

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she will “soon” transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, but warned that Senate Republicans are rushing to acquittal without a fair trial.
Pelosi brushed back GOP claims that Democrats are afraid to send the impeachment case to the Senate. And she said she has no concerns about the anxiety some House and Senate Democrats are showing over the standoff with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over the terms of delayed trial. It’s now more than three weeks since the House impeached Trump on charges of abuse and obstruction.
“I’m not holding them indefinitely,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “I’ll send them over when I’m ready. That will probably be soon.”
Pelosi said she’s waiting for what she wanted from the start — “to see the arena” and “terms of the engagement” that McConnell will use — before sending her House managers to present the articles of impeachment in the Senate.
“We are proud of our defense of the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said. “We are concerned the senators will not be able to live up to the oath they take.”
The standoff over Trump’s impeachment trial deepened this week as McConnell said there will be “no haggling” with Democrats as Pelosi demands for more details and witnesses.
McConnell said on Thursday if Pelosi and House Democrats are “too embarrassed” to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Senate will simply move on next week to other business.
“They do not get to trap our entire country into an unending groundhog day of impeachment without resolution,” McConnell said as he opened the Senate.
WATCH: In Pelosi-McConnell standoff over Trump Senate trial, who has the upper hand?
McConnell’s Senate majority has the leverage Republicans need to launch Trump’s trial toward swift acquittal of the charges, but Pelosi’s reluctance to transmit the articles of impeachment leaves the proceedings at a standstill.
What started as a seemingly minor delay over process and procedures is now a high-stakes showdown between two skilled leaders facing off over the rare impeachment trial, only the third in the nation’s history.
As Pelosi headed toward a morning meeting Thursday, Pelosi told reporters, “I know exactly when” she plans to send the impeachment articles over, but, “I won’t be telling you right now.”
Asked if she had any concerns about losing support from Democrats for her strategy, she said: “No.”
One top lawmaker, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN on Thursday “it’s time” to send over the charges. But shortly afterward, he tweeted that he misspoke: “If the Speaker believes that holding on to the articles for a longer time will help force a fair trial in the Senate, then I wholeheartedly support that decision.”
McConnell, who met with Trump late Wednesday at the White House, suggested last month it would be “fine with me” if the House never sent the articles. More recently, he has drawn on the Constitution’s intent for the Senate to have the ultimate say on matters of impeachment. He scoffed that Pelosi has ‘’managed to do the impossible” by uniting Democrats and Republicans who want the trial to begin.
“There will be no haggling with the House over Senate procedure,” McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday before meeting with Trump at the White House. “We will not cede our authority to try this impeachment. The House Democrats’ turn is over.”
Trump tweeted Thursday that “Pelosi doesn’t want to hand over The Articles of Impeachment, which were fraudulently produced by corrupt politicians like Shifty Schiff in the first place, because after all of these years of investigations and persecution, they show no crimes and are a joke and a scam!” Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., led the House impeachment inquiry.
Three weeks have passed since the House impeached Trump on the charge that he abused the power of his office by pressuring Ukraine’s new leader to investigate Democrats, using as leverage $400 million in military assistance for the U.S. ally as it counters Russia at its border. Trump insists he did nothing wrong, but his defiance of the House Democrats’ investigation led to an additional charge of obstruction of Congress.
Senators from both sides are eager to serve as jurors for Trump’s day in court. The trial will be conducted in the Senate, where Republicans have a thin majority.
The impeachment timeline is complicating the political calendar, with the weekslong trial now expected to bump into presidential primaries. Several Democratic senators are running for the party nomination.
Returning to Washington from the campaign trail, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told reporters she was confident in Pelosi’s plan.
“I have no doubt that she will get this right,” Warren said. ”Some things are more important than politics, and the impeachment of a president is certainly one of those. No one is above the law, not even the president.”
Another 2020 hopeful, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said: “Those articles will come over here for a vote in due time.”
The showdown is expected to be resolved this week, lawmakers said, although Pelosi did not commit to a timetable.
The confrontation over a Senate trial had been building for weeks. But McConnell gained ground when he announced Tuesday that he has support from the majority of senators to start a trial structured like the last one, against President Bill Clinton in 1999. Those proceedings also began without an agreement on witnesses.
It takes 51 votes for agreement on the trial proceedings, and with Republicans holding a 53-47 Senate majority McConnell has a slight advantage if he can hold GOP senators together. Democrats are trying to peel off support from a few Republicans to support their demands.
McConnell, who has resisted calling new witnesses, expects a speedy trial that will end with Trump acquitted of the charges. He complained about Pelosi’s “endless appetite for these cynical games” and said it will be up to senators to decide if they want more testimony.
On the Senate floor Wednesday, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer promised he would force votes on witnesses, requiring senators to choose whether they want to hear from Trump former national security adviser John Bolton and others.
Some Senate Democrats have said the time has come for Pelosi to send the articles so the trial can begin. But aides downplayed any riff between the leaders, saying senators are simply eager to have their say on Trump’s impeachment.
Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman, Mary Clare Jalonick and Padmananda Rama contributed to this report.