thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--Nancy Pelosi is right about Congress’s war powers

Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite .
She ’ s also right .
In 2011 , Pelosi had the opportunity to join Republicans in reasserting Congress ’ s war powers after President Barack Obama launched an unauthorized , prolonged military intervention into Libya , which , it 's worth noting , was a complete disaster and has left Libya a failed state .
Instead , she , saying , “ I 'm satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.
” The California Democrat tossed aside Congress ’ s constitutionally mandated war powers when her party was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buyer ’ s remorse .
After President Trump successfully ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week without so much as even notifying much of Congress , Pelosi is raising the alarm .
Of course , Soleimani was a with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands .
Every American should be glad to see his corpse rotting .
But the consequences of the United States assassinating such high-ranking officials will almost certainly lead to further conflict with Iran .
The Constitution demands that Trump seek congressional authorization before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Congress shall have power to … declare war.
” Yes , the president is established under the Constitution as commander in chief , and this implies that he does not need Congress 's permission for every single military action .
But he still requires congressional authorization to make war .
Regardless of whether the assassination of Soleimani alone constitutes an act of war , and whether it is itself within the president 's legal rights , it 's hard to deny that any prolonged military intervention in Iran that comes as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war .
Our current system has let Trump and his predecessors get away with such prolonged military action repeatedly and at will .
Notably , under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force , or AUMF , we ’ ve given the last several presidents essentially unlimited running room to wage war in the Middle East without so much as consulting Congress .
And as Jack Hunter noted , legislators had a chance to revisit the AUMF in a defense bill just in July of this year , and a majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Obama was allowed by congressional negligence to wage a protracted regime-change war in Libya without Congress 's approval .
Now , after Trump ’ s escalations with Iran , Pelosi is finally seeing the light .
With a newfound `` respect for Congress ’ s war powers granted to it by the Constitution ” that was notably absent from Pelosi ’ s Obama-era tenure , she will have the House that would mandate Trump get congressional authorization for the conflict in Iran or cease military action after 30 days .
Pelosi 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is well warranted .
Pelosi is completely right to force the Trump administration to get Congress ’ s approval if this turns into a protracted new military campaign .
Respect for the proper congressional war powers as established in the Constitution is of the utmost importance .
As Daniel DePetris , it ’ s important because “ only a national discussion about military force can serve as a guardrail to hasty , reckless interventions that create more problems than they solve and saddle our country with more endless , expensive , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once , constitutional conservatives should hope that Pelosi ’ s vote succeeds .
As I 've previously explained , war with Iran would be a disaster .
If Trump really wants to take us down that path , he at the very least should have to go through the proper process to do so .

Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite. She’s also right.
In 2011, Pelosi had the opportunity to join Republicans in reasserting Congress’s war powers after President Barack Obama launched an unauthorized, prolonged military intervention into Libya, which, it's worth noting, was a complete disaster and has left Libya a failed state. Instead, she bowed to the executive branch , saying, “I'm satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead.” The California Democrat tossed aside Congress’s constitutionally mandated war powers when her party was in power, and now she has buyer’s remorse.
After President Trump successfully ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani last week without so much as even notifying much of Congress, Pelosi is raising the alarm.
Of course, Soleimani was a terrorist madman with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands. Every American should be glad to see his corpse rotting. But the consequences of the United States assassinating such high-ranking officials will almost certainly lead to further conflict with Iran.
The Constitution demands that Trump seek congressional authorization before launching a war. Article I, Section 8 is clear: “The Congress shall have power to … declare war.” Yes, the president is established under the Constitution as commander in chief, and this implies that he does not need Congress's permission for every single military action. But he still requires congressional authorization to make war. Regardless of whether the assassination of Soleimani alone constitutes an act of war, and whether it is itself within the president's legal rights, it's hard to deny that any prolonged military intervention in Iran that comes as an outgrowth of this act would be a war.
Our current system has let Trump and his predecessors get away with such prolonged military action repeatedly and at will. Notably, under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, we’ve given the last several presidents essentially unlimited running room to wage war in the Middle East without so much as consulting Congress. And as Jack Hunter noted, legislators had a chance to revisit the AUMF in a defense bill just in July of this year, and a majority chose not to. So, too, Obama was allowed by congressional negligence to wage a protracted regime-change war in Libya without Congress's approval.
Now, after Trump’s escalations with Iran, Pelosi is finally seeing the light.
With a newfound desire to ensure "respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution” that was notably absent from Pelosi’s Obama-era tenure, she will have the House vote on a measure that would mandate Trump get congressional authorization for the conflict in Iran or cease military action after 30 days.
Pelosi's inconsistent application of this principle aside, this is well warranted. Pelosi is completely right to force the Trump administration to get Congress’s approval if this turns into a protracted new military campaign. Respect for the proper congressional war powers as established in the Constitution is of the utmost importance.
As Daniel DePetris wrote , it’s important because “only a national discussion about military force can serve as a guardrail to hasty, reckless interventions that create more problems than they solve and saddle our country with more endless, expensive, and purposeless foreign commitments.”
So, for once, constitutional conservatives should hope that Pelosi’s vote succeeds. As I've previously explained, war with Iran would be a disaster. If Trump really wants to take us down that path, he at the very least should have to go through the proper process to do so.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--Devin Nunes: Republicans have 'active investigation' into intelligence inspector general

House Republicans are investigating Michael Atkinson , the Intelligence Community inspector general who notified Congress of the whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment effort against President Trump .
California Rep. Devin Nunes , the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee , told The Sara Carter Show on Monday that Atkinson still faces `` serious questions '' after his testimony in October , which to this day remains under wraps .
Democrats have not released the transcript of that deposition despite mounting pressure by Republicans .
`` Everyone needs to see that testimony , '' Nunes said , adding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` because it 's very damaging , not only to the whistleblower but also to Atkinson himself . ''
Nunes said House Republicans have `` an active investigation '' open into Atkinson .
They have sent a letter to the inspector general , but Nunes said they `` gave us a very typical IC response , which is to not answer the question . ''
He also conceded that , as the minority party in the House , Republicans can not subpoena Atkinson or force him to testify again .
A representative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Examiner 's request for comment .
Atkinson received the complaint from a CIA analyst , whose identity has not yet been confirmed , in August and deemed it to be urgent and credible .
The complaint raised concerns about Trump 's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , in which the Trump pressed for an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden .
It also raised concerns about an effort to conceal details of that conversation and others using a highly secure computer system .
Atkinson forwarded the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maguire , who did not give the watchdog permission to share it with Congress after seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department , but it did allow him to notify them of its existence .
After a clash over access with Democratic lawmakers , the complaint was declassified on Sept. 25 , the same day the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call was released , and it was made available to the public the next day .
Republicans have complained that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , who had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , had foreknowledge of the whistleblower 's complaint and misled them about what he knew .
With some allies of Trump pointing the finger at CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella , the whistleblower 's lawyers and Democrats have argued that the whistleblower 's identity is no longer relevant and that outing the whistleblower would put that person 's life in danger .
After testimony by dozens of witnesses , the House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat from California , has been withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses .
The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats ' demands .

House Republicans are investigating Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community inspector general who notified Congress of the whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment effort against President Trump.
California Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Sara Carter Show on Monday that Atkinson still faces "serious questions" after his testimony in October, which to this day remains under wraps. Democrats have not released the transcript of that deposition despite mounting pressure by Republicans.
"Everyone needs to see that testimony," Nunes said, adding that the reason it has not been released is "because it's very damaging, not only to the whistleblower but also to Atkinson himself."
Nunes said House Republicans have "an active investigation" open into Atkinson. They have sent a letter to the inspector general, but Nunes said they "gave us a very typical IC response, which is to not answer the question." He also conceded that, as the minority party in the House, Republicans cannot subpoena Atkinson or force him to testify again.
A representative for Atkinson declined to comment for this report.
Atkinson received the complaint from a CIA analyst, whose identity has not yet been confirmed, in August and deemed it to be urgent and credible. The complaint raised concerns about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the Trump pressed for an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden. It also raised concerns about an effort to conceal details of that conversation and others using a highly secure computer system.
Atkinson forwarded the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who did not give the watchdog permission to share it with Congress after seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department, but it did allow him to notify them of its existence. After a clash over access with Democratic lawmakers, the complaint was declassified on Sept. 25, the same day the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call was released, and it was made available to the public the next day.
Republicans have complained that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who had a leading role in the House impeachment process, had foreknowledge of the whistleblower's complaint and misled them about what he knew. With some allies of Trump pointing the finger at CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower's lawyers and Democrats have argued that the whistleblower's identity is no longer relevant and that outing the whistleblower would put that person's life in danger.
After testimony by dozens of witnesses, the House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has been withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses. The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats' demands.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--McConnell mum on GOP ploy to dismiss delayed impeachment articles

A group of Republicans want to change Senate rules to allow a vote to dismiss impeachment articles against President Trump .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has so far remained silent on the proposal while separately advocating lawmakers stick to “ precedent.
” Missouri Republican Josh Hawley has so far attracted 10 GOP co-sponsors for a resolution that would change the Senate rules and permit lawmakers to vote on a motion to dismiss impeachment charges even though the House has not sent over the articles .
The measure is meant to undo the leverage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republicans agree to a list of witnesses from the Trump administration .
The Hawley resolution would amend the Senate ’ s rules for conducting an impeachment trial to allow the Senate to dismiss the charges “ for lack of prosecution ” on any articles the House hasn ’ t sent to the Senate for 25 days or longer .
The House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charge President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Hawley said on Monday his proposal “ will set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dec. 19 , when the House passed the articles without a single GOP vote .
McConnell , a Kentucky Republican , has not registered public support for the measure , and a spokesman said he had no information to provide on McConnell ’ s perspective .
John Barrasso of Wyoming and Joni Ernst of Iowa , who are on McConnell ’ s leadership team , are co-sponsors of the proposal .
Democrats want documents and testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s decision to temporarily block security aid to Ukraine .
“ I believe a fair trial is one that considers all the relevant facts that allow for relevant witnesses and documents , ” Schumer said on Monday .
“ That is a feature of every single impeachment trial of a president in the history of our nation.
” Republicans accused House Democrats of rushing a vote on weak impeachment evidence only to demand the Senate continue the proceedings with more witness testimony .
“ If Speaker Pelosi is afraid to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissed for failure to prosecute , and Congress should get back to doing the people ’ s business , ” Hawley said Monday .
McConnell , however , has declared he wants to stick to precedent , first .
In a floor speech on Monday , McConnell called on the Senate to follow the rules agreed on during President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial in 1999 .
In that instance , lawmakers unanimously agreed to hear opening arguments from House prosecutors as well as White House defense lawyers before voting on witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break our Senate precedents , just like they broke their own House precedents , could not be more telling , ” McConnell said on Monday .
“ But the Senate does not just bob along on the currents of every news cycle .
The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump , but that is not the Senate.
” McConnell is generally reluctant to alter long-standing Senate rules .
He made an exception in 2017 , when Democrats threatened to filibuster Trump ’ s Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employed the “ nuclear option ” to change Senate rules , meaning through a narrow partisan vote rather than with a supermajority , to allow a simple majority to cut off Senate debate on high court nominees , meaning that appointees can be confirmed with 51 votes instead of 60 .
When it comes to the impeachment trial , however , McConnell appears content to wait out Pelosi on the articles .
But there is a growing demand from Trump ’ s GOP Senate allies to change the rules to allow the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start of the impeachment process , Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain , ” Sen. Ted Cruz , a Texas Republican , said Monday .
“ Now , they ’ re undermining the role of the Senate by attempting to dictate the terms of the Senate ’ s trial .
Under our Constitution , the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment .
It is the Senate ’ s duty to take up these articles without delay and to resolve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manner . ''
Sen. Lindsey Graham , a South Carolina Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee , told Fox News 's Sunday Morning Futures that if Pelosi holds onto the articles much longer , “ I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate so we could start the trial without her , if necessary . ''
Graham said he would act in “ days , not weeks .
”

A group of Republicans want to change Senate rules to allow a vote to dismiss impeachment articles against President Trump.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has so far remained silent on the proposal while separately advocating lawmakers stick to “precedent.”
Missouri Republican Josh Hawley has so far attracted 10 GOP co-sponsors for a resolution that would change the Senate rules and permit lawmakers to vote on a motion to dismiss impeachment charges even though the House has not sent over the articles.
The measure is meant to undo the leverage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to gain by withholding articles of impeachment until Senate Republicans agree to a list of witnesses from the Trump administration.
The Hawley resolution would amend the Senate’s rules for conducting an impeachment trial to allow the Senate to dismiss the charges “for lack of prosecution” on any articles the House hasn’t sent to the Senate for 25 days or longer.
The House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charge President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hawley said on Monday his proposal “will set a time limit,” backdated to Dec. 19, when the House passed the articles without a single GOP vote.
McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has not registered public support for the measure, and a spokesman said he had no information to provide on McConnell’s perspective.
John Barrasso of Wyoming and Joni Ernst of Iowa, who are on McConnell’s leadership team, are co-sponsors of the proposal.
Democrats want documents and testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and two other officials who have information about Trump’s decision to temporarily block security aid to Ukraine.
“I believe a fair trial is one that considers all the relevant facts that allow for relevant witnesses and documents,” Schumer said on Monday. “That is a feature of every single impeachment trial of a president in the history of our nation.”
Republicans accused House Democrats of rushing a vote on weak impeachment evidence only to demand the Senate continue the proceedings with more witness testimony.
“If Speaker Pelosi is afraid to try her case, the articles should be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and Congress should get back to doing the people’s business,” Hawley said Monday.
McConnell, however, has declared he wants to stick to precedent, first.
In a floor speech on Monday, McConnell called on the Senate to follow the rules agreed on during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999.
In that instance, lawmakers unanimously agreed to hear opening arguments from House prosecutors as well as White House defense lawyers before voting on witnesses.
“House Democrats’ hunger to break our Senate precedents, just like they broke their own House precedents, could not be more telling,” McConnell said on Monday. “But the Senate does not just bob along on the currents of every news cycle. The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump, but that is not the Senate.”
McConnell is generally reluctant to alter long-standing Senate rules. He made an exception in 2017, when Democrats threatened to filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. McConnell employed the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules, meaning through a narrow partisan vote rather than with a supermajority, to allow a simple majority to cut off Senate debate on high court nominees, meaning that appointees can be confirmed with 51 votes instead of 60.
When it comes to the impeachment trial, however, McConnell appears content to wait out Pelosi on the articles.
But there is a growing demand from Trump’s GOP Senate allies to change the rules to allow the Senate to dismiss them.
"Since the start of the impeachment process, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have made a mockery of our Constitution and abused impeachment for political gain,” Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, said Monday. “Now, they’re undermining the role of the Senate by attempting to dictate the terms of the Senate’s trial. Under our Constitution, the Senate has the sole authority to try impeachment. It is the Senate’s duty to take up these articles without delay and to resolve them in a timely and constitutionally appropriate manner."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told Fox News's Sunday Morning Futures that if Pelosi holds onto the articles much longer, “I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate so we could start the trial without her, if necessary."
Graham said he would act in “days, not weeks.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--Top GOP senator: Bolton testimony could be 'helpful' to Trump in impeachment trial

A top GOP senator said testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton could be a boon to President Trump in a Senate impeachment trial .
Texas Sen. John Cornyn , the No .
2 Republican in the upper chamber , voiced a willingness to vote in favor of subpoenaing Bolton to testify but only after he learns what the ex-Trump adviser has to say .
`` I would want to know what he has to offer that would help eliminate the issues , the two articles of impeachment , that have been issued by the House of Representatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate trial , '' he said in an interview Monday on Fox News Radio 's The Guy Benson Show .
Bolton , 71 , issued a statement hours earlier saying he would not fight a subpoena to testify , marking a shift from his refusal to testify before House investigators on orders from the White House .
The House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress .
Bolton 's announcement gave ammunition to Democrats in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow witnesses , but Cornyn said the former White House official 's offer could hurt their impeachment case .
`` I think it ’ s entirely likely that his testimony would be helpful to the president because it would identify basically a foreign policy dispute , which is reserved to the president under the Constitution , really his sole authority , as a basis for impeachment , for this now the third time in American history .
So , it could well be beneficial to the second count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , a Democrat from California , has been withholding articles of impeachment because McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses .
The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats ' demands .
“ The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump , but that is not the Senate , ” McConnell said Monday .
“ Even with a process this constitutionally serious , even with tensions rising in the Middle East , House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toy .
”

A top GOP senator said testimony from former national security adviser John Bolton could be a boon to President Trump in a Senate impeachment trial.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the upper chamber, voiced a willingness to vote in favor of subpoenaing Bolton to testify but only after he learns what the ex-Trump adviser has to say.
"I would want to know what he has to offer that would help eliminate the issues, the two articles of impeachment, that have been issued by the House of Representatives. That would define the scope of any Senate trial," he said in an interview Monday on Fox News Radio's The Guy Benson Show.
Bolton, 71, issued a statement hours earlier saying he would not fight a subpoena to testify, marking a shift from his refusal to testify before House investigators on orders from the White House. The House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.
Bolton's announcement gave ammunition to Democrats in the House and Senate who are pressuring Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow witnesses, but Cornyn said the former White House official's offer could hurt their impeachment case.
"I think it’s entirely likely that his testimony would be helpful to the president because it would identify basically a foreign policy dispute, which is reserved to the president under the Constitution, really his sole authority, as a basis for impeachment, for this now the third time in American history. So, it could well be beneficial to the second count, which is obstruction," Cornyn said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has been withholding articles of impeachment because McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses. The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats' demands.
“The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump, but that is not the Senate,” McConnell said Monday. “Even with a process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the Middle East, House Democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Impeachment stalemate over witnesses: McConnell accuses Democrats of ’treating impeachment like a po

Impeachment stalemate over witnesses: McConnell accuses Democrats of ’treating impeachment like a political toy’

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he wo n't agree in advance to Democrats ' demands for Trump administration witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial .
“ The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump , but that is not the Senate , ” McConnell , a Kentucky Republican , said Monday .
“ Even with a process this constitutionally serious , even with tensions rising in the Middle East , House Democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy.
” McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a New York Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement on the terms of a Senate trial , which has prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi , a California Democrat , to hold onto the two impeachment articles House Democrats passed last month that accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
McConnell had planned to begin the trial in January but is now moving onto more judicial nominations during that time instead , while the Senate Finance Committee will begin consideration of a major trade deal among the United States , Canada , and Mexico .
Senators had anticipated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several weeks .
But the Senate has returned to legislation , and there is no clear indication when , or if , a trial will begin .
Schumer , speaking after McConnell on the Senate floor , justified the delay in the trial by arguing that holding the proceeding without an initial agreement on the witnesses Democrats demand would constitute a cover-up .
“ At the moment , there is a very clear difference of opinion between the Republican leader and myself about what it means to have a fair trial , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear the opening arguments from each side before holding a vote on witnesses , but Schumer and Pelosi want an agreement before the trial begins .
The Democrats said their case for witnesses has been bolstered by former national security adviser John Bolton ’ s announcement Monday that he would agree to testify before the Senate , if called .
“ Previously , Mr. Bolton said he was leaving his question of testimony up to the courts , but today he made it perfectly clear that he ’ ll come if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' said Schumer .
Democrats believe Bolton and other Trump officials can provide information showing the president acted to temporarily block security aid to Ukraine to coerce the country into pledging to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Democrats .
Schumer repeated his warning to the GOP that he would call up a vote on each of the four witnesses Democrats want to testify , including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
A simple majority would be needed to compel each witness to testify .
Democrats control 47 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to summon any of the witnesses on Schumer ’ s list .
“ Make no mistake , there will be votes on whether to call each of the four witnesses we proposed , ” Schumer said .

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that he won't agree in advance to Democrats' demands for Trump administration witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial.
“The House may have been content to scrap their own norms to hurt President Trump, but that is not the Senate,” McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Monday. “Even with a process this constitutionally serious, even with tensions rising in the Middle East, House Democrats are treating impeachment like a political toy.”
McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, can’t come to an agreement on the terms of a Senate trial, which has prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, to hold onto the two impeachment articles House Democrats passed last month that accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
McConnell had planned to begin the trial in January but is now moving onto more judicial nominations during that time instead, while the Senate Finance Committee will begin consideration of a major trade deal among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Senators had anticipated the trial would begin in January and last several weeks. But the Senate has returned to legislation, and there is no clear indication when, or if, a trial will begin.
Schumer, speaking after McConnell on the Senate floor, justified the delay in the trial by arguing that holding the proceeding without an initial agreement on the witnesses Democrats demand would constitute a cover-up.
“At the moment, there is a very clear difference of opinion between the Republican leader and myself about what it means to have a fair trial,” Schumer said.
McConnell wants the Senate to hear the opening arguments from each side before holding a vote on witnesses, but Schumer and Pelosi want an agreement before the trial begins.
The Democrats said their case for witnesses has been bolstered by former national security adviser John Bolton’s announcement Monday that he would agree to testify before the Senate, if called.
“Previously, Mr. Bolton said he was leaving his question of testimony up to the courts, but today he made it perfectly clear that he’ll come if the Senate asks, as he should," said Schumer.
Democrats believe Bolton and other Trump officials can provide information showing the president acted to temporarily block security aid to Ukraine to coerce the country into pledging to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Democrats.
Schumer repeated his warning to the GOP that he would call up a vote on each of the four witnesses Democrats want to testify, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
A simple majority would be needed to compel each witness to testify. Democrats control 47 votes. No Republican yet has pledged to vote to summon any of the witnesses on Schumer’s list.
“Make no mistake, there will be votes on whether to call each of the four witnesses we proposed,” Schumer said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Schiff demands open hearings on Soleimani strike

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has called for public congressional hearings into the U.S. strikes in Iraq that killed Iranian military officials , including Quds Force Cmdr .
Qassem Soleimani .
Schiff , a California Democrat who led the House impeachment investigation , told the Washington Post : “ I think there should be open hearings on this subject .
The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran .
That requires the Congress to fully engage.
” Defense Department officials on Wednesday will begin briefing Congress on the strikes , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump last week sent top congressional leaders and their staff a justification for the strike , but the material is classified .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS on Sunday that some of the information can not be declassified .
“ There are things you simply can not share , ” Pompeo said .
“ There are valuable information streams that we must protect .
We will need them in the days and weeks ahead .
And we will never present the risk to the United States by putting at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York , are demanding Trump declassify the notification .
Democrats do not support Trump ’ s decision to strike .
Schiff told CNN on Sunday the move will detract from U.S. efforts to defeat terrorism in the region .
“ I do n't think the intelligence supports the conclusion that removing Soleimani increases our security , ” Schiff said .

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has called for public congressional hearings into the U.S. strikes in Iraq that killed Iranian military officials, including Quds Force Cmdr. Qassem Soleimani.
Schiff, a California Democrat who led the House impeachment investigation, told the Washington Post: “I think there should be open hearings on this subject. The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage.”
Defense Department officials on Wednesday will begin briefing Congress on the strikes, but will do so in a closed-door setting.
Trump last week sent top congressional leaders and their staff a justification for the strike, but the material is classified. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS on Sunday that some of the information cannot be declassified.
“There are things you simply cannot share,” Pompeo said. “There are valuable information streams that we must protect. We will need them in the days and weeks ahead. And we will never present the risk to the United States by putting at risk that valuable information.”
Top Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, are demanding Trump declassify the notification.
Democrats do not support Trump’s decision to strike.
Schiff told CNN on Sunday the move will detract from U.S. efforts to defeat terrorism in the region.
“I don't think the intelligence supports the conclusion that removing Soleimani increases our security,” Schiff said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--AOC responds to her love from the Left: ‘I am also one of the most hated people in America’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed her love from many on the Left comes with the downside of hate from many on the Right .
Ocasio-Cortez , 30 , became a darling of the Democratic Party after her surprise victory over incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley .
Her unabashed support of socialism caught the attention of many on the Left , making her one of the most coveted endorsements of the 2020 presidential election .
Despite all of her love , Ocasio-Cortez New Yorker that her adoration is “ weird ” because just as many people despise her .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most hated people in America , ” she said .
She claimed her political fame has made it difficult to go out in public , saying , “ I realized this was going to be a tattoo-on-my-face kind of situation .
I can ’ t go outside anymore .
I miss being able to go out to dinner .
I miss anonymity .
I have to send my boyfriend out to get groceries .
There has been a shift in chores.
” In the same interview , Ocasio-Cortez demonstrated her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming he would “ not be in the same party ” if the two were from any other country .
The congresswoman endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders for president .
He vowed that she would in his administration if he wins the Oval Office .

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed her love from many on the Left comes with the downside of hate from many on the Right.
Ocasio-Cortez, 30, became a darling of the Democratic Party after her surprise victory over incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley. Her unabashed support of socialism caught the attention of many on the Left, making her one of the most coveted endorsements of the 2020 presidential election.
Despite all of her love, Ocasio-Cortez told the New Yorker that her adoration is “weird” because just as many people despise her.
“It’s weird because I know I am also one of the most hated people in America,” she said.
She claimed her political fame has made it difficult to go out in public, saying, “I realized this was going to be a tattoo-on-my-face kind of situation. I can’t go outside anymore. I miss being able to go out to dinner. I miss anonymity. I have to send my boyfriend out to get groceries. There has been a shift in chores.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Why the collapse of congressional war powers matters

When it comes to war powers , the Constitution has become little more than an irrelevant and archaic piece of paper .
There 's no sugarcoating it : The system the founders codified in the Constitution for making war in our country ’ s name is increasingly disregarded by our political leaders .
There ’ s a stark difference between how war is supposed to be conducted under the Constitution in this country and the status quo we have right now .
The original system included a rigorous regime of checks and balances , where the president was expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the case for military action .
In its infinite wisdom , Congress would hear the case , ask probing questions about the proposed course of action , and engage in a thorough public debate about potential costs , benefits , consequences ( intended and unintended ) , and alternative options .
Only if lawmakers granted the president the statutory authority to use force would the United States be permitted to go forward .
This is how the founders drew up the system .
Then , at the opposite extreme , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take President Trump ’ s airstrike against Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as the latest example .
The president ’ s defenders argue that a single strike on a terrorist mastermind is not a war-like action , but this isn ’ t how the Iranians will see it .
They undoubtedly view it as an assassination and an act of war .
The president , in the dead of night and after consultations with his advisers , ordered a missile attack on an Iranian general ’ s car as it left the Baghdad airport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of flames , likely obliterating any slim chance of de-escalation with the Iranians along with it .
The administration did n't bother to consult Congress because in the executive branch ’ s expansionist view , there ’ s no need to bother with that pesky constitutional process .
The morning after , Congress was caught with its pants down .
The speaker of the House , the Senate majority leader , and congressional intelligence committees only learned of the strike when the news broke , despite it being one of the most consequential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And only when Congress is back in session did lawmakers , typically of the opposing party , finally get involved , usually through press statements , to the White House , and the occasional half-hearted from further action .
The system has turned inside out .
Making matters worse is the intense polarization of our political system , where politicians on both sides of the aisle treat war power issues as just another football in the endless , zero-sum battle otherwise known as American politics .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s contempt of Congress ’ s war-making authority today , but the California Democrat didn ’ t seem all that upset when President Barack Obama intervened militarily in Libya with a bogus legal rationale .
Similar hypocrisy plagues House Republicans , many of whom for failing to consult with Congress before the Libya intervention but appear perfectly fine with Trump taking preemptive action last week .
Reverence to the nation ’ s founding document is too important to be cast aside in the name of party politics .
Proper respect for war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about military force can serve as a guardrail to hasty , reckless interventions that create more problems than they solve and saddle our country with more endless , expensive , and purposeless foreign commitments .
Washington has lost its way , and Congress needs to take its power back .
Daniel DePetris ( @ DanDePetris ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's Beltway Confidential blog .
His opinions are his own .

When it comes to war powers, the Constitution has become little more than an irrelevant and archaic piece of paper. There's no sugarcoating it: The system the founders codified in the Constitution for making war in our country’s name is increasingly disregarded by our political leaders.
There’s a stark difference between how war is supposed to be conducted under the Constitution in this country and the status quo we have right now.
The original system included a rigorous regime of checks and balances, where the president was expected to send his representatives to Capitol Hill to make the case for military action. In its infinite wisdom, Congress would hear the case, ask probing questions about the proposed course of action, and engage in a thorough public debate about potential costs, benefits, consequences (intended and unintended), and alternative options.
Only if lawmakers granted the president the statutory authority to use force would the United States be permitted to go forward. This is how the founders drew up the system.
Then, at the opposite extreme, there is the way war is made today.
Take President Trump’s airstrike against Iranian general Qassem Soleimani as the latest example. The president’s defenders argue that a single strike on a terrorist mastermind is not a war-like action, but this isn’t how the Iranians will see it. They undoubtedly view it as an assassination and an act of war.
The president, in the dead of night and after consultations with his advisers, ordered a missile attack on an Iranian general’s car as it left the Baghdad airport. The car burst into a ball of flames, likely obliterating any slim chance of de-escalation with the Iranians along with it. The administration didn't bother to consult Congress because in the executive branch’s expansionist view, there’s no need to bother with that pesky constitutional process.
The morning after, Congress was caught with its pants down. The speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and congressional intelligence committees only learned of the strike when the news broke, despite it being one of the most consequential decisions the Trump administration has ever made. And only when Congress is back in session did lawmakers, typically of the opposing party, finally get involved, usually through press statements, sternly worded letters to the White House, and the occasional half-hearted attempt to constrain the president from further action.
The system has turned inside out.
Making matters worse is the intense polarization of our political system, where politicians on both sides of the aisle treat war power issues as just another football in the endless, zero-sum battle otherwise known as American politics.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may be screaming about the executive branch’s contempt of Congress’s war-making authority today, but the California Democrat didn’t seem all that upset when President Barack Obama intervened militarily in Libya with a bogus legal rationale. Similar hypocrisy plagues House Republicans, many of whom blasted Obama for failing to consult with Congress before the Libya intervention but appear perfectly fine with Trump taking preemptive action last week.
Reverence to the nation’s founding document is too important to be cast aside in the name of party politics. Proper respect for war powers matters because only a national discussion about military force can serve as a guardrail to hasty, reckless interventions that create more problems than they solve and saddle our country with more endless, expensive, and purposeless foreign commitments.
Washington has lost its way, and Congress needs to take its power back.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Trump to Congress: 'Read my tweets' if you want to know what's going on

Democratic members of Congress continue to complain that the White House failed to inform congressional leaders prior to the hit on Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani .
The Democrats have charged that President Trump should have informed the so-called Gang or Eight of senators ; four Republican and four Democrats who are typically briefed on intelligence matters by the executive branch .
In response to the complaints , Trump suggested they need only read his Twitter feed to keep up with what he ’ s doing .
“ These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or target , the United States will quickly & fully strike back , & perhaps in a disproportionate manner , ” Trump wrote on Twitter .
“ Such legal notice is not required , but is given nevertheless !
” In response , the official Twitter account of the House Foreign Affairs Committee “ This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution .
And that you should read the War Powers Act .
And that you ’ re not a dictator.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains furious that the United States violated Iraqi sovereignty by carrying out the attack on Iraqi soil without consultation or permission from the Iraqi government .
In response , the Iraqi parliament has passed a nonbinding resolution disinviting the 5,000 American troops there and revoking their request for U.S. military assistance .
In his chat with reporters on Air Force One , Trump said if Iraq follows through and expels U.S. forces , he would punish them with economic sanctions .
Read more from our senior writer on defense and national security in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daily on Defense .

Democratic members of Congress continue to complain that the White House failed to inform congressional leaders prior to the hit on Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani. The Democrats have charged that President Trump should have informed the so-called Gang or Eight of senators; four Republican and four Democrats who are typically briefed on intelligence matters by the executive branch.
In response to the complaints, Trump suggested they need only read his Twitter feed to keep up with what he’s doing. “These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”
In response, the official Twitter account of the House Foreign Affairs Committee wrote: “This Media Post will serve as a reminder that war powers reside in the Congress under the United States Constitution. And that you should read the War Powers Act. And that you’re not a dictator.”
Iraq, for its part, remains furious that the United States violated Iraqi sovereignty by carrying out the attack on Iraqi soil without consultation or permission from the Iraqi government. In response, the Iraqi parliament has passed a nonbinding resolution disinviting the 5,000 American troops there and revoking their request for U.S. military assistance.
In his chat with reporters on Air Force One, Trump said if Iraq follows through and expels U.S. forces, he would punish them with economic sanctions.
Read more from our senior writer on defense and national security in today's edition of Jamie McIntyre's Daily on Defense.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--House lawmakers rank next to last in ‘honesty, ethics,’ nurses first

House members rank next to last in a new Gallup survey of honesty and ethics , barely edging out perennial cellar dwellers : car salespeople .
In the latest survey , just 12 % of Americans ranked the ethics and honesty of House members as high .
For car salespeople it was 8 % and for senators just 13 % .
As usual , the winner was nurses , at 85 % .
Journalists were near the bottom of the pack at 28 % with a very high ethics rating .
“ The public 's low levels of belief in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and members of Congress may be a contributing factor in poor job approval ratings for the legislature .
No more than 30 % of Americans have approved of Congress in the past 10 years , ” said the survey analysis .
And as for journalists , the rating showed another dip in their honesty and ethics rating .
Said Gallup , “ Americans ' assessment of the honesty and ethics of journalists fell by five percentage points .
There was previously a 10-point increase in Americans ' belief that this profession is honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 to 33 % in 2018 — but this most recent drop to 28 % returns journalists to levels last seen in 2015 .
”

House members rank next to last in a new Gallup survey of honesty and ethics, barely edging out perennial cellar dwellers: car salespeople.
In the latest survey, just 12% of Americans ranked the ethics and honesty of House members as high. For car salespeople it was 8% and for senators just 13%.
As usual, the winner was nurses, at 85%.
Journalists were near the bottom of the pack at 28% with a very high ethics rating.
“The public's low levels of belief in the honesty and ethical standards of senators and members of Congress may be a contributing factor in poor job approval ratings for the legislature. No more than 30% of Americans have approved of Congress in the past 10 years,” said the survey analysis.
And as for journalists, the rating showed another dip in their honesty and ethics rating. Said Gallup, “Americans' assessment of the honesty and ethics of journalists fell by five percentage points. There was previously a 10-point increase in Americans' belief that this profession is honest and ethical, from 23% in 2016 to 33% in 2018 — but this most recent drop to 28% returns journalists to levels last seen in 2015.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Liberal Media Scream: CNN’s Don Lemon promises ‘to lean in harder’

CNN anchor Don Lemon , one of cable ’ s notable critics of President Trump , is the first 2020 winner of our weekly Liberal Media Scream feature for his promise to turn up the heat on “ the craziness.
” In celebrating the New Year on CNN shortly after midnight , he said , “ I ’ m going to lean in harder.
” Co-host Brooke Baldwin , live from Nashville with Lemon , asked , “ What does that mean ?
” Lemon said , “ I ’ m going to lean in harder .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you thought I went hard in 2019 , watch 2020 , baby .
There ’ s more to come .
I ’ m a soldier .
I ’ m ready to fight ... We 've got to get ready .
It ’ s an election year .
We ’ re on the grind.
” Media Research Center Vice President of Research and Publications Brent Baker explains our weekly pick : “ Lemon , who doesn ’ t hesitate to disparage President Trump as ‘ unhinged ’ and a ‘ racist , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his vitriol toward Trump , so it ’ s hard to imagine how he can ‘ lean in harder.
’ Telling , though , that he sees himself as a ‘ soldier ’ who is ‘ ready to fight ’ for a cause .
That shouldn ’ t be the motivation for anyone pretending to be a journalist.
” Rating : Four of Five SCREAMS .

CNN anchor Don Lemon, one of cable’s notable critics of President Trump, is the first 2020 winner of our weekly Liberal Media Scream feature for his promise to turn up the heat on “the craziness.”
In celebrating the New Year on CNN shortly after midnight, he said, “I’m going to lean in harder.”
Co-host Brooke Baldwin, live from Nashville with Lemon, asked, “What does that mean?”
Lemon said, “I’m going to lean in harder. I’m sick of the craziness. So, if you thought I went hard in 2019, watch 2020, baby. There’s more to come. I’m a soldier. I’m ready to fight ... We've got to get ready. It’s an election year. We’re on the grind.”
Media Research Center Vice President of Research and Publications Brent Baker explains our weekly pick: “Lemon, who doesn’t hesitate to disparage President Trump as ‘unhinged’ and a ‘racist,’ already seems unhinged on many a night in his vitriol toward Trump, so it’s hard to imagine how he can ‘lean in harder.’ Telling, though, that he sees himself as a ‘soldier’ who is ‘ready to fight’ for a cause. That shouldn’t be the motivation for anyone pretending to be a journalist.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Record gun sales checks in 2019, NICS at all-time high: FBI

FBI gun background checks , linked closely to weapons sales , recorded the second-highest month ever in December , propelling 2019 ’ s count to the most since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System began in 1998 .
The agency said Monday morning that it recorded 28,369,750 background checks in 2019 , a 3 % jump over the last record set in 2016 .
In December , there were 2,936,894 NICS checks , the second-highest month ever .
The 2016 record , pushed high in part because gun control advocate Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to beat President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year .
But gun shops around the nation saw a surge in sales because of highly publicized shootings , cheap prices , and an increase in states eager to impose controls on sales , bans , and even confiscations of weapons .
Overall , NICS checks were up 831,077 over 2016 .
The system conducts background checks for those buying weapons and seeking carry permits .
What ’ s more , with the 2020 election just 11 months away and all Democratic presidential candidates pushing gun control agendas , it could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks , especially if the contest is close .
“ The firearms industry had reason to celebrate in 2019 .
NICS checks are now increasing , ” said Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation , the industry representative .
“ What a year it has been !
” said Justin Anderson , marketing director for Hyatt Guns , one of the nation ’ s largest sellers , in Charlotte , North Carolina .
“ Politics have traditionally fueled industry growth , and this year ’ s historic NICS record is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing on the wall — whether it be Virginia ’ s test case for gun confiscation or threats of another world war on the horizon .
They are arming themselves .
Anti-gun politicians should take note .
While an armed populace is a polite populace , they do not take well to threats to their freedom , ” he told Secrets .

FBI gun background checks, linked closely to weapons sales, recorded the second-highest month ever in December, propelling 2019’s count to the most since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System began in 1998.
The agency said Monday morning that it recorded 28,369,750 background checks in 2019, a 3% jump over the last record set in 2016.
In December, there were 2,936,894 NICS checks, the second-highest month ever.
The 2016 record, pushed high in part because gun control advocate Hillary Rodham Clinton was expected to beat President Trump, was not expected to be steamrolled this year.
But gun shops around the nation saw a surge in sales because of highly publicized shootings, cheap prices, and an increase in states eager to impose controls on sales, bans, and even confiscations of weapons.
Overall, NICS checks were up 831,077 over 2016. The system conducts background checks for those buying weapons and seeking carry permits.
What’s more, with the 2020 election just 11 months away and all Democratic presidential candidates pushing gun control agendas, it could be another record year of sales and NICS checks, especially if the contest is close.
“The firearms industry had reason to celebrate in 2019. NICS checks are now increasing,” said Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry representative.
“What a year it has been!” said Justin Anderson, marketing director for Hyatt Guns, one of the nation’s largest sellers, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
“Politics have traditionally fueled industry growth, and this year’s historic NICS record is no different. Intelligent people are seeing the writing on the wall — whether it be Virginia’s test case for gun confiscation or threats of another world war on the horizon. They are arming themselves. Anti-gun politicians should take note. While an armed populace is a polite populace, they do not take well to threats to their freedom,” he told Secrets.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-06--Congress echoes Trump EMP concerns, Iran weapon feared

President Trump has made preparing for an electromagnetic pulse attack cool .
Long met with eye-rolling , the growing threat of an EMP attack on the nation ’ s electric grid and military bases by Iran or other foes has suddenly gone mainstream following Trump ’ s March executive order to assess the risks of a man-made or natural EMP hit .
The latest evidence was in the just-passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act , which adopted Trump ’ s action and ordered the National Guard to draw up a plan to thwart disaster from an EMP .
And several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just produced its blueprint to respond to an EMP assault that could knock out electricity , water services , hospitals , ATMs , cellular phones , and even vehicles for months .
“ These are big and very important results , ” said Peter Pry , a longtime champion of EMP preparation and adviser to the White House and military .
“ Things are taking off .
This is a significant change , in a positive way , ” he told us .
For proponents of developing protections from EMP , the fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken the threat seriously , though it ’ s unclear if his national security team shares his concerns , especially after EMP preparation proponent John Bolton was ousted as the national security adviser .
Also , some insiders fear that a strong lobbying campaign from the electric utility industry , which does not want to spend money to upgrade its infrastructure , is working to dull the president ’ s executive order .
Still , the defense spending bill is a big embrace of Trump ’ s call for action , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s foot on the accelerator .
It gives the National Guard nine months to tell Congress what states have to respond to an EMP attack and what the guard will do “ with particular focus on a multi-State electromagnetic pulse event.
” The military has led the effort so far .
Some top leaders have expressed concerns that Russia , North Korea , China , and Iran are working on nuclear EMP weapons that , when detonated above the United States , could knock out the electric grid for up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also worried about a natural attack from solar storms , which has happened several times before .
Wyoming ’ s plan was presented as a “ living document ” meant to be updated with new protection plans , said Lynn Budd , the director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security .
She noted that the likelihood of an attack is low , but not preparing could lead to a deadly disaster .
“ Return to pre-event power reliability may take months or years for some customers , ” Budd warned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A recently declassified report from Pry warned that several U.S. enemies could join to launch a nuclear EMP attack .
Pry suggested the death toll could be staggering .
“ Nine of 10 Americans are dead from starvation , disease , and societal collapse .
The United States of America ceases to exist , ” warned the report declassified by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack .

President Trump has made preparing for an electromagnetic pulse attack cool.
Long met with eye-rolling, the growing threat of an EMP attack on the nation’s electric grid and military bases by Iran or other foes has suddenly gone mainstream following Trump’s March executive order to assess the risks of a man-made or natural EMP hit.
The latest evidence was in the just-passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which adopted Trump’s action and ordered the National Guard to draw up a plan to thwart disaster from an EMP.
And several states are moving even faster. Wyoming just produced its blueprint to respond to an EMP assault that could knock out electricity, water services, hospitals, ATMs, cellular phones, and even vehicles for months.
“These are big and very important results,” said Peter Pry, a longtime champion of EMP preparation and adviser to the White House and military. “Things are taking off. This is a significant change, in a positive way,” he told us.
For proponents of developing protections from EMP, the fight has been a decadeslong slog. Trump has taken the threat seriously, though it’s unclear if his national security team shares his concerns, especially after EMP preparation proponent John Bolton was ousted as the national security adviser.
Also, some insiders fear that a strong lobbying campaign from the electric utility industry, which does not want to spend money to upgrade its infrastructure, is working to dull the president’s executive order.
Still, the defense spending bill is a big embrace of Trump’s call for action, and EMP proponents hope it helps to keep the president’s foot on the accelerator.
It gives the National Guard nine months to tell Congress what states have to respond to an EMP attack and what the guard will do “with particular focus on a multi-State electromagnetic pulse event.”
The military has led the effort so far. Some top leaders have expressed concerns that Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran are working on nuclear EMP weapons that, when detonated above the United States, could knock out the electric grid for up to a year.
The federal government is also worried about a natural attack from solar storms, which has happened several times before.
Wyoming’s plan was presented as a “living document” meant to be updated with new protection plans, said Lynn Budd, the director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security.
She noted that the likelihood of an attack is low, but not preparing could lead to a deadly disaster.
“Return to pre-event power reliability may take months or years for some customers,” Budd warned in a 92-page report shared with us.
A recently declassified report from Pry warned that several U.S. enemies could join to launch a nuclear EMP attack. Pry suggested the death toll could be staggering.
“Nine of 10 Americans are dead from starvation, disease, and societal collapse. The United States of America ceases to exist,” warned the report declassified by the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-05--Gun ‘sanctuaries’ compared to slavery, ‘dangerous,’ ‘ugly,’ ‘disturbing’

A new line of attack on Virginia ’ s fast-growing gun sanctuary movement , which is propelling similar pro-gun efforts in other states , compares it to slavery , drawing criticism from movement leaders who have won support in 91 % of the state ’ s counties .
In the latest Washington Post slam on the movement , dubbed “ vigilantism ” in a recent editorial , the paper gave space Sunday to a critic who said the “ thinking ” behind the organic movement is what propelled slavery and opposed the civil rights movement .
In linking it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sad irony is that the ‘ sanctuary ’ movement conjures the disturbing nullification movements of the past three centuries in Virginia .
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states have the right to ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional .
That thinking was applied to proslavery movements , leading to the Civil War and the fight over integration in the 1950s and 1960s.
” He also cited polls showing broad public support for gun control , which the new Democratic state legislature and Gov .
Ralph Northam plan to use in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons such as the AR-15 , limits on the size of magazines that hold cartridges , an expanded background check system , and a new $ 4 million , 18-member team to enforce new gun control measures and a limit on gun purchases .
The media ’ s push for gun control , however , was met with pushback today from Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt , a leader in the sanctuary movement in which some 116 Virginia communities and counties have voted to ignore gun control laws emerging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post and Galuszka are misreading the polls and the public ’ s desire for gun control as it has turned blue .
“ There ’ s a lot The Washington Post got wrong in this story .
The author is wildly wrong about the supposed public support for gun control .
Consider that a majority of Maine residents voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 , even while defeating a ballot initiative that would establish ‘ red flag ’ gun confiscation orders .
So if these red flag gun grabs are opposed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , how can anyone really claim with a straight face that a majority of Americans support such a law ?
” he told Secrets .
He also said that any comparison to slavery is simply an effort to demonizing gun owners .
“ In an attempt to demonize ‘ nullification , ’ ” he told us , the column “ completely ignores how anti-slavery forces helped to undermine the Fugitive Slave Act — such as when juries refused to convict defendants who assisted runaway slaves.
” And , he added , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best way for local officials to inform the newly elected General Assembly and the governor that if they rush forward to create new felony crimes to jail law-abiding Virginians — just for exercising their most fundamental and natural right of self-defense — then they can not expect localities to enforce such unjust laws .
What these sanctuary jurisdictions are doing is not resistance , but noncooperation — a principle that runs through all levels of government dating from colonial America.
” The fight is expected to escalate with a handful of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctuary proposals and the opening of the new legislative session in Richmond .
What ’ s more , the National Rifle Association has signaled that it is joining the fight and just issued “ Take Action ” notice .
In it , the NRA said , “ Law-abiding gun owners throughout the Commonwealth must continue to join together to fight against gun bans , gun rationing , and confiscation this January in Richmond .
”

A new line of attack on Virginia’s fast-growing gun sanctuary movement, which is propelling similar pro-gun efforts in other states, compares it to slavery, drawing criticism from movement leaders who have won support in 91% of the state’s counties.
In the latest Washington Post slam on the movement, dubbed “vigilantism” in a recent editorial, the paper gave space Sunday to a critic who said the “thinking” behind the organic movement is what propelled slavery and opposed the civil rights movement.
Peter Galuszka called the movement “disturbing,” “reactionary,” “hysteria,” “ugly,” and “dangerous.”
In linking it to slavery, he wrote, “A sad irony is that the ‘sanctuary’ movement conjures the disturbing nullification movements of the past three centuries in Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states have the right to ignore federal laws they consider unconstitutional. That thinking was applied to proslavery movements, leading to the Civil War and the fight over integration in the 1950s and 1960s.”
He also cited polls showing broad public support for gun control, which the new Democratic state legislature and Gov. Ralph Northam plan to use in arguing for a ban on modern sporting weapons such as the AR-15, limits on the size of magazines that hold cartridges, an expanded background check system, and a new $4 million, 18-member team to enforce new gun control measures and a limit on gun purchases.
@VCDL_ORG Don't Sit This Vote Out, group wrote on website https://t.co/iymnYhGmqv “Staying Home Cost Us So Many Elections Last Nov. We Need Enormous Presence To Offset Anti's That Are Organizing.” To Stop Them Taking Your Constitution Rights Is Important! https://t.co/ANqYQpQEcv — SheepdogSecurity (@SheepdogSecurit) January 5, 2020
The media’s push for gun control, however, was met with pushback today from Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt, a leader in the sanctuary movement in which some 116 Virginia communities and counties have voted to ignore gun control laws emerging from Richmond.
He said that the Post and Galuszka are misreading the polls and the public’s desire for gun control as it has turned blue.
“There’s a lot The Washington Post got wrong in this story. The author is wildly wrong about the supposed public support for gun control. Consider that a majority of Maine residents voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, even while defeating a ballot initiative that would establish ‘red flag’ gun confiscation orders. So if these red flag gun grabs are opposed by a majority of voters even in certain blue states, how can anyone really claim with a straight face that a majority of Americans support such a law?” he told Secrets.
He also said that any comparison to slavery is simply an effort to demonizing gun owners.
“In an attempt to demonize ‘nullification,’” he told us, the column “completely ignores how anti-slavery forces helped to undermine the Fugitive Slave Act — such as when juries refused to convict defendants who assisted runaway slaves.”
And, he added, “Sanctuary resolutions are important because they provide the best way for local officials to inform the newly elected General Assembly and the governor that if they rush forward to create new felony crimes to jail law-abiding Virginians — just for exercising their most fundamental and natural right of self-defense — then they cannot expect localities to enforce such unjust laws. What these sanctuary jurisdictions are doing is not resistance, but noncooperation — a principle that runs through all levels of government dating from colonial America.”
The fight is expected to escalate with a handful of other counties and cities slated to consider gun sanctuary proposals and the opening of the new legislative session in Richmond.
What’s more, the National Rifle Association has signaled that it is joining the fight and just issued “Take Action” notice. In it, the NRA said, “Law-abiding gun owners throughout the Commonwealth must continue to join together to fight against gun bans, gun rationing, and confiscation this January in Richmond.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-04--Weekly Trump Report Card: ‘A’ for progress with China, stopping ‘a war’ with Iran

Our Weekly White House Report Card finds President Trump opening his reelection year with a bang .
On the economic front , he moved further on working out a deal with China , fueling record stock market advances and relieving farm belt concerns of an escalated trade war .
Then , the unpredictable president struck at Iran ’ s terror sponsorship , approving a military strike on the country ’ s top military leader , Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
Appearing before cameras , Trump said , `` We took action last night to stop a war .
We did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Some Democrats expressed outrage , some anti-war Republicans vented , but in the end , Trump won over his base and provided them a sign of strength in foreign policy .
Our conservative report card grader Jed Babbin gave the president an ' A ' for his efforts and successes .
President Trump had an excellent week , beginning with announced progress on a China trade deal , continuing with the celebration of record-setting low government regulations and finishing with strong action against Iran ’ s regime and its terrorist surrogate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign Phase 1 of the China deal on Jan. 15 and would go to Beijing to negotiate Phase 2 .
Although Phase 1 doesn ’ t include progress on the principal issue — Chinese theft of American trade and military secrets — it clears the way for a significant Chinese purchase of U.S. agricultural progress .
The progress on regulation-cutting and the Trump administration ’ s economy-stimulating regulation slashing policy resulted in the lowest level of new government-issued regulations in 44 years .
The economy continues to roar , and the Democrats ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the extreme .
After Iranian-controlled militias attacked a U.S. base in Iraq , killing one contractor , Trump ordered airstrikes against Iranian militia positions in both Iraq and Syria .
The ayatollahs then ordered the Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group to attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad .
At the outset of the attack , the embassy yelled for help to the State Department in Washington .
They passed along the alarm to the Pentagon , which immediately ordered a force of 100 Marines and two Apache helicopters to Baghdad .
Although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no U.S. personnel were killed or injured , and the Marines ' quick action — dosing the terrorist rioters with tear gas — caused them to abandon their effort to storm the embassy .
Trump then said that Iran would pay a major price for the embassy assault .
He ordered the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani , commander of the Quds Force , part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and a high figure in the Tehran regime .
( The Quds face and the IRGC are listed as Foreign Terrorist Organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. drone strike then killed Soleimani as well as the head of the Kataib Hezbollah .
Soleimani ’ s death demonstrates the vulnerability of the Tehran regime and should encourage the tens of thousands of Iranians protesting against the regime .
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened “ severe revenge ” for Soleimani ’ s death , so the Iranians or their terrorist proxies will strike somewhere soon .
This incident is a long way from being over .
Jed Babbin is a Washington Examiner contributor and former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Follow him on Twitter @ jedbabbin

Our Weekly White House Report Card finds President Trump opening his reelection year with a bang.
On the economic front, he moved further on working out a deal with China, fueling record stock market advances and relieving farm belt concerns of an escalated trade war.
Then, the unpredictable president struck at Iran’s terror sponsorship, approving a military strike on the country’s top military leader, Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Appearing before cameras, Trump said, "We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war."
Some Democrats expressed outrage, some anti-war Republicans vented, but in the end, Trump won over his base and provided them a sign of strength in foreign policy.
Our conservative report card grader Jed Babbin gave the president an 'A' for his efforts and successes.
Jed Babbin
Grade A
President Trump had an excellent week, beginning with announced progress on a China trade deal, continuing with the celebration of record-setting low government regulations and finishing with strong action against Iran’s regime and its terrorist surrogate forces.
Trump announced that he would sign Phase 1 of the China deal on Jan. 15 and would go to Beijing to negotiate Phase 2. Although Phase 1 doesn’t include progress on the principal issue — Chinese theft of American trade and military secrets — it clears the way for a significant Chinese purchase of U.S. agricultural progress.
If we are to go to war w/ Iran the Constitution dictates that we declare war. A war without a Congressional declaration is a recipe for feckless intermittent eruptions of violence w/ no clear mission for our soldiers. Our young men and women in the armed services deserve better. — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 3, 2020
The progress on regulation-cutting and the Trump administration’s economy-stimulating regulation slashing policy resulted in the lowest level of new government-issued regulations in 44 years. The economy continues to roar, and the Democrats' hope for an election-year recession seems unlikely in the extreme.
After Iranian-controlled militias attacked a U.S. base in Iraq, killing one contractor, Trump ordered airstrikes against Iranian militia positions in both Iraq and Syria. The ayatollahs then ordered the Kataib Hezbollah terrorist group to attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
At the outset of the attack, the embassy yelled for help to the State Department in Washington. They passed along the alarm to the Pentagon, which immediately ordered a force of 100 Marines and two Apache helicopters to Baghdad. Although the terrorists burned part of the embassy, no U.S. personnel were killed or injured, and the Marines' quick action — dosing the terrorist rioters with tear gas — caused them to abandon their effort to storm the embassy.
I am introducing a bill with Rep. Khanna to stop Donald Trump from illegally taking us to war against Iran.
It's working-class kids who will have to fight and die in a disastrous new Middle East conflict—not the children of billionaires. https://t.co/H6ZHjijCnj — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 4, 2020
Trump then said that Iran would pay a major price for the embassy assault. He ordered the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and a high figure in the Tehran regime. (The Quds face and the IRGC are listed as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the State Department.) A U.S. drone strike then killed Soleimani as well as the head of the Kataib Hezbollah.
Soleimani’s death demonstrates the vulnerability of the Tehran regime and should encourage the tens of thousands of Iranians protesting against the regime. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatened “severe revenge” for Soleimani’s death, so the Iranians or their terrorist proxies will strike somewhere soon. This incident is a long way from being over.
Jed Babbin is a Washington Examiner contributor and former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush. Follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-03--Officials hammer critics who called Trump soft: ‘Do not confuse restraint for weakness'

Key administration officials and Trump surrogates struck back at critics of the president that he was all talk , no action when it came to countering Iran ’ s recent bellicose moves , warning that his restraint does n't signal an unwillingness to act .
“ Do not confuse restraint for weakness , ” said one official , pointing to the surprise U.S. missile strike Thursday in Baghdad that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
“ This was a long time coming , ” added another official .
Leading up to the strike , critics in politics and especially the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his threats to Iran , especially after Iranian supporters charged the U.S. Embassy in Iraq .
“ Our adversaries are calling his bluffs and taking advantage , ” Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin wrote hours before the secret attack against Soleimani .
“ Many will say Trump is more risk-averse now because he ’ s headed into an election and needs a strong economy and relative peace , ” added the well-read columnist .
One official said the president and his foreign policy team have never expected to get a fair shake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be snickering at the pre-attack criticisms that the White House was wimpy .
“ We can never win in the press , ” said one official who shrugged off the attacks .
Politically , the attack showed that Trump would pull the trigger when needed , and it sets him up to look stronger going into the 2020 reelection , GOP communications adviser Ron Bonjean said .
“ The president has laid a very strong foundation to show he is unpredictable when it comes to foreign policy , and it is wise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no bite , ” said Bonjean , who handled the communications campaign when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court .
Bonjean also said it would lead to a GOP rally around the president and the flag and change the conversation in Washington from impeachment to foreign policy .
“ This changes the talk in Washington from Democrats impeaching the president based on their view of his leadership to a debate over the president ’ s strong-willed foreign policy , ” added Bonjean , who maintains strong ties to House and Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , State and White House officials made the case that Soleimani should have been killed years ago and that only Trump was willing to do it .
They said Soleimani was responsible for “ millions ” of deaths linked to his planning of thousands of attacks dating back to the Reagan administration and the Beirut bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks on Oct. 23 , 1983 .
As head of Iran ’ s notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force , Soleimani had “ planned and conducted terrorist attacks across six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' the administration said .
It added that Soleimani had been traveling in the Middle East , coordinating further “ imminent large-scale attacks against U.S. diplomats and service members.
” And , it added , he had “ dramatically escalated Iran ’ s campaign of violence and terrorism against Americans and American interests ” in the Middle East , including a rocket attack on Dec. 27 that killed an American citizen and wounded four American service members .
“ You have to take this seriously , and we did , ” said an @ @

Key administration officials and Trump surrogates struck back at critics of the president that he was all talk, no action when it came to countering Iran’s recent bellicose moves, warning that his restraint doesn't signal an unwillingness to act.
“Do not confuse restraint for weakness,” said one official, pointing to the surprise U.S. missile strike Thursday in Baghdad that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
“This was a long time coming,” added another official.
Leading up to the strike, critics in politics and especially the media ripped Trump for not following through on his threats to Iran, especially after Iranian supporters charged the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
“Our adversaries are calling his bluffs and taking advantage,” Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin wrote hours before the secret attack against Soleimani. “Many will say Trump is more risk-averse now because he’s headed into an election and needs a strong economy and relative peace,” added the well-read columnist.
One official said the president and his foreign policy team have never expected to get a fair shake in the media, but appeared to be snickering at the pre-attack criticisms that the White House was wimpy.
“We can never win in the press,” said one official who shrugged off the attacks.
Politically, the attack showed that Trump would pull the trigger when needed, and it sets him up to look stronger going into the 2020 reelection, GOP communications adviser Ron Bonjean said.
“The president has laid a very strong foundation to show he is unpredictable when it comes to foreign policy, and it is wise to not think he is all bark and no bite,” said Bonjean, who handled the communications campaign when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Bonjean also said it would lead to a GOP rally around the president and the flag and change the conversation in Washington from impeachment to foreign policy.
“This changes the talk in Washington from Democrats impeaching the president based on their view of his leadership to a debate over the president’s strong-willed foreign policy,” added Bonjean, who maintains strong ties to House and Senate GOP leadership and the White House.
Meanwhile, State and White House officials made the case that Soleimani should have been killed years ago and that only Trump was willing to do it.
They said Soleimani was responsible for “millions” of deaths linked to his planning of thousands of attacks dating back to the Reagan administration and the Beirut bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks on Oct. 23, 1983.
As head of Iran’s notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, Soleimani had “planned and conducted terrorist attacks across six continents and inside the United States," the administration said.
It added that Soleimani had been traveling in the Middle East, coordinating further “imminent large-scale attacks against U.S. diplomats and service members.” And, it added, he had “dramatically escalated Iran’s campaign of violence and terrorism against Americans and American interests” in the Middle East, including a rocket attack on Dec. 27 that killed an American citizen and wounded four American service members.
“You have to take this seriously, and we did,” said an official.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-03--Impeachment poll: Clinton’s offenses worse than Trump’s

When it comes to sizing up the impact of President Trump ’ s partisan impeachment in the House last December , it ’ s good to look at how he stacks up with other highly criticized presidents .
That ’ s exactly what pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics did in his latest survey .
In it , he asked if voters felt that any of the last 12 presidents , dating to Dwight Eisenhower , committed impeachable offenses .
“ In light of the historic impeachment of President Trump by House Democrats , it ’ s interesting to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how does it rate , ” Zogby said in sharing his data .
“ Although most scholars argue events can ’ t be defined or processed in historical terms for about 40 to 50 years after , we thought it would be interesting to see what impeachment means now for Trump , so we asked survey respondents , ‘ Do you agree or disagree that each one of the following presidents committed an impeachable offense while in office , ' '' he said .
Richard Nixon , who quit over the Watergate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , followed by Bill Clinton , who lied about having sex with onetime intern Monica Lewinsky , at 61 % .
Trump came in third at 53 % .
Barack Obama was fourth at 38 % .
Zogby noted that unlike with other presidents , the partisan division over Trump was epic .
“ The partisan lines were drawn when it comes to the impeachment of Trump ; more than three-quarters of Democrats agreed he committed an impeachable offense , while 53 % of Republicans disagreed .
This is different than Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including political parties , thought they committed impeachable offenses , ” he said .
The House impeached Trump on a partisan vote last month , claiming that he needed to be immediately removed from office because he is a threat to the nation and the 2020 election .
But instead of moving swiftly to hand off the case to the Senate , which conducts the impeachment trial , the House went on vacation .
The Senate still doesn ’ t have the case .

When it comes to sizing up the impact of President Trump’s partisan impeachment in the House last December, it’s good to look at how he stacks up with other highly criticized presidents.
That’s exactly what pollster Jonathan Zogby of Zogby Analytics did in his latest survey. In it, he asked if voters felt that any of the last 12 presidents, dating to Dwight Eisenhower, committed impeachable offenses.
“In light of the historic impeachment of President Trump by House Democrats, it’s interesting to think what this moment in history will mean and how does it rate,” Zogby said in sharing his data.
“Although most scholars argue events can’t be defined or processed in historical terms for about 40 to 50 years after, we thought it would be interesting to see what impeachment means now for Trump, so we asked survey respondents, ‘Do you agree or disagree that each one of the following presidents committed an impeachable offense while in office,'" he said.
Richard Nixon, who quit over the Watergate scandal, was first, at 71%, followed by Bill Clinton, who lied about having sex with onetime intern Monica Lewinsky, at 61%. Trump came in third at 53%. Barack Obama was fourth at 38%.
Zogby noted that unlike with other presidents, the partisan division over Trump was epic. “The partisan lines were drawn when it comes to the impeachment of Trump; more than three-quarters of Democrats agreed he committed an impeachable offense, while 53% of Republicans disagreed. This is different than Nixon or Clinton in that all demographics, including political parties, thought they committed impeachable offenses,” he said.
The House impeached Trump on a partisan vote last month, claiming that he needed to be immediately removed from office because he is a threat to the nation and the 2020 election.
But instead of moving swiftly to hand off the case to the Senate, which conducts the impeachment trial, the House went on vacation. The Senate still doesn’t have the case.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-02--Unconstitutionality Index: Swamp imposed 20 regulations for every law over decade

The sprawling federal bureaucracy over the past decade imposed 20 new regulations on American businesses and citizens for every law passed , the latest indication that the “ swamp ” has taken control from Congress , according to a new report .
In detailing his “ Unconstitutionality Index , ” Clyde Wayne Crews , of the Competitive Enterprise Institute , said that the explosion of regulations shows the growing impact of federal agencies .
“ The unchanged point and takeaway of the ‘ Unconstitutionality Index ’ is that the unelected personnel of federal agencies created in the latter half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected members of Congress , do the bulk of lawmaking in America , ” he wrote on Forbes .
Overall , he found that in the last decade , Congress approved 1,707 laws requiring regulations to enforce them and that the bureaucracy set in place 35,177 new rules .
His index is an off-shoot of his annual look at regulation .
In a report he issued earlier this week , President Trump was credited for issuing the fewest regulations in 44 years .
The decade of regulatory increase came during much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration had some record-breaking high indexes , including 51 in 2013 , when his team instituted 3,659 new regulations for every law .
Of Trump , Crews said : “ It is a notable achievement that all three of the lowest-ever annual rule counts belong to Trump .
This an even more significant development given that some of Trump ’ s 'rules ' are rules written to get rid of or replace other rules , ” he said , explaining that rules are “ any federal agency action affecting the public , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it often should be .
”

The sprawling federal bureaucracy over the past decade imposed 20 new regulations on American businesses and citizens for every law passed, the latest indication that the “swamp” has taken control from Congress, according to a new report.
In detailing his “Unconstitutionality Index,” Clyde Wayne Crews, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the explosion of regulations shows the growing impact of federal agencies.
“The unchanged point and takeaway of the ‘Unconstitutionality Index’ is that the unelected personnel of federal agencies created in the latter half of the United States’ existence, not elected members of Congress, do the bulk of lawmaking in America,” he wrote on Forbes.
Overall, he found that in the last decade, Congress approved 1,707 laws requiring regulations to enforce them and that the bureaucracy set in place 35,177 new rules.
His index is an off-shoot of his annual look at regulation. In a report he issued earlier this week, President Trump was credited for issuing the fewest regulations in 44 years.
The decade of regulatory increase came during much of the Obama administration. President Barack Obama's administration had some record-breaking high indexes, including 51 in 2013, when his team instituted 3,659 new regulations for every law.
Of Trump, Crews said: “It is a notable achievement that all three of the lowest-ever annual rule counts belong to Trump. This an even more significant development given that some of Trump’s 'rules' are rules written to get rid of or replace other rules,” he said, explaining that rules are “any federal agency action affecting the public, that's not a law from Congress, as it often should be.”