thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--'A powerful tool': Devin Nunes says Trump 'has to tweet' after Barr complains

California Rep. Devin Nunes defended President Trump ’ s use of Twitter after Attorney General William Barr voiced his frustration with the commander in chief 's commentary about the Justice Department .
After a handful of leading Republicans voiced support for Barr in regards to his social media complaint , Nunes , the House Intelligence Committee ranking member , argued Trump should continue tweeting to speak directly to his supporters .
`` I think what the attorney general said was very clear , that the president should be careful making comments about criminal investigations , '' Nunes said Sunday on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t say to stop tweeting because the fact of the matter is this : With 90 % of the media being hard Left and really just working for the Democratic Party , the president has to be able to tweet , '' Nunes continued .
`` He ’ s built a powerful tool reaching millions of Americans , millions of people around the globe , so the president has to tweet . ''
Last week , the Justice Department intervened in the case of GOP operative Roger Stone , scrapping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work the case in favor of a lighter one .
Although the move appeared to come after Trump tweeted his dismay with the recommended penalty , Barr claimed the decision to scale it back was made before the president slammed the guidance .
Still , Trump tweeted praise Barr for `` taking charge '' of the case , riling Democrats who expressed alarm about the possibility Trump ordered the intervention as a political favor for Stone , his longtime friend .
Barr told ABC News on Thursday that Trump ’ s constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ it impossible for me to do my job ” and claimed that his work would remain independent from the president ’ s political desires .
The White House said Trump `` was n't bothered '' by Barr condemning his tweets , but the president tweeted about Barr the very next day .
`` 'The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case , ' '' Trump said Friday on Twitter , quoting Barr .
`` This doesn ’ t mean that I do not have , as President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I do , but I have so far chosen not to ! ''

California Rep. Devin Nunes defended President Trump’s use of Twitter after Attorney General William Barr voiced his frustration with the commander in chief's commentary about the Justice Department.
After a handful of leading Republicans voiced support for Barr in regards to his social media complaint, Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee ranking member, argued Trump should continue tweeting to speak directly to his supporters.
"I think what the attorney general said was very clear, that the president should be careful making comments about criminal investigations," Nunes said Sunday on Fox News.
"The attorney general didn’t say to stop tweeting because the fact of the matter is this: With 90% of the media being hard Left and really just working for the Democratic Party, the president has to be able to tweet," Nunes continued. "He’s built a powerful tool reaching millions of Americans, millions of people around the globe, so the president has to tweet."
Last week, the Justice Department intervened in the case of GOP operative Roger Stone, scrapping the sentencing recommendation of the federal prosecutors assigned to work the case in favor of a lighter one. Although the move appeared to come after Trump tweeted his dismay with the recommended penalty, Barr claimed the decision to scale it back was made before the president slammed the guidance.
Still, Trump tweeted praise Barr for "taking charge" of the case, riling Democrats who expressed alarm about the possibility Trump ordered the intervention as a political favor for Stone, his longtime friend.
Barr told ABC News on Thursday that Trump’s constant public commentary on the Justice Department makes “it impossible for me to do my job” and claimed that his work would remain independent from the president’s political desires.
The White House said Trump "wasn't bothered" by Barr condemning his tweets, but the president tweeted about Barr the very next day.
"'The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,'" Trump said Friday on Twitter, quoting Barr. "This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!"


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--Liberal Media Scream: How to tell if your cable news host is a lefty

This week ’ s Liberal Media Scream features a warning from CNN ’ s media critic “ creeping authoritarianism ” under President Trump , an “ aspiring autocrat.
” CNN ’ s Brian Stelter opened his Sunday show , Reliable Sources , with a lengthy lecture about “ the aspiring autocrat and the media ’ s response.
” The autocrat , of course , was Trump .
The on screen graphic screamed : “ EXPERTS SEE SIGNS OF ‘ CREEPING AUTHORITARIANISM.
’ ” Stelter soon recited from a Harvard University professor ’ s “ 10 Ways to Tell If Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said , met all the qualifications : “ He said , after impeachment , the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism .
On his list are things like fear mongering , demonizing the opposition , and using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents .
Does that sound familiar ?
” A portion of Stelter ’ s opening commentary at the top of the February 16 Reliable Sources : But first , the aspiring autocrat and the media ’ s response .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is unleashed [ “ PRESIDENT TRUMP UNLEASHED ” ] .
That ’ s why there are growing fears of something called “ democratic backsliding.
” This is a term used in political science , a term used to describe the erosion of institutions that sustain democracy .
Another way to put it is “ creeping authoritarianism , ” a move toward autocracy .
Now , that ’ s a word we ’ re increasingly seeing being tied to President Trump .
You can see it in some of these headlines in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian style is remaking America , ” things like that .
Now , a lot of these are opinion columns , perspective pieces , but these are important and complicated concepts .
My question for you is , how can the nation ’ s news media make time and space to explain this ?
I mean , we live in this new story every minute , info-saturated world .
But this may be the biggest stories of them all .
So , what are the best ways to cover it ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard professor Stephen Walt has been keeping a checklist ever since 2016 .
He called it “ 10 Ways to Tell If Your President Is a Dictator.
” Now , he wasn ’ t saying Trump ’ s a dictator .
But he was watching for troubling signs .
So , he revisited the list this week and you ’ ll notice the checkmarks here .
He said , after impeachment , the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism .
On his list are things like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents .
Does that sound familiar ?
Media Research Center Vice President of Research Brent Baker explains our weekly pick : “ Stelter has long lost any credibility as an analyst of news media coverage of politics as he devotes much more of his show to his disdain for President Trump than failings by the media to offer fair and balanced coverage of him .
Stelter actively encourages journalists to promote the wildest conspiracy theories of the far left .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Tell If Your Cable News Host Is a Left Wing Activist.
’ ” Rating : Five out of five screams .

This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a warning from CNN’s media critic “creeping authoritarianism” under President Trump, an “aspiring autocrat.”
CNN’s Brian Stelter opened his Sunday show, Reliable Sources, with a lengthy lecture about “the aspiring autocrat and the media’s response.” The autocrat, of course, was Trump. The on-screen graphic screamed: “EXPERTS SEE SIGNS OF ‘CREEPING AUTHORITARIANISM.’” Stelter soon recited from a Harvard University professor’s piece, “10 Ways to Tell If Your President Is a Dictator.”
Trump, he said, met all of the qualifications: “He said, after impeachment, the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism. On his list are things like fearmongering, demonizing the opposition, and using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents. Does that sound familiar?”
Here is a portion of Stelter’s opening commentary at the top of the Feb. 16 Reliable Sources:
But first, the aspiring autocrat and the media’s response. As this banner on Fox says, President Trump is unleashed [“PRESIDENT TRUMP UNLEASHED”]. That’s why there are growing fears of something called “democratic backsliding.” This is a term used in political science, a term used to describe the erosion of institutions that sustain democracy.
Another way to put it is “creeping authoritarianism,” a move toward autocracy. Now, that’s a word we’re increasingly seeing being tied to President Trump. You can see it in some of these headlines in the past week, “Trump’s authoritarian style is remaking America,” things like that.
Now, a lot of these are opinion columns, perspective pieces, but these are important and complicated concepts.
My question for you is, how can the nation’s news media make time and space to explain this? I mean, we live in this new story every minute, info-saturated world. But this may be the biggest stories of them all. So, what are the best ways to cover it?
Well, one way is with a list. Harvard professor Stephen Walt has been keeping a checklist ever since 2016. He called it “10 Ways to Tell If Your President Is a Dictator.” Now, he wasn’t saying Trump’s a dictator. But he was watching for troubling signs.
So, he revisited the list this week and you’ll notice the checkmarks here. He said, after impeachment, the president has been passing most of the checkpoints on the way to authoritarianism. On his list are things like fearmongering, demonizing the opposition, and using state power to reward corporate backers and punish opponents. Does that sound familiar?
Media Research Center Vice President of Research Brent Baker explains our weekly pick: “Stelter has long lost any credibility as an analyst of news media coverage of politics as he devotes much more of his show to his disdain for President Trump than failings by the media to offer fair and balanced coverage of him. Stelter actively encourages journalists to promote the wildest conspiracy theories of the far Left. He’s earned his own list: ‘How To Tell If Your Cable News Host Is a Left-Wing Activist.’”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--Lawmaker warns of ‘mass murder’ after Virginia gun ban fails

The sponsor of an “ assault weapons ” ban in Virginia said he fears that the rejection of his bill Monday by a state Senate committee will lead to “ mass murder.
” In a tweet following the lopsided 10-5 rejection of his legislation , Washington area Del .
Mark Levine tweeted , “ Senate Committee voted to study assault weapons bill for another year .
We already know weapons of war do n't belong on our streets .
I fear mass murder with these weapons between now and then , but I am proud of House of Delegates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be back.
” He added in a tweet response to newly-installed House Democratic Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn , “ We will be back.
” Gun advocates in the state took that as a warning and issued their own warning to supporters , urging them to keep up the fight to retain their weapons targeted by the Democrats , many of whom received funding from anti-gun presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg .
“ We dare not get complacent again .
We are far from being out of the woods .
Red Flag laws , Universal Background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preemption law are still very much alive this year , ” said the Virginia Citizens Defense League .
Levine ’ s legislation , passed in the State House , would have banned the sale of AR-style rifles after July 1 .
He has spent months whipping up anger at the guns and even issued a much-criticized notice that claimed the guns were “ created by Nazi Germany ; Modern version legalized by the GOP .
”

The sponsor of an “assault weapons” ban in Virginia said he fears that the rejection of his bill Monday by a state Senate committee will lead to “mass murder.”
In a tweet following the lopsided 10-5 rejection of his legislation, Washington area Del. Mark Levine tweeted, “Senate Committee voted to study assault weapons bill for another year. We already know weapons of war don't belong on our streets. I fear mass murder with these weapons between now and then, but I am proud of House of Delegates for doing what we could. We will be back.”
Senate Committee voted to study assault weapons bill for another year. We already know weapons of war don't belong on our streets. I fear mass murder with these weapons between now and then, but I am proud of House of Delegates for doing what we could. We will be back. — Mark Levine (@DelegateMark) February 17, 2020
He added in a tweet response to newly-installed House Democratic Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn, “We will be back.”
Gun advocates in the state took that as a warning and issued their own warning to supporters, urging them to keep up the fight to retain their weapons targeted by the Democrats, many of whom received funding from anti-gun presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg.
“We dare not get complacent again. We are far from being out of the woods. Red Flag laws, Universal Background Checks, and destruction of the firearms preemption law are still very much alive this year,” said the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Levine’s legislation, passed in the State House, would have banned the sale of AR-style rifles after July 1.
He has spent months whipping up anger at the guns and even issued a much-criticized notice that claimed the guns were “created by Nazi Germany; Modern version legalized by the GOP.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--Bloomberg’s gun ban rejected in Virginia with Democratic help

Despite spending millions to turn Virginia ’ s legislature blue and a last-minute visit to Richmond , Democrats in the Senate turned back presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg ’ s top goal in the state of banning “ assault weapons.
” In a lopsided 10-5 vote , the state Senate Judiciary Committee killed any advancement this year , pushing the legislation off for a year .
The National Rifle Association emailed , “ Thanks to Second Amendment supporters around the Commonwealth ceaselessly voicing their opposition to a sweeping gun ban , the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to reject House Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s House majority in the General Assembly is not going to deliver their most coveted agenda item to their billionaire master.
” While the state legislature has approved several Bloomberg-pushed gun control measures , the bill , HB961 , killed today in Richmond was the top goal .
It would have banned the sale of AR-style semi-automatic rifles , the most popular rifle in the United States .
It would also have banned suppressors and large ammo magazines .
Four Senate Democrats voted against it .
Van Cleave credited his group ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 22,000-strong protest in Richmond and a pro-gun sanctuary movement that swept the state after Democrats took control of the legislature in November elections .
“ HB961 went down by a 10 to 5 vote !
Everybody ’ s hard work , Lobby Day , and sanctuary movement paid off !
” he tweeted .

Despite spending millions to turn Virginia’s legislature blue and a last-minute visit to Richmond, Democrats in the Senate turned back presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg’s top goal in the state of banning “assault weapons.”
In a lopsided 10-5 vote, the state Senate Judiciary Committee killed any advancement this year, pushing the legislation off for a year.
“VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” tweeted Phil Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
HB961 went down by a 10 to 5 vote! Everybody’s hard work, Lobby Day, and sanctuary movement paid off! — Phil Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) February 17, 2020
The National Rifle Association emailed, “Thanks to Second Amendment supporters around the Commonwealth ceaselessly voicing their opposition to a sweeping gun ban, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to reject House Bill 961 on February 17th. Bloomberg’s House majority in the General Assembly is not going to deliver their most coveted agenda item to their billionaire master.”
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to defeat the largest attack on Virginia's gun owners that we have seen in years. The battle is not over but this bill is dead for this session. A big thanks to Senator Deeds, Edwards for supporting the rights of law abiding gun owners. — Virginia Shooting Sports Association (@VSSA) February 17, 2020
While the state legislature has approved several Bloomberg-pushed gun control measures, the bill, HB961, killed today in Richmond was the top goal. It would have banned the sale of AR-style semi-automatic rifles, the most popular rifle in the United States. It would also have banned suppressors and large ammo magazines.
Gun ban bill defeated! This morning the VA Senate Judiciary Cmte voted to table HB 961 for 1 year. Three sheriffs were present: myself, Sheriff Vaughn, and Sheriff Helton. Our 2A patriots sent a message, loud and clear, on these bills. We cannot rest, however. Other bills remain. pic.twitter.com/P9koC8aCPD — Scott Jenkins (@ScottHJenkins) February 17, 2020
Four Senate Democrats voted against it.
Van Cleave credited his group’s massive lobbying effort, which included a 22,000-strong protest in Richmond and a pro-gun sanctuary movement that swept the state after Democrats took control of the legislature in November elections.
“HB961 went down by a 10 to 5 vote! Everybody’s hard work, Lobby Day, and sanctuary movement paid off!” he tweeted.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--Bloomberg’s charitable donations went to cities whose mayors he then asked for 2020 endorsements

Michael Bloomberg ’ s philanthropic donations over the years have helped the billionaire Democratic presidential candidate secure allegiance from city and party leaders who might otherwise find parts of his record problematic if they were not dependent on his charitable giving .
Bloomberg ’ s philanthropy skyrocketed in 2019 , ahead of the former New York City mayor declaring his candidacy for president .
Bloomberg donated $ 3.3 billion last year , which was more than he gave the previous five years combined , according to a New York Times analysis of his charitable donations .
The donations fall in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are also fused with his political fixations , including public health and safety , education , climate change , and culture and arts .
Bloomberg Philanthropies , his charity , has supported nearly 200 cities with grants and other assistance worth $ 350 million .
Dozens of the charity ’ s employees have also joined his campaign and are now reaching out to mayors of the cities that received the grants for their backing of Bloomberg ’ s campaign .
More than 100 current and former mayors have endorsed Bloomberg , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attended the candidate ’ s leadership initiative at Harvard University and received millions in funding from Bloomberg over the years .
Mayor Svante Myrick of Ithaca , New York , said Bloomberg ’ s campaign reached out shortly after he announced his candidacy to ask for an endorsement .
The city had previously received $ 100,000 in funding for a supervised injection facility .
Myrick , who has yet to endorse a candidate , said it did not initially occur to him that Bloomberg ’ s charitable donations could be linked to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking about : If I endorse Bloomberg , Bloomberg Philanthropies will give us more money , ” he said .
Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville , Kentucky , has worked with Bloomberg ’ s team since 2011 .
Since then , his city has received $ 4.7 million in grants , and Fischer is now helping Bloomberg reach out to other cities strapped for financial resources .
Louisville was one of five cities to receive funding from Bloomberg ’ s foundation for early childhood learning programs last year .
Bloomberg has used the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of his first campaign events was in Jackson , Mississippi , which received a $ 1 million grant as the winner of the foundation ’ s public art challenge and whose mayor attended Bloomberg ’ s Harvard program .
He later visited Augusta , Georgia , to announce the endorsement of the city ’ s mayor , who also benefited from Bloomberg ’ s initiatives .
In Chicago , Mayor Lori Lightfoot , who has participated in Bloomberg ’ s Harvard program , said she and her staff have worked to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerations .
“ We view them as valued partners , but that ’ s got to be separate and apart from any presidential considerations , ” she said .
Stu Loeser , a Bloomberg spokesman , said the billionaire businessman had made the donations “ with no expectations of anything in return .
”

Michael Bloomberg’s philanthropic donations over the years have helped the billionaire Democratic presidential candidate secure allegiance from city and party leaders who might otherwise find parts of his record problematic if they were not dependent on his charitable giving.
Bloomberg’s philanthropy skyrocketed in 2019, ahead of the former New York City mayor declaring his candidacy for president. Bloomberg donated $3.3 billion last year, which was more than he gave the previous five years combined, according to a New York Times analysis of his charitable donations.
The donations fall in line with his personal interests, but they are also fused with his political fixations, including public health and safety, education, climate change, and culture and arts.
Bloomberg Philanthropies, his charity, has supported nearly 200 cities with grants and other assistance worth $350 million. Dozens of the charity’s employees have also joined his campaign and are now reaching out to mayors of the cities that received the grants for their backing of Bloomberg’s campaign.
More than 100 current and former mayors have endorsed Bloomberg, according to his campaign, some of whom attended the candidate’s leadership initiative at Harvard University and received millions in funding from Bloomberg over the years.
Mayor Svante Myrick of Ithaca, New York, said Bloomberg’s campaign reached out shortly after he announced his candidacy to ask for an endorsement. The city had previously received $100,000 in funding for a supervised injection facility. Myrick, who has yet to endorse a candidate, said it did not initially occur to him that Bloomberg’s charitable donations could be linked to the endorsements.
“Maybe I should be thinking about: If I endorse Bloomberg, Bloomberg Philanthropies will give us more money,” he said.
Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky, has worked with Bloomberg’s team since 2011. Since then, his city has received $4.7 million in grants, and Fischer is now helping Bloomberg reach out to other cities strapped for financial resources. Louisville was one of five cities to receive funding from Bloomberg’s foundation for early childhood learning programs last year.
Bloomberg has used the grants to guide his campaign travel. One of his first campaign events was in Jackson, Mississippi, which received a $1 million grant as the winner of the foundation’s public art challenge and whose mayor attended Bloomberg’s Harvard program. He later visited Augusta, Georgia, to announce the endorsement of the city’s mayor, who also benefited from Bloomberg’s initiatives.
In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who has participated in Bloomberg’s Harvard program, said she and her staff have worked to keep their ties to Bloomberg separate from political considerations.
“We view them as valued partners, but that’s got to be separate and apart from any presidential considerations,” she said.
Stu Loeser, a Bloomberg spokesman, said the billionaire businessman had made the donations “with no expectations of anything in return.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--'Embarrasingly ignorant': Bloomberg slammed for resurfaced claim that he can 'teach anybody to be a

'Embarrasingly ignorant': Bloomberg slammed for resurfaced claim that he can 'teach anybody to be a farmer'

2020 Democrat Michael Bloomberg faced criticism across the political spectrum for claiming that he could teach almost anyone how to farm .
A clip of Bloomberg lecturing at Oxford University ’ s Saïd Business School in 2016 resurfaced over the weekend and sparked outrage from the Left and the Right on Twitter .
In the footage , the former New York City mayor said that people need more “ gray matter ” to do the technological jobs of the Information Age than those in agrarian or industrial societies .
`` The agrarian society lasted 3,000 years , '' he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a farmer .
It ’ s a process .
You dig a hole , you put a seed in , you put dirt on top , you add water , up comes the corn .
`` Then we had 300 years of the industrial society .
You put the piece of metal on the lathe , you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow , and you can have a job , '' Bloomberg continued .
The now-presidential candidate went on to distinguish the “ information economy ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information economy is fundamentally different because it 's built around replacing people with technology , and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze , and that is a whole degree level different , '' Bloomberg said .
`` You have to have a different skill set .
You have to have a lot more gray matter .
It ’ s not clear the teachers can teach or the students can learn . ''
Watch the relevant portion below beginning at the 42:00 minute mark : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted on Twitter generated heat from Democrats , Republicans , and others who said Bloomberg ’ s characterization of farming is offensive .

2020 Democrat Michael Bloomberg faced criticism across the political spectrum for claiming that he could teach almost anyone how to farm.
A clip of Bloomberg lecturing at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School in 2016 resurfaced over the weekend and sparked outrage from the Left and the Right on Twitter. In the footage, the former New York City mayor said that people need more “gray matter” to do the technological jobs of the Information Age than those in agrarian or industrial societies.
"The agrarian society lasted 3,000 years," he said. "I could teach anybody … to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, you add water, up comes the corn.
"Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow, and you can have a job," Bloomberg continued.
The now-presidential candidate went on to distinguish the “information economy” from all preceding time periods.
"The information economy is fundamentally different because it's built around replacing people with technology, and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different," Bloomberg said. "You have to have a different skill set. You have to have a lot more gray matter. It’s not clear the teachers can teach or the students can learn."
Watch the relevant portion below beginning at the 42:00 minute mark:
A one-minute video from Bloomberg’s lecture posted on Twitter generated heat from Democrats, Republicans, and others who said Bloomberg’s characterization of farming is offensive.
The arrogance and ignorance of Mini-Mike about American Agriculture today is alarming. He has NO idea how technical farming is today-made harder by a gov't made of guys like him who make it harder w/ idiotic regulations. Don't let this guy NEAR the @WhiteHouse https://t.co/m6AV4gYTGE — Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) February 17, 2020
tfw you're gonna win the midwest https://t.co/x0zlmFElO4 — Kate Aronoff (@KateAronoff) February 17, 2020
This is embarrassingly ignorant and condescending. https://t.co/WaRtfP5JHK — Krystle Baker (@TarheelKrystle) February 17, 2020
AYFKM. So profoundly misunderstands (and disrespects!) agriculture and farmers, I don't even know where to start. Yet another reason this plutocrat is NOT an acceptable candidate. 🤬 https://t.co/9uy8xKya9k — Gwen Pearson (@bug_gwen) February 17, 2020


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-17--Mayor Pete's position on late-term abortion is based on a lie

In a revealing , recent dust-up on The View , Democrat presidential contender Pete Buttigieg defended his radical pro-abortion views by misleading the public on why women abort their babies late-term .
Sparring with Meghan McCain , Buttigieg claimed that the only reason women get late-term abortions is because of a fetal diagnosis for their baby .
“ If this is a late-term situation , then by definition , it ’ s one where the woman was expecting to carry the pregnancy to term .
Then she gets , perhaps , the most devastating news of her life .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have picked out a name , and they learn something excruciating and are faced with this terrible choice , ” Buttigieg asserted .
Not so .
In a study from 2013 , researchers interviewed 272 women who had gotten late-term abortions .
The study determined the top five reasons behind their decisions , and fetal diagnosis for the baby wasn ’ t one of them .
In fact , each was related to the woman 's feeling that her present situation wasn ’ t conducive to raising a child .
Moreover , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service , Dr. Diana Foster of the University of California , San Francisco , stated that “ abortions for fetal anomalies make up a small minority of later abortions.
” So Buttigieg ’ s attempted justification of late-term abortion as a medical requirement simply doesn ’ t hold up under scrutiny .
Trust me , I ’ d know .
I was born 11 weeks premature , at 29 weeks gestation , weighing just 2 pounds and 15 ounces .
On the day of my birth , if my mother had gone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Buttigieg would have been fine with my mother aborting me rather than choosing life .
Situations like this happen on a daily basis across the United States .
According to the Center for Disease Control , nearly 13,000 women abort their babies late-term every year .
After Buttigieg explained his views , McCain responded , “ This is going to hurt you in the middle of the country with people like me .
And quite frankly , that answer is just as radical as I thought it was.
” According to Gallup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life , and only 39 % of Democrats take Buttigieg ’ s position that abortion should be legal under any circumstance .
Take professor Charles Camosy , for example .
He is pro-life Democrat who spent much of his life working on getting members of his party elected to office .
But no more .
Just yesterday , he disclosed in the New York Post that he has given up supporting Democrats , citing Buttigieg ’ s abortion extremism as the “ straw that broke the camel ’ s back.
” For the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Camosy , Mayor Pete ’ s position may cause many of them to do the unthinkable — protect the unborn by voting to reelect a pro-life president : President Trump .
Zachary Mettler is a staff writer for the Daily Citizen at Focus on the Family .

In a revealing, recent dust-up on The View, Democrat presidential contender Pete Buttigieg defended his radical pro-abortion views by misleading the public on why women abort their babies late-term.
Sparring with Meghan McCain, Buttigieg claimed that the only reason women get late-term abortions is because of a fetal diagnosis for their baby.
“If this is a late-term situation, then by definition, it’s one where the woman was expecting to carry the pregnancy to term. Then she gets, perhaps, the most devastating news of her life. We’re talking about families that may have picked out a name, and they learn something excruciating and are faced with this terrible choice,” Buttigieg asserted.
Not so. In a study from 2013, researchers interviewed 272 women who had gotten late-term abortions. The study determined the top five reasons behind their decisions, and fetal diagnosis for the baby wasn’t one of them. In fact, each was related to the woman's feeling that her present situation wasn’t conducive to raising a child.
Moreover, in a 2018 report for the Congressional Research Service, Dr. Diana Foster of the University of California, San Francisco, stated that “abortions for fetal anomalies make up a small minority of later abortions.”
So Buttigieg’s attempted justification of late-term abortion as a medical requirement simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Trust me, I’d know. I was born 11 weeks premature, at 29 weeks gestation, weighing just 2 pounds and 15 ounces.
On the day of my birth, if my mother had gone to an abortion clinic instead of a hospital, Buttigieg would have been fine with my mother aborting me rather than choosing life. Situations like this happen on a daily basis across the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, nearly 13,000 women abort their babies late-term every year.
After Buttigieg explained his views, McCain responded, “This is going to hurt you in the middle of the country with people like me. And quite frankly, that answer is just as radical as I thought it was.”
Millions of Americans, including Democrats, agree with McCain.
According to Gallup, 29% of Democrats identify as pro-life, and only 39% of Democrats take Buttigieg’s position that abortion should be legal under any circumstance.
Take professor Charles Camosy, for example. He is pro-life Democrat who spent much of his life working on getting members of his party elected to office. But no more. Just yesterday, he disclosed in the New York Post that he has given up supporting Democrats, citing Buttigieg’s abortion extremism as the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
For the millions of pro-life Democrats who think like Professor Camosy, Mayor Pete’s position may cause many of them to do the unthinkable — protect the unborn by voting to reelect a pro-life president: President Trump.
Zachary Mettler is a staff writer for the Daily Citizen at Focus on the Family.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--John Bolton accuses White House of 'censorship' over forthcoming memoir

DURHAM , North Carolina — President Trump ’ s former national security adviser John Bolton accused the White House of “ censorship ” as he made his first public appearance since explosive details about Ukraine were leaked from his draft memoir .
Speaking to a capacity audience at Duke University on Monday , he complained that Trump was free to tweet about policy while he faced legal action if he spoke out , but said he hoped his book would not be suppressed despite a prepublication review and promised many more details from his time working for Trump .
His @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy was just “ sprinkles on the ice cream sundae.
” “ This is this is an effort to write history , and I did it the best I can , ” he said .
“ We 'll have to see what comes out of the censorship.
” His use of the word provoked gasps among some in the 1,200-strong audience .
Last month , it emerged that Bolton , in his book , alleges that the president directed him to help with his pressure campaign to obtain damaging information on his Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memoir , The Room Where It Happened : A White House Memoir , is due to be published on March 17 , 2020 , by Simon & Schuster .
Speaking onstage to Peter Feaver , professor of political science at Duke , Bolton , by his own admission , “ ducked ” questions about his instructions from Trump .
He said the administration ’ s prepublication review meant that he could not discuss details for fear of legal action .
“ I say things in the manuscript about what he said to me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ He tweets , but I can ’ t talk about it .
How fair is that ?
” The legal battle over his book meant he avoided question after question .
When asked whether he agreed with Trump ’ s characterization of his July 25 phone conversation , the call that sparked a whistleblower complaint , with President Zelensky of Ukraine as “ perfect , ” he demurred , saying , “ You will love chapter 14.
” A small number of protesters gathered outside the venue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Iraq War and other conflicts .
It marked his first public appearance since leaked details from his draft memoir rocked the president ’ s Senate impeachment trial .
In the manuscript , Bolton claimed that Trump told him critical military aid to Ukraine would be suspended until the country ’ s government announced investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden .
The revelation , just as the White House legal team was about to begin its defense of the president , triggered fresh Democratic calls that Bolton be called to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would undermine a key part of the White House defense : that the suspension of aid was separate to the request to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden , who had worked for a Ukrainian energy company .
“ In fact , [ Bolton ] never complained about this at the time of his very public termination , ” he tweeted .
“ If John Bolton said this , it was only to sell a book.
” Bolton was Trump 's third national security adviser and left the job in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghanistan and North Korea .
In his appearance at Duke , he repeated previous complaints that the Trump administration was not tough enough on Iran and North Korea , which had been able to pursue nuclear weapons for two years while American officials hoped for a breakthrough .

DURHAM, North Carolina — President Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, accused the White House of “censorship” as he made his first public appearance since explosive details about Ukraine were leaked from his draft memoir.
Speaking to a capacity audience at Duke University on Monday, he complained that Trump was free to tweet about policy while he faced legal action if he spoke out, but said he hoped his book would not be suppressed despite a prepublication review and promised many more details from his time working for Trump.
His knowledge of the president’s Ukraine strategy was just “sprinkles on the ice cream sundae.”
“This is an effort to write history, and I did it the best I can,” he said. “We'll have to see what comes out of the censorship.”
His use of the word provoked gasps among some in the 1,200-strong audience.
Last month, it emerged that Bolton, in his book, alleges that the president directed him to help with a pressure campaign to obtain from Ukraine damaging information on his Democratic rivals.
Bolton’s memoir, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, is due to be published on March 17, 2020, by Simon & Schuster.
Speaking onstage to Peter Feaver, professor of political science at Duke, Bolton, by his own admission, “ducked” questions about his instructions from Trump. He said the administration’s prepublication review meant that he could not discuss details for fear of legal action.
“I say things in the manuscript about what he said to me. I hope they become public someday,” he said. “He tweets, but I can’t talk about it. How fair is that?”
The legal battle over his book meant he avoided question after question. When asked whether he agreed with Trump’s characterization of his July 25 phone conversation, the call that sparked a whistleblower complaint, with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as “perfect,” he demurred, saying, “You will love chapter 14.”
A small number of protesters gathered outside the venue, distributing leaflets detailing Bolton's support for the Iraq War and other conflicts.
It marked his first public appearance since leaked details from his draft memoir rocked the president’s Senate impeachment trial. In the manuscript, Bolton claimed that Trump told him critical military aid to Ukraine would be suspended until the country’s government announced investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.
The revelation, just as the White House legal team was about to begin its defense of the president, triggered fresh Democratic calls that Bolton be called to give evidence. If true, the claim would undermine a key part of the White House defense: that the suspension of aid was separate from the request to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy company.
Trump quickly denied the claims.
“In fact, [Bolton] never complained about this at the time of his very public termination,” he tweeted. “If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
Bolton was Trump's third national security adviser and left the job in September after a series of policy clashes over Afghanistan and North Korea.
In his appearance at Duke, he repeated previous complaints that the Trump administration was not tough enough on Iran and North Korea, which had been able to pursue nuclear weapons for two years while American officials hoped for a breakthrough.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--America's 'Brexit': Taking back power from the administrative state

On Jan. 31 , more than three years after the people of the United Kingdom had voted for it , Britain left the European Union in a move nicknamed `` Brexit . ''
The reasons for this are complex , but the clearest motive was outlined by Boris Johnson , a leader of the movement who is now the country ’ s prime minister .
In a speech during the Brexit campaign , Johnson noted that 60 % of the laws passing through the British Parliament and becoming the law of the U.K. came from decisions made by the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to exercise democratic control over such basic economic matters as our tax rates , '' said Johnson .
`` We can not control the EU budget … nor can we protect the U.K. taxpayer from the demands of the Eurozone countries for bailout funds … It is time to take back control and speak for freedom in Britain . ''
Here , as in so many other areas , British politics seems to foreshadow what happens in the United States .
Obviously , we are not subject to foreign control through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there are serious questions about the degree to which the American people are currently able to control the rules and regulations made by unelected officials in federal agencies — agencies which , because of their remarkable power and apparent immunity from popular control , are called the administrative state .
Without question , the representative republic set up by the framers of our Constitution offered protection against the loss of popular control .
The Constitution vests all law-making power in Congress , a Senate and House of Representatives elected by and theoretically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American people .
But since the New Deal , and increasingly in recent years , this system does not appear to be working as designed .
Instead of making the difficult political decisions for society , who is benefited by and who pays the price for new legislation , Congress has been enacting laws that simply set goals for the agencies of the administrative state .
This delegates unlimited authority to these agencies , but it insulates members of Congress from accountability for the political costs of making these controversial decisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court ruling , Chevron v. U.S. , lower federal courts were directed to defer to the interpretations of administrative state agencies themselves about the authorities they were granted by Congress .
When broadly worded delegations of statutory authority are combined with court deference to agency views of their rulemaking power , it should be no surprise that the agencies of the administrative state can expand their jurisdictions to matters Congress never contemplated .
Executive agencies , then , rather than Congress , have been able to make the rules under which everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people are in very much the same position in relation to their government as the people of Britain were before they voted for and achieved a separation from the EU .
As in Britain , people bound by the rules flowing from remote bureaucracies have little ability to affect the scope of these rules .
As in Britain , this will eventually give rise to dangerous questions about the legitimacy of the rules .
Of course , the remedy in our constitutional system must be entirely different from what the British did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s a return to the original constitutional structure in which Congress — when it provides authority to the agencies of the executive branch — places limits on the scope of these powers .
At the same time , the courts must be the key interpreters of what powers Congress intended to confer and should not be required to defer to agencies ’ views of how much authority they have been given .
There is a way to bring this about .
It ’ s called the nondelegation doctrine .
This constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court since 1935 , but with five members of the Court now avowing that they favor the original meaning of the Constitution , it is a reasonable prospect .
Under this approach , the judiciary would strike down as unconstitutional any law that delegates excessive or unlimited authority to an executive agency .
This would require Congress , in performing its legislative function , to place limits on the scope of the statutory authority it is granting .
The judiciary , in turn , rather than deferring to the agencies ’ views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are remaining within these limits .
There will certainly be strong opposition to this approach from those who favor the expansive government powers currently exercised by administrative state agencies .
But without a change in its current direction , the US government is headed toward a structure not very different in overall effect from what the British people overturned with their Brexit votes .
It ’ s time either to start that process or resign ourselves to living in a governmental system the framers would not recognize .
Peter J. Wallison is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His most recent book is Judicial Fortitude : The Last Chance to Rein In the Administrative State ( Encounter 2018 ) .

On Jan. 31, more than three years after the people of the United Kingdom had voted for it, Britain left the European Union in a move nicknamed "Brexit." The reasons for this are complex, but the clearest motive was outlined by Boris Johnson, a leader of the movement who is now the country’s prime minister.
In a speech during the Brexit campaign, Johnson noted that 60% of the laws passing through the British Parliament and becoming the law of the U.K. came from decisions made by the EU in Brussels.
"We are currently unable to exercise democratic control over such basic economic matters as our tax rates," said Johnson. "We cannot control the EU budget … nor can we protect the U.K. taxpayer from the demands of the Eurozone countries for bailout funds … It is time to take back control and speak for freedom in Britain."
Here, as in so many other areas, British politics seems to foreshadow what happens in the United States. Obviously, we are not subject to foreign control through a supranational organization such as the EU. But there are serious questions about the degree to which the American people are currently able to control the rules and regulations made by unelected officials in federal agencies — agencies which, because of their remarkable power and apparent immunity from popular control, are called the administrative state.
Without question, the representative republic set up by the framers of our Constitution offered protection against the loss of popular control. The Constitution vests all law-making power in Congress, a Senate and House of Representatives elected by and theoretically subject to the will and priorities of the American people.
But since the New Deal, and increasingly in recent years, this system does not appear to be working as designed. Instead of making the difficult political decisions for society, who is benefited by and who pays the price for new legislation, Congress has been enacting laws that simply set goals for the agencies of the administrative state. This delegates unlimited authority to these agencies, but it insulates members of Congress from accountability for the political costs of making these controversial decisions.
In addition, under a key 1984 Supreme Court ruling, Chevron v. U.S., lower federal courts were directed to defer to the interpretations of administrative state agencies themselves about the authorities they were granted by Congress.
When broadly worded delegations of statutory authority are combined with court deference to agency views of their rule-making power, it should be no surprise that the agencies of the administrative state can expand their jurisdictions to matters Congress never contemplated. Executive agencies, then, rather than Congress, have been able to make the rules under which everyone must live.
In other words, the people are in very much the same position in relation to their government as the people of Britain were before they voted for and achieved a separation from the EU. As in Britain, people bound by the rules flowing from remote bureaucracies have little ability to affect the scope of these rules. As in Britain, this will eventually give rise to dangerous questions about the legitimacy of the rules.
Of course, the remedy in our constitutional system must be entirely different from what the British did, but there is a remedy. It’s a return to the original constitutional structure in which Congress — when it provides authority to the agencies of the executive branch — places limits on the scope of these powers. At the same time, the courts must be the key interpreters of what powers Congress intended to confer and should not be required to defer to agencies’ views of how much authority they have been given.
There is a way to bring this about. It’s called the nondelegation doctrine. This constitutional approach has not been invoked by the Supreme Court since 1935, but with five members of the Court now avowing that they favor the original meaning of the Constitution, it is a reasonable prospect.
Under this approach, the judiciary would strike down as unconstitutional any law that delegates excessive or unlimited authority to an executive agency. This would require Congress, in performing its legislative function, to place limits on the scope of the statutory authority it is granting. The judiciary, in turn, rather than deferring to the agencies’ views, will independently test whether executive agencies are remaining within these limits.
There will certainly be strong opposition to this approach from those who favor the expansive government powers currently exercised by administrative state agencies. But without a change in its current direction, the U.S. government is headed toward a structure not very different in overall effect from what the British people overturned with their Brexit votes.
It’s time either to start that process or resign ourselves to living in a governmental system the framers would not recognize.
Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book is Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein In the Administrative State (Encounter 2018).


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Nevada caucuses win would make Bernie Sanders a weak front-runner

New polling data suggest Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders could win the Nevada caucuses at the end of this week , but a victory may not improve his weak lead in a field of candidates who have , so far , failed to excite the Democratic electorate .
“ I think Sanders is the favorite to win Nevada , ” University of Nevada political science professor Eric Herzik told the Washington Examiner .
“ However , a ‘ win ’ will likely be far from commanding — maybe in the 30 % range — as other candidates will be competitive.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has , so far , failed to produce a strong front-runner and Nevada ’ s Feb. 22 caucuses may fail anyone with a runaway victory .
A Las Vegas Review-Journal/AARP Nevada poll released Friday showed Sanders out front with 25 % of the vote , followed by former Vice President Joe Biden , with 18 % .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren followed in third place with 13 % of the vote .
But 44 % of voters aren ’ t interested in the top three candidates .
The poll found 11 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist Tom Steyer , while 10 % support both Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar .
Another 13 % are undecided .
The poll was small — only about 400 likely caucusgoers were surveyed — but it showed Democratic voters haven ’ t unified around a favorite .
Biden was leading in Nevada polls taken in January but his status as a front-runner faded after he placed fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary .
Biden is hoping to stop his decline in Nevada with the help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s significant base of Latino voters , who could help him secure a victory .
During a Thursday afternoon fundraiser in New York City , Biden told a group of donors he would first or second in place in the Nevada caucuses .
In a setback for Biden , Nevada ’ s influential Culinary Union , which represents 60,000 hotel and casino workers , announced Thursday it would not endorse a Democratic candidate .
But the organization took a jab at Sanders and Warren , warning in a flier distributed to its members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s popular healthcare plan with their `` Medicare for all '' agendas .
The warning could ultimately steer critical union votes to Biden .
Both Biden and Sanders have invested money and staff in Nevada and Sanders performed well in the Silver State ’ s 2016 caucuses , narrowly losing to Hillary Clinton .
But Herzik pointed out the rest of the field is making gains in Nevada .
Buttigieg and Klobochar both come to Nevada with new momentum gained from their good performances in Iowa and Nevada .
Their appeal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s support .
Buttigieg has doubled his campaign staff in Nevada , Herzik said .
“ Klobuchar is in the state and will certainly gain more attention , especially from female voters , ” Herzik added .
“ Female voters are especially important in Nevada where both U.S. senators are women , half the congressional delegation are women , and the state legislature is majority female.
” The candidates will face off at a Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas .
After Nevada , the field may become even more diluted when former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competing , in the 14 Super Tuesday contests on March 3 .
Bloomberg polls third nationally and has spent more than $ 350 million on campaign advertising but has yet to compete in a primary or caucus .
Polling in two Super Tuesday states show Bloomberg picking up support .
A California poll gave Bloomberg 4.3 % of the vote while Texas survey showed Bloomberg with 11.7 % .

New polling data suggest Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders could win the Nevada caucuses at the end of this week, but a victory may not improve his weak lead in a field of candidates who have, so far, failed to excite the Democratic electorate.
“I think Sanders is the favorite to win Nevada,” University of Nevada political science professor Eric Herzik told the Washington Examiner. “However, a ‘win’ will likely be far from commanding — maybe in the 30% range — as other candidates will be competitive.”
The cluttered field of Democratic presidential candidates has, so far, failed to produce a strong front-runner, and Nevada’s Saturday caucuses may fail anyone with a runaway victory.
A Las Vegas Review-Journal/AARP Nevada poll released Friday showed Sanders out front with 25% of the vote, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden, with 18%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren followed in third place with 13% of the vote.
But 44% of voters aren’t interested in the top three candidates. The poll found 11% of likely caucus goers favor billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, while 10% support both Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Another 13% are undecided.
The poll was small — only about 400 likely caucusgoers were surveyed — but it showed Democratic voters haven’t unified around a favorite.
Biden was leading in Nevada polls taken in January, but his status as a front-runner faded after he placed fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary.
Biden is hoping to stop his decline in Nevada with the help of union workers and the state’s significant base of Latino voters, who could help him secure a victory.
During a Thursday afternoon fundraiser in New York City, Biden told a group of donors he would win in first or second place in the Nevada caucuses.
In a setback for Biden, Nevada’s influential Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 hotel and casino workers, announced Thursday it would not endorse a Democratic candidate.
But the organization took a jab at Sanders and Warren, warning in a flier distributed to its members that both candidates would eliminate the union’s popular healthcare plan with their "Medicare for all" agendas. The warning could ultimately steer critical union votes to Biden.
Both Biden and Sanders have invested money and staff in Nevada, and Sanders performed well in the Silver State’s 2016 caucuses, narrowly losing to Hillary Clinton.
But Herzik pointed out the rest of the field is making gains in Nevada.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar both come to Nevada with new momentum gained from their good performances in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their appeal to centrist voters will cut into Biden’s support.
Buttigieg has doubled his campaign staff in Nevada, Herzik said.
“Klobuchar is in the state and will certainly gain more attention, especially from female voters,” Herzik added. “Female voters are especially important in Nevada where both U.S. senators are women, half the congressional delegation are women, and the state legislature is majority female.”
The candidates will face off at a Wednesday debate in Las Vegas.
After Nevada, the field may become even more diluted when former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg begins competing in the 14 Super Tuesday contests on March 3.
Bloomberg polls third nationally and has spent more than $350 million on campaign advertising but has yet to compete in a primary or caucus.
Polling in two Super Tuesday states shows Bloomberg picking up support. A California poll gave Bloomberg 4.3% of the vote while a Texas survey showed Bloomberg with 11.7%.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Justice Department picks US attorney to oversee all Ukraine investigations

A U.S. attorney has been designated to oversee all Ukraine-related investigations by federal prosecutors around the country .
The Justice Department revealed on Tuesday that Richard Donoghue , the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York , was assigned to the task by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen .
Donoghue will “ assist in coordinating … several open matters being handled by different U.S. Attorney ’ s Offices and Department components that in some way potentially relate to Ukraine , '' according to a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee .
Donoghue , a St. John ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Army Judge Advocate General Corps veteran , spent more than a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney and was working as the chief litigation counsel for a global tech company before becoming a U.S. attorney in 2018 .
“ The Deputy Attorney General implemented this policy to avoid duplication of efforts across Department offices and components , to facilitate information sharing , to ensure there are no conflicts among potentially overlapping matters , and to efficiently marshal the resources of the Department , ” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told House Judiciary Chairman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told the New York Democrat that “ the Department typically does not provide information relating to ongoing matters , ” but decided to weigh in “ to clarify the record ” following “ news reports and public comments from Members of Congress that have significantly distorted the public ’ s understanding of the Department ’ s handling of such cases.
” Earlier this month , Attorney General William Barr confirmed the Justice Department would assess information from Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani ’ s Ukraine-related investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an intake process in the field so that any information coming in about Ukraine could be carefully scrutinized by the department and its intelligence community partners , ” Barr said .
“ That is true for any information that comes to the department related to the Ukraine , including any information Mr. Giuliani might provide.
” Barr said , “ the DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant ” but noted , “ We can ’ t take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face value.
” Democrats accused Trump of improperly pressuring Ukraine for political dirt on Biden and others in exchange for foreign aid , using Giuliani to conduct shadow diplomacy outside of normal channels by meeting with Ukrainians to conduct research on alleged corruption .
After the Senate acquitted Trump on impeachment charges of Ukraine-related abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in early February , Giuliani said he was “ ramping up ” his investigations into the Bidens .
Barr was dismayed to discover Trump grouped him in with Giuliani during the controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last July , which led to a whistleblower complaint and later impeachment .
Trump said Giuliani could help Ukraine investigate the Bidens .
“ I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call , and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call , and we will get to the bottom of it , '' Trump told Zelensky , according to a transcript of the call released by the White House .
During the call , immediately after Zelensky expressed interest in purchasing anti-tank weaponry known as Javelins , Trump asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though ” — to look into a CrowdStrike conspiracy theory and possible Ukrainian election interference in 2016 .
Trump later urged Zelensky to investigate “ the other thing , ” referring to allegations of corruption related to the Bidens .
The assistant attorney general confirmed Tuesday that Scott Brady , the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania , was assigned by Rosen “ to assist in the receipt , processing , and preliminary analysis of new information provided by the public that may be relevant to matters relating to Ukraine.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boyd said this was to “ protect the integrity of ongoing matters , particularly with respect to unsolicited information offered to the Department.
” In an apparent bid to head off criticism , Boyd argued the Justice Department ’ s effort to coordinate these investigations and obtain potential evidence “ does not circumvent the Department ’ s established channels.
” He said the procedures “ do not grant any individual unique access to the Department ” and any member of the public “ may contact the Department and make use of its intake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general said everyone who brought information to the DOJ would be treated the same .
“ Such information will be carefully evaluated and vetted by the Department before investigatory steps , if any , are taken , ” Boyd wrote .
“ The Department remains vigilant against the significant threat of disinformation .
As always , the Department will reject information it finds to be non-credible while continuing to discharge its duty to pursue all meritorious leads and investigations.
” Included in the letter was a copy of a memo Rosen sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders in January , informing them of Donoghue ’ s mission “ to assess , investigate , and address any other matters relating to Ukraine , including the opening of any new investigations or the expansion of existing ones.
” The deputy attorney general told DOJ leaders to contact Donoghue “ if you are currently working on a Ukraine-related investigation ” and to consult with him on those investigations .
In his Tuesday letter , Boyd added the Justice Department stood by its September 2019 statement distancing itself from Trump ’ s Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son , and the President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter , '' the Justice Department said last year .
`` The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject .
Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter , or anything relating to Ukraine , with Rudy Giuliani .
”

A U.S. attorney has been designated to oversee all Ukraine-related investigations by federal prosecutors around the country.
The Justice Department revealed on Tuesday that Richard Donoghue, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, was assigned to the task by Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.
Donoghue will “assist in coordinating … several open matters being handled by different U.S. Attorney’s Offices and Department components that in some way potentially relate to Ukraine," according to a letter sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
Donoghue, a St. John’s University School of Law graduate and Army Judge Advocate General's Corps veteran, spent more than a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney and was working as the chief litigation counsel for a global tech company before becoming a U.S. attorney in 2018.
“The Deputy Attorney General implemented this policy to avoid duplication of efforts across Department offices and components, to facilitate information sharing, to ensure there are no conflicts among potentially overlapping matters, and to efficiently marshal the resources of the Department,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd told House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in the letter.
Boyd told the New York Democrat that “the Department typically does not provide information relating to ongoing matters,” but decided to weigh in “to clarify the record” following “news reports and public comments from Members of Congress that have significantly distorted the public’s understanding of the Department’s handling of such cases.”
Earlier this month, Attorney General William Barr confirmed that the Justice Department would assess information from Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine-related investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
“We had established an intake process in the field so that any information coming in about Ukraine could be carefully scrutinized by the department and its intelligence community partners,” Barr said. “That is true for any information that comes to the department related to the Ukraine, including any information Mr. Giuliani might provide.”
Barr said, “The DOJ has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant” but noted, “We can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.”
Democrats accused President Trump of improperly pressuring Ukraine for political dirt on Biden and others in exchange for foreign aid, using Giuliani to conduct shadow diplomacy outside of normal channels by meeting with Ukrainians to conduct research on alleged corruption.
After the Senate acquitted Trump on impeachment charges of Ukraine-related abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in early February, Giuliani said he was “ramping up” his investigations into the Bidens.
Barr was dismayed to discover Trump grouped him in with Giuliani during the controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last July, which led to a whistleblower complaint and later impeachment. Trump said Giuliani could help Ukraine investigate the Bidens.
“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call, and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call, and we will get to the bottom of it," Trump told Zelensky, according to a transcript of the call released by the White House.
During the call, immediately after Zelensky expressed interest in purchasing anti-tank weaponry known as Javelins, Trump asked Zelensky “to do us a favor though” — to look into a CrowdStrike conspiracy theory and possible Ukrainian election interference in 2016. Trump later urged Zelensky to investigate “the other thing,” referring to allegations of corruption related to the Bidens.
The assistant attorney general confirmed Tuesday that Scott Brady, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, was assigned by Rosen “to assist in the receipt, processing, and preliminary analysis of new information provided by the public that may be relevant to matters relating to Ukraine.” In a likely reference to Giuliani, Boyd said this was to “protect the integrity of ongoing matters, particularly with respect to unsolicited information offered to the Department.”
In an apparent bid to head off criticism, Boyd argued that the Justice Department’s effort to coordinate these investigations and obtain potential evidence “does not circumvent the Department’s established channels.” He said the procedures “do not grant any individual unique access to the Department” and that any member of the public “may contact the Department and make use of its intake process for Ukraine-related matters.”
The assistant attorney general said everyone who brought information to the DOJ would be treated the same.
“Such information will be carefully evaluated and vetted by the Department before investigatory steps, if any, are taken,” Boyd wrote. “The Department remains vigilant against the significant threat of disinformation. As always, the Department will reject information it finds to be non-credible while continuing to discharge its duty to pursue all meritorious leads and investigations.”
Included in the letter was a copy of a memo Rosen sent to U.S. attorneys and law enforcement agency leaders in January, informing them of Donoghue’s mission “to assess, investigate, and address any other matters relating to Ukraine, including the opening of any new investigations or the expansion of existing ones.”
The deputy attorney general told DOJ leaders to contact Donoghue “if you are currently working on a Ukraine-related investigation” and to consult with him on those investigations.
In his Tuesday letter, Boyd added that the Justice Department stood by its September 2019 statement distancing itself from Trump’s Ukraine call and Giuliani’s dirt-digging endeavors.
“The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son, and the President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter," the Justice Department said last year. "The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Massachusetts Democrat who sits on ethics panel arrested for corruption

Longtime Massachusetts state Rep. David Nangle , who sits on both the ethics and rules committees , has been arrested for corruption .
The Democratic lawmaker was arrested by the FBI and IRS on Tuesday and charged with bank fraud , lying to a bank , falsifying tax returns , and wire fraud .
He stands accused of using his campaign ’ s bank account to fund his expensive gambling habit , according to ABC News .
The 28-count indictment alleges Nangle “ was heavily in debt , had poor credit and had regular cash flow problems as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Connecticut , New Hampshire , Massachusetts and Rhode Island , among others — placing thousands of bets on internet gambling sites.
” As the debt accumulated , even as Nangle earned about $ 100,000 in recent years , prosecutors said he began to use campaign funds to close out his personal debt instead of for legitimate purposes and used “ the Nangle Committee bank account as his own personal checking account to pay for various personal expenses and to withdraw cash.
” As a member of the state legislature , Nangle sits on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Committee on Rules , and the Joint Committee on Rules .
FBI agent Joseph Bonavolonta said Nangle , who has served as a state lawmaker since 1999 , used the funds not just for gambling , but for a variety of illicit purposes .
“ Time after time , he allegedly used campaign funds to pay for personal expenses , spending thousands of dollars on golf club fees , gas , gift cards , hotels , restaurants , flowers and rental cars for trips to casinos , some of which he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bonavolonta said .
The indictment also alleges Nangle convinced a part-time state employee to help him file fraudulent taxes , and when the employee declined to submit them , Nangle pushed the send button and said he would “ take the blame if anything happens.
” Andrew Lelling , U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts , said the reason Nangle was charged in federal rather than state court was because it is more of a deterrent for others .
“ I think there ’ s a real deterrent value in us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will continue to do that , ” Lelling said .
The Washington Examiner reached out to Nangle for comment but did not immediately receive a response .

Longtime Massachusetts state Rep. David Nangle, who sits on both the ethics and rules committees, has been arrested for corruption.
The Democratic lawmaker was arrested by the FBI and IRS on Tuesday and charged with bank fraud, lying to a bank, falsifying tax returns, and wire fraud. He stands accused of using his campaign’s bank account to fund his expensive gambling habit, according to ABC News.
The 28-count indictment alleges Nangle “was heavily in debt, had poor credit and had regular cash flow problems as a result of extensive gambling at various casinos in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, among others — placing thousands of bets on internet gambling sites.”
As the debt accumulated, even as Nangle earned about $100,000 in recent years, prosecutors said he began to use campaign funds to close out his personal debt instead of for legitimate purposes and used “the Nangle Committee bank account as his own personal checking account to pay for various personal expenses and to withdraw cash.”
As a member of the state legislature, Nangle sits on the House Committee on Ethics, the House Committee on Rules, and the Joint Committee on Rules.
FBI agent Joseph Bonavolonta said Nangle, who has served as a state lawmaker since 1999, used the funds not just for gambling, but for a variety of illicit purposes.
“Time after time, he allegedly used campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, spending thousands of dollars on golf club fees, gas, gift cards, hotels, restaurants, flowers and rental cars for trips to casinos, some of which he had already been reimbursed for by taxpayers,” Bonavolonta said.
The indictment also alleges Nangle convinced a part-time state employee to help him file fraudulent taxes, and when the employee declined to submit them, Nangle pushed the send button and said he would “take the blame if anything happens.”
Andrew Lelling, U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said the reason Nangle was charged in federal rather than state court was because it is more of a deterrent for others.
“I think there’s a real deterrent value in us being active in this area, and we will continue to do that,” Lelling said.
The Washington Examiner reached out to Nangle for comment but did not immediately receive a response.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Kenan Thompson and Hasan Minhaj to headline White House Correspondents’ Dinner in return to comedy

Kenan Thompson of Saturday Night Live fame will host this year ’ s White House Correspondents ’ Dinner after the annual event took a brief hiatus from comedy .
Thompson , who has been with the comedy show for 17 seasons and is its longest-tenured performer , will be joined by comedian Hasan Minhaj as a featured entertainer .
Minhaj , who previously performed at the 2017 dinner , is the host of the award-winning show , Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj .
“ Kenan and Hasan are two of the most engaged and engaging entertainers in America .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us celebrate the role of a free press in our democracy , ” said Jonathan Karl , president of the WHCA and chief White House correspondent for ABC News .
“ We ’ re looking forward to a lively evening honoring the most important political journalism of the past year.
” President Trump has never gone to the dinner , which presidents typically attend , since taking office .
In 2018 , the event turned contentious when then-White House press secretary Sarah Sanders became the butt of some controversial jokes by comedian Michelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historian Ron Chernow was the featured speaker last year as a result .
Although Trump had initially indicated he was open to attending last year ’ s dinner , he ended up not going and ordered a boycott for administration officials from attending as the guests of various news networks .
It is not clear if the president will attend this year or if he plans to boycott the dinner once again .

Kenan Thompson of Saturday Night Live fame will host this year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after the annual event took a brief hiatus from comedy.
Thompson, who has been with the comedy show for 17 seasons and is its longest-tenured performer, will be joined by comedian Hasan Minhaj as a featured entertainer. Minhaj, who previously performed at the 2017 dinner, is the host of the award-winning show, Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj.
“Kenan and Hasan are two of the most engaged and engaging entertainers in America. I’m thrilled they’ll help us celebrate the role of a free press in our democracy,” said Jonathan Karl, president of the WHCA and chief White House correspondent for ABC News. “We’re looking forward to a lively evening honoring the most important political journalism of the past year.”
President Trump has never gone to the dinner, which presidents typically attend, since taking office. In 2018, the event turned contentious when then-White House press secretary Sarah Sanders became the butt of some controversial jokes by comedian Michelle Wolf. Instead of a comedian, historian Ron Chernow was the featured speaker last year as a result.
Although Trump had initially indicated he was open to attending last year’s dinner, he ended up not going and ordered a boycott for administration officials from attending as the guests of various news networks. It is not clear if the president will attend this year or if he plans to boycott the dinner once again.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--'More steps and further pressure' as US looks to 'hurt' Maduro regime

President Trump 's top Venezuela adviser vowed to continue tightening the screw on the regime of Nicolas Maduro by causing increasing economic pain until the Venezuelan leader permits democracy in his country or steps down .
`` Pressure will continue and will build steadily until a free and fair election '' occurs , Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams told reporters in a State Department briefing .
`` The president is determined to continue and strengthen his policy toward Venezuela , '' Abrams said , citing U.S. demands that Maduro step down in the absence of democratic elections .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new sanctions against an arm of Russian oil trading giant Rosneft , which the government charged with keeping Maduro afloat .
Sanctions against a Venezuelan airline were enacted two weeks ago , shortly after opposition leader Juan Guaido 's visit to Washington and his address to South Florida 's Venezuelan community , an important base of support for the president in the swing state of Florida .
Countries and companies doing business with Venezuela will need to assume a cost-benefit calculation , and the U.S. government expects a winnowing of those willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dealing with U.S. sanctions is `` complicated and expensive , '' Abrams said .
In addition to U.S. sanctions , the multilateral effort to secure a democratic transition of power includes the organization of regional and European states known as the Lima Group , European Union sanctions , and the reactivation of the Rio Treaty `` hemispheric defense '' doctrine .
Maduro and his aides publicly denounced the Rio Treaty last year , which they said could be used to justify military intervention .
There is no evidence that Venezuela is considering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , and he would not discuss any possible consequences of a failure to do so .
The last democratic election was held in 2015 , in which Maduro 's administration lost `` by a landslide . ''
`` There will be more steps and further pressure in the coming weeks and months , '' he said .
The United States accuses Rosneft of helping Venezuela bypass sanctions to sell oil overseas .
Sanctioning Rosneft will `` hurt '' Maduro 's finances , Abrams said .
Opposition leader Juan Guaido met with British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angela Merkel , French President Emmanuel Macron , and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell last month , `` surprising '' the regime .

President Trump's top Venezuela adviser vowed to continue tightening the screw on the regime of Nicolas Maduro by causing increasing economic pain until the Venezuelan leader permits democracy in his country or steps down.
"Pressure will continue and will build steadily until a free and fair election" occurs, Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams told reporters in a State Department briefing. "The president is determined to continue and strengthen his policy toward Venezuela," Abrams said, citing U.S. demands that Maduro step down in the absence of democratic elections.
On Tuesday, the Department of Treasury announced new sanctions against an arm of Russian oil trading giant Rosneft, which the government charged with keeping Maduro afloat. Sanctions against a Venezuelan airline were enacted two weeks ago, shortly after opposition leader Juan Guaido's visit to Washington and his address to South Florida's Venezuelan community, an important base of support for the president in the swing state of Florida.
Countries and companies doing business with Venezuela will need to assume a cost-benefit calculation, and the U.S. government expects a winnowing of those willing to do so while sanctions are in place. Dealing with U.S. sanctions is "complicated and expensive," Abrams said.
In addition to U.S. sanctions, the multilateral effort to secure a democratic transition of power includes the organization of regional and European states known as the Lima Group, European Union sanctions, and the reactivation of the Rio Treaty "hemispheric defense" doctrine. Maduro and his aides publicly denounced the Rio Treaty last year, which they said could be used to justify military intervention.
There is no evidence that Venezuela is considering a move to democratic elections, Abrams said, and he would not discuss any possible consequences of a failure to do so. The last democratic election was held in 2015, in which Maduro's administration lost "by a landslide."
"There will be more steps and further pressure in the coming weeks and months," he said.
The United States accuses Rosneft of helping Venezuela bypass sanctions to sell oil overseas. Sanctioning Rosneft will "hurt" Maduro's finances, Abrams said.
Opposition leader Juan Guaido met with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, and EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell last month, "surprising" the regime.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Trump accuses Democratic senator of violating Logan Act

President Trump took aim at Chris Murphy after the Democratic senator for Connecticut admitted to meeting with Iran 's foreign minister .
`` I saw that there 's this Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians .
Is that a fact ? ''
Trump asked reporters Tuesday .
`` I just saw that on the way over .
Is there anything that I should know ?
Because that sounds like , to me , a violation of the Logan Act . ''
The law makes it a criminal offense for unauthorized individuals to negotiate with countries that are hostile toward the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard about the news just moments before he met with the press .
Murphy said earlier Tuesday that he had a secret meeting in March with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif .
`` I met w the Iranian Foreign Minister in Munich .
It ’ s dangerous not to talk to adversaries , esp amidst a cycle of escalation , '' Murphy said .
Conservative radio host Mark Levin blasted the senator 's decision , suggesting he violated the Logan Act .
`` Did leftwing Trump-hating senator , Chris Murphy , violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran ’ s foreign minister ?
Did he interfere with American foreign policy ? ''
Levin asked , following up with more questions .
`` Will there be a special counsel and ethics investigation ?
How about an expulsion proceeding ?
Are the media in a frenzy over this act of disloyalty ?
Inquiring minds want to know . ''
Murphy has previously requested that Michael Flynn be investigated for Logan Act violations .

President Trump took aim at Chris Murphy after the Democratic senator for Connecticut admitted to meeting with Iran's foreign minister.
"I saw that there's this Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians. Is that a fact?" Trump asked reporters Tuesday. "I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act."
The law makes it a criminal offense for unauthorized individuals to negotiate with countries that are hostile toward the United States.
The president said he heard about the news just moments before he met with the press. Murphy said earlier Tuesday that he had a secret meeting in March with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
"I met w the Iranian Foreign Minister in Munich. It’s dangerous not to talk to adversaries, esp amidst a cycle of escalation," Murphy said.
1/ Attached is my usual account of my latest trip abroad, this one to Ukraine and Munich.
I met w the Iranian Foriegn Minister in Munich. It’s dangerous not to talk to adversaries, esp amidst a cycle of escalation.
Quick thread on what I told Zarif.https://t.co/2oYjiXfZ7J — Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 18, 2020
Conservative radio host Mark Levin blasted the senator's decision, suggesting he violated the Logan Act. "Did leftwing Trump-hating senator, Chris Murphy, violate the Logan Act by meeting secretly with Iran’s foreign minister? Did he interfere with American foreign policy?" Levin asked, following up with more questions. "Will there be a special counsel and ethics investigation? How about an expulsion proceeding? Are the media in a frenzy over this act of disloyalty? Inquiring minds want to know."
2. Will there be a special counsel and ethics investigation? How about an expulsion proceeding? Are the media in a frenzy over this act of disloyalty? Inquiring minds want to know.https://t.co/RdLjHaNlJl — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) February 18, 2020
Murphy has previously requested that Michael Flynn be investigated for Logan Act violations.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Trump says he knows identity of 'Anonymous' author

President Trump said he knows the identity of `` Anonymous . ''
His statement to reporters on Tuesday indicates a multipronged search within the White House for the author of the tell-all book , A Warning , which spoke of a resistance movement within the Trump administration , has been successful .
`` I know who it is , '' Trump said as he boarded a plane at Joint Base Andrews destined for Los Angeles , adding that he could not divulge a name just yet .
`` But I know who it is , '' he added .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People know it 's a fraud .
I know who it is , and I know who some of the leakers are . ''
Earlier in the month , Trump removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council , along with his twin brother , after he testified against Trump in the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings in the House last year .
National security adviser Robert O ’ Brien , who denied allegations that the Vindmans had been retaliated against , has cut dozens of NSC positions inherited from the Obama administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported that White House trade adviser Peter Navarro initiated an unofficial investigation into Anonymous , alongside others , including one by National Security Council officials .
Reporters and officials close to the president have attempted to identify “ Anonymous ” since the unidentified Trump administration official wrote a New York Times opinion piece spoke of an internal `` resistance '' within the government .
Joe diGenova , a former U.S. attorney , said this week he was told by `` a senior government official '' that `` Anonymous '' had been identified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would be removed `` soon . ''
In the book A Warning , released in November , Anonymous alleged that a number of White House aides made note of Cabinet members they believed would support using the 25th Amendment to kick Trump out of office .
Anonymous pledged in a Reddit forum late last year to speak out against Trump before the 2020 election `` in my own name . ''

President Trump said he knows the identity of "Anonymous."
His statement to reporters on Tuesday indicates a multipronged search within the White House for the author of the tell-all book, A Warning, which spoke of a resistance movement within the Trump administration, has been successful.
"I know who it is," Trump said as he boarded a plane at Joint Base Andrews destined for Los Angeles, adding that he could not divulge a name just yet.
"But I know who it is," he added. "We won't get into it. People know it's a fraud. I know who it is, and I know who some of the leakers are."
Earlier in the month, Trump removed Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council, along with his twin brother, after he testified against Trump in the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings in the House last year. National security adviser Robert O’Brien, who denied allegations that the Vindmans had been retaliated against, has cut dozens of NSC positions inherited from the Obama administration.
Over the weekend, it was reported that White House trade adviser Peter Navarro initiated an unofficial investigation into Anonymous, alongside others, including one by National Security Council officials.
Reporters and officials close to the president have attempted to identify “Anonymous” since the unidentified Trump administration official wrote a New York Times opinion piece spoke of an internal "resistance" within the government.
Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, said this week he was told by "a senior government official" that "Anonymous" had been identified as an official working in the White House and would be removed "soon."
In the book A Warning, released in November, Anonymous alleged that a number of White House aides made note of Cabinet members they believed would support using the 25th Amendment to kick Trump out of office.
Anonymous pledged in a Reddit forum late last year to speak out against Trump before the 2020 election "in my own name."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--White House: Bolton claim of censorship 'ridiculous'

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley dismissed claims of `` censorship '' by former national security adviser John Bolton .
The pushback on Tuesday came a day after Bolton , 71 , accused the White House of trying to censor his forthcoming book about his time in the administration , which included the outset of the Ukrainian controversy that led to President Trump being impeached in the House .
Trump was later acquitted in the Senate .
`` No one is trying to censor Ambassador Bolton ’ s book , and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous , '' Gidley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The NSC is simply conducting its normal procedure by career officials to ensure sensitive , top-secret classified material does not appear in the book .
If any such information actually becomes public , that could be a serious threat to national security and jeopardize the safety of American citizens at home and abroad . ''
On Monday , Bolton made his first public appearance since leaked details from his draft memoir rocked the president ’ s Senate impeachment trial , speaking to an audience at Duke University in the evening .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Ukraine strategy was just “ sprinkles on the ice cream sundae.
” “ This is an effort to write history , and I did it the best I can , ” he said .
“ We 'll have to see what comes out of the censorship.
” Bolton sent a draft manuscript to the National Security Council for a review , parts of which were leaked to the media .
In these leaks , Bolton claimed Trump told him the military aid to Ukraine would be suspended until the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Joe Biden .
The disclosures , which emerged as the president 's legal team was about to begin its defense , giving rise to more calls by Democrats for Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial .
Bolton , who said he would testify if subpoenaed , was never called .
Bolton 's upcoming book , The Room Where It Happened : A White House Memoir , is scheduled to be released on March 17 .

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley dismissed claims of "censorship" by former national security adviser John Bolton.
The pushback on Tuesday came a day after Bolton, 71, accused the White House of trying to censor his forthcoming book about his time in the administration, which included the outset of the Ukrainian controversy that led to President Trump being impeached in the House. Trump was later acquitted in the Senate.
"No one is trying to censor Ambassador Bolton’s book, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous," Gidley said in a statement to CBS News. "The NSC is simply conducting its normal procedure by career officials to ensure sensitive, top-secret classified material does not appear in the book. If any such information actually becomes public, that could be a serious threat to national security and jeopardize the safety of American citizens at home and abroad."
On Monday, Bolton made his first public appearance since leaked details from his draft memoir rocked the president’s Senate impeachment trial, speaking to an audience at Duke University in the evening.
Bolton said his knowledge of the president’s Ukraine strategy was just “sprinkles on the ice cream sundae.”
“This is an effort to write history, and I did it the best I can,” he said. “We'll have to see what comes out of the censorship.”
Bolton sent a draft manuscript to the National Security Council for a review, parts of which were leaked to the media. In these leaks, Bolton claimed Trump told him the military aid to Ukraine would be suspended until the country’s government announced investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.
The disclosures, which emerged as the president's legal team was about to begin its defense, giving rise to more calls by Democrats for Bolton to testify in the Senate impeachment trial. Bolton, who said he would testify if subpoenaed, was never called.
Bolton's upcoming book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, is scheduled to be released on March 17.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-18--Rush Limbaugh: Trump told me 'never apologize' for Buttigieg 'gay guy' remarks

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Trump called him to say he should not backtrack on comments he made about Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg 's electability as a gay man .
`` Hell , the president even called me about this ! ''
Limbaugh said Monday on his show .
`` He said , 'Rush , I just got to tell you something .
Never apologize .
Do n't ever apologize . '
'' The host said the president was referring to comments he had made about the former mayor of South Bend , Indiana , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I had no idea this thing had even bubbled up .
You know , I ’ m doing the medical thing that I have to do here , and I was n't even aware of this , '' he said about the attention he received .
Last week , Limbaugh said Buttigieg 's sexuality could be a weakness in a general election matchup against Trump .
`` A gay guy , 37 years old , loves kissing his husband on debate stages .
Can you see Trump have fun with that ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at Mayor Pete , 37-year-old gay guy , mayor of South Bend , loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage .
And they 're saying , OK , how 's this going to look , 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to 'Mr .
Man ' Donald Trump ?
What 's going to happen there ? ''
the host added .
`` And they got to be looking at that , and they 've got to be saying , that despite all the great progress and despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the great ground that 's been covered , America 's still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president . ''
Earlier this month , Melania Trump presented Limbaugh with a Medal of Freedom during the president 's State of the Union address .
The host announced the day before the address that he had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer .

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said President Trump called him to say he should not backtrack on comments he made about Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's electability as a gay man.
"Hell, the president even called me about this!" Limbaugh said Monday on his show. "He said, 'Rush, I just got to tell you something. Never apologize. Don't ever apologize.'"
The host said the president was referring to comments he had made about the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, that elicited a wave of backlash. "I had no idea this thing had even bubbled up. You know, I’m doing the medical thing that I have to do here, and I wasn't even aware of this," he said about the attention he received.
Last week, Limbaugh said Buttigieg's sexuality could be a weakness in a general election matchup against Trump. "A gay guy, 37 years old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages. Can you see Trump have fun with that?" the host said.
"They're looking at Mayor Pete, 37-year-old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage. And they're saying, OK, how's this going to look, 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to 'Mr. Man' Donald Trump? What's going to happen there?" the host added. "And they got to be looking at that, and they've got to be saying, that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness, and despite all the great ground that's been covered, America's still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president."
Earlier this month, Melania Trump presented Limbaugh with a Medal of Freedom during the president's State of the Union address. The host announced the day before the address that he had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.