Trump's red-tape revolution

Let ’ s give credit where credit is due : The Trump administration is reintroducing constitutional balance to regulatory policymaking .
His team is doing the yeoman ’ s work that Congress and the courts have avoided for too long .
What makes these developments even more remarkable is that the president is acting contrary to his institutional interests .
To be sure , the administration is imperfect on this score .
For example , President Trump strained our constitutional structure when he declared an “ emergency ” to fund a border wall in order to circumvent Congress ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet on crucial matters of administrative law , the Trump White House is putting country before executive power .
It ’ s a refreshing break from the past .
At issue is an alphabet soup ’ s worth of domestic regulatory agencies collectively known as the “ administrative state.
” Think : EEOC , FDA , OSHA , etc .
In modern American government , these bureaucracies are the real lawmakers .
Last year , for example , federal agencies issued 12 regulations for every law Congress passed , and that was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administrative state , unelected bureaucrats can interpret legislation in virtually whatever manner they choose , in effect issuing new laws through regulatory force .
In 2009 , Congress considered and ultimately failed to pass a “ cap-and-trade ” system that would have basically rationed energy use in order to reduce America ’ s carbon footprint .
Yet in 2014 , at the direction of President Barack Obama , the Environmental Protection Agency issued the Clean Power Plan , the “ backstop ” of which was — wait for it — a cap-and-trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to reduce America ’ s carbon footprint .
The agency justified its approach based on an expansive reading of an obscure provision in the Clean Air Act , written almost a half-century ago .
Since the New Deal , the administrative state ’ s unabated growth reflects a regrettable abdication of authority to the presidency by the legislative and judicial branches of government .
In aggrandizing the executive branch , Congress and the Supreme Court are acting contrary to the founders ’ constitutional design , which is , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Let ’ s start with Congress .
For more than a century , the House and Senate have been giving away ever more of their lawmaking power to the administrative state .
These “ delegations ” take the form of statutes that create and empower bureaucracies under presidential management within the executive branch .
Why would anyone give away power ?
The Founding Fathers , after all , built human nature into their constitutional design : They expected power-hungry leaders in rival branches to cancel each other out .
The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overweening state .
As James Madison famously explained in Federalist 51 , “ Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
” By giving away policymaking authority , Congress demonstrates “ ambition , ” but it ’ s a perversion of what the founders had in mind .
Lawmakers are politicians , and tough choices make for attack ad fodder during reelection campaigns .
It is far easier for members of Congress to delegate the hard decisions to regulatory agencies and thereby avoid accountability .
They delegate to pass the buck .
The Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative state by adopting hands-off doctrines of judicial restraint .
On the one hand , the court refuses to second-guess how much power Congress delegates to regulatory agencies ; on the other , the court has adopted various principles of judicial respect , or “ deference , ” that permit these agencies to define the boundaries of their own power .
This allows Congress to continue to pass off more and more decisions onto executive agencies , which in turn are given wide discretion in determining what it is they are permitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the framers of the Constitution intended , we are left with a series of feedback loops , both of which serve to grow the administrate state .
The first involves Congress .
The president , as manager in chief of bureaucratic governance , has become so powerful that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress now believe that the White House is the most efficient vehicle for achieving their parties ’ respective platforms .
As a result , half of Congress loses interest in executive overreach whenever “ their guy ” occupies the presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courts .
As the administrative state grows , so does the size and complexity of its policies .
Rulemaking records routinely run thousands of pages .
Faced with mountains of technical minutiae , courts throw up their hands and rubber-stamp an agency ’ s “ expert ” decision .
As Congress and the Supreme Court looped themselves out of the picture , the president has assumed center stage .
Presidents since Richard Nixon have developed successive layers of controls over the management of agency spending and regulatory output .
Their purpose has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grip over the administrative state .
Trump , in his characteristic manner , is finally shaking things up .
Consider how the Trump administration took on judicial deference .
For almost 80 years , the Supreme Court gave binding respect to an agency ’ s interpretation of the regulations it wrote .
The big problem with this principle , known as Auer deference in reference to the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins , is that it allows agencies to take procedural shortcuts .
Normally , an agency must involve the public in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binding regulation .
Yet agencies can avoid these participatory procedures through Auer deference .
All the agency must do is issue a “ nonbinding ” guidance document , which does not require a period of public comment .
Then , the agency goes to court , receives deference , and magically , its “ nonbinding ” rule becomes indistinguishable from a regulation with the force of law .
Regardless of who occupied the Oval Office , the simple legal logic remained the same : The Justice Department is an executive branch agency , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive branch .
However , Trump ’ s Department of Justice is doing things differently .
Last term , in one of its most consequential cases , Kisor v. Wilkie , the Supreme Court reconsidered the doctrine of Auer deference .
On behalf of the government , Solicitor General Noel Francisco advanced an unprecedented and extraordinary argument .
Simply put , the government ’ s head Supreme Court lawyer asked the court to scale back the scope of Auer deference drastically .
“ The doctrine raises significant concerns , ” Francisco argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DOJ .
“ First , its basis is unclear .
It is not well grounded historically ; this Court has not articulated a consistent rationale for it ; and it is … difficult to justify on the basis of implicit congressional intent.
” To its credit , the Supreme Court agreed and slashed the scope of Auer deference .
The Auer doctrine emerged “ maimed and enfeebled , ” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion , “ in truth , zombified.
” Gorsuch is right , and credit should go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just the judiciary ’ s homework that the Trump administration is doing .
His team is also performing essential duties long neglected by Congress .
Consider , for example , the pressing need for lawmakers to reform the Administrative Procedure Act , also known as the “ Constitution of the administrative state.
” The act establishes the general framework by which agencies must conduct their business .
In this manner , the law provides critical safeguards for the public .
The problem is that the APA is almost 75 years old , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Congress passed it in 1946 , and the law is a product of its times .
Back then , agencies rendered policy almost exclusively through trial-like adjudications .
For instance , in the wake of the stock market crash , Congress in 1934 created the Securities and Exchange Commission and delegated to it the authority to regulate securities to promote market efficiency .
The SEC brought enforcement actions against parties allegedly acting against the public interest , and , through the resolution of these proceedings , would establish a rule that applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also to the general public .
Indeed , this is how American courts long have made rules through common law .
The APA focuses on these sorts of processes .
Today , formal administrative adjudications are comparatively rare in regulatory policymaking .
Instead , agencies now rely on rules and guidance , for which there are inadequate procedural safeguards required by the APA .
Despite this glaring need for an update , Congress has refused to revisit the statute , on account of the partisan dynamic described above .
Prior presidents had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works to the White House ’ s advantage .
If the APA remains outdated , executive branch agencies retain loopholes that make policymaking easier .
But once again , the Trump administration is doing things differently .
Since entering the Oval Office , Trump has issued four executive orders related to administrative law .
Collectively , these directives call for agencies to do what Congress has left undone : namely , to update the Administrative Procedure Act .
The first results are coming in , and they look very promising .
During the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Department of Transportation issued what its officials are calling the “ rule on rules.
” As the agency explained in the preamble , the rule “ prescribes the procedures the Department must follow for all stages of the rulemaking process.
” Among its commonsense measures is a requirement for agencies to give closer scrutiny to the costs and benefits of major rules .
Another welcome reform is that the agency is providing procedural safeguards for the issuance of guidance documents , memorandums , and other “ nonbinding ” documents that agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These reforms are virtually identical to measures in the unpassed Regulatory Accountability Act , which has floundered in Congress for years .
By writing the “ rule of rules ” into the Code of Federal Regulations , the DOT is creating policy that binds the agency .
While Congress idles , the agency is reforming itself .
Other agencies are soon to follow suit in announcing how they have complied with Trump ’ s executive orders .
If the “ rule on rules ” is any indication , these efforts have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the better .
Which brings us to what might prove to be the president ’ s most significant contribution to bringing constitutional order to the administrative state , albeit one that is more indirect than the others described above : the nomination and confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , two brilliant judges who had been sounding the alarm about the judiciary ’ s too-passive approach to government-by-regulation .
As advertised , the newest justices are yanking on the reins of the administrative state .
For almost 80 years , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much power Congress transfers to the executive branch .
That ’ s changing , and , along with Justice Clarence Thomas , Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are leading the charge .
Article I of the Constitution vests “ all legislative powers ” in the Congress .
The “ nondelegation doctrine ” is the idea that it is therefore unconstitutional for Congress to delegate its legislative authority elsewhere , such as to the president or government agencies .
The purpose of the nondelegation doctrine is to restrict the ability of Congress to give away its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet it falls to the executive branch to execute the laws , and sometimes doing so requires agencies to make interpretations .
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1989 , “ Once it is conceded , as it must be , that no statute can be entirely precise , and that some judgments , even some judgments involving policy considerations , must be left to the officers executing the law , … the debate over unconstitutional delegation becomes a debate not over a point of principle but over a question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nondelegation doctrine , the court has allowed any delegation that was limited by an “ intelligible principle ” of scope and action by which a regulatory agency must conform .
In practice , however , the court construed “ intelligible principle ” so broadly that the concept lost all meaning .
Even a phrase as nebulous as “ public interest ” has met the standard .
Yet now , it appears a majority on the Supreme Court wants to revisit the nondelegation doctrine for the first time since the New Deal era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States , three justices signaled support for a masterful dissent written by Gorsuch , in which he issued a clarion call for his colleagues to tame the governmental excesses wrought by the sieve-like “ intelligible principle ” test .
Kavanaugh didn ’ t participate in Gundy , as he wasn ’ t yet on the court when it was argued .
However , just before Thanksgiving , he issued an opinion in Paul v. United States that expressly endorsed Gorsuch ’ s opinion .
That makes for five justices who ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctrine .
Were the court to add teeth to its “ intelligible principle ” test , then Congress would be forced to curtail the breadth of its lawmaking power delegated to the executive branch .
It would be a welcome and watershed moment for the constitutional status of the administrative state .
It bears repeating that such a profound legal outcome would work at a cross-purpose with Trump 's interests .
These congressional grants of authority are a source of executive power .
By restraining the ability of executive branch agencies to write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is checking not just our supine Congress but also the president .
Perhaps this curious self-restraint reflects a silver lining to Trump ’ s pathological distrust of the bureaucratic careerists who man the administrative state .
Alternatively , it may be the result of excellent work by political appointees whose toils are unbeknownst to the president .
Most likely , it ’ s a combination of both .
Whatever the cause , we should all be thankful .
Federalist 62 warns that an “ excess of lawmaking ” is a “ disease ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liable.
” For this reason , the Constitution makes it hard to pass laws .
By contrast , it ’ s far easier for the president to impose a regulation .
All he needs to do is pick up the phone to get the ball rolling .
Because regulations carry the force of law , a government characterized by “ presidential administration ” incubates the “ disease ” of “ excessive lawmaking ” in a manner even worse than that feared by the founders .
Overweening government is a threat to liberty , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the executive or legislative branches of government .
To a large extent , the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to the administrative state .
It ’ s been here for more than a century , and it ’ s here to stay , for better or for worse .
In this political environment , the question becomes how best to protect liberty .
And the obvious answer is to reintroduce checks into contemporary American government .
To this end , Trump deserves high praise .
William Yeatman is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Let’s give credit where credit is due: The Trump administration is reintroducing constitutional balance to regulatory policymaking.
His team is doing the yeoman’s work that Congress and the courts have avoided for too long. What makes these developments even more remarkable is that the president is acting contrary to his institutional interests.
To be sure, the administration is imperfect on this score. For example, President Trump strained our constitutional structure when he declared an “emergency” to fund a border wall in order to circumvent Congress’s exclusive “power of the purse.”
Yet on crucial matters of administrative law, the Trump White House is putting country before executive power. It’s a refreshing break from the past.
At issue is an alphabet soup’s worth of domestic regulatory agencies collectively known as the “administrative state.” Think: EEOC, FDA, OSHA, etc. In modern American government, these bureaucracies are the real lawmakers. Last year, for example, federal agencies issued 12 regulations for every law Congress passed, and that was the lowest ratio in a decade.
Within the administrative state, unelected bureaucrats can interpret legislation in virtually whatever manner they choose, in effect issuing new laws through regulatory force. In 2009, Congress considered and ultimately failed to pass a “cap-and-trade” system that would have basically rationed energy use in order to reduce America’s carbon footprint. Yet in 2014, at the direction of President Barack Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the Clean Power Plan, the “backstop” of which was — wait for it — a cap-and-trade system that would basically ration energy use in order to reduce America’s carbon footprint. The agency justified its approach based on an expansive reading of an obscure provision in the Clean Air Act, written almost a half-century ago.
Since the New Deal, the administrative state’s unabated growth reflects a regrettable abdication of authority to the presidency by the legislative and judicial branches of government. In aggrandizing the executive branch, Congress and the Supreme Court are acting contrary to the founders’ constitutional design, which is, of course, characterized by separate but competing branches of government.
Let’s start with Congress. For more than a century, the House and Senate have been giving away ever more of their lawmaking power to the administrative state. These “delegations” take the form of statutes that create and empower bureaucracies under presidential management within the executive branch.
Why would anyone give away power? The Founding Fathers, after all, built human nature into their constitutional design: They expected power-hungry leaders in rival branches to cancel each other out. The idea was to protect our liberty from an overweening state. As James Madison famously explained in Federalist 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”
By giving away policymaking authority, Congress demonstrates “ambition,” but it’s a perversion of what the founders had in mind. Lawmakers are politicians, and tough choices make for attack ad fodder during reelection campaigns. It is far easier for members of Congress to delegate the hard decisions to regulatory agencies and thereby avoid accountability. They delegate to pass the buck.
The Supreme Court has abetted the growth of the administrative state by adopting hands-off doctrines of judicial restraint. On the one hand, the court refuses to second-guess how much power Congress delegates to regulatory agencies; on the other, the court has adopted various principles of judicial respect, or “deference,” that permit these agencies to define the boundaries of their own power. This allows Congress to continue to pass off more and more decisions onto executive agencies, which in turn are given wide discretion in determining what it is they are permitted to do.
Instead of the separate-but-equal structure the framers of the Constitution intended, we are left with a series of feedback loops, both of which serve to grow the administrate state.
The first involves Congress. The president, as manager in chief of bureaucratic governance, has become so powerful that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress now believe that the White House is the most efficient vehicle for achieving their parties’ respective platforms. As a result, half of Congress loses interest in executive overreach whenever “their guy” occupies the presidency.
The second feedback loop pertains to federal courts. As the administrative state grows, so does the size and complexity of its policies. Rulemaking records routinely run thousands of pages. Faced with mountains of technical minutiae, courts throw up their hands and rubber-stamp an agency’s “expert” decision.
As Congress and the Supreme Court looped themselves out of the picture, the president has assumed center stage. Presidents since Richard Nixon have developed successive layers of controls over the management of agency spending and regulatory output. Their purpose has been to tighten the president’s grip over the administrative state.
Trump, in his characteristic manner, is finally shaking things up.
Consider how the Trump administration took on judicial deference. For almost 80 years, the Supreme Court gave binding respect to an agency’s interpretation of the regulations it wrote. The big problem with this principle, known as Auer deference in reference to the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, is that it allows agencies to take procedural shortcuts.
Normally, an agency must involve the public in a rulemaking process before it can issue a binding regulation. Yet agencies can avoid these participatory procedures through Auer deference. All the agency must do is issue a “nonbinding” guidance document, which does not require a period of public comment. Then, the agency goes to court, receives deference, and magically, its “nonbinding” rule becomes indistinguishable from a regulation with the force of law.
Regardless of who occupied the Oval Office, the simple legal logic remained the same: The Justice Department is an executive branch agency, and broader deference means more power for the executive branch. However, Trump’s Department of Justice is doing things differently. Last term, in one of its most consequential cases, Kisor v. Wilkie, the Supreme Court reconsidered the doctrine of Auer deference. On behalf of the government, Solicitor General Noel Francisco advanced an unprecedented and extraordinary argument.
Simply put, the government’s head Supreme Court lawyer asked the court to scale back the scope of Auer deference drastically. “The doctrine raises significant concerns,” Francisco argued in a brief on behalf of the DOJ. “First, its basis is unclear. It is not well grounded historically; this Court has not articulated a consistent rationale for it; and it is … difficult to justify on the basis of implicit congressional intent.”
To its credit, the Supreme Court agreed and slashed the scope of Auer deference. The Auer doctrine emerged “maimed and enfeebled,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion, “in truth, zombified.” Gorsuch is right, and credit should go to the Justice Department. It’s not just the judiciary’s homework that the Trump administration is doing. His team is also performing essential duties long neglected by Congress.
Consider, for example, the pressing need for lawmakers to reform the Administrative Procedure Act, also known as the “Constitution of the administrative state.” The act establishes the general framework by which agencies must conduct their business. In this manner, the law provides critical safeguards for the public. The problem is that the APA is almost 75 years old, and it’s showing its age.
Congress passed it in 1946, and the law is a product of its times. Back then, agencies rendered policy almost exclusively through trial-like adjudications. For instance, in the wake of the stock market crash, Congress in 1934 created the Securities and Exchange Commission and delegated to it the authority to regulate securities to promote market efficiency. The SEC brought enforcement actions against parties allegedly acting against the public interest, and, through the resolution of these proceedings, would establish a rule that applied not only in the immediate controversy, but also to the general public. Indeed, this is how American courts long have made rules through common law. The APA focuses on these sorts of processes.
Today, formal administrative adjudications are comparatively rare in regulatory policymaking. Instead, agencies now rely on rules and guidance, for which there are inadequate procedural safeguards required by the APA. Despite this glaring need for an update, Congress has refused to revisit the statute, on account of the partisan dynamic described above.
Prior presidents had been happy with congressional inaction because it works to the White House’s advantage. If the APA remains outdated, executive branch agencies retain loopholes that make policymaking easier.
But once again, the Trump administration is doing things differently. Since entering the Oval Office, Trump has issued four executive orders related to administrative law. Collectively, these directives call for agencies to do what Congress has left undone: namely, to update the Administrative Procedure Act.
The first results are coming in, and they look very promising. During the first week of December, for example, the Department of Transportation issued what its officials are calling the “rule on rules.” As the agency explained in the preamble, the rule “prescribes the procedures the Department must follow for all stages of the rulemaking process.”
Among its commonsense measures is a requirement for agencies to give closer scrutiny to the costs and benefits of major rules. Another welcome reform is that the agency is providing procedural safeguards for the issuance of guidance documents, memorandums, and other “nonbinding” documents that agencies all too frequently treat as anything but.
These reforms are virtually identical to measures in the unpassed Regulatory Accountability Act, which has floundered in Congress for years. By writing the “rule of rules” into the Code of Federal Regulations, the DOT is creating policy that binds the agency. While Congress idles, the agency is reforming itself.
Other agencies are soon to follow suit in announcing how they have complied with Trump’s executive orders. If the “rule on rules” is any indication, these efforts have the potential to alter fundamentally the administrative state for the better.
Which brings us to what might prove to be the president’s most significant contribution to bringing constitutional order to the administrative state, albeit one that is more indirect than the others described above: the nomination and confirmation of Justices Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two brilliant judges who had been sounding the alarm about the judiciary’s too-passive approach to government-by-regulation.
As advertised, the newest justices are yanking on the reins of the administrative state. For almost 80 years, the Supreme Court has refused to police how much power Congress transfers to the executive branch. That’s changing, and, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are leading the charge.
Article I of the Constitution vests “all legislative powers” in the Congress. The “nondelegation doctrine” is the idea that it is therefore unconstitutional for Congress to delegate its legislative authority elsewhere, such as to the president or government agencies. The purpose of the nondelegation doctrine is to restrict the ability of Congress to give away its power and responsibility to make laws.
Yet it falls to the executive branch to execute the laws, and sometimes doing so requires agencies to make interpretations. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 1989, “Once it is conceded, as it must be, that no statute can be entirely precise, and that some judgments, even some judgments involving policy considerations, must be left to the officers executing the law, … the debate over unconstitutional delegation becomes a debate not over a point of principle but over a question of degree.”
Under its prevailing understanding of the nondelegation doctrine, the court has allowed any delegation that was limited by an “intelligible principle” of scope and action by which a regulatory agency must conform. In practice, however, the court construed “intelligible principle” so broadly that the concept lost all meaning. Even a phrase as nebulous as “public interest” has met the standard. Yet now, it appears a majority on the Supreme Court wants to revisit the nondelegation doctrine for the first time since the New Deal era.
Last term, in Gundy v. United States, three justices signaled support for a masterful dissent written by Gorsuch, in which he issued a clarion call for his colleagues to tame the governmental excesses wrought by the sieve-like “intelligible principle” test. Kavanaugh didn’t participate in Gundy, as he wasn’t yet on the court when it was argued. However, just before Thanksgiving, he issued an opinion in Paul v. United States that expressly endorsed Gorsuch’s opinion.
That makes for five justices who’ve shown themselves willing to reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. Were the court to add teeth to its “intelligible principle” test, then Congress would be forced to curtail the breadth of its lawmaking power delegated to the executive branch. It would be a welcome and watershed moment for the constitutional status of the administrative state.
It bears repeating that such a profound legal outcome would work at a cross-purpose with Trump's interests. These congressional grants of authority are a source of executive power. By restraining the ability of executive branch agencies to write their own laws, the Supreme Court is checking not just our supine Congress but also the president.
Perhaps this curious self-restraint reflects a silver lining to Trump’s pathological distrust of the bureaucratic careerists who man the administrative state. Alternatively, it may be the result of excellent work by political appointees whose toils are unbeknownst to the president. Most likely, it’s a combination of both.
Whatever the cause, we should all be thankful. Federalist 62 warns that an “excess of lawmaking” is a “disease” to which “our government is most liable.” For this reason, the Constitution makes it hard to pass laws. By contrast, it’s far easier for the president to impose a regulation. All he needs to do is pick up the phone to get the ball rolling.
Because regulations carry the force of law, a government characterized by “presidential administration” incubates the “disease” of “excessive lawmaking” in a manner even worse than that feared by the founders. Overweening government is a threat to liberty, regardless of whether it’s flowing from the executive or legislative branches of government.
To a large extent, the genie is out of the bottle when it comes to the administrative state. It’s been here for more than a century, and it’s here to stay, for better or for worse. In this political environment, the question becomes how best to protect liberty. And the obvious answer is to reintroduce checks into contemporary American government. To this end, Trump deserves high praise.
William Yeatman is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Eight Democrats vote against curbing Trump war powers in Iran

A small pack of House Democrats voted against a nonbinding resolution to curb President Trump ’ s authority to use military force against Iran .
The measure , which directs Trump `` pursuant to section 5 ( c ) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran , '' passed in a 224-194 vote on Thursday .
The resolution will not reach the president ’ s desk , but it sent a signal that Democrats lack confidence in Trump ’ s actions against Iran , specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike last week .
Eight Democrats broke ranks and voted against it : • Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose of New York In a statement , Murphy , a second-term congressman , said , `` I am not prepared to unduly limit our nation 's ability to respond to different contingencies that may arise . ''
Luria , who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee , said , `` I voted against this resolution because if we must commit our forces to sustained combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the duty to take on the more urgent task of debating a new AUMF.
” Three Republicans voted with the majority of Democrats in favor of the resolution : '' If we go to war , it needs to be with the blessing and the support of the people and a clear mission that our soldiers can accomplish .
We do that by following the vision of our Founding Fathers — we debate it on the floor of the House , '' Massie said on the House floor .
Gaetz said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I think he would ’ ve preferred I voted differently , but he understands my principled view on this subject , '' he said .
One independent , former Republican Justin Amash , voted in favor of the measure .
Last month , he voted in favor of the House Democrats ' two articles of impeachment against Trump .

A small pack of House Democrats voted against a nonbinding resolution to curb President Trump’s authority to use military force against Iran.
The measure, which directs Trump "pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran," passed in a 224-194 vote on Thursday.
The resolution will not reach the president’s desk, but it sent a signal that Democrats lack confidence in Trump’s actions against Iran, specifically his decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike last week.
Eight Democrats broke ranks and voted against it:
Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey
Kendra Horn of Oklahoma
Joe Cunningham of South Carolina
Elaine Luria of Virginia
Ben McAdams of Utah
Stephanie Murphy of Florida
Anthony Brindisi and Max Rose of New York
In a statement, Murphy, a second-term congressman, said, "I am not prepared to unduly limit our nation's ability to respond to different contingencies that may arise."
Luria, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said, "I voted against this resolution because if we must commit our forces to sustained combat operations to protect our nation, Congress has the duty to take on the more urgent task of debating a new AUMF.”
Three Republicans voted with the majority of Democrats in favor of the resolution:
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Francis Rooney of Florida
"If we go to war, it needs to be with the blessing and the support of the people and a clear mission that our soldiers can accomplish. We do that by following the vision of our Founding Fathers — we debate it on the floor of the House," Massie said on the House floor.
Gaetz said he spoke to Trump before the vote. "I think he would’ve preferred I voted differently, but he understands my principled view on this subject," he said.
I represent more troops than any other member of this body. I buried one of them earlier today at Arlington.
If our servicemembers have the courage to fight and die in these wars, Congress ought to have the courage to vote for or against them.
I’m voting for this resolution. pic.twitter.com/cSCBG7CmIm — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) January 9, 2020
One independent, former Republican Justin Amash, voted in favor of the measure. Last month, he voted in favor of the House Democrats' two articles of impeachment against Trump.
Thirteen lawmakers did not vote.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Biden nightmare scenario: How Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination

Bernie Sanders ’ s path to the Democratic presidential nomination looks more viable than ever .
Despite making enemies within the party establishment because of his 2016 run , polls paint a nightmare scenario for Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic presidential field that puts the Vermont senator up against President Trump .
“ We ’ re feeling really confident that we ’ re going to win the nomination , ” said Eric Blanc , an activist who works with the Sanders campaign on union issues .
“ Bernie is surging right when he needs to surge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supporters allege that Sanders 's candidacy wasn ’ t treated with appropriate seriousness by the media for nearly all of 2019 and blame that treatment for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ s rise while Sanders suffered in the polls .
Those problems were compounded in October when Sanders suffered a heart attack and canceled campaign events for two weeks .
But the 78-year-old recovered quickly from his health problems and returned to the campaign trail with the largest rally of the Democratic primary that featured an endorsement from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the celebrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 with the best fundraising quarter of any of the candidates thus far , with $ 34.5 million .
With Warren ’ s support ticking downward and on the verge of total collapse and polls in Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sanders in the lead or tied for first place , the idea of him facing off against President Trump in the general election no longer seems like a fantasy .
“ What we ’ re looking at is a win in Iowa , a win in New Hampshire , and that really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie is not only viable but our best bet to beat Trump , ” Blanc said .
Early wins there would likely trigger a domino effect , causing more Warren supporters to abandon their candidate .
Sanders ’ s strategy of winning back Biden supporters who cast ballots for him in 2016 would also see further success .
“ It 's hard to imagine a scenario where both come out from the first few contests as still even , ” University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala said of Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator and an outsider rather than a hard-line Democrat , could still struggle to consolidate support .
A strong finish by former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa and New Hampshire would embolden the many moderate candidates to stay in the race and split remaining support that would otherwise go to Biden .
Those close to former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign have expressed concern about whether wealthy donors would stop writing checks after early Sanders victories .
Many of those willing to write $ 2,700 checks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a populist-socialist takeover of the Democratic Party and worsen Biden ’ s current fundraising difficulties .
Then comes Super Tuesday on March 3 , with contests that will allocate more than a third of delegates to the Democratic national convention .
That includes two delegate-rich states : Texas and California .
Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who is skipping competing in the first four early voting states , would join Buttigieg in siphoning off voters from Biden during Super Tuesday and beyond , further weakening his delegate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and different this time is California .
That ’ s going to be the game-changer , ” said Labor for Bernie co-founder Rand Wilson .
“ It brings a different rhythm and different scenario than we ’ ve seen in the primaries in the past.
” The most recent poll of likely California Democratic primary voters from KQED/NPR in December found Sanders leading with 26 % , followed by Warren at 23 % and Biden at 19 % .
A win for Sanders there and in other Super Tuesday states favorable to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maine , and Colorado , could easily cancel out Biden ’ s expected dominance and delegate count in Southern states , where he remains popular .
“ Sanders could put together this coalition of progressive , some white working-class voters , Latinos , Latinas , ” Scala said .
“ It would be a bit unorthodox , but it 's not implausible .
I like his coalition-building potential more than Pete Buttigieg at this point.
” Biden 's firewall , which includes the black-heavy South , is also more vulnerable to flip from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 primary .
Sanders has made a tremendous effort to earn support from black lawmakers throughout the region , and in some states , his staff is composed entirely of minorities .
`` The big story is the extent to which the Bernie campaign , this time , unlike in 2016 , really has the resources and attention to other states and people of color in particular , '' said Blanc .
`` Bernie is a known quantity in the South now .
I don ’ t think Biden , by any stretch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to sweep those states . ''
President Trump ’ s reelection campaign has also awoken to the idea of facing Sanders in a general election .
In a break from the Trump campaign ’ s relentless attacks on Biden , it targeted Sanders in back-to-back press releases on Wednesday and Thursday .
The “ fossil fuel-guzzling millionaire ” who “ can ’ t be trusted to defend American lives , ” the press released argued , is “ the Democrats ' leading candidate for president.
” Sanders ’ s path to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relies on a perfect storm in an unpredictable primary that could just as easily kill his path instead of forging it .
“ I could sketch out an alternative scenario where Biden wins New Hampshire , Biden wins Iowa , ” Scala said , allowing Biden to easily “ waltz to the nomination .
”

Bernie Sanders’s path to the Democratic presidential nomination looks more viable than ever. Despite making enemies within the party establishment because of his 2016 run, polls paint a nightmare scenario for Joe Biden and the rest of the Democratic presidential field that puts the Vermont senator up against President Trump.
“We’re feeling really confident that we’re going to win the nomination,” said Eric Blanc, an activist who works with the Sanders campaign on union issues. “Bernie is surging right when he needs to surge, and the momentum is with us.”
Supporters allege that Sanders's candidacy wasn’t treated with appropriate seriousness by the media for nearly all of 2019 and blame that treatment for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s rise while Sanders suffered in the polls. Those problems were compounded in October when Sanders suffered a heart attack and canceled campaign events for two weeks.
But the 78-year-old recovered quickly from his health problems and returned to the campaign trail with the largest rally of the Democratic primary that featured an endorsement from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the celebrity left-wing New York congresswoman. He ended 2019 with the best fundraising quarter of any of the candidates thus far, with $34.5 million.
With Warren’s support ticking downward and on the verge of total collapse and polls in Iowa and New Hampshire showing Sanders in the lead or tied for first place, the idea of him facing off against President Trump in the general election no longer seems like a fantasy.
“What we’re looking at is a win in Iowa, a win in New Hampshire, and that really makes it clear to the American public that Bernie is not only viable but our best bet to beat Trump,” Blanc said.
Early wins there would likely trigger a domino effect, causing more Warren supporters to abandon their candidate. Sanders’s strategy of winning back Biden supporters who cast ballots for him in 2016 would also see further success.
“It's hard to imagine a scenario where both come out from the first few contests as still even,” University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala said of Sanders and Warren.
Sanders, an independent senator and an outsider rather than a hard-line Democrat, could still struggle to consolidate support. A strong finish by former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg in Iowa and New Hampshire would embolden the many centrist candidates to stay in the race and split any remaining support that would otherwise go to Biden.
[Opinion: Bernie Sanders isn't a joke. He's dangerous]
Those close to the former vice president’s campaign have expressed concern about whether wealthy donors would stop writing checks after early Sanders victories. Many of those willing to write $2,700 checks would likely scramble to find an alternative to a populist-socialist takeover of the Democratic Party and worsen Biden’s current fundraising difficulties.
Then comes Super Tuesday on March 3, with contests that will allocate more than a third of delegates to the Democratic National Convention. That includes two delegate-rich states: Texas and California.
Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is skipping competing in the first four early voting states, would join Buttigieg in siphoning off voters from Biden during Super Tuesday and beyond, further weakening his delegate count.
“What’s new and different this time is California. That’s going to be the game-changer,” said Labor for Bernie co-founder Rand Wilson. “It brings a different rhythm and different scenario than we’ve seen in the primaries in the past.”
The most recent poll of likely California Democratic primary voters from KQED/NPR in December found Sanders leading with 26%, followed by Warren at 23% and Biden at 19%.
A win for Sanders there and in other Super Tuesday states favorable to him, such as Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, and Colorado, could easily cancel out Biden’s expected dominance and delegate count in Southern states, where he remains popular.
“Sanders could put together this coalition of progressive, some white working-class voters, Latinos, Latinas,” Scala said. “It would be a bit unorthodox, but it's not implausible. I like his coalition-building potential more than Pete Buttigieg at this point.”
Biden's firewall, which includes the black-heavy South, is also more vulnerable to flip from a more centrist candidate than in the 2016 primary. Sanders has made a tremendous effort to earn support from black lawmakers throughout the region, and in some states, his staff is composed entirely of minorities.
"The big story is the extent to which the Bernie campaign, this time, unlike in 2016, really has the resources and attention to other states and people of color in particular," said Blanc. "Bernie is a known quantity in the South now. I don’t think Biden, by any stretch of the imagination, is going to be able to sweep those states."
President Trump’s reelection campaign has also awoken to the idea of facing Sanders in a general election. In a break from the Trump campaign’s relentless attacks on Biden, it targeted Sanders in back-to-back press releases on Wednesday and Thursday. The “fossil fuel-guzzling millionaire” who “can’t be trusted to defend American lives,” the press released argued, is “the Democrats' leading candidate for president.”
Sanders’s path to a majority of delegates, though, relies on a perfect storm in an unpredictable primary that could just as easily kill his path instead of forging it.
“I could sketch out an alternative scenario where Biden wins New Hampshire, Biden wins Iowa,” Scala said, allowing Biden to “waltz to the nomination" easily.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Trump campaign sees political win on Iran strike

The Trump campaign lost no time in touting the president ’ s decision to kill Iran ’ s most senior and most feared military leader .
“ Thanks to the swift actions of our Commander-in-Chief , Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani is no longer a threat to the United States , or to the world , ” runs the wording that appeared in more than 600 advertisements running on Facebook .
Click on the image of a jubilant Trump , and users are directed to a survey — here 's a sample question : “ Do you think the mainstream media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s done to combat terrorism ?
” — before being invited to make a campaign contribution .
The medium is nothing new .
It is how the Trump campaign is tracking down possible supporters online , directing messages their way , and trying to win their votes .
But the chosen message reveals the way that campaign officials see an electoral win with what critics warned was a contentious drone strike with dangerous repercussions for world security .
Moreover , Trump 's decision runs the risk of dragging the U.S. into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors and bring troops home .
The first indication of unease is that the strike , killing a commander accused of more than 600 American deaths during the Iraq War , won narrow approval from voters .
Some 43 % of respondents said they approved the decision compared with 38 % against in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in the immediate aftermath .
More problematic are the longer-term concerns .
Only 8 % believe removing Soleimani makes conflict less likely , while 57 % say it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior Iranian figure opened fractures in the Trump alliance .
Sen. Rand Paul , representing libertarian thinking , has offered a voice of dissent in the Senate , spelling out his reservations in a string of TV appearances and tweets .
“ We need to stop the escalation before it leads to another endless war in the Middle East , ” he said .
And Tucker Carlson has used his Fox News position to urge the president to remember the domestic concerns of voters who brought him to power and to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It seems like about 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the ‘ Deep State ’ and pledging never to trust them again without verification , ” he wrote .
“ But now , for some reason , we do seem to trust them implicitly and completely.
” White House aides have taken pains to explain how Trump ’ s strike on Soleimani came against a backdrop of restraint , pointing out that he kept his weapons holstered after a U.S. drone was downed in the Persian Gulf and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields .
By the end of the week , the immediate tension had been defused .
Iran launched more than a dozen missiles against Iraqi bases but caused only “ minimal damage , ” according to Trump , and no American casualties .
He responded by warning Iran that America ’ s armed forces were stronger than ever before .
“ The fact that we have this great military and equipment , however , does not mean we have to use it , ” he said .
“ We do not want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Paul and represented a neat balancing act for a president who promised to project American power while ending entanglements in foreign wars , according to Matt Schlapp , chairman of the American Conservative Union .
“ If you don ’ t want to make war , the best way to accomplish that is to have rogue nations like Iran fear America ’ s military power , ” he said .
“ That ’ s the goal.
” The result , he added , was a safer world without the risk of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president executed these decisions in Iran is being well received by his supporters , by conservatives , by most Americans , ” he said .
“ He took out a murderous terrorist , but it doesn ’ t seem to have triggered some kind of inevitable , long-term military conflict .
”

The Trump campaign lost no time in touting the president’s decision to kill Iran’s most senior and most feared military leader. “Thanks to the swift actions of our Commander-in-Chief, Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani is no longer a threat to the United States, or to the world,” runs the wording that appeared in more than 600 advertisements running on Facebook.
Click on the image of a jubilant Trump, and users are directed to a survey — here's a sample question: “Do you think the mainstream media should give President Trump credit for all he’s done to combat terrorism?” — before being invited to make a campaign contribution.
The medium is nothing new. It is how the Trump campaign is tracking down possible supporters online, directing messages their way, and trying to win their votes. But the chosen message reveals the way that campaign officials see an electoral win with what critics warned was a contentious drone strike with dangerous repercussions for world security.
Moreover, Trump's decision runs the risk of dragging the U.S. into another foreign adventure under a president who promised to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors and bring troops home.
The first indication of unease is that the strike, killing a commander accused of more than 600 American deaths during the Iraq War, won narrow approval from voters. Some 43% of respondents said they approved the decision compared with 38% against in a HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in the immediate aftermath.
More problematic are the longer-term concerns. Only 8% believe removing Soleimani makes conflict less likely, while 57% say it is more likely.
The attack on such a senior Iranian figure opened fractures in the Trump alliance. Sen. Rand Paul, representing libertarian thinking, has offered a voice of dissent in the Senate, spelling out his reservations in a string of TV appearances and tweets. “We need to stop the escalation before it leads to another endless war in the Middle East,” he said.
And Tucker Carlson has used his Fox News position to urge the president to remember the domestic concerns of voters who brought him to power and to be suspicious of Washington’s warmongers. “It seems like about 20 minutes ago we were denouncing these very people as the ‘Deep State’ and pledging never to trust them again without verification,” he wrote. “But now, for some reason, we do seem to trust them implicitly and completely.”
White House aides have taken pains to explain how Trump’s strike on Soleimani came against a backdrop of restraint, pointing out that he kept his weapons holstered after a U.S. drone was downed in the Persian Gulf and after an Iranian-backed attack on Saudi oil fields.
By the end of the week, the immediate tension had been defused. Iran launched more than a dozen missiles against Iraqi bases but caused only “minimal damage,” according to Trump, and no American casualties. He responded by warning Iran that America’s armed forces were stronger than ever before. “The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it,” he said. “We do not want to use it.”
The sentiment was welcomed by Paul and represented a neat balancing act for a president who promised to project American power while ending entanglements in foreign wars, according to Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union.
“If you don’t want to make war, the best way to accomplish that is to have rogue nations like Iran fear America’s military power,” he said. “That’s the goal.”
The result, he added, was a safer world without the risk of a new ground war.
“The way the president executed these decisions in Iran is being well received by his supporters, by conservatives, by most Americans,” he said. “He took out a murderous terrorist, but it doesn’t seem to have triggered some kind of inevitable, long-term military conflict.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Election diet of red meat

Election diet of red meat

President Trump , a Republican strategist complained to me recently , “ is hooked on lusty rally cheers that only a culture war can bring.
” This latent anxiety , from an experienced political guru rooting for Trump to win a second term , is no small concern .
It 's one shared by other GOP insiders .
The president is presiding over a booming economy that would be the envy of his predecessors , all 43 of them .
Historically low unemployment , rising working-class wages , record stock market gains , low interest rates , virtually no inflation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally ) — it ’ s the stuff that landslides are made of .
But most days , Trump seems bored with it all .
Oh , he likes to win , and he likes the bragging rights that accompany all of these gleaming statistics .
But what really excites Trump is the roar of the crowd at one of his signature revivalist-style campaign rallies .
And , what really excites the crowd is the president as conservative big-top showman , leading his supporters on the front lines of what they are convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftists in Hollywood , the news media , and the Democratic Party from outlawing the American way .
This phenomenon threatens to overshadow a record of economic stewardship that might otherwise guarantee Trump a winning 2020 coalition , especially because the outsize media coverage the president ’ s rally performances attract can obscure almost everything else he says and does that might keep disaffected Republicans in the fold and lock in swing voters .
Both blocs , at best indifferent to Trump as culture warrior , at worst completely repulsed , helped put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , and each is crucial to a November sequel .
“ The Trump campaign rally has changed the face of contemporary American politics , ” said Jeffrey Brauer , a political science professor at Keystone College in Pennsylvania , an electoral battleground the president covets .
“ What remains is the question of whether these rallies will work again in 2020 after three-plus years of a divisive Trump presidency.
” As Brauer ’ s question reminds us , the Trump rally was quite successful in 2015 and 2016 .
Often dismissed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s uncommonly loyal voting base , this traveling road show fueled his rise in the Republican primaries and victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election .
Democrats should be worried , at least somewhat , because the 2020 version of the Trump rally is more sophisticated .
This time around , the only haphazard , ad-libbed part of the spectacle is the president 's onstage routine .
Led by Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale , with an assist from senior White House adviser Jared Kushner , the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Carr , each Trump rally is meticulously planned to identify and ink new Trump voters , add to the president ’ s growing army of campaign volunteers , and sell his agenda .
Rally locations are chosen with precision to boost Trump ’ s prospects in battlegrounds , and micro-battlegrounds , that matter .
And this year , the campaign is bracketing Trump ’ s stadium rallies with smaller , targeted affairs , such as the events his daughter-in-law , Lara Trump , is headlining in proximal suburban strongholds .
A Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a “ data gold mine ” and central to the president ’ s strategy .
According to statistics this official provided , the campaign has hosted a combined 258 rallies and related events ( and counting ) during Trump ’ s first term that 3.3 million people registered to attend .
From this list of names , 2.4 million voters were identified , 80 % of whom live in battleground states and 396,000 of whom did not vote for Trump in 2016 .
Parscale typically tweets out the voter information collected at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump rally in Hershey , Pennsylvania , on Dec. 10 , Parscale said in a Twitter post that the event identified 23,000 voters .
Twenty percent of them voted in only one of the last four elections , while 9 % had never voted .
Another 20 % identified as Democrats , and 18 % were nonwhite .
Trump ’ s rally schedule , steady throughout his first nearly three years in office , has accelerated markedly in the first few weeks of the election year , placing the president on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his predecessors .
On Jan. 9 , Trump was slated to travel to Toledo , Ohio , for a `` Keep America Great '' rally , followed by another on Jan. 14 in Milwaukee .
On Jan. 28 , Trump is headed to southern New Jersey for yet another rally .
“ Trump loves to campaign , ” said Ed Rollins , a veteran Republican operative who runs a pro-Trump super PAC .
“ Talking to his people is what he likes best .
He thrives on it and gains energy from it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rallies are more than politics .
They are community .
Some rallies are preceded by daylong festivals , dubbed “ 45 Fests , ” that feature live music , appearances by prominent Trump supporters , and other attractions .
Many attendees are repeat customers dozens of times over .
They come to organize , see friends , and hear Trump play his greatest rhetorical hits .
Jason Miller , a former Trump political adviser , referred to the rallies as “ cultural destination centers for many Americans , ” a description not far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big bet on a campaign strategy centered on motivating voters already in his corner .
Yes , the president ’ s strategy involves growing the number of such voters .
“ My base is much bigger than people think , ” he told me and a few of my Washington Examiner colleagues during an Oval Office interview last fall .
And yes , the Trump campaign , and the president 's allies , claim the rally is the only megaphone loud enough to broadcast his message over the din of impeachment-obsessed Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him unfairly .
But no president , including Trump , has ever captured the White House , or held it , on the strength of core supporters alone .
“ Managing a majority coalition is difficult , ” said David Winston , a Republican pollster .
“ Your base is never big enough to win an election.
” Victory is born of a big tent , and the Trump defined by rally appearances that can last 90 minutes and be , at times , comedic , antagonistic , self-deprecating , insulting , braggadocio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional elements of his 2016 coalition , without which the Trump base would have been an interesting footnote in campaign history .
According to exit polls , Trump beat Clinton among independents , 46 % to 42 % ; outpaced her in the suburbs , 49 % to 45 % ; and earned the support of 47 % of married women , just 2 points shy of Clinton ’ s total — in other words , voters inclined toward many Trump policies but disinclined toward his behavior .
Let history be our guide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the stretch of the campaign for the midterm elections was devoted to the dangers of the Democratic “ mob , ” socialism , “ open borders ” immigration , and other cultural flash points .
Democrats swept the suburbs to win control of the House with a pick-up of 40 seats .
Even though Trump helped Republicans oust Democratic senators in deep red territory where he is popular , the Democrats also won an Arizona Senate seat for the first time in a generation and defeated a GOP incumbent senator in Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters and have burgeoning minority populations .
Trump ’ s rhetoric and stump style , consistent , albeit backed by a refined operation , are not the only reasons Democrats are hopeful about the next election .
But they rank pretty high on the list .
“ The president is his own worst enemy .
If he talked 50 % less , his numbers might reflect that , ” said Rodell Mollineau , a Democratic strategist .
“ A strong economy might bring independents into the fold .
His rhetoric at rallies is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the senior political correspondent for the Washington Examiner .

President Trump, a Republican strategist complained to me recently, “is hooked on lusty rally cheers that only a culture war can bring.” This latent anxiety, from an experienced political guru rooting for Trump to win a second term, is no small concern. It's one shared by other GOP insiders.
The president is presiding over a booming economy that would be the envy of his predecessors, all 43 of them. Historically low unemployment, rising working-class wages, record stock market gains, low interest rates, virtually no inflation, and a new trade deal (finally) — it’s the stuff that landslides are made of. But most days, Trump seems bored with it all. Oh, he likes to win, and he likes the bragging rights that accompany all of these gleaming statistics. But what really excites Trump is the roar of the crowd at one of his signature revivalist-style campaign rallies. And, what really excites the crowd is the president as conservative big-top showman, leading his supporters on the front lines of what they are convinced is a generational culture war to stop leftists in Hollywood, the news media, and the Democratic Party from outlawing the American way.
This phenomenon threatens to overshadow a record of economic stewardship that might otherwise guarantee Trump a winning 2020 coalition, especially because the outsize media coverage the president’s rally performances attract can obscure almost everything else he says and does that might keep disaffected Republicans in the fold and lock in swing voters. Both blocs, at best indifferent to Trump as culture warrior, at worst completely repulsed, helped put Trump in the White House nearly four years ago, and each is crucial to a November sequel.
“The Trump campaign rally has changed the face of contemporary American politics,” said Jeffrey Brauer, a political science professor at Keystone College in Pennsylvania, an electoral battleground the president covets. “What remains is the question of whether these rallies will work again in 2020 after three-plus years of a divisive Trump presidency.”
As Brauer’s question reminds us, the Trump rally was quite successful in 2015 and 2016. Often dismissed as counterproductive and too catered to Trump’s uncommonly loyal voting base, this traveling road show fueled his rise in the Republican primaries and victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Democrats should be worried, at least somewhat, because the 2020 version of the Trump rally is more sophisticated. This time around, the only haphazard, ad-libbed part of the spectacle is the president's onstage routine.
Led by Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale, with an assist from senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Trump campaign political director Chris Carr, each Trump rally is meticulously planned to identify and ink new Trump voters, add to the president’s growing army of campaign volunteers, and sell his agenda. Rally locations are chosen with precision to boost Trump’s prospects in battlegrounds, and micro-battlegrounds, that matter. And this year, the campaign is bracketing Trump’s stadium rallies with smaller, targeted affairs, such as the events his daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, is headlining in proximal suburban strongholds.
A Trump campaign official told me that the rallies are a “data gold mine” and central to the president’s strategy.
According to statistics this official provided, the campaign has hosted a combined 258 rallies and related events (and counting) during Trump’s first term that 3.3 million people registered to attend. From this list of names, 2.4 million voters were identified, 80% of whom live in battleground states and 396,000 of whom did not vote for Trump in 2016. Parscale typically tweets out the voter information collected at each rally. For instance, after the Trump rally in Hershey, Pennsylvania, on Dec. 10, Parscale said in a Twitter post that the event identified 23,000 voters. Twenty percent of them voted in only one of the last four elections, while 9% had never voted. Another 20% identified as Democrats, and 18% were nonwhite.
Trump’s rally schedule, steady throughout his first nearly three years in office, has accelerated markedly in the first few weeks of the election year, placing the president on the stump far earlier than perhaps any of his predecessors. On Jan. 9, Trump was slated to travel to Toledo, Ohio, for a "Keep America Great" rally, followed by another on Jan. 14 in Milwaukee. On Jan. 28, Trump is headed to southern New Jersey for yet another rally.
“Trump loves to campaign,” said Ed Rollins, a veteran Republican operative who runs a pro-Trump super PAC. “Talking to his people is what he likes best. He thrives on it and gains energy from it.”
For the Trump loyalist, these rallies are more than politics. They are community. Some rallies are preceded by daylong festivals, dubbed “45 Fests,” that feature live music, appearances by prominent Trump supporters, and other attractions. Many attendees are repeat customers dozens of times over. They come to organize, see friends, and hear Trump play his greatest rhetorical hits. Jason Miller, a former Trump political adviser, referred to the rallies as “cultural destination centers for many Americans,” a description not far off the mark.
Trump is placing a big bet on a campaign strategy centered on motivating voters already in his corner.
Yes, the president’s strategy involves growing the number of such voters. “My base is much bigger than people think,” he told me and a few of my Washington Examiner colleagues during an Oval Office interview last fall. And yes, the Trump campaign, and the president's allies, claim the rally is the only megaphone loud enough to broadcast his message over the din of impeachment-obsessed Democrats and a political press corps that covers him unfairly. But no president, including Trump, has ever captured the White House, or held it, on the strength of core supporters alone.
“Managing a majority coalition is difficult,” said David Winston, a Republican pollster. “Your base is never big enough to win an election.”
Victory is born of a big tent, and the Trump defined by rally appearances that can last 90 minutes and be, at times, comedic, antagonistic, self-deprecating, insulting, braggadocio, and narcissistic risks scaring away the traditional elements of his 2016 coalition, without which the Trump base would have been an interesting footnote in campaign history. According to exit polls, Trump beat Clinton among independents, 46% to 42%; outpaced her in the suburbs, 49% to 45%; and earned the support of 47% of married women, just 2 points shy of Clinton’s total — in other words, voters inclined toward many Trump policies but disinclined toward his behavior.
Let history be our guide. Trump’s bustling rally tour down the stretch of the campaign for the midterm elections was devoted to the dangers of the Democratic “mob,” socialism, “open borders” immigration, and other cultural flash points.
Democrats swept the suburbs to win control of the House with a pick-up of 40 seats. Even though Trump helped Republicans oust Democratic senators in deep red territory where he is popular, the Democrats also won an Arizona Senate seat for the first time in a generation and defeated a GOP incumbent senator in Nevada. Both states are dominated by suburban voters and have burgeoning minority populations. Trump’s rhetoric and stump style, consistent, albeit backed by a refined operation, are not the only reasons Democrats are hopeful about the next election. But they rank pretty high on the list.
“The president is his own worst enemy. If he talked 50% less, his numbers might reflect that,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist. “A strong economy might bring independents into the fold. His rhetoric at rallies is not doing that.”
David M. Drucker is the senior political correspondent for the Washington Examiner.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Trump: Democratic debates 'like watching death'

President Trump said he feels some obligation to watch the Democratic presidential debates but still finds them about as boring @ @ @ @ @ You know , I 'm supposed to watch , '' Trump said about the debates @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio .
`` It 's like my job — try and watch the competition @ @ @ @ @ watching death . ''
The president mocked the top presidential contenders , going after former @ @ @ @ @ his son Hunter 's drug use and calling independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders `` crazy @ @ @ @ @ the claim that , even with none , he still has more Native American heritage @ @ @ @ @ Warren .
The latest Democratic debate in December had the lowest amount of viewership of @ @ @ @ @ Hosted by PBS News Hour and Politico , the debate was watched by 6.2 million @ @ @ @ @ million viewers during the first debate .

President Trump said he feels some obligation to watch the Democratic presidential debates but still finds them about as boring as being dead.
"You know, I'm supposed to watch," Trump said about the debates during a Thursday campaign rally in Ohio. "It's like my job — try and watch the competition. But it's like watching death."
The president mocked the top presidential contenders, going after former Vice President Joe Biden for his son Hunter's drug use and calling independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders "crazy." He also repeated the claim that, even with none, he still has more Native American heritage than Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
The latest Democratic debate in December had the lowest amount of viewership of the debates in 2020. Hosted by PBS News Hour and Politico, the debate was watched by 6.2 million people, compared to 18 million viewers during the first debate.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Tom Steyer qualifies for January debate with huge surge in state polls

Tom Steyer qualified for the January Democratic presidential primary debate with two Fox News polls in South Carolina and Nevada that showed a surge in support and put him ahead of other top-tier contenders .
The billionaire former hedge fund manager-turned-philanthropic activist , 62 , joins former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar , and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in qualifying for the Jan. 14 debate in Iowa .
To qualify for the debate , the Democratic National Committee requires candidates secure at least 225,000 individual donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least 5 % support in four DNC-approved state or national primary polls , or 7 % support in two single-state polls from Iowa , New Hampshire , South Carolina , or Nevada .
Candidates must meet the threshold by midnight Friday and can count polls publicly released as far back as Nov. 14 .
Steyer had already met the donor threshold but appeared unlikely to meet the polling threshold until the release of two Fox News state polls on Thursday .
The Fox News South Carolina poll found Steyer in second place with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36 % support .
Sanders had 14 % , Warren had 10 % and Buttigieg had 4 % .
That showed 11 % increase in support for Steyer since the last Fox News South Carolina poll in October , when he had 4 % in the state .
In Nevada , Steyer received 12 % support , in third place behind Biden at 23 % and Sanders at 17 % while Warren was in fourth place at 12 % .
Steyer improved his standing by 7 points since the last Fox News Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Steyer ’ s support does appear to come from spending his own money on targeted ads .
He gave nearly to his own campaign from his July launch through the end of September and has spent nearly $ 18 million on and an estimated on TV ads this year , more than any other Democratic candidate .
Despite criticism from primary rivals over his self-funded campaign , many of Steyer 's supporters say that their support for him is genuine and can not be bought .
“ Voters are tired of business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fight to create real economic prosperity , tackle the climate crisis , and get Washington working for American families , not big corporations , ” Steyer campaign manager Heather Hargreaves said in a statement Thursday .
“ We experience this momentum on the ground every day in the early states , and look forward to connecting with more Americans and growing this campaign in the weeks and months ahead .
We are built to win , and have the candidate best prepared to take Donald Trump on over the economy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success in the Fox News polls , Steyer lags behind much of the Democratic presidential field .
He sits at 2.2 % support in the RealClearPolitics average of national primary polls , behind two candidates who have not yet qualified for the January debate : entrepreneur Andrew Yang , who is at 3.5 % , and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , who is at 2.3 % .

Tom Steyer qualified for the January Democratic presidential primary debate with two Fox News polls in South Carolina and Nevada that showed a surge in support and put him ahead of other top-tier contenders.
The billionaire former hedge fund manager-turned-philanthropic activist, 62, joins former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in qualifying for the Jan. 14 debate in Iowa.
To qualify for the debate, the Democratic National Committee requires candidates secure at least 225,000 individual donors and meet a polling threshold of at least 5% support in four DNC-approved state or national primary polls, or 7% support in two single-state polls from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada. Candidates must meet the threshold by midnight Friday and can count polls publicly released as far back as Nov. 14.
Steyer had already met the donor threshold but appeared unlikely to meet the polling threshold until the release of two Fox News state polls on Thursday.
The Fox News South Carolina poll found Steyer in second place with 15% support, behind Biden's 36% support. Sanders had 14%, Warren had 10% and Buttigieg had 4%. That showed 11% increase in support for Steyer since the last Fox News South Carolina poll in October, when he had 4% in the state.
In Nevada, Steyer received 12% support, in third place behind Biden at 23% and Sanders at 17% while Warren was in fourth place at 12%. Steyer improved his standing by 7 points since the last Fox News Nevada poll in November.
A large chunk of Steyer’s support does appear to come from spending his own money on targeted ads. He gave nearly $47.6 million to his own campaign from his July launch through the end of September and has spent nearly $18 million on Facebook ads and an estimated $78 million on TV ads this year, more than any other Democratic candidate.
Despite criticism from primary rivals over his self-funded campaign, many of Steyer's supporters say that their support for him is genuine and can not be bought.
“Voters are tired of business as usual and are responding to Tom’s fight to create real economic prosperity, tackle the climate crisis, and get Washington working for American families, not big corporations,” Steyer campaign manager Heather Hargreaves said in a statement Thursday. “We experience this momentum on the ground every day in the early states, and look forward to connecting with more Americans and growing this campaign in the weeks and months ahead. We are built to win, and have the candidate best prepared to take Donald Trump on over the economy and expose him.”
Outside his surprise polling success in the Fox News polls, Steyer lags behind much of the Democratic presidential field. He sits at 2.2% support in the RealClearPolitics average of national primary polls, behind two candidates who have not yet qualified for the January debate: entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who is at 3.5%, and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who is at 2.3%.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Revealed: Identity of top FBI official who leaked secret information to media

The name of a former top FBI official who leaked sensitive information over the course of hundreds of communications with at least six reporters can be revealed by the Washington Examiner .
The name is contained in a 21-page report obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request .
The report reveals that investigators for Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that Bryan Paarmann , 53 , the deputy assistant director of the FBI ’ s international operations division from 2016 to 2017 , “ improperly disclosed court-sealed and law enforcement sensitive information to the media ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one Horowitz included as part of what his June 2018 report called the FBI ’ s “ culture of unauthorized media contacts.
” A one-page summary of the investigation was released last May .
Although most identifying details about the reporters in question and the cases Paarmann was leaking details of were redacted , the Washington Examiner was able to identify one of the reporters in question , Los Angeles Times reporter Del Wilber , and two of his stories that the DOJ ’ s watchdog alleged contained details leaked by Paarmann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Army officer , Paarmann 's website features a photograph of him standing next to Mitt Romney , the junior U.S. senator for Utah and the 2012 Republican presidential candidate , and states : `` C. Bryan Paarmann FBI is a 30+ year career public servant who has faithfully and honorably served the United States in a variety of different positions . ''
Another page on his site states : `` Bryan Paarmann is protective of his country and is a proud American .
In many ways , he has faithfully and honorably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s team reviewed Paarmann ’ s communications from 2012 through 2017 , which showed “ extensive contacts ” with members of the media , especially in 2016 and early 2017 , laying out interactions with at least six reporters .
These contacts included hundreds of texts , calls , and emails ; over a dozen rounds of golf , including one where the reporter paid for both and another where Paarmann did ; private drinks and dinners , including instances where investigators couldn ’ t determine who paid ; a media member ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a gift ; and a $ 225-ticket dinner , which was free of charge thanks to a member of the media , in violation of FBI rules .
Paarmann and Wilber exchanged 55 calls and emails and met for dinner or drinks four times .
The watchdog report pointed to a 2016 article citing a “ U.S .
law enforcement official , ” a “ counterterrorism official , ” and a “ law enforcement official , ” which , by matching the phrases , is an article by Wilber about Orlando Pulse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report cited another 2016 piece that quoted “ a federal law enforcement official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case , ” a phrase that appears in a co-authored piece by Wilber and two others on Dallas cop killer Micah Johnson .
Paarmann acknowledged making many improper disclosures when confronted during an interview with the DOJ ’ s watchdog , telling investigators in one instance : “ I may have dorked that one up.
” But , when texts pointed to lengthy phone calls with reporters regarding investigations but didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were about , he denied leaking .
Horowitz ’ s team didn ’ t believe Paarmann , saying his demonstrated willingness to divulge sensitive information to these reporters , his knowledge of the cases they were writing about , and his failure to report his media contacts to the FBI made it “ more likely than not that Paarmann violated FBI policy by providing law enforcement sensitive information to these reporters.
” Paarmann claimed to investigators that a member of the FBI ’ s office of public affairs instructed him to “ develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it wasn ’ t adversarial every time we talked to them and basically be able to educate them.
” But the public affairs employee denied this .
“ I don ’ t remember giving any type of explicit or implicit guidance to go out and do anything independent of the office of public affairs , ” the employee said .
“ Especially socially.
” The DOJ decided not to prosecute Paarmann .
The FBI declined the Washington Examiner 's request for comment .
Wilber declined to comment .
FBI Director Christopher Wray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s counterterrorism operations in NYC in 2017 , but he has since retired .

The name of a former top FBI official who leaked sensitive information over the course of hundreds of communications with at least six reporters can be revealed by the Washington Examiner.
His identity is contained in a 21-page report obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report reveals that investigators for Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that Bryan Paarmann, 53, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s international operations division from 2016 to 2017, “improperly disclosed court-sealed and law enforcement sensitive information to the media” in violation of FBI rules.
The incident is one Horowitz included as part of what his June 2018 report called the FBI’s “culture of unauthorized media contacts.” A one-page summary of the investigation was released last May.
But Paarmann defended his actions.
“I gave 35 years of faithful and devoted service to this nation and never did I give classified or investigatively sensitive information to the press,” Paarmann told the Washington Examiner. “I never endangered a prosecution and only did what I believed my superiors had tasked me with.”
Although most identifying details about the reporters in question and the cases Paarmann was leaking details of were redacted, the Washington Examiner was able to identify one of the reporters in question, Los Angeles Times reporter Del Wilber, and two of his stories that the DOJ’s watchdog alleged contained details leaked by Paarmann.
A West Point graduate and former U.S. Army officer, Paarmann's website features a photograph of him standing next to Mitt Romney, the junior U.S. senator for Utah and the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, and states: "C. Bryan Paarmann FBI is a 30+ year career public servant who has faithfully and honorably served the United States in a variety of different positions." Another page on his site states: "Bryan Paarmann is protective of his country and is a proud American. In many ways, he has faithfully and honorably served his homeland."
Horowitz’s team reviewed Paarmann’s communications from 2012 through 2017, which showed “extensive contacts” with members of the media, especially in 2016 and early 2017, laying out interactions with at least six reporters. These contacts included hundreds of texts, calls, and emails; over a dozen rounds of golf, including one where the reporter paid for both and another where Paarmann did; private drinks and dinners, including instances where investigators couldn’t determine who paid; a media member’s housewarming party where Paarmann brought wine as a gift; and a $225-ticket dinner, which was free of charge thanks to a member of the media, in violation of FBI rules.
Paarmann and Wilber exchanged 55 calls and emails and met for dinner or drinks four times. The watchdog report pointed to a 2016 article citing a “U.S. law enforcement official,” a “counterterrorism official,” and a “law enforcement official,” which, by matching the phrases, is an article by Wilber about Orlando Pulse nightclub mass shooter Omar Mateen. The report cited another 2016 piece that quoted “a federal law enforcement official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case,” a phrase that appears in a co-authored piece by Wilber and two others on Dallas cop killer Micah Johnson.
Paarmann acknowledged making many improper disclosures when confronted during an interview with the DOJ’s watchdog, telling investigators in one instance: “I may have dorked that one up.”
But, when texts pointed to lengthy phone calls with reporters regarding investigations but didn’t explicitly show what the conversations were about, he denied leaking. Horowitz’s team didn’t believe Paarmann, saying his demonstrated willingness to divulge sensitive information to these reporters, his knowledge of the cases they were writing about, and his failure to report his media contacts to the FBI made it “more likely than not that Paarmann violated FBI policy by providing law enforcement sensitive information to these reporters.”
Paarmann claimed to investigators that a member of the FBI’s office of public affairs instructed him to “develop friendly cordial relations with the media so that it wasn’t adversarial every time we talked to them and basically be able to educate them.” But the public affairs employee denied this. “I don’t remember giving any type of explicit or implicit guidance to go out and do anything independent of the office of public affairs,” the employee said. “Especially socially.”
The DOJ decided not to prosecute Paarmann. The FBI declined the Washington Examiner's request for comment. Wilber declined to comment.
FBI Director Christopher Wray moved Paarmann into running the FBI’s counterterrorism operations in NYC in 2017, but he has since retired.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Armed Iranian national detained near Mar-a-Lago

An Iranian national armed with several knives , a machete , and a pickax was detained Friday by police about four miles from President Trump 's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida .
The man , identified as an Iranian national named Masoud Yareioeill Zoleh by his passport , was arrested Friday morning at Bradley Park on the east end of the Flagler Memorial Bridge , according to Palm Beach police spokesman Michael Ogrodnick .
In addition to the knives , machete , and pickax , police , who responded to a call about Zoleh at around 9:30 a.m. , found the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car parked at Palm Beach International Airport .
Palm Beach police are conducting an investigation with the help of federal partners .
Zoleh has been given a notice to appear in court .
A Palm Beach Daily News photographer saw the man , with camping gear , get arrested by arrested by three Palm Beach Police officers and two plainclothes officers who were said to be from another department .
The Palm Beach Post published photos of the arrest , showing Zoleh wearing a brown vest over a blue shirt and cargo pants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops in response to the U.S. airstrike that killed Qassem Soleimani , the head of the Iranian Quds Force , outside Baghdad International Airport .
Flagler Memorial Bridge is located about four miles north of the Mar-a-Lago private club , where Trump often spends his weekends during the winter .
The president was at the White House on Friday .
There have been other recent incidents in and around Trump 's Mar-a-Lago , which he dubbed the `` Winter White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the resort Monday night to assist Secret Service with an unspecified incident .
Trump and his family departed on Sunday to return to Washington , D.C. , after spending the holidays in Palm Beach .
Shortly before Trump left Palm Beach International Airport for the White House , a Florida man who was dishonorably discharged from the Marines for sex offenses was arrested after breaching Trump ’ s airport security by allegedly impersonating a federal law enforcement officer .
In the last year , two Chinese nationals had breached security and entered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , Jing Lu , 56 , was told to leave after trying to enter Mar-a-Lago via the main gate .
She then entered the property through a service driveway and was seen on security footage taking photos , according to police documents .
In November , Yujing Zhang , 33 , was sentenced to time served for trespassing and lying to federal agents about why she was at the resort in March .
A receptionist who was suspicious of Zhang alerted Secret Service to the Chinese businesswoman , who had originally said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as she awaits deportation .

An Iranian national armed with a pair of knives, a machete, and a pickax was detained Friday by police about four miles from President Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Officers responded to a call at around 9:30 a.m. about a suspicious person in Bradley Park, which is northeast of the Flagler Memorial Bridge, said Michael Ogrodnick, Palm Beach Police Department public information officer.
Police arrested a man named Masoud Yarieilzoleh on a charge related to a concealed weapons violation, Ogrodnick told the Washington Examiner. Police also found $22,000 and a passport showing the man is an Iranian national in the United States legally.
Palm Beach police are conducting an investigation, with the help of federal partners, that includes an examination of a car parked at Palm Beach International Airport. Yarieilzoleh, who was released from custody the same day as the incident, has been given a notice to appear at the Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Complex on Jan. 29.
Photo of Masoud Yarieilzoleh taken at Palm Beach Police station on Jan. 10. Police said it is not a mug shot. Palm Beach Police
A Palm Beach Daily News photographer saw Yarieilzoleh, with camping gear, being arrested by three Palm Beach police officers and two plainclothes officers who were said to be from another department. The Palm Beach Post published photos of the arrest, showing Yarieilzoleh wearing a brown vest over a blue shirt and cargo pants.
The arrest Friday comes days after Iran launched a barrage of ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq housing U.S. troops in response to the American airstrike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Quds Force, outside Baghdad International Airport.
Flagler Memorial Bridge is located about four miles north of the Mar-a-Lago private club, where Trump often spends his weekends during the winter.
The president was at the White House on Friday.
There have been other recent incidents in and around Trump's Mar-a-Lago property, which he dubbed the "Winter White House."
Local police were called to the resort Monday night to assist Secret Service with an unspecified incident. Trump and his family departed on Sunday to return to Washington, D.C., after spending the holidays in Palm Beach.
Shortly before Trump left Palm Beach International Airport for the White House, a Florida man who was dishonorably discharged from the Marines for sex offenses was arrested after breaching Trump’s airport security by allegedly impersonating a federal law enforcement officer.
In the last year, two Chinese nationals have breached security and entered the club’s grounds.
Last month, Jing Lu, 56, was told to leave after trying to enter Mar-a-Lago via the main gate. She then entered the property through a service driveway and was seen on security footage taking photos, according to police documents.
In November, Yujing Zhang, 33, was sentenced to time served for trespassing and lying to federal agents about why she was at the resort in March. A receptionist who was suspicious of Zhang alerted Secret Service of the Chinese businesswoman, who had originally said she was there to swim. Zhang is currently in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as she awaits deportation.
Caitlin Yilek contributed to this report.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-10--Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block John Bolton testimony in Senate trial

President Trump strongly indicated he will try to block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in a Senate impeachment trial that could start as soon as next week .
`` I think you have to , for the sake of the office , '' Trump said during an interview on Friday with Fox News host Laura Ingraham , who asked if he would invoke executive privilege .
Trump , who said earlier this week he would consult his lawyers on the issue of executive privilege , claimed he personally had `` no problem '' with Bolton testifying but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent it would set for presidential privilege and how much a commander in chief would be able to confide in advisers .
`` You can ’ t be in the White House as president — future , I ’ m talking about future , any future presidents — and have a security adviser , anybody having to do with security , and legal , and other things , '' he said .
Bolton , 71 , issued a statement Monday saying he is willing to testify , but only if subpoenaed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his refusal to testify before House investigators on orders from the White House .
There has been debate about whether Bolton could offer damaging information to Trump and whether the president can even exert executive privilege to block his testimony .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , a California Democrat , announced Friday she ’ s preparing to send over two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress .
So far , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has rejected demands from Democrats to approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s got the backing of 51 GOP lawmakers to approve rules postponing consideration of witnesses until midtrial .
Sen. Susan Collins , a centrist Republican up for reelection later this year , told the Washington Examiner she is working with “ some of my Republican colleagues , '' as well as party leaders , `` to reach an agreement '' that would allow for calling witnesses in the expected trial .
Trump said it was `` ridiculous '' for Pelosi to withhold the articles for weeks in an effort to pressure McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` She should have sent them a long time ago .
It just belittles the process … Nancy Pelosi will go down as the least successful speaker of the House in the history of our nation .
She has done nothing , '' he said .

President Trump strongly indicated he will try to block former national security adviser John Bolton from testifying in a Senate impeachment trial that could start as soon as next week.
"I think you have to, for the sake of the office," Trump said during an interview on Friday with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, who asked if he would invoke executive privilege.
Trump, who said earlier this week he would consult his lawyers on the issue of executive privilege, claimed he personally had "no problem" with Bolton testifying but argued that he has to consider the precedent it would set for presidential privilege and how much a commander in chief would be able to confide in advisers.
"You can’t be in the White House as president — future, I’m talking about future, any future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal, and other things," he said.
Bolton, 71, issued a statement Monday saying he is willing to testify, but only if subpoenaed by the Republican-controlled Senate, marking a shift from his refusal to testify before House investigators on orders from the White House.
There has been debate about whether Bolton could offer damaging information to Trump and whether the president can even exert executive privilege to block his testimony.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, announced Friday she’s preparing to send over two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.
So far, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has rejected demands from Democrats to approve a pretrial witness list and said he’s got the backing of 51 GOP lawmakers to approve rules postponing consideration of witnesses until midtrial.
Sen. Susan Collins, a centrist Republican up for reelection later this year, told the Washington Examiner she is working with “some of my Republican colleagues," as well as party leaders, "to reach an agreement" that would allow for calling witnesses in the expected trial.
Trump said it was "ridiculous" for Pelosi to withhold the articles for weeks in an effort to pressure McConnell to agree to a witness list.
"She should have sent them a long time ago. It just belittles the process … Nancy Pelosi will go down as the least successful speaker of the House in the history of our nation. She has done nothing," he said.