thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-26--'I may be doing it right': Stephanie Grisham defends her performance as White House press secretary

Stephanie Grisham defended her role as White House press secretary , saying a lack of press briefings does not mean that she is n't performing her job well .
`` Sarah [ Huckabee Sanders ] , you know , she would go out there and answer everything as honestly as she could , and she was branded a liar and became an SNL character , '' Grisham said Sunday on Fox News , comparing herself to her predecessors .
`` So , I think because none of that is going on with me , I may be doing it right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticism she has faced in the editorial pages of major newspapers , as she has not held a single White House press briefing since assuming the post .
`` Given that the 30th person to hold the job , Stephanie Grisham , has never held a briefing since she got the title in July , is she really a press secretary ? ''
Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote earlier this month .
`` Grisham seems unaware — or simply doesn ’ t care — that she actually works for the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars . ''
Grisham said President Trump 's style of communicating , usually over Twitter , resonates more with the public than a press briefing between her and reporters could .
`` I just had a stat given this morning to me that the president has tweeted or retweeted more than 300 times in the past five days , '' she said .
`` So , that is people , not just the media , but the American public , hearing directly from him every single day , several times a day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's former press secretary , said there is no way she could speak for the president more efficiently than he could `` on his own . ''
Since leaving the White House , Sanders has become an analyst for Fox News .

Stephanie Grisham defended her role as White House press secretary, saying a lack of press briefings does not mean that she isn't performing her job well.
"Sarah [Huckabee Sanders], you know, she would go out there and answer everything as honestly as she could, and she was branded a liar and became an SNL character," Grisham said Sunday on Fox News, comparing herself to her predecessors. "So, I think because none of that is going on with me, I may be doing it right."
Grisham was asked about the criticism she has faced in the editorial pages of major newspapers, as she has not held a single White House press briefing since assuming the post.
"Given that the 30th person to hold the job, Stephanie Grisham, has never held a briefing since she got the title in July, is she really a press secretary?" Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote earlier this month. "Grisham seems unaware — or simply doesn’t care — that she actually works for the American people and is paid with their tax dollars."
Grisham said President Trump's style of communicating, usually over Twitter, resonates more with the public than a press briefing between her and reporters could.
"I just had a stat given this morning to me that the president has tweeted or retweeted more than 300 times in the past five days," she said. "So, that is people, not just the media, but the American public, hearing directly from him every single day, several times a day."
Grisham, first lady Melania Trump's former press secretary, said there is no way she could speak for the president more efficiently than he could "on his own."
Since leaving the White House, Sanders has become an analyst for Fox News.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-26--Mark Meadows: 'Real probable cause concerns' with first two Carter Page FISA orders

More problems with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump campaign Carter Page will come to light , according to a top Republican ally of President Trump .
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows , who is a member of the president 's impeachment defense team , said on Sunday the Justice Department 's conclusion this month that there was insufficient evidence to justify the last two of four FISA orders targeting Page came as no surprise to him and raised the prospect that the first pair were also flawed .
`` We knew that not only that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it , but we also know that there were real probable cause concerns with the first and second one .
So , we have n't seen the end of this , '' Meadows said on Fox News ’ s Sunday Morning Futures .
Page , an American energy consultant whom the FBI suspected of acting as an agent of Russia , was subject to electronic surveillance during the FBI 's counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign .
The initial order came in October 2016 , and the electronic surveillance stretched into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extensions at three-month intervals .
He was never charged with any wrongdoing .
A FISA court filing made public last week said the Justice Department found that `` in view of the material misstatements and omissions , '' the first two orders `` were not valid . ''
It remains unclear whether the department believes the first two orders targeting Page also had serious issues .
The FISA court also revealed that the FBI is restricting all the evidence gathered about Page through the FISA surveillance until the completion of a further review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` outcome of related investigations and any litigation . ''
Michael Horowitz , the DOJ 's independent watchdog , faulted the agency and the FBI for 17 “ significant errors and omissions ” during the application process and relying on British ex-spy Christopher Steele ’ s salacious and unverified dossier .
With three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March , GOP lawmakers have threatened to take a stand against David Kris , a former Justice Department lawyer picked to advise the FISA court on the reform process , as some talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their concerns about it being used to target political opponents are not addressed .
Meadows , who last year predicted a slew of criminal referrals related to alleged FISA abuse , argued that raising awareness about issues with the FISA process is significant because of how Democrats , including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , criticized a 2018 memo by the panel 's then-Republican majority , led by California Rep. Devin Nunes , on alleged FISA abuse against the Trump camp .
`` Adam Schiff knew that there were problems with that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Devin Nunes was not correct with his analysis , just like he 's purposely going out right now spinning a narrative as it relates to Ukrainian aid being held up for some nefarious purpose , '' Meadows said , referring to the articles of impeachment Trump now faces .
`` It just did n't happen . ''
Former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina , who was a member of the intelligence panel , agreed with Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that there is a connection .
`` Four different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and asked permission to surveil a presidential candidate .
At least two of them — they lacked the lowest level of evidence needed , the lowest level of evidence needed .
This is not the search of some meth lab in a trailer park .
It is surveilling a presidential candidate .
And the FBI and DOJ struck out at least two out of four times , and maybe all four , '' Gowdy said .
He added that Schiff , former top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe , who signed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrants , and certain media outlets `` were all wrong , and those crazy House Republicans turned out to be right after all . ''

More problems with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against former Trump campaign Carter Page will come to light, according to a top Republican ally of President Trump.
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows, who is a member of the president's impeachment defense team, said on Sunday the Justice Department's conclusion this month that there was insufficient evidence to justify the last two of four FISA orders targeting Page came as no surprise to him and raised the prospect that the first pair were also flawed.
"We knew that not only that the third and fourth FISA application had problems with it, but we also know that there were real probable cause concerns with the first and second one. So, we haven't seen the end of this," Meadows said on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures.
Page, an American energy consultant whom the FBI suspected of acting as an agent of Russia, was subject to electronic surveillance during the FBI's counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign. The initial order came in October 2016, and the electronic surveillance stretched into the summer of 2017 with a trio of extensions at three-month intervals. He was never charged with any wrongdoing.
A FISA court filing made public last week said the Justice Department found that "in view of the material misstatements and omissions," the final two orders "were not valid." It remains unclear whether the department believes the first two orders targeting Page also had serious issues. The FISA court also revealed that the FBI is restricting all the evidence gathered about Page through the FISA surveillance until the completion of a further review of the DOJ inspector general report and the "outcome of related investigations and any litigation."
Michael Horowitz, the DOJ's independent watchdog, faulted the agency and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” during the application process and relying on British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier.
With three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March, GOP lawmakers have threatened to take a stand against David Kris, a former Justice Department lawyer picked to advise the FISA court on the reform process, as some talk about begrudgingly abolishing the FISA court if their concerns about it being used to target political opponents are not addressed.
Meadows, who last year predicted a slew of criminal referrals related to alleged FISA abuse, argued that raising awareness about issues with the FISA process is significant because of how Democrats, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, criticized a 2018 memo by the panel's then-Republican majority, led by California Rep. Devin Nunes, on alleged FISA abuse against the Trump camp.
"Adam Schiff knew that there were problems with that. He purposely went out and suggested that Devin Nunes was not correct with his analysis, just like he's purposely going out right now spinning a narrative as it relates to Ukrainian aid being held up for some nefarious purpose," Meadows said, referring to the articles of impeachment Trump now faces. "It just didn't happen."
Former Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, who was a member of the intelligence panel, agreed with Sunday Morning Futures host Maria Bartiromo that there is a connection.
"Four different times, the United States government went and asked permission to surveil a presidential candidate. At least two of them — they lacked the lowest level of evidence needed, the lowest level of evidence needed. This is not the search of some meth lab in a trailer park. It is surveilling a presidential candidate. And the FBI and DOJ struck out at least two out of four times, and maybe all four," Gowdy said.
He added that Schiff, former top FBI officials James Comey and Andrew McCabe, who signed off on some of the Page FISA warrants, and certain media outlets "were all wrong, and those crazy House Republicans turned out to be right after all."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Pompeo privately admitted Giuliani claims about Ukraine ambassador were phony: Bolton book

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubted Trump lawyer Rudy Giualini 's claims that former United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was corrupt , according to a draft of former national security adviser John Bolton 's book .
Drafts of Bolton 's unpublished book said Pompeo privately admitted to him last spring that Giuliani may have been pushing baseless accusations about Yovanovitch because she may have been cracking down on Giuliani 's clients with dealings in Ukraine as part of an anti-corruption effort , according to the New York Times .
Bolton , who left the White House in September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in August that he was withholding nearly $ 400 million in congressionally approved military aide to Ukraine until Kyiv assisted with investigations into his political rivals , including former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden .
Bolton , Pompeo , and Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly pushed Trump to unlock the funds , which were released in September .
Bolton announced earlier this month that he is willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if called by lawmakers , but Trump has indicated that he will block Bolton from testifying .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since his former aide , Fiona Hill , testified to House impeachment investigators that Bolton opposed the Ukraine pressure campaign .
She said Bolton wanted no part of what he described as a `` drug deal '' that fellow Trump administration officials were `` cooking up . ''
The New York Times report , based on drafts circulating among Bolton 's associates and the White House for a review process , comes two days after NPR host Mary Louise Kelly said Pompeo shouted and swore at her when she asked him about Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and owed her an apology .
Pompeo released a statement accusing Kelly of lying to him and reporting the details of a conversation he claimed was off the record .
`` This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration .
It is no wonder that the American people distrust many in the media when they so consistently demonstrate their agenda and their absence of integrity , '' he said .
Yovanovitch was recalled from her post in May 2019 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment hearings that a superior told her that she had done nothing wrong , but that President Trump had lost faith in her .
She also condemned the “ smear campaign ” against her , saying allegations that she put together a “ Do Not Prosecute ” list were a “ fabrication ” and denying claims that she had told anyone at the embassy or in Ukraine that Trump ’ s orders should be ignored .
Michael McKinley , another impeachment witness who was a top adviser to Pompeo , testified that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department to release a statement supporting Yovanovitch and highlighting her `` professionalism and courage . ''
Pompeo claimed afterwards that McKinley , who abruptly resigned in October , `` did n't say anything to me '' about it .
Trump had called for Yovanovitch 's ouster as early as April 2018 during a private dinner that was attended by two now-indicted associates of Giuliani .
`` Get rid of her .
Get her out tomorrow .
I do n't care .
Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out .
OK ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be heard saying in the footage taken by Igor Fruman , who along with Lev Parnas informed the president that the ambassador had been talking badly about him .
Bolton 's book , published by Simon & Schuster , will also touch on controversies related to Russia and Venezuela , and some top Trump officials are said to be subject to unkind descriptions .
According to the latest report , Bolton claimed he raised concerns about Giuliani with Attorney General William Barr after Trump 's July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was released to the public shows Trump encouraged Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and Barr about investigations into Democrats .
A statement by the Justice Department claimed Trump never told Barr to contact Ukraine about said inquiries and distanced the attorney general from Giuliani .
Bolton 's book , titled The Room Where it Happened , is tentatively scheduled to be released on March 17 .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubted Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani's claims that former United States Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was corrupt, according to a draft of former national security adviser John Bolton's book.
Drafts of Bolton's unpublished book said Pompeo privately admitted to him last spring that Giuliani may have been pushing baseless accusations about Yovanovitch because she may have been cracking down on Giuliani's clients with dealings in Ukraine as part of an anti-corruption effort, according to the New York Times.
Bolton, who left the White House in September, also wrote that President Trump told him in August that he was withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine until Kyiv assisted with investigations into his political rivals, including former Vice President and presidential candidate Joe Biden. Bolton, Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly pushed Trump to unlock the funds, which were released in September.
In a salvo of tweets just after midnight on Monday, Trump denied telling Bolton that the security aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations. "If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book," he said.
Bolton announced earlier this month that he is willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if called by lawmakers, but Trump has indicated that he will block Bolton from testifying.
Democrats have wanted Bolton to testify ever since his former aide, Fiona Hill, testified to House impeachment investigators that Bolton opposed the Ukraine pressure campaign. She said Bolton wanted no part of what he described as a "drug deal" that fellow Trump administration officials were "cooking up."
The New York Times report, based on drafts circulating among Bolton's associates and the White House for a review process, comes two days after NPR host Mary Louise Kelly said Pompeo shouted and swore at her when she asked him about Ukraine and whether he had ever defended Yovanovitch and owed her an apology.
Pompeo released a statement accusing Kelly of lying to him and reporting the details of a conversation he claimed was off the record.
[READ: Democrats argue 'explosive' details from Bolton book demand his impeachment testimony]
"This is another example of how unhinged the media has become in its quest to hurt President Trump and this Administration. It is no wonder that the American people distrust many in the media when they so consistently demonstrate their agenda and their absence of integrity," he said.
Yovanovitch was recalled from her post in May 2019 and went on to testify in the House impeachment hearings that a superior told her that she had done nothing wrong, but that Trump had lost faith in her. She also condemned the “smear campaign” against her, saying allegations that she put together a “Do Not Prosecute” list were a “fabrication” and denying claims that she had told anyone at the embassy or in Ukraine that Trump’s orders should be ignored.
Michael McKinley, another impeachment witness who was a top adviser to Pompeo, testified that his former boss rejected his push for the State Department to release a statement supporting Yovanovitch and highlighting her "professionalism and courage." Pompeo claimed afterwards that McKinley, who abruptly resigned in October, "didn't say anything to me" about it.
[READ: Bolton lawyer blames book leak on 'corrupted' review process]
Trump had called for Yovanovitch's ouster as early as April 2018 during a private dinner that was attended by two now-indicted associates of Giuliani.
"Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it," the president can be heard saying in the footage taken by Igor Fruman, who along with Lev Parnas informed the president that the ambassador had been talking badly about him.
Bolton's book, published by Simon & Schuster, will also touch on controversies related to Russia and Venezuela, and some top Trump officials are said to be subject to unkind descriptions. According to the latest report, Bolton claimed he raised concerns about Giuliani with Attorney General William Barr after Trump's July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
A transcript of the call that was released to the public shows Trump encouraged Zelensky to talk to Giuliani and Barr about investigations into Democrats. A statement by the Justice Department claimed Trump never told Barr to contact Ukraine about said inquiries and distanced the attorney general from Giuliani.
Bolton's book, titled The Room Where it Happened, is tentatively scheduled to be released on March 17.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Rep. Vicky Hartzler: Government waste is hobbling the fight against the opioid crisis

During my time traveling across the 4th District of Missouri , I have seen firsthand the way the drug abuse epidemic is ravaging our local communities and families — especially the abuse of opiates .
Unfortunately , government inefficiency often makes it difficult for Congress to track our legislative solutions and measure how they translate into tangible results that improve the lives of the people .
The lack of tracking mechanisms and fiscal transparency must be addressed .
If you ask someone in Congress what happens to a massive spending bill after it is signed into law , you won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The immense size of the federal government makes it virtually impossible to track funding , and although some taxpayer money reaches its intended purpose , there remain billions upon billions of dollars that may be unaccounted for within the mass intricacies and levels of bureaucracy .
As a steward of taxpayer funds , I believe the federal government must do better .
That is why I am leading an effort with 18 of my colleagues to secure an audit of the federal government ’ s mechanisms for disbursing the billions of taxpayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities to combat the opioid crisis .
Congress has come together to address the opioid abuse in several ways , and we must ensure the funds we authorized are being spent as promised .
We need more transparent mechanisms for dispersal so communities desperate for help know what assistance is available and how they can access the funds .
With my support , Congress has authorized nearly $ 20 billion to address substance use and mental health in the past three appropriations bills , bolstering methods to improve treatment and prevention efforts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and much-needed funding for behavioral health .
In 2016 , Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act , creating a $ 130 million opioid abuse grant program for opioid abuse reduction programs at the local and state level .
During the 115th Congress , President Trump signed into law one of the major anti-opioid legislative packages , the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act .
This bill includes multiple provisions to address the opioid crisis , including public health reforms to advance treatment prevention and bolster efforts to combat illicit synthetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the House passed more than 45 smaller , targeted bills to combat the opioid crisis , marking one of the most significant congressional pushes against the drug crisis to date .
These reforms range from aid for addiction treatment and abuse prevention to providing additional tools for local law enforcement to help fight back against this scourge that has invaded far too many of our communities .
I was glad to lend my support to these funding bills and hoped my local communities could apply for these grants , bringing needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to track where and how the funds have been used has proven to be a nearly impossible task .
The opioid epidemic brought Congress together .
This is no small feat .
Members from both sides of the aisle fought to protect the people of this country .
We can not allow the tangled mess of Washington bureaucracy to choke out these intentions .
It is my hope that this audit , conducted by the Government Accountability Office , will be the first step in devising a consistent , transparent way of tracking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reach those who need it , and everyone will benefit from a society free from the scourge of opioid addiction .

During my time traveling across the 4th District of Missouri, I have seen firsthand the way the drug abuse epidemic is ravaging our local communities and families — especially the abuse of opiates. Unfortunately, government inefficiency often makes it difficult for Congress to track our legislative solutions and measure how they translate into tangible results that improve the lives of the people. The lack of tracking mechanisms and fiscal transparency must be addressed.
If you ask someone in Congress what happens to a massive spending bill after it is signed into law, you won’t get the same answer twice. The immense size of the federal government makes it virtually impossible to track funding, and although some taxpayer money reaches its intended purpose, there remain billions upon billions of dollars that may be unaccounted for within the mass intricacies and levels of bureaucracy.
As a steward of taxpayer funds, I believe the federal government must do better. That is why I am leading an effort with 18 of my colleagues to secure an audit of the federal government’s mechanisms for disbursing the billions of taxpayer dollars that are intended for our local communities to combat the opioid crisis.
Congress has come together to address the opioid abuse in several ways, and we must ensure the funds we authorized are being spent as promised. We need more transparent mechanisms for dispersal so communities desperate for help know what assistance is available and how they can access the funds.
With my support, Congress has authorized nearly $20 billion to address substance use and mental health in the past three appropriations bills, bolstering methods to improve treatment and prevention efforts, addressing workforce needs in our rural communities, and much-needed funding for behavioral health.
In 2016, Congress passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, creating a $130 million opioid abuse grant program for opioid abuse reduction programs at the local and state level.
During the 115th Congress, President Trump signed into law one of the major anti-opioid legislative packages, the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. This bill includes multiple provisions to address the opioid crisis, including public health reforms to advance treatment prevention and bolster efforts to combat illicit synthetic drugs such as fentanyl.
That same year, the House passed more than 45 smaller, targeted bills to combat the opioid crisis, marking one of the most significant congressional pushes against the drug crisis to date. These reforms range from aid for addiction treatment and abuse prevention to providing additional tools for local law enforcement to help fight back against this scourge that has invaded far too many of our communities.
I was glad to lend my support to these funding bills and hoped my local communities could apply for these grants, bringing needed help to my constituents. But trying to track where and how the funds have been used has proven to be a nearly impossible task.
The opioid epidemic brought Congress together. This is no small feat. Members from both sides of the aisle fought to protect the people of this country. We cannot allow the tangled mess of Washington bureaucracy to choke out these intentions. It is my hope that this audit, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, will be the first step in devising a consistent, transparent way of tracking and disbursing these funds so help will reach those who need it, and everyone will benefit from a society free from the scourge of opioid addiction.
Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican, represents Missouri's 4th Congressional District.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Democrats argue 'explosive' details from Bolton book demand his impeachment testimony

Democrats seized on `` explosive '' details from John Bolton to increase pressure on the GOP-led Senate to call President Trump 's former national security adviser as a witness in the impeachment trial .
House impeachment managers said Bolton has `` vital information '' for their case , as evidenced by a New York Times report Sunday evening about Bolton 's upcoming book , which undercuts the Trump defense team 's claim that the freeze of security assistance to Ukraine was separate from the president pressing Kyiv to announce investigations into his political rivals , including presidential candidate and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president ’ s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump , '' said a joint statement from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his fellow impeachment managers .
Drafts of Bolton 's manuscript , which are circulating among Bolton 's associates and the White House for a review process , said Trump told his then-national security adviser in August that he was withholding nearly $ 400 million in congressionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine to assist with investigations into Democrats .
Bolton , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , and Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly pushed Trump to unlock the funds , which were released in September .
“ During our impeachment inquiry , the President blocked our request for Mr. Bolton ’ s testimony .
Now we see why .
The President knows how devastating his testimony would be , and , according to the report , the White House has had a draft of his manuscript for review .
President Trump ’ s cover-up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment managers wrote .
“ Americans know that a fair trial must include both the documents and witnesses blocked by the President — that starts with Mr .
Bolton . ''
Bolton left the White House in September and announced earlier this month that he was willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if called by lawmakers .
Trump signaled that he would block Bolton from testifying , claiming it would be to protect executive privilege for himself and future presidents .
House Democrats levied two articles of impeachment against Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstruction of Congress .
The latter relates to his administration 's efforts to block some witnesses and documents during the House proceedings .
Opening arguments are underway , and following a written questions period , the Senate will hold a four-hour debate on whether to subpoena or call witnesses to testify or to seek additional evidence .
With Republicans holding a slim majority in the upper chamber and a handful of moderate GOP senators on the fence , Democrats hope they will win enough support to secure Bolton 's testimony .
`` John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a Democrat from New York , tweeted Sunday evening .
`` It ’ s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton , [ acting White House chief of staff ] Mick Mulvaney , and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump ’ s actions testify in the Senate trial . ''
“ Senators should insist that Mr. Bolton be called as a witness , and provide his notes and other relevant documents , '' the impeachment managers wrote in their statement .
`` The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mr. Bolton has vital information to provide .
There is no defensible reason to wait until his book is published , when the information he has to offer is critical to the most important decision Senators must now make — whether to convict the President of impeachable offenses . ''
Bolton 's book , titled The Room Where it Happened , is tentatively scheduled to be released on March 17 .

Democrats seized on "explosive" details from John Bolton to increase pressure on the GOP-led Senate to call President Trump's former national security adviser as a witness in the impeachment trial.
House impeachment managers said Bolton has "vital information" for their case, as evidenced by a New York Times report Sunday evening about Bolton's upcoming book, which undercuts the Trump defense team's claim that the freeze of security assistance to Ukraine was separate from the president pressing Kyiv to announce investigations into his political rivals, including presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
"There can be no doubt now that Mr. Bolton directly contradicts the heart of the president’s defense and therefore must be called as a witness at the impeachment trial of President Trump," said a joint statement from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his fellow impeachment managers.
Drafts of Bolton's manuscript, which are circulating among Bolton's associates and the White House for a review process, said Trump told his then-national security adviser in August that he was withholding nearly $400 million in congressionally approved military aid as leverage to convince Ukraine to assist with investigations into Democrats. Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly pushed Trump to unlock the funds, which were released in September.
“During our impeachment inquiry, the President blocked our request for Mr. Bolton’s testimony. Now we see why. The President knows how devastating his testimony would be, and, according to the report, the White House has had a draft of his manuscript for review. President Trump’s cover-up must come to an end," the impeachment managers wrote. “Americans know that a fair trial must include both the documents and witnesses blocked by the President — that starts with Mr. Bolton."
In a salvo of tweets just after midnight on Monday, Trump denied telling Bolton that the security aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations. "If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book," he said.
Bolton left the White House in September and announced earlier this month that he was willing to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if called by lawmakers. Trump signaled that he would block Bolton from testifying, claiming it would be to protect executive privilege for himself and future presidents.
[READ: Bolton lawyer blames book leak on 'corrupted' review process]
House Democrats levied two articles of impeachment against Trump accusing him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The latter relates to his administration's efforts to block some witnesses and documents during the House proceedings.
Opening arguments are underway, and following a written questions period, the Senate will hold a four-hour debate on whether to subpoena or call witnesses to testify or to seek additional evidence. With Republicans holding a slim majority in the upper chamber and a handful of moderate GOP senators on the fence, Democrats hope they will win enough support to secure Bolton's testimony.
"John Bolton has the evidence," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, tweeted Sunday evening. "It’s up to four Senate Republicans to ensure that John Bolton, [acting White House chief of staff] Mick Mulvaney, and the others with direct knowledge of President Trump’s actions testify in the Senate trial."
“Senators should insist that Mr. Bolton be called as a witness, and provide his notes and other relevant documents," the impeachment managers wrote in their statement. "The Senate trial must seek the full truth and Mr. Bolton has vital information to provide. There is no defensible reason to wait until his book is published, when the information he has to offer is critical to the most important decision Senators must now make — whether to convict the President of impeachable offenses."
Bolton's book, titled The Room Where it Happened, is tentatively scheduled to be released on March 17.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Conservatives root for Bernie Sanders to be Democratic nominee at their own risk

With no serious primary challenge to President Trump having emerged , Republicans are naturally looking with curiosity upon the opposition .
One week away from the Iowa caucuses , there is a lot of speculation on the Right about who to pull for as the Democratic nominee .
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt has gone as far as announcing he would be voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Virginia Democratic primary , arguing it would be better to run against the more “ authentic ” socialist .
While there is a long tradition of tactical voting in politics ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be careful about what they wish for .
They should constantly keep in mind that in a two-party system , any major party nominee starts with a decent shot of actually becoming president .
The argument that conservatives should be rooting for Sanders , finding him the most beatable general election candidate , has been percolating for a long time .
Even when Republicans don ’ t mention him by name , they clearly want to run against his ideology .
When the Washington Examiner interviewed Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , we asked about how she would thread the needle , running in a state where many independents have turned against Trump .
She argued that once the general election came , the campaign would turn into a referendum on .
That argument is obviously easier to make with Sanders on top of the ticket .
There is , no doubt , a strong case that Sanders , a socialist who is pushing 80 and wants to kick 180 million people off of private health insurance , would be too radical to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's approval ratings have been persistently underwater , even with a strong economy and relative peace .
What would happen in the case of a foreign policy disaster or economic downturn between now and November ?
Given the intensity of the anti-Trump vote , any Democratic nominee is going to start off with well over 200 of the required 270 electoral votes , needing to flip just a few states to win .
It ’ s possible that Sanders-style populism would bring out more voters in a general election than is obvious to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 've seen this movie before .
A number of liberals spent the 2016 primary making the case for Donald Trump .
In a now-notorious piece , “ Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination , ” New York magazine ’ s Jonathan Chait that above all , Trump “ would almost certainly lose.
” Few liberals would look back now and argue that they ’ re much better off with Trump as the Republican nominee than they would have been with , say , Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida .
As we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no joke — it would be .
Were the United States , the beacon of freedom around the world , to elect an avowed socialist to serve as presidency , it would be a monumental event in history .
Even if his legislative proposals were blocked by Congress , he would be able to wield the power of the vast regulatory state .
Even more worrisome , the man who as a mayor showed such poor judgment as to support the against the U.S. , would be at the helm of foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposing party ’ s primary through the lens of “ Who would be easiest to beat ?
, ” conservative voters should consider the question of who in the other party they believe would be the least bad as president .
At the very minimum , they should remember that anybody who becomes the Democratic nominee is one step closer to the White House .

With no serious primary challenge to President Trump having emerged, Republicans are naturally looking with curiosity upon the opposition. One week away from the Iowa caucuses, there is a lot of speculation on the Right about who to pull for as the Democratic nominee. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt has gone as far as announcing he would be voting for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Virginia Democratic primary, arguing it would be better to run against the more “authentic” socialist.
While there is a long tradition of tactical voting in politics (or at least tactical rooting), Republicans should be careful about what they wish for. They should constantly keep in mind that in a two-party system, any major party nominee starts with a decent shot of actually becoming president.
The argument that conservatives should be rooting for Sanders, finding him the most beatable general election candidate, has been percolating for a long time. Even when Republicans don’t mention him by name, they clearly want to run against his ideology. When the Washington Examiner interviewed Sen. Martha McSally of Arizona, one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2020, we asked about how she would thread the needle, running in a state where many independents have turned against Trump. She argued that once the general election came, the campaign would turn into a referendum on socialism or freedom . That argument is obviously easier to make with Sanders on top of the ticket.
There is, no doubt, a strong case that Sanders, a socialist who is pushing 80 and wants to kick 180 million people off of private health insurance, would be too radical to win the presidency. Yet, Trump's approval ratings have been persistently underwater, even with a strong economy and relative peace. What would happen in the case of a foreign policy disaster or economic downturn between now and November? Given the intensity of the anti-Trump vote, any Democratic nominee is going to start off with well over 200 of the required 270 electoral votes, needing to flip just a few states to win. It’s possible that Sanders-style populism would bring out more voters in a general election than is obvious to political pundits. After all, we've seen this movie before.
A number of liberals spent the 2016 primary making the case for Donald Trump. In a now-notorious piece, “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination,” New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait argued that above all, Trump “would almost certainly lose.” Few liberals would look back now and argue that they’re much better off with Trump as the Republican nominee than they would have been with, say, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
As we have written before, a Sanders presidency is no joke — it would be deeply dangerous . Were the United States, the beacon of freedom around the world, to elect an avowed socialist to serve as presidency, it would be a monumental event in history. Even if his legislative proposals were blocked by Congress, he would be able to wield the power of the vast regulatory state. Even more worrisome, the man who as a mayor showed such poor judgment as to support the authoritarian communist Sandinistas against the U.S., would be at the helm of foreign policy.
Instead of looking at the opposing party’s primary through the lens of “Who would be easiest to beat?,” conservative voters should consider the question of who in the other party they believe would be the least bad as president. At the very minimum, they should remember that anybody who becomes the Democratic nominee is one step closer to the White House.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Pete Buttigieg mocked for noting Kobe Bryant achievements 'on the field' and 'off the field'

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg said `` field '' instead of `` court '' when addressing the death of basketball legend Kobe Bryant , drawing criticism online .
“ It ’ s shocking , and I think we ’ re all still in shock about what happened .
And I think it ’ s a reminder that our lives are often touched by people we never even meet , '' said Buttigieg , the 38-year-old former South Bend , Indiana mayor , at a Fox News town hall on Sunday .
`` There are millions of people , not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world right now , mourning because they were inspired by what he did on the field , what he meant off the field . ''
Bryant , 41 , and his 13-year-old daughter died in a helicopter crash on Sunday .
He spent 20 years with the NBA 's Los Angeles Lakers , during which time the basketball team won five championships .
He is survived by his wife Vanessa and their three other daughters .
`` It 's also , of course , such a tough human moment to think about , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter , '' Buttigieg added .
`` Her loss is unthinkable , as is that of everybody who was on that helicopter .
And I think that all of America is united in mourning and sending our love and our thoughts , and of course , our prayers , to all of the families . ''
Earlier on Sunday when speaking to reporters , Buttigieg said `` court '' when referring to Bryant 's achievements .
“ I mean , obviously , on the court , what he did as an extraordinary athlete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would remember most about Bryant .
The comments on Fox News , however , prompted sharp criticism from some viewers and online commentators .
`` Does Pete Buttigieg know Kobe played basketball ?
Maybe just a metaphorical field , '' one user said .
`` This is especially embarrassing because basketball is like a *required* part of living in Indiana , '' another user said .
Others also mocked the candidate for the mistake .
Buttigieg also responded to Bryant 's death on Twitter , correctly noting the former player 's `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg said "field" instead of "court" when addressing the death of basketball legend Kobe Bryant, drawing criticism online.
“It’s shocking, and I think we’re all still in shock about what happened. And I think it’s a reminder that our lives are often touched by people we never even meet," said Buttigieg, the 38-year-old former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, at a Fox News town hall on Sunday. "There are millions of people, not just in Los Angeles, but around the world right now, mourning because they were inspired by what he did on the field, what he meant off the field."
Bryant, 41, and his 13-year-old daughter died in a helicopter crash on Sunday. He spent 20 years with the NBA's Los Angeles Lakers, during which time the basketball team won five championships. He is survived by his wife Vanessa and their three other daughters.
"It's also, of course, such a tough human moment to think about, that he was spending time with his daughter," Buttigieg added. "Her loss is unthinkable, as is that of everybody who was on that helicopter. And I think that all of America is united in mourning and sending our love and our thoughts, and of course, our prayers, to all of the families."
“They were inspired by what he did on the field, what he meant off the field” — Pete Buttigieg on Kobe Bryant, who played basketball pic.twitter.com/nv67WSz4UK — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 27, 2020
Earlier on Sunday, when speaking to reporters, Buttigieg said "court" when referring to Bryant's achievements.
“I mean, obviously, on the court, what he did as an extraordinary athlete,” he said when asked what he would remember most about Bryant.
The comments on Fox News, however, prompted sharp criticism from some viewers and online commentators.
"Does Pete Buttigieg know Kobe played basketball? Maybe just a metaphorical field," one user said.
does Pete Buttigieg know Kobe played basketball? Maybe just a metaphorical field — B (@Weeb3n) January 27, 2020
"This is especially embarrassing because basketball is like a *required* part of living in Indiana," another user said.
My God, this is especially embarrassing because basketball is like a *required* part of living in Indiana. (Also a helluva way to attract that black vote, showing your absolute ignorance for a figure like Kobe Bryant.) https://t.co/z5xwUpc5mj — Serenity Now! (@Cpo10za) January 27, 2020
Others also mocked the candidate for the mistake.
That's how you nail down the black vote. — jeff (@Cubs_2016_WS) January 27, 2020
My favorite Kobe highlights were the touchdowns he hit over the fence at Fenway Stadium. One goal! — Ben K. (@benyankee) January 27, 2020
He loved watching him score all those touchdowns for the Yankees — PA for Yang🧢 (@PAforYang2) January 27, 2020
Buttigieg also responded to Bryant's death on Twitter, noting the former player's "magnificence on the basketball court."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--'Didn't answer the second part of my question': Buttigieg grilled by anti-abortion Democrat

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg faced sharp questioning at a Fox News town hall from an anti-abortion Democrat about his position on the issue and whether he thinks those who oppose abortion have a home in the Democratic Party .
`` I 'm a proud pro-life Democrat .
So , do you want the support of pro-life Democrats ? ''
town hall audience member Kristen Day , president of the Washington , D.C. , organization Democrats for Life , asked the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor .
`` And if so , would you support more moderate platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody ? ''
`` I 'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you .
I am pro-choice , and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision , '' Buttigieg , 38 , responded .
`` But I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly .
And the best that I can offer — and it may win your vote , and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I can offer is that , if we ca n't agree on where to draw the line , the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line .
And in my view , it 's the woman who is faced with that decision in her own life . ''
Town hall moderator Chris Wallace noted that President Trump on Friday became the first president to speak at the annual anti-abortion March for Life demonstration in Washington , D.C. Wallace turned back to Day and asked if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered her question .
`` I was not because he did n't answer the second part of my question , '' Day said .
`` The Democratic platform contains language that basically says that we do n't belong , we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months ; the government should pay for it .
And there 's nothing that says that people that have a diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party . ''
She noted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was language in the Democratic Party platform that welcomed those with different views on abortion .
`` I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone , '' Buttigieg said .
`` And I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy , there are very few restrictions and later in pregnancy , there are very few exceptions .
And again , the best I can offer is that we may disagree on that very important issue , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on other issues . ''
The woman then said something inaudible not captured by the microphone , and Wallace asked Buttigieg whether anti-abortion Democrats should be asked to look at the party platform as a whole or look for another party .
`` I 've never encountered a politician or frankly another person that I agreed with 100 % of the time , even on very important things , '' Buttigieg said .
`` I can not imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better medically or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any government official .
And that 's just where I am on the issue . ''
Earlier in the town hall , Buttigieg similarly said that while he was trying to woo anti-Trump Republicans into supporting him , he was not trying to `` trick '' anyone .
At a Fox News town hall in May 2019 , Buttigieg indicated that he did not support any restrictions on access to abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy .
When Wallace noted that about 6,000 women per year get abortions in the third trimester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 1 % of cases .
`` If it ’ s that late in your pregnancy , then it ’ s almost by definition , you ’ ve been expecting to carry it to term , '' Buttigieg said in May .
`` And the bottom line is , as horrible as that choice is , that woman , that family may seek spiritual guidance , they may seek medical guidance , but that decision is not going to be made any better , medically or morally , because the government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Just a handful of Democrats in Congress side with the anti-abortion platform , and abortion rights advocates have called for loosening all restrictions on abortion .
In 2016 the Democratic platform on the issue shifted from calling for abortions to be `` safe , legal , and rare '' to just `` safe and legal . ''
The Fox News town hall comes just a week before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses .
The RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls finds Buttigieg behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg faced sharp questioning at a Fox News town hall from an anti-abortion Democrat about his position on the issue and whether he thinks those who oppose abortion have a home in the Democratic Party.
"I'm a proud pro-life Democrat. So, do you want the support of pro-life Democrats?" town hall audience member Kristen Day, president of the Washington, D.C., organization Democrats for Life, asked the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor. "And if so, would you support more moderate platform language in the Democratic Party to ensure the party of diversity and inclusion really does include everybody?"
"I'm not going to try to earn your vote by tricking you. I am pro-choice, and I believe that a woman ought to be able to make that decision," Buttigieg, 38, responded. "But I know that the difference of opinion that you and I have is one that we have come by honestly. And the best that I can offer — and it may win your vote, and if not, I understand. The best that I can offer is that, if we can't agree on where to draw the line, the next best thing we can do is agree on who should draw the line. And in my view, it's the woman who is faced with that decision in her own life."
Town hall moderator Chris Wallace noted that President Trump on Friday became the first president to speak at the annual anti-abortion March for Life demonstration in Washington, D.C. Wallace turned back to Day and asked if she was satisfied with the way Buttigieg answered her question.
"I was not because he didn't answer the second part of my question," Day said. "The Democratic platform contains language that basically says that we don't belong, we have no part in the party because it says abortion should be legal up to nine months; the government should pay for it. And there's nothing that says that people that have a diversity of views on this issue should be included in the party."
She noted that in 1996 and other years, there was language in the Democratic Party platform that welcomed those with different views on abortion.
"I support the position of my party that this kind of medical care needs to be available to everyone," Buttigieg said. "And I support the Roe v. Wade framework that holds that early in pregnancy, there are very few restrictions and later in pregnancy, there are very few exceptions. And again, the best I can offer is that we may disagree on that very important issue, and hopefully we'll be able to partner on other issues."
The woman then said something inaudible not captured by the microphone, and Wallace asked Buttigieg whether anti-abortion Democrats should be asked to look at the party platform as a whole or look for another party.
"I've never encountered a politician or frankly another person that I agreed with 100% of the time, even on very important things," Buttigieg said. "I cannot imagine that a decision that a woman confronts is going to ever be better medically or morally because it's being dictated by any government official. And that's just where I am on the issue."
Earlier in the town hall, Buttigieg similarly said that while he was trying to woo anti-Trump Republicans into supporting him, he was not trying to "trick" anyone.
At a Fox News town hall in May 2019, Buttigieg indicated that he did not support any restrictions on access to abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy. When Wallace noted that about 6,000 women per year get abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, Buttigieg responded that represents less than 1% of cases.
"If it’s that late in your pregnancy, then it’s almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term," Buttigieg said in May. "And the bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Just a handful of Democrats in Congress side with the anti-abortion platform, and abortion rights advocates have called for loosening all restrictions on abortion. In 2016, the Democratic platform on the issue shifted from calling for abortions to be "safe, legal, and rare" to just "safe and legal."
The Fox News town hall comes just a week before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses. The RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls finds Buttigieg behind former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 19.3% support.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--Buttigieg on plan to win over Republicans: 'I’m not trying to trick anybody'

2020 Democrat Pete Buttigieg assured attendees and viewers of a Fox News town hall that he is not trying to trick Republicans into supporting him even though he aims to woo them .
`` I 'm meeting a lot of what I like to call 'future former Republicans ' who are coming to my events .
I 'm not pretending we are going to agree on everything ; I 'm not trying to trick anybody , '' the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor said on Sunday .
`` But my message is that we can at least agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're having trouble looking your kids in the eye and explaining this presidency to them , that you have a choice . ''
With one week until the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses , Buttigieg , 38 , aims to gain support from voters who cast their ballots for President Trump in 2016 .
Part of his reasoning is that he is from the Midwest , an area that Democrats need to win in 2020 to secure the White House .
Buttigieg said he was effectively demonstrating his strategy by appearing on Fox News , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , have actively avoided .
`` We are doing it right now .
This network is known for having a lot of more conservative viewers .
But I do n't think that you have to be a Democrat to see what is wrong with this president and this presidency , '' Buttigieg said .
He continued : `` If there 's an American majority that can agree on what we 're against , there is an even bigger majority that agrees on what we are for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that most Americans , even in conservative states , think we ought to do : raising wages , making sure that corporations pay their fair share in taxes , delivering paid family leave , doing something about gun violence .
You know , more than 80 % of Republicans think we ought at least to be doing universal background checks . ''
Buttigieg is in third place in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls with 17.8 % support , while former Vice President Joe Biden holds 21 % support and Vermont Sen. Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe a strong showing in Iowa is critical for Buttigieg 's path to winning the Democratic presidential nomination .

2020 Democrat Pete Buttigieg assured attendees and viewers of a Fox News town hall that he is not trying to trick Republicans into supporting him even though he aims to woo them.
"I'm meeting a lot of what I like to call 'future former Republicans' who are coming to my events. I'm not pretending we are going to agree on everything; I'm not trying to trick anybody," the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor said on Sunday. "But my message is that we can at least agree on this: That, if you're having trouble looking your kids in the eye and explaining this presidency to them, that you have a choice."
With one week until the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, Buttigieg, 38, aims to gain support from voters who cast their ballots for President Trump in 2016. Part of his reasoning is that he is from the Midwest, an area that Democrats need to win in 2020 to secure the White House.
Buttigieg said he was effectively demonstrating his strategy by appearing on Fox News, a network that many Democratic presidential candidates, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have actively avoided.
"We are doing it right now. This network is known for having a lot of more conservative viewers. But I don't think that you have to be a Democrat to see what is wrong with this president and this presidency," Buttigieg said.
He continued: "If there's an American majority that can agree on what we're against, there is an even bigger majority that agrees on what we are for. Remember, I'm proposing things that most Americans, even in conservative states, think we ought to do: raising wages, making sure that corporations pay their fair share in taxes, delivering paid family leave, doing something about gun violence. You know, more than 80% of Republicans think we ought at least to be doing universal background checks."
Buttigieg is in third place in the RealClearPolitics average of Iowa polls with 17.8% support, while former Vice President Joe Biden holds 21% support and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has 20.6%. Many analysts believe a strong showing in Iowa is critical for Buttigieg's path to winning the Democratic presidential nomination.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--KSM vs. CIA: 9/11 mastermind’s lawyers will grill the man who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

GUANTANAMO BAY , Cuba — The lawyers for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks today will question the psychologist who designed the CIA ’ s enhanced interrogation program and who waterboarded their client .
The defense team for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , 55 , dubbed “ KSM '' and described as “ the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks ” in the 9/11 Commission Report , will grill Dr. James Mitchell , a former Air Force survival school psychologist who helped design coercive interrogation methods for the CIA .
Mitchell , who testified last week in the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mohammed in five different waterboarding sessions in 2003 at CIA black sites believed to be in Afghanistan and Poland .
The sessions included at least 183 applications of the simulated drowning technique .
“ I ’ ll be ready , ” Mohammed ’ s lawyer , David Nevin , told the judge last Friday , predicting a day or so of questioning .
“ Clearly , I ’ m going to explore some things with the witness that haven ’ t been explored.
” “ Yes , that ’ s what I expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Col. W. Shane Cohen , who took over the case from a previous judge last summer .
“ Obviously , he had significant interaction under EIT 's with your client.
” Cohen is the third judge since 2012 to preside over the proceedings During last week ’ s testimony , and in his 2016 book titled Enhanced Interrogation , Mitchell defended his actions as being part of his patriotic duty to stop further attacks in the wake of the 9/11 al Qaeda hijackings .
The attacks left 3,000 people dead at the World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a field near Shanksville , Pennsylvania .
“ I ’ d get up and do it again , ” Mitchell said .
Mohammed looks much different than he did in the post-capture scowling picture of him in 2003 when he was overweight , mustached , and disheveled in a stretched T-shirt .
He showed up to court last week in traditional Pakistani clothing with a white tunic and turban , wearing a dyed-red beard and a camouflage hunting jacket .
He seemed to pay close attention to Mitchell ’ s testimony .
Mitchell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interrogations , known in court as “ NX2 , '' accusing him of mistreating a number of different detainees and claiming Mohammed outsmarted him .
“ He could lure the man I referred to as 'New Sheriff ' into a battle of wills , ” Mitchell testified , adding that “ it set the interrogation back.
” Mitchell said he , Dr. Bruce Jessen , and a third yet-unknown man he dubbed “ The Preacher , ” waterboarded Mohammed while guards kept a watchful eye , and a physician used a hand-held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pours , and others used a stopwatch to time them .
The sessions were timed in order to make sure they were safe and complied with legal guidelines .
Mitchell , who derived his methods from the U.S. military ’ s Survival , Evasion , Resistance , and Escape program , contended the waterboarding elicited information from Mohammed .
“ He would say to me , ‘ My religion prohibits me from answering any question that you do not directly ask me , but since I know you will eventually get the answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ okay for me to answer it ’ … And he would tell me the better question , and I would ask him the question , and he would give me a better answer , ” Mitchell claimed .
In one specific instance , after a female subject matter expert had finished questioning Mohammed , Mitchell says , “ He said ‘ go get the lady who gets the notes ’ — he ’ s a chauvinist , because she ’ s actually an expert — and that ’ s when he told us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew , Daniel Pearl , in the city of Karachi , Pakistan , ” Mohammed said , confessing in 2007 before a now-defunct military tribunal to murdering the Wall Street Journal reporter .
Mitchell testified that “ when KSM mentioned his interactions with Daniel Pearl , we were pressing him about WMD .
My impression from that is he did that to distract us from WMD … The shift was to protect that information rather than protecting himself.
” Mohammed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founder Osama bin Laden , is being tried in a death penalty case alongside four co-defendants .
These include his nephew , Ammar al Baluchi ; alleged 9/11 hijacking trainer Walid bin Attash ; 9/11 facilitator Ramzi bin al Shibh ; and al Qaeda money man Mustafa al Hawsawi .
The defense teams have sought to paint the CIA ’ s interrogation program as synonymous with torture , and claim that the confessions obtained through “ clean ” interrogations conducted by the FBI after the detainees were transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admissions to the FBI were thrown out by one previous judge and reinstated by another .
Judge Cohen will issue a ruling on this before the trial begins in January 2021 .
Prosecutor Jeffrey Groharing previously argued the confessions were “ some of the most critical evidence in this case.
” “ I was responsible for the 9/11 operation , from A to Z , ” Mohammed said in a statement he made more than a decade ago .
“ I was the operational director for Sheikh Osama bin Laden for the organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 9/11 operation.
” Mohammed also confessed to planning assassination plots against presidents and a pope and is suspected of participating in other terror attacks .
These include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people , Richard Reid ’ s “ shoe bomber ” 2001 attempt to blow up an airliner , and the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia that killed 202 people .
Nevin previously defended Kevin Harris , who was acquitted in the 1992 Ruby Ridge murder of deputy U.S .
Marshal William Francis Degan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omar al Hussayen , who was acquitted in 2004 on charges of supporting terrorism .
Nevin spent years as the lead counsel for Mohammed until last year when the position was filled by Gary Sowards , most famous for representing `` Unabomber '' Ted Kaczynski , whose domestic bombing campaign killed three people .
Others on the defense team are Lt. Col. Derek Poteet , ACLU staff lawyer Denny LeBoeuf , and human rights lawyer Rita Radostitz .
The female lawyers and paralegals typically wear head coverings to accommodate their client ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid by the Pentagon ’ s Convening Authority of the Military Commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2009 .

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — The lawyers for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks today will question the psychologist who designed the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program and who waterboarded their client.
The defense team for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 55, dubbed “KSM" and described as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks” in the 9/11 Commission Report, will grill Dr. James Mitchell, a former Air Force survival school psychologist who helped design coercive interrogation methods for the CIA.
Mitchell, who testified last week in the military courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, personally waterboarded Mohammed in five different waterboarding sessions in 2003 at CIA black sites believed to be in Afghanistan and Poland. The sessions included at least 183 applications of the simulated drowning technique.
“I’ll be ready,” Mohammed’s lawyer, David Nevin, told the judge last Friday, predicting a day or so of questioning. “Clearly, I’m going to explore some things with the witness that haven’t been explored.”
“Yes, that’s what I expected,” replied the presiding judge, Col. W. Shane Cohen, who took over the case from a previous judge last summer. “Obviously, he had significant interaction under EIT's with your client.” Cohen is the third judge since 2012 to preside over the proceedings
During last week’s testimony, and in his 2016 book titled Enhanced Interrogation, Mitchell defended his actions as being part of his patriotic duty to stop further attacks in the wake of the 9/11 al Qaeda hijackings. The attacks left 3,000 people dead at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
“I’d get up and do it again,” Mitchell said.
Mohammed looks much different than he did in the post-capture scowling picture of him in 2003 when he was overweight, mustached, and disheveled in a stretched T-shirt. He showed up to court last week in traditional Pakistani clothing with a white tunic and turban, wearing a dyed-red beard and a camouflage hunting jacket. He seemed to pay close attention to Mitchell’s testimony.
Mitchell repeatedly criticized the CIA’s chief of interrogations, known in court as “NX2," accusing him of mistreating a number of different detainees and claiming Mohammed outsmarted him.
“He could lure the man I referred to as 'New Sheriff' into a battle of wills,” Mitchell testified, adding that “it set the interrogation back.”
Mitchell said he, Dr. Bruce Jessen, and a third yet-unknown man he dubbed “The Preacher,” waterboarded Mohammed while guards kept a watchful eye, and a physician used a hand-held clicker to count the number of water pours, and others used a stopwatch to time them. The sessions were timed in order to make sure they were safe and complied with legal guidelines. Mitchell, who derived his methods from the U.S. military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program, contended the waterboarding elicited information from Mohammed.
“He would say to me, ‘My religion prohibits me from answering any question that you do not directly ask me, but since I know you will eventually get the answer out of me, it’s okay for me to answer it’ … And he would tell me the better question, and I would ask him the question, and he would give me a better answer,” Mitchell claimed.
In one specific instance, after a female subject matter expert had finished questioning Mohammed, Mitchell says, “He said ‘go get the lady who gets the notes’ — he’s a chauvinist, because she’s actually an expert — and that’s when he told us about beheading and dismembering Daniel Pearl.”
“I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan,” Mohammed said, confessing in 2007 before a now-defunct military tribunal to murdering the Wall Street Journal reporter.
Mitchell testified that “when KSM mentioned his interactions with Daniel Pearl, we were pressing him about WMD. My impression from that is he did that to distract us from WMD … The shift was to protect that information rather than protecting himself.”
Mohammed, a close ally of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, is being tried in a death penalty case alongside four co-defendants. These include his nephew, Ammar al Baluchi; alleged 9/11 hijacking trainer Walid bin Attash; 9/11 facilitator Ramzi bin al Shibh; and al Qaeda money man Mustafa al Hawsawi.
The defense teams have sought to paint the CIA’s interrogation program as synonymous with torture, and claim that the confessions obtained through “clean” interrogations conducted by the FBI after the detainees were transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006 should be tossed.
The defendants' admissions to the FBI were thrown out by one previous judge and reinstated by another. Judge Cohen will issue a ruling on this before the trial begins in January 2021.
Prosecutor Jeffrey Groharing previously argued the confessions were “some of the most critical evidence in this case.”
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” Mohammed said in a statement he made more than a decade ago. “I was the operational director for Sheikh Osama bin Laden for the organizing, planning, follow-up, and execution of the 9/11 operation.”
Mohammed also confessed to planning assassination plots against presidents and a pope and is suspected of participating in other terror attacks. These include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people, Richard Reid’s “shoe bomber” 2001 attempt to blow up an airliner, and the 2002 Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia that killed 202 people.
Nevin previously defended Kevin Harris, who was acquitted in the 1992 Ruby Ridge murder of deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan. He also represented Saudi graduate student Sami Omar al Hussayen, who was acquitted in 2004 on charges of supporting terrorism. Nevin spent years as the lead counsel for Mohammed until last year when the position was filled by Gary Sowards, most famous for representing "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whose domestic bombing campaign killed three people.
Others on the defense team are Lt. Col. Derek Poteet, ACLU staff lawyer Denny LeBoeuf, and human rights lawyer Rita Radostitz. The female lawyers and paralegals typically wear head coverings to accommodate their client’s religious beliefs.
The defense team is paid by the Pentagon’s Convening Authority of the Military Commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2009.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--'Approved by the CIA': Gitmo testimony sheds light on $81 million contract for black site interrogat

'Approved by the CIA': Gitmo testimony sheds light on $81 million contract for black site interrogations

GUANTANAMO BAY , Cuba — Testimony at Guantanamo Bay ’ s war court by the architect of the CIA ’ s enhanced interrogation program shed light on what the government paid his company more than $ 80 million to do .
Speaking under oath in open court for the first time last week , former Air Force psychologist Dr. James Mitchell was pressed by defense lawyers representing alleged plotters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks about his major role in assisting the CIA ’ s rendition , detention , and interrogation program .
The program involved at least 119 detainees held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks of Sept. 11 , 2001 .
Mitchell was hired in April 2002 as a short-term contractor to consult on the overseas interrogation of captured al Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaydah , but by June of that year , the CIA asked him to help design and take part in the interrogation program .
He and his business partner , Dr. Bruce Jessen , became two of the CIA ’ s three official waterboarders .
Mitchell was paid more than $ 1.4 million and Jessen over $ 1.2 million from 2002 through 2005 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoted included walling , stress positions , sleep deprivation , and more .
Mitchell , 68 , insisted that these techniques , stemming from the military ’ s Survival , Evasion , Resistance , and Escape program , were approved by the president , buttressed by Justice Department legal memos , and given the green light by the CIA .
Critics labeled them torture .
In 2002 and 2003 , Mitchell waterboarded Zubaydah as well as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al Nashiri , the alleged plotter of the USS Cole bombing that killed 17 U.S. sailors in October 2000 .
“ The last enhanced interrogation I was involved in was in the summer of 2003 , ” the psychologist said .
Throughout his testimony , Mitchell condemned the mistreatment of detainees by other CIA officers who he said were acting outside his recommended interrogation guidelines .
Mitchell testified about work he did at a black site in Guantanamo Bay , where he “ got requirements from '' the 9/11 Commission , whose members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9/11.
” The psychologist said FBI agents were at the black site doing a similar job .
Mitchell described getting intelligence requests from the 9/11 Commission at a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at the U.S. naval base and insisted his role at the time was that of a debriefer and no longer an interrogator .
The roles played by Mitchell and Jessen only grew from there .
The duo formed a Spokane , Washington-based consulting firm , Mitchell , Jessen , and Associates , in 2005 .
Between then and 2009 , their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a possible $ 180 million contract as they assisted the CIA ’ s rendition and detention group .
The agency also gave Mitchell and Jessen an indemnification agreement protecting them from legal liability .
As of 2014 , the government had paid out $ 1 million — with an additional , undisclosed settlement paid in 2017 to representatives for three former detainees through an ACLU lawsuit .
Mitchell claimed that the company “ existed prior to them coming up with the contract.
” He said that it was “ originally formed because [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued medical education for war fighters ” and that it wasn ’ t created to conduct interrogations .
“ I was told that it was an open bid contract and that our proposal would be considered with other proposals , ” Mitchell testified about the payment .
“ Later , I was told it was a sole source contract.
” “ It was revenue , not profit , ” Mitchell said of the $ 81 million , claiming the vast majority of the funds went to pay for his more than 100 employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were former CIA officers , he said .
“ The CIA would tell us what the qualifications had to be , and the qualifications were that you had to have worked the job before.
” Mitchell said his company ’ s year-to-year contract with the government was dropped after President Barack Obama ’ s election .
“ They were being pressured by the White House and the Senate , and for the convenience of the government , they said that they were going to cancel our contract , ” he said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been told it had been renewed.
” The CIA ’ s chief of medical services wrote in 2007 that the use of the waterboard against Zubaydah and Mohammed was “ little more than an amateurish experiment , with no reason at the outset to believe it would be either safe or effective.
” The Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2014 that enhanced interrogations were “ not an effective means of acquiring intelligence.
” Republicans and former CIA directors pushed back .
`` We have no doubt that the CIA 's detention program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in weakening al Qaeda while the program was in operation , '' Republican committee members wrote in response .
The CIA acknowledged “ mistakes ” but insisted the program “ helped thwart attack plans , ” crediting it with producing important information that could not be obtained through other means .
Obama banned the use of the techniques with a 2009 executive order , and a 2015 law further limited interrogation methods .

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — Testimony at Guantanamo Bay’s war court by the architect of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program shed light on what the government paid his company more than $80 million to do.
Speaking under oath in open court for the first time last week, former Air Force psychologist Dr. James Mitchell was pressed by defense lawyers representing alleged plotters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks about his major role in assisting the CIA’s rendition, detention, and interrogation program. The program involved at least 119 detainees held in agency black sites following the deadly attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Mitchell was hired in April 2002 as a short-term contractor to consult on the overseas interrogation of captured al Qaeda facilitator Abu Zubaydah, but by June of that year, the CIA asked him to help design and take part in the interrogation program. He and his business partner, Dr. Bruce Jessen, became two of the CIA’s three official waterboarders. Mitchell was paid more than $1.4 million and Jessen over $1.2 million from 2002 through 2005. The “physical coercion” techniques they promoted included walling, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and more.
Mitchell, 68, insisted that these techniques, stemming from the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program, were approved by the president, buttressed by Justice Department legal memos, and given the green light by the CIA. Critics labeled them torture.
In 2002 and 2003, Mitchell waterboarded Zubaydah as well as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. He also waterboarded Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, the alleged plotter of the USS Cole bombing that killed 17 U.S. sailors in October 2000.
“The last enhanced interrogation I was involved in was in the summer of 2003,” the psychologist said.
Throughout his testimony, Mitchell condemned the mistreatment of detainees by other CIA officers who he said were acting outside his recommended interrogation guidelines.
Mitchell testified about work he did at a black site in Guantanamo Bay, where he “got requirements from" the 9/11 Commission, whose members were “interested in the details behind 9/11.” The psychologist said FBI agents were at the black site doing a similar job.
Mitchell described getting intelligence requests from the 9/11 Commission at a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility at the U.S. naval base and insisted his role at the time was that of a debriefer and no longer an interrogator.
The roles played by Mitchell and Jessen only grew from there.
The duo formed a Spokane, Washington-based consulting firm, Mitchell, Jessen, and Associates, in 2005. Between then and 2009, their company received $81 million out of a possible $180 million contract as they assisted the CIA’s rendition and detention group. The agency also gave Mitchell and Jessen an indemnification agreement protecting them from legal liability. As of 2014, the government had paid out $1 million — with an additional, undisclosed settlement paid in 2017 to representatives for three former detainees through an ACLU lawsuit.
Mitchell claimed that the company “existed prior to them coming up with the contract.” He said that it was “originally formed because [he] wanted to continue to provide continued medical education for war fighters” and that it wasn’t created to conduct interrogations.
“I was told that it was an open bid contract and that our proposal would be considered with other proposals,” Mitchell testified about the payment. “Later, I was told it was a sole source contract.”
“It was revenue, not profit,” Mitchell said of the $81 million, claiming the vast majority of the funds went to pay for his more than 100 employees. All of his company's interrogators were former CIA officers, he said. “The CIA would tell us what the qualifications had to be, and the qualifications were that you had to have worked the job before.”
Mitchell said his company’s year-to-year contract with the government was dropped after President Barack Obama’s election.
“They were being pressured by the White House and the Senate, and for the convenience of the government, they said that they were going to cancel our contract,” he said. “It was canceled after we’d been told it had been renewed.”
The CIA’s chief of medical services wrote in 2007 that the use of the waterboard against Zubaydah and Mohammed was “little more than an amateurish experiment, with no reason at the outset to believe it would be either safe or effective.”
The Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in 2014 that enhanced interrogations were “not an effective means of acquiring intelligence.”
Republicans and former CIA directors pushed back. "We have no doubt that the CIA's detention program saved lives and played a vital role in weakening al Qaeda while the program was in operation," Republican committee members wrote in response.
The CIA acknowledged “mistakes” but insisted the program “helped thwart attack plans,” crediting it with producing important information that could not be obtained through other means.
Obama banned the use of the techniques with a 2009 executive order, and a 2015 law further limited interrogation methods.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--The worst political fashion at the Grammys

As the music industry united in memory of Kobe Bryant , the Grammy Awards opened on Sunday evening with little political commentary .
For a few attendees , though , it was too late to change , and they had already decided to make the event political — without even speaking .
Singer Joy Villa rolled up to the red carpet in another one of her Trump gowns , this time proclaiming with the back of her dress : “ impeached and re-elected.
” “ He ’ s going to be the first president in history to be impeached and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I just told Ivanka and the White House that I ’ m going to wear something to be supportive .
I don ’ t let anyone know the message beforehand.
” Of course , the outfit wouldn ’ t have been complete without a GOP elephant handbag and Betsy Ross flag shoes .
Ricky Rebel , who made headlines for wearing a `` Keep America Great '' jacket last year , showed up to the Grammys wearing ... not much .
Known for being both pro-Trump and outspoken on gay and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a statement against impeachment , but instead of plastering it across his back , he put it right on his rear end .
That ’ s right , Rebel spelled out “ IMPEACH THIS ” on his bare butt cheeks .
Classy .
Megan Pormer , Arab Fashion Council 's ambassador , opted for a more subtle political statement .
Her sparkling red dress read , “ NO WAR — IRAN , ” and she bore an American flag on her left sleeve , with an Iranian flag on her right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apolitical this year , it ’ s not hard to choose the night ’ s biggest loser .
Worst political statement of the night goes to Ricky Rebel — and his bare butt .

As the music industry united in memory of Kobe Bryant, the Grammy Awards opened on Sunday evening with little political commentary.
For a few attendees, though, it was too late to change, and they had already decided to make the event political — without even speaking.
Singer Joy Villa rolled up to the red carpet in another one of her Trump gowns , this time proclaiming with the back of her dress: “impeached and re-elected.”
“He’s going to be the first president in history to be impeached and reelected,” she said of President Trump. “I just told Ivanka and the White House that I’m going to wear something to be supportive. I don’t let anyone know the message beforehand.”
Of course, the outfit wouldn’t have been complete without a GOP elephant handbag and Betsy Ross flag shoes.
Ricky Rebel, who made headlines for wearing a "Keep America Great" jacket last year, showed up to the Grammys wearing ... not much. Known for being both pro-Trump and outspoken on gay and transgender issues, the singer also chose to make a statement against impeachment, but instead of plastering it across his back, he put it right on his rear end.
That’s right, Rebel spelled out “IMPEACH THIS” on his bare butt cheeks. Classy.
Megan Pormer, Arab Fashion Council's ambassador, opted for a more subtle political statement. Her sparkling red dress read, “NO WAR — IRAN,” and she bore an American flag on her left sleeve, with an Iranian flag on her right.
Megan Pormer makes a beautiful statement on the #GRAMMYs red carpet. pic.twitter.com/nQCtnuwNHo — The Pop Hub (@ThePopHub) January 26, 2020
With the Grammys keeping it fairly apolitical this year, it’s not hard to choose the night’s biggest loser. Worst political statement of the night goes to Ricky Rebel — and his bare butt.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--‘Dangerous precedent’: John Bolton’s former chief of staff calls on him to withdraw book

John Bolton ’ s former chief of staff urged him to reconsider releasing his forthcoming tell-all book about his experience as President Trump ’ s national security adviser , calling it a “ dangerous precedent ” that could dissuade future presidents from seeking advice on national security matters .
“ Given the importance of protecting a president ’ s confidential discussions with his senior advisers , I strongly disagree with Bolton ’ s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately , ” Fred Fleitz wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .
“ Presidents must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them .
A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president ’ s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters , ” he argued .
The book , The Room Where it Happened , is set to be published on March 17 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the book , alleging that Trump conditioned aid to Ukraine on the country investigating Joe Biden , the former vice president and a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination .
The revelation undermines the Trump defense team 's claim that the freeze on security assistance to Ukraine was separate from the president pressing Kyiv to announce investigations into his political rival .
Fleitz , who was Bolton ’ s chief of staff at the State Department from 2001 to 2005 and again at the National Security Council in 2018 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inexplicable ” misstep in sending the manuscript to the National Security Council to review during Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
“ Under such circumstances , a leak of the manuscript was all but certain , ” he wrote , referring to the New York Times report on the matter .
Fleitz continued : “ If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all , this should happen after the election , not in the spring of 2020 .
I don ’ t understand the need for a former National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical of a president he served , especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country .
There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election.
” [ Read more : ‘ Only to sell a book ’ : Trump denies Bolton claim that Ukraine aid was tied to Biden investigation ]

John Bolton’s former chief of staff urged him to reconsider releasing his forthcoming tell-all book about his experience as President Trump’s national security adviser, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that could dissuade future presidents from seeking advice on national security matters.
“Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers, I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately,” Fred Fleitz wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News on Monday.
“Presidents must be able to candidly consult with their advisers without worrying they will leak these discussions to the press or obtain high-dollar book contracts to publish them. A book by a former national security adviser ahead of a president’s reelection bid may set a dangerous precedent since it could discourage future presidents from seeking advice from expert advisers on sensitive national security matters,” he argued.
The book, The Room Where it Happened, is set to be published on March 17.
Bolton made at least one bombshell claim in the book, alleging that Trump conditioned aid to Ukraine on the country investigating Joe Biden, the former vice president and a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. The revelation undermines the Trump defense team's claim that the freeze on security assistance to Ukraine was separate from the president pressing Kyiv to announce investigations into his political rival.
Fleitz, who was Bolton’s chief of staff at the State Department from 2001 to 2005 and again at the National Security Council in 2018, said his former boss made an “inexplicable” misstep in sending the manuscript to the National Security Council to review during Trump’s impeachment trial.
“Under such circumstances, a leak of the manuscript was all but certain,” he wrote, referring to the New York Times report on the matter.
Fleitz continued: “If a manuscript of this sensitivity was to be published at all, this should happen after the election, not in the spring of 2020. I don’t understand the need for a former National Security Adviser to publish a tell-all book critical of a president he served, especially during a presidential reelection campaign that will determine the fate of the country. There will be a time for Bolton to speak out without appearing to try to tip a presidential election.”
[Read more: ‘Only to sell a book’: Trump denies Bolton claim that Ukraine aid was tied to Biden investigation]


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-27--White House says no one outside National Security Council saw Bolton book amid complaints GOP 'blind

White House says no one outside National Security Council saw Bolton book amid complaints GOP 'blindsided'

Nobody outside the National Security Council had access to an explosive manuscript of John Bolton ’ s upcoming book that claims President Trump linked aid to Ukraine with a demand that the country investigate Joe Biden , according to a spokesman .
A source familiar with details of the vetting process said the White House has had the manuscript for a month .
The revelations in the text undermine a key defense of Trump in his impeachment trial and prompted Democrats to demand that the former national security adviser appear as a witness .
Four Republicans would have to break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses .
GOP leadership sources said last week they were confident they could head off the Democrats ’ demand for testimony .
“ That ’ s harder this morning , ” said one .
“ Everyone feels blindsided.
” But a spokesman for the NSC said the manuscript had not been circulated more widely around the White House .
“ Ambassador Bolton ’ s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for prepublication review and has been under initial review by the NSC , ” he said .
“ No White House personnel outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s book , The Room Where It Happened : A White House Memoir , is due to be published on March 17 .
Its key claims were first reported by the New York Times and confirmed to the Washington Examiner by a source familiar with the text .
Since the manuscript 's release , Democrats have stepped up their calls for Bolton to appear .
`` Americans know that a fair trial must include both the documents and witnesses blocked by the president .
That starts with Mr. Bolton , '' the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Nobody outside the National Security Council had access to an explosive manuscript of John Bolton’s upcoming book that claims President Trump linked aid to Ukraine with a demand that the country investigate Joe Biden, according to a spokesman.
A source familiar with details of the vetting process said the White House has had the manuscript for a month.
The revelations in the text undermine a key defense of Trump in his impeachment trial and prompted Democrats to demand that the former national security adviser appear as a witness.
Four Republicans would have to break ranks and vote with Democrats to call witnesses. GOP leadership sources said last week they were confident they could head off the Democrats’ demand for testimony.
“That’s harder this morning,” said one. “Everyone feels blindsided.”
But a spokesman for the NSC said the manuscript had not been circulated more widely around the White House.
“Ambassador Bolton’s manuscript was submitted to the NSC for prepublication review and has been under initial review by the NSC,” he said. “No White House personnel outside NSC have reviewed the manuscript.”
I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2020
Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, is due to be published on March 17. Its key claims were first reported by the New York Times and confirmed to the Washington Examiner by a source familiar with the text.
Since the manuscript's release, Democrats have stepped up their calls for Bolton to appear.
"Americans know that a fair trial must include both the documents and witnesses blocked by the president. That starts with Mr. Bolton," the House impeachment managers said in a statement.