thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Stephanie Grisham: No need for White House briefings when I speak to nearly 100 reporters a day

The White House daily press briefing will not be returning anytime soon , according to Donald Trump ’ s press secretary , who claims she speaks to almost 100 reporters each day .
Stephanie Grisham has been criticized by journalists for maintaining an almost invisible presence more than 300 days after her predecessor gave the last briefing .
Last week , 13 former press secretaries and officials demanded the return of the briefings as “ critical for the governing of our great country . ''
But Grisham ’ s response echoes frequent claims by administration officials that the president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predecessors , even if they use unconventional means , from Twitter posts to impromptu Q & A sessions .
“ If the time calls for it , I ’ d be absolutely fine doing a press briefing , but , as I ’ ve said over and over again , I talk to the media every day , ” Grisham told Fox News .
“ In a press briefing , I would call on one reporter from one outlet and they would maybe get one follow-up question .
During my day , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters from every single outlet … and print and radio and online .
I talk to — I wouldn ’ t say hundreds — but nearly a hundred reporters a day.
” She also said reporters abused the televised briefing by `` grandstanding '' or trying to `` peddle their books . ''
The last White House daily briefing was on March 11 last year , with Sarah Sanders at the lectern .
Grisham appears frequently on Fox News — 27 times since August , according to one tally maintained by the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House by appearing in studios rather than walking to and from TV live-shot positions along the north lawn .
However , deputy Hogan Gidley , counselor Kellyanne Conway , and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow frequently stop by on the driveway for informal “ gaggles ” when reporters ask questions .
Then there are the lengthy interactions when Trump speaks to journalists on the south lawn before boarding Marine One or the impromptu press conferences held during White House meetings .
Journalists who cover the White House say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the number of times the president appears before the media .
But Martha Kumar , a political scientist who has studied the relationship between the press and the presidency for decades , said briefings are a better way of diving deep into administration policy .
“ The daily press briefing is an important communication device for the administration to coordinate among its agencies and departments so everyone knows what the administration is thinking on a variety of issues , not just what is on the president ’ s mind , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served an important purpose for the White House itself .
“ The briefing is an early warning system for the administration so the White House gets a sense of what trouble is ahead without the president having to respond to it before they have tried handling it .
”

The White House daily press briefing will not be returning anytime soon, according to Donald Trump’s press secretary, who claims she speaks to almost 100 reporters each day.
Stephanie Grisham has been criticized by journalists for maintaining an almost invisible presence more than 300 days after her predecessor gave the last briefing.
Last week, 13 former press secretaries and officials demanded the return of the briefings as “critical for the governing of our great country."
But Grisham’s response echoes frequent claims by administration officials that the president and his team are more accessible than their predecessors, even if they use unconventional means, from Twitter posts to impromptu Q&A sessions.
“If the time calls for it, I’d be absolutely fine doing a press briefing, but, as I’ve said over and over again, I talk to the media every day,” Grisham told Fox News.
“In a press briefing, I would call on one reporter from one outlet and they would maybe get one follow-up question. During my day, I talk to five, six, seven reporters from every single outlet … and print and radio and online. I talk to — I wouldn’t say hundreds — but nearly a hundred reporters a day.”
She also said reporters abused the televised briefing by "grandstanding" or trying to "peddle their books."
The last White House daily briefing was on March 11 last year, with Sarah Sanders at the lectern.
Grisham appears frequently on Fox News — 27 times since August, according to one tally maintained by the Washington Post — but avoids other journalists at the White House by appearing in studios rather than walking to and from TV live-shot positions along the north lawn.
However, deputy Hogan Gidley, counselor Kellyanne Conway, and Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow frequently stop by on the driveway for informal “gaggles” when reporters ask questions.
Then there are the lengthy interactions when Trump speaks to journalists on the south lawn before boarding Marine One or the impromptu press conferences held during White House meetings.
Journalists who cover the White House say they fear returning to daily briefings would reduce the number of times the president appears before the media. But Martha Kumar, a political scientist who has studied the relationship between the press and the presidency for decades, said briefings are a better way of diving deep into administration policy.
“The daily press briefing is an important communication device for the administration to coordinate among its agencies and departments so everyone knows what the administration is thinking on a variety of issues, not just what is on the president’s mind,” she said.
And she added that it served an important purpose for the White House itself. “The briefing is an early warning system for the administration so the White House gets a sense of what trouble is ahead without the president having to respond to it before they have tried handling it.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Kellyanne Conway scorns Parnas claim that Trump knew about Ukraine moves

The White House dismissed claims by an associate of Rudy Giuliani that President Trump knew of efforts to find damaging information about Joe Biden in Ukraine .
House prosecutors are considering whether to call the associate , Lev Parnas , as a witness in the impeachment trial .
Kellyanne Conway told reporters to be wary of believing someone accused of breaking campaign finance law .
She compared Parnas with other figures who fell from grace after giving anti-Trump interviews , such as Stormy Daniels ’ s former lawyer Michael Avenatti .
“ He ’ s the star of the show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ and ] Avenatti is going to jail , ” she said .
Parnas , 47 , a Ukraine-born American citizen , told MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night , “ President Trump knew exactly what was going on.
” Parnas said he told a senior aide to the then-president-elect of Ukraine that Washington would freeze aid if Kyiv did not announce investigations that would help President Trump politically .
His account followed a release by House Democrats a letter by Giuliani , the president ’ s personal attorney , stating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` knowledge and consent '' a private meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , who would later take a central role in the phone call that sparked a whistleblower complaint .
Parnas ’ s account , coming on the eve of the Senate launching its impeachment trial , was immediately seized on by Trump critics as evidence that Giuliani was doing the president ’ s bidding .
Conway said it was irresponsible to give credence to hearsay evidence from someone facing charges .
“ Nobody on TV like that is under oath .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which you will all shower him with promptly , I ’ m sure , ” she said .
“ He is someone who was arrested and indicted on some serious criminal campaign finance charges .
`` In a court of law , you ’ d never be able to say what someone else knew , ” Conway said .
Parnas and Igor Fruman , a second Giuliani associate , have been charged with making $ 325,000 in illegal donations to a Trump-aligned super PAC .
Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as impeachment prosecutors , said they were considering calling Parnas as a witness if permitted .
`` We are continuing to review his interviews and the materials he has provided to evaluate his potential testimony in the Senate trial , '' he said .

The White House dismissed claims by an associate of Rudy Giuliani that President Trump knew of efforts to find damaging information about Joe Biden in Ukraine.
House prosecutors are considering whether to call the associate, Lev Parnas, as a witness in the impeachment trial.
Kellyanne Conway told reporters to be wary of believing someone accused of breaking campaign finance law. She compared Parnas with other figures who fell from grace after giving anti-Trump interviews, such as Stormy Daniels’s former lawyer Michael Avenatti.
“He’s the star of the show now that Michael Cohen is in jail [and] Avenatti is going to jail,” she said.
Parnas, 47, a Ukraine-born American citizen, told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night, “President Trump knew exactly what was going on.”
[Related: Kevin McCarthy rejects new Parnas evidence: 'Lacks all credibility']
Parnas said he told a senior aide to the then-president-elect of Ukraine that Washington would freeze aid if Kyiv did not announce investigations that would help President Trump politically.
His account followed a release by House Democrats a letter by Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, stating that he was requesting with Trump’s "knowledge and consent" a private meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who would later take a central role in the phone call that sparked a whistleblower complaint.
Parnas’s account, coming on the eve of the Senate launching its impeachment trial, was immediately seized on by Trump critics as evidence that Giuliani was doing the president’s bidding.
Conway said it was irresponsible to give credence to hearsay evidence from someone facing charges. “Nobody on TV like that is under oath. He obviously is desperate to get attention, which you will all shower him with promptly, I’m sure,” she said. “He is someone who was arrested and indicted on some serious criminal campaign finance charges.
"In a court of law, you’d never be able to say what someone else knew,” Conway said.
Parnas and Igor Fruman, a second Giuliani associate, have been charged with making $325,000 in illegal donations to a Trump-aligned super PAC.
Democratic California Rep. Adam Schiff, who heads the House team that will act as impeachment prosecutors, said they were considering calling Parnas as a witness if permitted. "We are continuing to review his interviews and the materials he has provided to evaluate his potential testimony in the Senate trial," he said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--White House believes impeachment trial will go no longer than two weeks

The White House legal team is preparing for a rapid impeachment trial that acquits President Trump in a matter of days without calling witnesses .
At times , Trump and senior aides have discussed a longer trial with witnesses that they believe would produce a definitive not-guilty verdict .
At other times , they have put their weight behind a swift dismissal that would kick out the charges before either side laid out their case .
Now , as the Senate prepares to host Trump ’ s impeachment trial , a senior administration official said the lack of prosecution evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than two weeks — making it the shortest impeachment trial in history .
“ I would say I think it 's extraordinarily unlikely that we 'd be going beyond two weeks , ” he said .
“ We think that this case is overwhelming for the president , and the Senate is not going to have any need to be taking that amount of time on this.
” Trump is the third president to be impeached .
President Bill Clinton ’ s 1999 trial lasted a month while President Andrew Johnson ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The White House has yet to announce its defense team , but it is expected to be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone .
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said it did not matter if the trial was short or long but that it was “ full and fair.
” “ What he wants is what he ’ s going to get , which is to be acquitted and exonerated and not convicted , not removed from office , and reelected , ” she said .

The White House legal team is preparing for a rapid impeachment trial that acquits President Trump in a matter of days without calling witnesses.
At times, Trump and senior aides have discussed a longer trial with witnesses that they believe would produce a definitive not-guilty verdict. At other times, they have put their weight behind a swift dismissal that would kick out the charges before either side laid out their case.
Now, as the Senate prepares to host Trump’s impeachment trial, a senior administration official said the lack of prosecution evidence meant the case would last no more than two weeks — making it the shortest impeachment trial in history.
“I would say I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that we'd be going beyond two weeks,” he said. “We think that this case is overwhelming for the president, and the Senate is not going to have any need to be taking that amount of time on this.”
Trump is the third president to be impeached. President Bill Clinton’s 1999 trial lasted a month while President Andrew Johnson’s trial in 1868 took 11 weeks.
The White House has yet to announce its defense team, but it is expected to be led by White House counsel Pat Cipollone.
White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said it did not matter if the trial was short or long but that it was “full and fair.”
“What he wants is what he’s going to get, which is to be acquitted and exonerated and not convicted, not removed from office, and reelected,” she said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--'100% false': DOJ rejects Lev Parnas claim that Barr was part of Ukraine scheme

The Justice Department flatly rejected allegations by Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani , that Attorney General William Barr was `` absolutely '' involved in a Ukraine scheme now at the center of impeachment .
`` 100 % false , '' DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told the Washington Examiner in the same two-word statement which MSNBC host Rachel Maddow , who conducted an interview with Parnas on Wednesday , read live on air .
Parnas , 47 , along with another Giuliani associate , Igor Fruman , was charged over an alleged scheme to funnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats began releasing a trove of texts and documents Tuesday evening related to efforts to remove then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv .
Parnas asserted that his dealings in Ukraine , now the subject of impeachment scrutiny , were done with Trump 's and Giuliani 's knowledge .
`` Today , we interviewed Lev Parnas , '' Maddow 's show told the Justice Department in its request for comment , which was shared by Kupec .
`` He told us Attorney General Barr was basically on the same team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Victoria Toensing , and Joe DiGenova .
He said AG Barr knew , through contact with Rudy Giuliani , about the effort to get the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden .
We welcome any comment you have for us about this . ''
Kupec told the Washington Examiner that there was no truth to Parnas 's claims .
She added that the Justice Department 's position `` has not changed '' since September , when the Ukraine controversy first broke through a whistleblower complaint and when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foray into Ukraine in a lengthy statement .
Barr was reportedly dismayed to discover Trump had grouped him in with Giuliani during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July .
A transcript of the call shows Trump saying Giuliani could help the country investigate Biden .
`` I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call , and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call , and we will get to the bottom of it , '' Trump told Zelensky .
The Justice Department insisted Barr was unaware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president had never told his attorney general to contact Ukraine about any investigation of the former vice president and his son , Hunter Biden .
`` The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son , and the President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter , '' the Justice Department said last year .
`` The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General discussed this matter , or anything relating to Ukraine , with Rudy Giuliani . ''
Parnas insisted Barr `` wanted to get to the bottom of the Biden stuff '' as part of U.S. Attorney John Durham 's investigation into the origins of the Russia inquiry .
Asked if he knew whether Barr spoke with Ukrainian officials , Parnas said he did not recall and would have to check his records .
In September , the Justice Department said the team led by Durham was `` separately exploring the extent to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election , '' adding , `` While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation , certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham , which he is evaluating . ''

The Justice Department flatly rejected allegations by Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, that Attorney General William Barr was "absolutely" involved in a Ukraine scheme now at the center of impeachment.
"100% false," DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told the Washington Examiner in the same two-word statement which MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who conducted an interview with Parnas on Wednesday, read live on air.
Parnas, 47, along with another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, was charged over an alleged scheme to funnel foreign money to Republican politicians. House Democrats began releasing a trove of texts and documents Tuesday evening related to efforts to remove then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv. Parnas asserted that his dealings in Ukraine, now the subject of impeachment scrutiny, were done with Trump's and Giuliani's knowledge.
"Today, we interviewed Lev Parnas," Maddow's show told the Justice Department in its request for comment, which was shared by Kupec. "He told us Attorney General Barr was basically on the same team and best of friends with Rudy Giuliani, Victoria Toensing, and Joe DiGenova. He said AG Barr knew, through contact with Rudy Giuliani, about the effort to get the Ukrainians to announce an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden. We welcome any comment you have for us about this."
Kupec told the Washington Examiner that there was no truth to Parnas's claims. She added that the Justice Department's position "has not changed" since September, when the Ukraine controversy first broke through a whistleblower complaint and when the agency emphatically distanced itself from Giuliani's foray into Ukraine in a lengthy statement.
Barr was reportedly dismayed to discover Trump had grouped him in with Giuliani during a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July. A transcript of the call shows Trump saying Giuliani could help the country investigate Biden. "I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call, and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call, and we will get to the bottom of it," Trump told Zelensky.
The Justice Department insisted Barr was unaware of the call until mid-August and that the president had never told his attorney general to contact Ukraine about any investigation of the former vice president and his son, Hunter Biden.
"The President has not spoken with the Attorney General about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son, and the President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter," the Justice Department said last year. "The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the Attorney General discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani."
Parnas insisted Barr "wanted to get to the bottom of the Biden stuff" as part of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia inquiry. Asked if he knew whether Barr spoke with Ukrainian officials, Parnas said he did not recall and would have to check his records.
In September, the Justice Department said the team led by Durham was "separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election," adding, "While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--‘Former President of The United States’ George W. Bush cuts check to Susan Collins’s reelection fund

George W. Bush sent a maximum contribution to the reelection fund for Sen. Susan Collins .
Bush , 73 , donated $ 5,600 to the Maine Republican 's joint fundraising committee in October , according to FEC filings .
The former president made the donation in October to help Collins gear up for her reelection race in 2020 .
When anyone makes a significant donation to a candidate in the United States , the person must disclose the contribution by including a name , address , and occupation .
Bush caught the attention of many by listing his occupation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Several people highlighted Bush ’ s decision to list `` Former President '' as his profession online .
Collins , 67 , faces one of the most contentious reelection bids in the nation as she seeks to keep her seat for a fifth term .
She recently surpassed Mitch McConnell as the least popular Republican in the Senate .
The Cook Political Report listed her seat as a “ toss-up , ” along with Republican Sens .
Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona .
Only one Democratic senator ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toss-up ” : Alabama Sen. Doug Jones .

George W. Bush sent a maximum contribution to the reelection fund for Sen. Susan Collins.
Bush, 73, donated $5,600 to the Maine Republican's joint fundraising committee in October, according to FEC filings. The former president made the donation in October to help Collins gear up for her reelection race in 2020.
When anyone makes a significant donation to a candidate in the United States, the person must disclose the contribution by including a name, address, and occupation. Bush caught the attention of many by listing his occupation as “Former President of The United States.” Several people highlighted Bush’s decision to list "Former President" as his profession online.
“Occupation: Former President of the United States” https://t.co/lMisIz6vH6 — Matt Gorman (@mattsgorman) January 17, 2020
lol never change https://t.co/KnqWaGMQcq — Susan J. Demas 🏔 (@sjdemas) January 17, 2020
And he’s a painter, goddamn it — Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) January 17, 2020
Collins, 67, faces one of the most contentious reelection bids in the nation as she seeks to keep her seat for a fifth term. She recently surpassed Mitch McConnell as the least popular Republican in the Senate. The Cook Political Report listed her seat as a “toss-up,” along with Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha McSally of Arizona. Only one Democratic senator’s seat was listed as a “toss-up”: Alabama Sen. Doug Jones.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Romney loses GOP support in Utah after challenging Trump on impeachment trial rules: Poll

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney lost support from Republicans and independents in his home state during the weeks after he called for witnesses in President Trump 's Senate impeachment trial , a new poll shows .
The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney , 72 , going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump ’ s impeachment trial , which began on Thursday .
The poll shows the senator ’ s approval rating among Utah Republicans , from September through December 2019 , dropping 18 % .
Additionally , 9 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the quarter .
In the prior quarter , 65 % of Utah Republicans supported Romney , and while a majority still do presently , that number sank to 57 % .
The numbers are particularly striking for Utah , one of the most Republican states in the country .
Romney romped to victory in his 2018 Senate bid and has been considered a local hero of sorts among his fellow Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constituents and others .
The Utah Republican senator , however , did gain among Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll , 46 % of Democrats late last year in the fourth quarter approved of the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee .
This was a 4 % spike from several months prior .
Trump was impeached by House Democrats on Dec. 18 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his July 25 phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelensky .
Democrats claim Trump pressured Zelensky to dig up political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden , a leading Democrat vying to take on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the release of the transcript of the call , Romney described the conversation as “ troubling in the extreme.
” Romney 's remarks led to further tension with Trump , leading the president to release a video mocking Romney 's election loss against President Barack Obama in 2012 .
Romney is part of a small group of Republican senators who say they want to hear from Bolton , one of the witnesses Democrats say should testify .
Bolton has indicated he would testify if he is subpoenaed .
Morning Consult conducted 494,899 surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Dec. 31 , 2019 , to determine the fourth-quarter 2019 popularity ratings for senators .
The margin of error was plus or minus 2 percentage points .

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney lost support from Republicans and independents in his home state during the weeks after he called for witnesses in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial, a new poll shows.
The Morning Consult survey found support for Romney, 72, going down after he called for former national security adviser John Bolton to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, which began on Thursday.
The poll shows the senator’s approval rating falling among Utah Republicans from September through December 2019, and independents also shifted to disapproving of Romney over the quarter.
In the prior quarter, 65% of Utah Republicans supported Romney, and while a majority still do presently, that number sank to 57%.
The numbers are particularly striking for Utah, one of the most Republican states in the country. Romney romped to victory in his 2018 Senate bid and has been considered a local hero of sorts among his fellow Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints constituents and others.
The Utah Republican senator, however, did gain among Democrats in his state. According to the poll, 46% of Democrats late last year in the fourth quarter approved of the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee. This was a spike of 4 percentage points from several months prior.
Trump was impeached by House Democrats on Dec. 18 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over his July 25 phone call with the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.
Democrats claim Trump pressured Zelensky to dig up political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading Democrat vying to take on the president in November 2020.
Following the release of the transcript of the call, Romney described the conversation as “troubling in the extreme.”
Romney's remarks led to further tension with Trump, leading the president to release a video mocking Romney's election loss against President Barack Obama in 2012.
Romney is part of a small group of Republican senators who say they want to hear from Bolton, one of the witnesses Democrats say should testify. Bolton has indicated he would testify if he is subpoenaed.
Morning Consult conducted 494,899 surveys with registered U.S. voters from Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2019, to determine the fourth-quarter 2019 popularity ratings for senators. The margin of error was plus or minus 2 percentage points.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Can Democrats produce a daily impeachment show?

For several months , House Democrats have sought to translate their desire to impeach President Trump into compelling television .
They first hoped special counsel Robert Mueller would offer gripping testimony that would jump-start an impeachment effort based on his Trump-Russia report .
The show did not turn out as planned .
Then they hoped televised hearings on the Ukraine matter would grab the public 's attention .
But again , no blockbuster .
For all their work , Democrats were not able to raise public support for impeachment beyond the level it had been before the hearings .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public sessions began , support for impeaching the president was 49.8 % , according to the 538 Impeachment Tracker .
Today , it is 49.9 % .
Those are high numbers , based mostly on the fact that a large majority of Democrats have wanted to impeach the president for a long time .
For everyone else , support and opposition levels have been mostly unchanged for the last three months .
Now , with the Senate impeachment trial , Democrats have their last chance to excite public passions and win converts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their strategy is becoming clear : Democratic impeachers realize they ca n't just tell the same story all over again in front of the Senate and expect the result to be different this time .
In December , the House Intelligence Committee released a 300-page report making the case for impeachment .
Later in the month , the House Judiciary Committee added a report of its own .
And on Dec. 18 , the full House passed articles of impeachment boiling down those reports to a few paragraphs .
That is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Senate at the impeachment opening ceremony on Thursday .
That reading was required .
But next week Democrats will begin to make their case , with 24 hours of Senate floor time to do it .
Does anyone think dry recitations , or even dramatic recitations , of the same old material will stir the Senate and the public ?
`` The Democrats understand that their current fact pattern wo n't suddenly become vastly more compelling , '' Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz , a member of the Judiciary Committee , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` We 've seen it all before .
I suspect they 've held back some nuggets to time-release for theatrical impact as the Senate trial goes on .
Parnas is the front end of that wave . ''
Gaetz referred to Lev Parnas , the indicted Rudy Giuliani associate , who has emerged from hiding to do splashy interviews this week with MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow and CNN 's Anderson Cooper .
In December , Parnas , who is trying to win lenient treatment from prosecutors in a campaign finance case , asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seized in the case to the House Intelligence Committee .
Two court orders , one on Jan. 3 and another last Monday , Jan. 13 , gave Parnas the go-ahead .
Not long after , Parnas ' lawyer , Joseph Bondy , announced that he had turned over the material to the House Intelligence Committee .
Parnas then headed to MSNBC and CNN .
There was n't much new in the Parnas material .
One thing that did seem new and striking ( the suggestion that a previously unknown character , Robert Hyde @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parnas denied ever took place .
Most of the rest of the interviews consisted of Parnas claiming that the president and top Trump administration officials , particularly Attorney General William Barr , `` knew exactly '' what was going on in the Trump-Ukraine affair .
Through a spokesman , Barr strongly denied the allegation .
Parnas already had serious credibility problems .
He was , after all , the man who claimed that House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Devin Nunes had met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna in December 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was nowhere near either Shokin or Vienna .
For Parnas 's credibility , it was a Michael-Cohen-in-Prague moment .
Nevertheless , some in the media touted Parnas 's interviews as huge news .
And so on .
The effect of the coverage was to suggest to the public that there were new and damaging revelations in the impeachment case — not the old stuff that everyone had already digested and was reflected in the polls , but new and really serious charges .
Impeachment was exciting again !
And does anyone expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From now until the trial is over , and perhaps beyond , Republicans expect Democrats to come up with some new something on a regular , if not daily , basis .
GOP defenders are beginning to see the next month in the Senate not so much as an impeachment trial but as a replay of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings : a fait accompli that becomes a cliffhanger with new and progressively more spectacular allegations .
None of them were true , but they threw Republicans on the defensive and plunged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For Democrats facing an uphill climb in a Republican-controlled Senate , why not try the same thing at the very highest level , an effort to remove the president ?

For several months, House Democrats have sought to translate their desire to impeach President Trump into compelling television. They first hoped special counsel Robert Mueller would offer gripping testimony that would jump-start an impeachment effort based on his Trump-Russia report. The show did not turn out as planned. Then they hoped televised hearings on the Ukraine matter would grab the public's attention. But again, no blockbuster.
For all their work, Democrats were not able to raise public support for impeachment beyond the level it had been before the hearings. On Oct. 12, 2019, weeks before the public sessions began, support for impeaching the president was 49.8%, according to the 538 Impeachment Tracker. Today, it is 49.9%. Those are high numbers, based mostly on the fact that a large majority of Democrats have wanted to impeach the president for a long time. For everyone else, support and opposition levels have been mostly unchanged for the last three months.
Now, with the Senate impeachment trial, Democrats have their last chance to excite public passions and win converts. And to Republicans, the outline of their strategy is becoming clear: Democratic impeachers realize they can't just tell the same story all over again in front of the Senate and expect the result to be different this time.
In December, the House Intelligence Committee released a 300-page report making the case for impeachment. Later in the month, the House Judiciary Committee added a report of its own. And on Dec. 18, the full House passed articles of impeachment boiling down those reports to a few paragraphs. That is what impeachment leader Rep. Adam Schiff read aloud to the Senate at the impeachment opening ceremony on Thursday.
That reading was required. But next week Democrats will begin to make their case, with 24 hours of Senate floor time to do it. Does anyone think dry recitations, or even dramatic recitations, of the same old material will stir the Senate and the public?
"The Democrats understand that their current fact pattern won't suddenly become vastly more compelling," Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a text exchange Friday morning. "We've seen it all before. I suspect they've held back some nuggets to time-release for theatrical impact as the Senate trial goes on. Parnas is the front end of that wave."
Gaetz referred to Lev Parnas, the indicted Rudy Giuliani associate, who has emerged from hiding to do splashy interviews this week with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and CNN's Anderson Cooper. In December, Parnas, who is trying to win lenient treatment from prosecutors in a campaign finance case, asked a court to let him give material seized in the case to the House Intelligence Committee. Two court orders, one on Jan. 3 and another last Monday, Jan. 13, gave Parnas the go-ahead.
Not long after, Parnas' lawyer, Joseph Bondy, announced that he had turned over the material to the House Intelligence Committee. Parnas then headed to MSNBC and CNN.
There wasn't much new in the Parnas material. One thing that did seem new and striking (the suggestion that a previously unknown character, Robert Hyde, was stalking then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch) Parnas denied ever took place. Most of the rest of the interviews consisted of Parnas claiming that the president and top Trump administration officials, particularly Attorney General William Barr, "knew exactly" what was going on in the Trump-Ukraine affair. Through a spokesman, Barr strongly denied the allegation.
Parnas already had serious credibility problems. He was, after all, the man who claimed that House Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Devin Nunes had met with former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in Vienna in December 2018. Then Nunes produced photos showing he was nowhere near either Shokin or Vienna. For Parnas's credibility, it was a Michael-Cohen-in-Prague moment.
Nevertheless, some in the media touted Parnas's interviews as huge news.
A "bombshell," pronounced Maddow.
"Bombshell," said the Washington Post.
"Bombshell," said CNN.
"Bombshell," said CNN, again.
And so on.
The effect of the coverage was to suggest to the public that there were new and damaging revelations in the impeachment case — not the old stuff that everyone had already digested and was reflected in the polls, but new and really serious charges. Impeachment was exciting again!
And does anyone expect that to be the last such revelation? From now until the trial is over, and perhaps beyond, Republicans expect Democrats to come up with some new something on a regular, if not daily, basis. GOP defenders are beginning to see the next month in the Senate not so much as an impeachment trial but as a replay of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings: a fait accompli that becomes a cliffhanger with new and progressively more spectacular allegations. None of them were true, but they threw Republicans on the defensive and plunged the confirmation into chaos for a while.
For Democrats facing an uphill climb in a Republican-controlled Senate, why not try the same thing at the very highest level, an effort to remove the president?


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Eye on the prize: Liz Cheney forsakes Senate for House speaker ambitions

After months of deliberation , Liz Cheney chose the opportunity to become the first Republican woman to be elected speaker of the House over the influence and prestige of the Senate .
The move surprised Republicans — among them many of Cheney ’ s colleagues .
The Wyoming congresswoman briefly ran for the Senate in 2014 , challenging Sen. Mike Enzi in the Republican primary before dropping out .
With Enzi opting to retire , and especially with her keen interest in foreign affairs , colleagues expected Cheney to jump at the chance to vault to the Senate .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday that she had decided otherwise .
To make an immediate move up , Cheney would have to challenge two allies of President Trump : House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California or House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana , both 54 .
“ I really love the House , ” Cheney told the Washington Examiner .
As Wyoming ’ s at-large representative and House Republican Conference chairwoman , she is filling two posts once held by her father , former Vice President Dick Cheney .
Cheney , 53 , declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the congresswoman indicated that her upward trajectory in the House clarified her decision .
“ The choice between staying here in House leadership , being somebody who can help to lead the fight against Speaker [ Nancy ] Pelosi , against socialism , against what the Democrats are trying to do to weaken the country , versus the alternative of running for being a freshman senator , for me , it was very clear that I could have a much bigger impact here , ” Cheney said .
A connected Republican lobbyist said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pathway to higher leadership in the House ” to pass up an open Senate seat — a platform for higher office that would have been hers for as long as she wanted .
Concern about competing in an uncertain Republican primary against former Rep. Cynthia Lummis , now the shoo-in to succeed Enzi , also might have affected Cheney ’ s direction .
Cheney was elected to Congress in 2016 and quickly established herself .
As conference chairwoman , Cheney helps with House GOP messaging strategy .
Her colleagues have been impressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acumen and the tenacious way she rips Democrats and defends the party .
Had she run for Senate , she would almost assuredly have immediately relinquished her leadership post , and House Republicans were relieved that she is sticking around .
“ She ’ s a strong leader , and I am glad she ’ s staying in the House and staying in leadership , ” said Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina .
Rep. Devin Nunes of California , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee , said , “ She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years to come .
”

After months of deliberation, Liz Cheney chose the opportunity to become the first Republican woman to be elected speaker of the House over the influence and prestige of the Senate.
The move surprised Republicans — among them many of Cheney’s colleagues. The Wyoming congresswoman briefly ran for the Senate in 2014, challenging Sen. Mike Enzi in the Republican primary before dropping out. With Enzi opting to retire, and especially with her keen interest in foreign affairs, colleagues expected Cheney to jump at the chance to vault to the Senate.
But the No. 3-ranking House Republican revealed Thursday that she had decided otherwise. To make an immediate move up, Cheney would have to challenge two allies of President Trump: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California or House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, both 54.
“I really love the House,” Cheney told the Washington Examiner. As Wyoming’s at-large representative and House Republican Conference chairwoman, she is filling two posts once held by her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cheney, 53, declined to comment on her leadership aspirations. But the congresswoman indicated that her upward trajectory in the House clarified her decision.
“The choice between staying here in House leadership, being somebody who can help to lead the fight against Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, against socialism, against what the Democrats are trying to do to weaken the country, versus the alternative of running for being a freshman senator, for me, it was very clear that I could have a much bigger impact here,” Cheney said.
A connected Republican lobbyist said Cheney “must be confident there is a pathway to higher leadership in the House” to pass up an open Senate seat — a platform for higher office that would have been hers for as long as she wanted. Concern about competing in an uncertain Republican primary against former Rep. Cynthia Lummis, now the shoo-in to succeed Enzi, also might have affected Cheney’s direction.
Cheney was elected to Congress in 2016 and quickly established herself.
As conference chairwoman, Cheney helps with House GOP messaging strategy. Her colleagues have been impressed with her results, lauding her tactical acumen and the tenacious way she rips Democrats and defends the party. Had she run for Senate, she would almost assuredly have immediately relinquished her leadership post, and House Republicans were relieved that she is sticking around.
“She’s a strong leader, and I am glad she’s staying in the House and staying in leadership,” said Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina.
Rep. Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said, “She will be a force in the House for years to come.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Ted Cruz is 'encouraged' by Democrats on Big Tech

Staunch conservative Ted Cruz does n't agree with Democrats about much , but holding Big Tech companies accountable is one of the few areas where he does .
For the better part of the past year , the Texas senator has raised the alarm about the behavior of those in Silicon Valley , whether it 's challenging their legal protections for content on their platforms , anti-competitive conduct , or their alleged anti-conservative bias .
`` You know , I am encouraged to see Democrats taking on Big Tech .
I think the power of Big Tech and Silicon Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during an interview with the Washington Examiner in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building .
`` You know a great illustration is : Elizabeth Warren tried to buy Facebook ads urging that Facebook be broken up under the antitrust laws , and Facebook , in what I think was a colossally foolish move , blocked the ads — refused to let her run them , '' Cruz said .
The incident prompted him to retweet Warren for the first time .
One of Cruz 's biggest complaints against Big Tech is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communications Decency Act , which gives technology companies protections against lawsuits related to content created by users on their platforms .
During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing this month , Cruz said the provision allows `` Big Tech to act with impunity , to engage in censorship of Americans whose political opinions they do n't like and not to face liability for their conduct . ''
He also criticized the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade , President Trump 's replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement , because a section in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is `` perceived by many to be a gift to Big Tech , '' Cruz said at the hearing .
Tech companies argue that the law is what allows them to moderate harmful content such as hate speech and threats on their platforms while also ensuring that the companies do n't get unfairly penalized for objectionable user content .
Cruz spoke about tech regulation in his office , which features Snickers and Skittles from Texas , as well as a copy of Dr. Seuss 's Green Eggs and Ham , which he once @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21-hour anti-Obamacare talk marathon .
Featured prominently is a humongous , colorful painting of President Ronald Reagan giving his `` Tear Down This Wall '' speech in front of the Berlin Wall .
The Texas Republican has a history of antagonizing the Establishment while backing small government and focusing on decentralization of authority .
It plays a role in his skepticism of the growing size of Big Tech companies .
`` By almost any measure , the giant tech companies today are larger and more powerful than Standard Oil when it was broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing on technological censorship in April .
`` If we have tech companies using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech , I think that raises real antitrust issues , '' said Cruz .
During the April hearing , when Cruz asked Facebook 's and Twitter 's representatives whether they were neutral platforms , neither of the social media giants would give a yes or no answer .
Google , Facebook , and Twitter , however , have all emphatically denied any technological anti-conservative bias , saying no evidence shows they systematically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their platforms .
Some point to a study by Harvard 's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society that suggests that , in the current media environment , conservative news and propaganda spread further and faster than news from liberal sources .
Ultimately , Cruz is convinced that the `` power and censorship of Big Tech is , I think , really dangerous , '' and he says this threat is `` only growing . ''
`` I do n't think we want our democracy controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires @ @ @ @ @

Staunch conservative Ted Cruz doesn't agree with Democrats about much, but holding Big Tech companies accountable is one of the few areas where he does. For the better part of the past year, the Texas senator has raised the alarm about the behavior of those in Silicon Valley, whether it's challenging their legal protections for content on their platforms, anti-competitive conduct, or their alleged anti-conservative bias.
"You know, I am encouraged to see Democrats taking on Big Tech. I think the power of Big Tech and Silicon Valley is deeply troubling," Cruz said during an interview with the Washington Examiner in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building.
"You know a great illustration is: Elizabeth Warren tried to buy Facebook ads urging that Facebook be broken up under the antitrust laws, and Facebook, in what I think was a colossally foolish move, blocked the ads — refused to let her run them," Cruz said. The incident prompted him to retweet Warren for the first time.
One of Cruz's biggest complaints against Big Tech is its defense of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives technology companies protections against lawsuits related to content created by users on their platforms.
During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing this month, Cruz said the provision allows "Big Tech to act with impunity, to engage in censorship of Americans whose political opinions they don't like and not to face liability for their conduct."
He also criticized the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, President Trump's replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement, because a section in the agreement mirrors Section 230. The clause is "perceived by many to be a gift to Big Tech," Cruz said at the hearing.
Tech companies argue that the law is what allows them to moderate harmful content such as hate speech and threats on their platforms while also ensuring that the companies don't get unfairly penalized for objectionable user content.
Cruz spoke about tech regulation in his office, which features Snickers and Skittles from Texas, as well as a copy of Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham, which he once read on the Senate floor during a 21-hour anti-Obamacare talk marathon. Featured prominently is a humongous, colorful painting of President Ronald Reagan giving his "Tear Down This Wall" speech in front of the Berlin Wall.
The Texas Republican has a history of antagonizing the Establishment while backing small government and focusing on decentralization of authority. It plays a role in his skepticism of the growing size of Big Tech companies.
"By almost any measure, the giant tech companies today are larger and more powerful than Standard Oil when it was broken up," Cruz said at a hearing on technological censorship in April.
"If we have tech companies using the powers of monopoly to censor political speech, I think that raises real antitrust issues," said Cruz.
During the April hearing, when Cruz asked Facebook's and Twitter's representatives whether they were neutral platforms, neither of the social media giants would give a yes or no answer.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter, however, have all emphatically denied any technological anti-conservative bias, saying no evidence shows they systematically favor one political ideology over another on their platforms. Some point to a study by Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society that suggests that, in the current media environment, conservative news and propaganda spread further and faster than news from liberal sources.
Ultimately, Cruz is convinced that the "power and censorship of Big Tech is, I think, really dangerous," and he says this threat is "only growing."
"I don't think we want our democracy controlled by a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires," he said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Gowdy: Comey refused to tell Congress about Russian intelligence document in classified setting

Former FBI Director James Comey refused to tell Congress in a classified setting about a dubious Russian intelligence document , according to a lawmaker who was in attendance .
Trey Gowdy , a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who left Congress one year ago , said Comey claimed the information was `` so highly classified '' that he could not discuss it in setting in which he was authorized to discuss classified material .
This `` fact pattern , '' Gowdy said , is the focus of a New York Times report published Thursday evening that said federal prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 about the document that factored into Comey 's handling of the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 's email server .
`` I know that fact pattern that is referenced in this story , '' Gowdy said on Fox News , where he is a contributor .
`` Jim Comey was asked behind closed doors in a classified setting to address it , and he would not do it .
His response was [ that ] it was so highly classified , he was not even going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in a classified setting . ''
Gowdy was responding to Martha MacCallum , who asked about how the New York Times report suggested there was a political motivation behind the Justice Department 's decision to open an investigation years after the leaks took place .
`` I ’ m not a fan of Jim Comey , but I am a fan of being fair to people .
And I ’ m not going to indict him or convict him based on New York Times reporting , '' Gowdy said .
`` My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pattern , the subject of the article , he would not address it even in a setting where he could do so .
And it would have benefited him to do so , and he still did not do it . ''

Former FBI Director James Comey refused to tell Congress in a classified setting about a dubious Russian intelligence document, according to a lawmaker who was in attendance.
Trey Gowdy, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who left Congress one year ago, said Comey claimed the information was "so highly classified" that he could not discuss it in setting in which he was authorized to discuss classified material.
This "fact pattern," Gowdy said, is the focus of a New York Times report published Thursday evening that said federal prosecutors are investigating a years-old leak to reporters in 2017 about the document that factored into Comey's handling of the FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server.
"I know that fact pattern that is referenced in this story," Gowdy said on Fox News, where he is a contributor. "Jim Comey was asked behind closed doors in a classified setting to address it, and he would not do it. His response was [that] it was so highly classified, he was not even going to tell people that were cleared to hear it in a classified setting."
Gowdy was responding to Martha MacCallum, who asked about how the New York Times report suggested there was a political motivation behind the Justice Department's decision to open an investigation years after the leaks took place.
"I’m not a fan of Jim Comey, but I am a fan of being fair to people. And I’m not going to indict him or convict him based on New York Times reporting," Gowdy said. "My experience with him on this very fact pattern, the subject of the article, he would not address it even in a setting where he could do so. And it would have benefited him to do so, and he still did not do it."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Top Democrat warns FBI against giving GOP records from ex-DNC consultant

A top Democratic senator discouraged the Justice Department and FBI from complying with a Republican demand for information about a former Democratic National Committee contractor .
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden warned that complying with the records request related to Alexandra Chalupa , who is alleged to have sought dirt from Ukraine to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 election , would have dangerous consequences .
As Chalupa conducted research on Paul Manafort , who did lobbying work for a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs and later became Trump 's campaign manager , the Ukrainian American activist began receiving notifications from Yahoo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a `` state-sponsored '' cyberattack .
“ The Senators ’ request will have a chilling effect on the victims of nation state cyberattacks , and would discourage them from seeking law enforcement assistance , thereby jeopardizing our national security , limiting our ability to respond to sophisticated cyberattacks , and undermining the civil liberties of American citizens , ” Wyden wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday .
Chalupa said she developed a network of sources in Washington and Kyiv , and met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign about her research focused on the nexus between Manafort , Trump , and Russia , according to a 2017 Politico article .
Chalupa has denied being an opposition researcher for the DNC , telling CNN in 2017 that `` the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information . ''
Manafort , who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence for after federal convictions on bank and tax fraud , resigned as Trump 's campaign chairman in August 2016 , as reports emerged about his work on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the spring on 2016 , a Yahoo report said Chalupa suspected that she had potentially been the victim of a “ state sponsored '' cyberattack , after which the FBI interviewed her and took computer forensic images of her laptop and smartphone .
Sens .
Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin cited these reports in a November letter to Barr and Wray , requesting interview notes and material related to the forensic images of Chalupa ’ s devices .
“ If this reporting is accurate , it appears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possession material relevant to our Committees ’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election , ” Grassley and Johnson wrote .
The Senate Republicans also sought interviews with Chalupa and others connected to the alleged collusion effort .
Wyden , who is the top Democrat on the Finance Committee and a member of the intelligence panel , called the request for imaging records of Chalupa 's devices `` outrageous , '' raising privacy issues and criticizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Johnson in their letter .
This included a piece by former Hill opinion contributor John Solomon , whose articles are under review by the outlet after witnesses in impeachment proceedings focused on Trump 's Ukraine pressure campaign raised doubts about his work .
`` Ms. Chalupa voluntarily came forward and provided personal private information to the FBI in order to assist in the investigation of Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 election , '' Wyden wrote .
`` To use her voluntary cooperation in order to weaponize her personal information against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on unsupported claims and potential Russian propaganda would compromise public trust in our law enforcement , undermine Americans ' rights , and damage our national security interests . ''
`` Ms. Chalupa already had her privacy violated once as the result of a cyber-attack by a foreign government .
Her privacy should not be violated a second time by her own government .
I expect the Justice Department and FBI to take appropriate steps to safeguard Ms. Chalupa 's private personal records from improper use , '' Wyden concluded .
An aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Finance Committee , accused Wyden of ignoring `` legitimate questions '' about election security in a statement to the Daily Beast .
`` Wyden ’ s letter conflates Russian propaganda efforts with unrelated reports of potential election interference that have yet to be fully investigated , '' the aide said .
`` In fact , Senators Grassley , Johnson and [ Lindsey ] Graham clearly state that their inquiry is ‘ unrelated to an uncorroborated theory that Ukraine was also behind the hack of DNC servers.
’ Despite his complaints , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inquiry have already voluntarily provided Congress with records Wyden argues should not be sought .
With another election less than 10 months away , it ’ s a shame that the Democrats would choose to interfere with an ongoing investigation into potential election vulnerabilities instead of joining it .
”

A top Democratic senator discouraged the Justice Department and FBI from complying with a Republican demand for information about a former Democratic National Committee contractor.
Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden warned that complying with the records request related to Alexandra Chalupa, who is alleged to have sought dirt from Ukraine to undermine then-candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 election, would have dangerous consequences. As Chalupa conducted research on Paul Manafort, who did lobbying work for a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs and later became Trump's campaign manager, the Ukrainian American activist began receiving notifications from Yahoo security that claimed she was the victim of a "state-sponsored" cyberattack.
“The Senators’ request will have a chilling effect on the victims of nation state cyberattacks, and would discourage them from seeking law enforcement assistance, thereby jeopardizing our national security, limiting our ability to respond to sophisticated cyberattacks, and undermining the civil liberties of American citizens,” Wyden wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Barr and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Thursday.
Chalupa said she developed a network of sources in Washington and Kyiv, and met with Ukrainian Embassy officials during the 2016 campaign about her research focused on the nexus between Manafort, Trump, and Russia, according to a 2017 Politico article. Chalupa has denied being an opposition researcher for the DNC, telling CNN in 2017 that "the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian Embassy to collect information." Manafort, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence for after federal convictions on bank and tax fraud, resigned as Trump's campaign chairman in August 2016, as reports emerged about his work on behalf of pro-Russia Ukrainian officials.
Beginning in the spring on 2016, a Yahoo report said Chalupa suspected that she had potentially been the victim of a “state sponsored" cyberattack, after which the FBI interviewed her and took computer forensic images of her laptop and smartphone.
Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin cited these reports in a November letter to Barr and Wray, requesting interview notes and material related to the forensic images of Chalupa’s devices.
“If this reporting is accurate, it appears that the DOJ and FBI have in their possession material relevant to our Committees’ ongoing investigation into collusive actions Chalupa and the DNC took to use foreign government sources to undermine the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” Grassley and Johnson wrote. The Senate Republicans also sought interviews with Chalupa and others connected to the alleged collusion effort.
Wyden, who is the top Democrat on the Finance Committee and a member of the intelligence panel, called the request for imaging records of Chalupa's devices "outrageous," raising privacy issues and criticizing the reports about her cited by Grassley and Johnson in their letter. This included a piece by former Hill opinion contributor John Solomon, whose articles are under review by the outlet after witnesses in impeachment proceedings focused on Trump's Ukraine pressure campaign raised doubts about his work.
"Ms. Chalupa voluntarily came forward and provided personal private information to the FBI in order to assist in the investigation of Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 election," Wyden wrote. "To use her voluntary cooperation in order to weaponize her personal information against her in furtherance of a political attack based on unsupported claims and potential Russian propaganda would compromise public trust in our law enforcement, undermine Americans' rights, and damage our national security interests."
"Ms. Chalupa already had her privacy violated once as the result of a cyber-attack by a foreign government. Her privacy should not be violated a second time by her own government. I expect the Justice Department and FBI to take appropriate steps to safeguard Ms. Chalupa's private personal records from improper use," Wyden concluded.
An aide to Grassley, who is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, accused Wyden of ignoring "legitimate questions" about election security in a statement to the Daily Beast.
"Wyden’s letter conflates Russian propaganda efforts with unrelated reports of potential election interference that have yet to be fully investigated," the aide said. "In fact, Senators Grassley, Johnson and [Lindsey] Graham clearly state that their inquiry is ‘unrelated to an uncorroborated theory that Ukraine was also behind the hack of DNC servers.’ Despite his complaints, Wyden neglected to mention that subjects of the inquiry have already voluntarily provided Congress with records Wyden argues should not be sought. With another election less than 10 months away, it’s a shame that the Democrats would choose to interfere with an ongoing investigation into potential election vulnerabilities instead of joining it.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--'Too personally invested': Republicans demand FISA court explain why Obama official picked to overse

'Too personally invested': Republicans demand FISA court explain why Obama official picked to oversee reforms

A pair of Republican lawmakers demanded answers from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about why it selected former Obama administration lawyer David Kris to oversee reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process .
Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent a letter Thursday to James Boasberg , the new presiding judge over the FISA court , asking him a series of questions about why picked Kris to serve as amicus curiae , a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court .
`` If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 's goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its serious misconduct , Mr. Kris does not appear to be an objective — or likely effective — amicus curiae for several reasons .
At minimum the selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI to ensure it effectuates meaningful reform , '' the congressmen wrote in the letter obtained by the Washington Examiner .
Kris , a former assistant attorney general with the Justice Department ’ s national security division during the Obama administration , has on the Lawfare blog and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI ’ s Trump-Russia investigation and criticized the House Intelligence Committee 's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses .
Last week , he was selected last week to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department watchdog report on serious errors found in the FBI 's efforts to wiretap Carter Page , an American foreign policy adviser who helped President Trump 's 2016 campaign .
Kris filed a letter with the FISA court on Wednesday where he said the reforms proposed by the FBI in the wake of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , and that the bureau `` must restore '' a `` culture of accuracy and completeness '' in the FISA process .
Jordan and Meadows laid out three main objections to Kris ’ s appointment by the court .
The first was Kris “ has frequently defended the FBI ’ s existing electronic surveillance practices ” including when he “ boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants ” prior to the early 2018 release of then-House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nunes ’ s FISA memo laying out FISA abuses by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the FBI misled the court was itself misleading ” once the Nunes memo was made public .
“ Mr .
Kris was wrong , ” the congressmen said .
The second was the former Obama official “ seemingly prejudged the FBI ’ s conduct with respect to Carter Page ” when hundreds of pages of heavily redacted FISA applications on Page were released in the summer of 2018 , when Kris claimed the FISA applications and renewals and predicted “ it ’ s going to get worse , not better ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the inspector general ’ s report and testimony “ confirmed that the FBI illegally surveilled Mr.
Page.
” And third , following the Horowitz ’ s report ’ s release , Kris “ seemed to minimize the FBI ’ s actions ” when he said the FBI ’ s misconduct wasn ’ t “ political ” and attributed the missteps to sloppiness by the FBI .
“ However , inspector general Horowitz testified that the office of inspector general ’ s review did not rule out political bias or intentional misconduct , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March , House Republicans say they intend to make a stand against Kris .
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said this week that Congress should consider abolishing the FISA court if `` [ the ] Democratic Party gets to use these tools to attempt to remove presidents and target political operatives when they want to . ''
Jordan and Meadows emphasized their belief that the FISA court also “ has a heightened responsibly to protect the civil liberties of American citizens ” in proceedings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The congressmen asked the spy court to tell them which candidates aside from Kris they ’ d considered and whether they ’ d taken Kris ’ s writings and statements about Page , the Nunes memo , and the FBI ’ s Trump-Russia actions into consideration when appointing him .
The duo also pressed the FISA court on whether it bore any responsibility for the FISA abuse against Page ; when it first received evidence that the FBI was misleading the court and what it did in response ; whether the court had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filings prior to the Horowitz report ’ s release ; what disciplinary action the court was taking against FBI or DOJ lawyers who had misled them ; whether the court was reviewing other FISA filings aside from the ones against Page ; and what the court was doing to ensure FISA abuses don ’ t occur in the future .
Jordan and Meadows set a deadline of Jan. 30 for the FISA court 's responses .

A pair of Republican lawmakers demanded answers from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about why it selected former Obama administration lawyer David Kris to oversee reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process.
Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent a letter Thursday to James Boasberg, the new presiding judge over the FISA court, asking him a series of questions about why picked Kris to serve as amicus curiae, a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court.
"If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's goal is to hold the FBI accountable for its serious misconduct, Mr. Kris does not appear to be an objective — or likely effective — amicus curiae for several reasons. At minimum the selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI to ensure it effectuates meaningful reform," the congressmen wrote in the letter obtained by the Washington Examiner.
Kris, a former assistant attorney general with the Justice Department’s national security division during the Obama administration, has on the Lawfare blog and elsewhere spoken out in support of the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation and criticized the House Intelligence Committee's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses. Last week, he was selected last week to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department watchdog report on serious errors found in the FBI's efforts to wiretap Carter Page, an American foreign policy adviser who helped President Trump's 2016 campaign.
Kris filed a letter with the FISA court on Wednesday where he said the reforms proposed by the FBI in the wake of the Horowitz report were "insufficient" thus far, and that the bureau "must restore" a "culture of accuracy and completeness" in the FISA process.
Jordan and Meadows laid out three main objections to Kris’s appointment by the court.
The first was Kris “has frequently defended the FBI’s existing electronic surveillance practices” including when he “boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants” prior to the early 2018 release of then-House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nunes’s FISA memo laying out FISA abuses by the bureau and then when Kris claimed that “the FBI misled the court was itself misleading” once the Nunes memo was made public.
“Mr. Kris was wrong,” the congressmen said.
The second was the former Obama official “seemingly prejudged the FBI’s conduct with respect to Carter Page” when hundreds of pages of heavily redacted FISA applications on Page were released in the summer of 2018, when Kris claimed the FISA applications and renewals and predicted “it’s going to get worse, not better” for Page.
But, the congressmen said, the inspector general’s report and testimony “confirmed that the FBI illegally surveilled Mr. Page.”
And third, following the Horowitz’s report’s release, Kris “seemed to minimize the FBI’s actions” when he said the FBI’s misconduct wasn’t “political” and attributed the missteps to sloppiness by the FBI.
“However, inspector general Horowitz testified that the office of inspector general’s review did not rule out political bias or intentional misconduct,” Jordan and Meadows said.
With three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March, House Republicans say they intend to make a stand against Kris. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said this week that Congress should consider abolishing the FISA court if "[the] Democratic Party gets to use these tools to attempt to remove presidents and target political operatives when they want to."
Jordan and Meadows emphasized their belief that the FISA court also “has a heightened responsibly to protect the civil liberties of American citizens” in proceedings where no defense lawyer is present.
The congressmen asked the spy court to tell them which candidates aside from Kris they’d considered and whether they’d taken Kris’s writings and statements about Page, the Nunes memo, and the FBI’s Trump-Russia actions into consideration when appointing him.
The duo also pressed the FISA court on whether it bore any responsibility for the FISA abuse against Page; when it first received evidence that the FBI was misleading the court and what it did in response; whether the court had conducted a review of the Page FISA filings prior to the Horowitz report’s release; what disciplinary action the court was taking against FBI or DOJ lawyers who had misled them; whether the court was reviewing other FISA filings aside from the ones against Page; and what the court was doing to ensure FISA abuses don’t occur in the future.
Jordan and Meadows set a deadline of Jan. 30 for the FISA court's responses.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Virginia sued over Second Amendment rally gun ban

Two gun rights groups planning to host a rally of 130,000 supporters Monday at the Virginia state Capitol have sued to repeal Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ban on guns , even for those with permits .
“ Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him .
He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments , ” said Erich Pratt , senior vice president of Gun Owners of America .
His group is joining the other rally organizer , Virginia Citizens Defense League @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights on Capitol grounds for the Monday “ lobby day ” when members planned to press lawmakers to reject a wave of gun control legislation sailing through the Senate .
“ Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the governor ’ s unlawful ban .
The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident .
The only difference this year is that , in response to the Democrats ’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Pratt .
“ GOA is arguing that the governor ’ s actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions , as well as , a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governor ’ s ability to ban guns in a state of emergency , ” he added .
Earlier in the day , VCDL ripped the governor ’ s emergency decree and suggested that Democrats were hoping for violence at the rally so they could “ smear ” gun owners .
In that alert to some 38,000 supporters , VCDL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun ban is illegal .
Our legal team is looking at our options and we will keep you advised as soon as we have a definitive plan .
As it stands now , you can carry on 9th Street , or other nearby streets , as long as you do n't go into the fenced-in Capitol grounds area ( or into any of the government buildings ) .
There will be 17 magnetometers to speed up security for those wishing to be on the Capitol grounds , which puts you near the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a blade LESS THAN 3 inches .
Again , wait for final word on the Capitol grounds gun-ban situation over the weekend.
” [ Read more : Trump could be ‘ big beneficiary ' in Virginia gun control battle , urged to get involved ]

Two gun rights groups planning to host a rally of 130,000 supporters Monday at the Virginia state Capitol have sued to repeal Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s ban on guns, even for those with permits.
“Governor Northam is behaving like the royal governors who long preceded him. He has arrogantly and brazenly tried to restrict the rights protected to Virginians by the First and Second Amendments,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America.
His group is joining the other rally organizer, Virginia Citizens Defense League, in pushing to win back gun rights on Capitol grounds for the Monday “lobby day” when members planned to press lawmakers to reject a wave of gun control legislation sailing through the Senate.
“Gun Owners of America is joining VCDL in asking the courts to issue an emergency injunction forbidding the enforcement of the governor’s unlawful ban. The Lobby Day rally is held annually with thousands of participants and without incident. The only difference this year is that, in response to the Democrats’ attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment, a much larger crowd is expected,” said Pratt.
“GOA is arguing that the governor’s actions violate the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions, as well as, a 2012 state law which strictly limits the governor’s ability to ban guns in a state of emergency,” he added.
Earlier in the day, VCDL ripped the governor’s emergency decree and suggested that Democrats were hoping for violence at the rally so they could “smear” gun owners.
In that alert to some 38,000 supporters, VCDL said:
“VCDL believes that this gun ban is illegal. Our legal team is looking at our options and we will keep you advised as soon as we have a definitive plan. As it stands now, you can carry on 9th Street, or other nearby streets, as long as you don't go into the fenced-in Capitol grounds area (or into any of the government buildings). There will be 17 magnetometers to speed up security for those wishing to be on the Capitol grounds, which puts you near the stage. You CAN have a knife with a blade LESS THAN 3 inches. Again, wait for final word on the Capitol grounds gun-ban situation over the weekend.”
[Read more: Trump could be ‘big beneficiary' in Virginia gun control battle, urged to get involved]


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Jared Kushner: ‘More opportunity today than ever before’

Jared Kushner , the president ’ s special adviser who played a key role in prison reform legislation , this week praised a Wisconsin program that helps ex-convicts get jobs .
A day after the president held a rally in Milwaukee , his son-in-law visited a Christian program endorsed by Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson , where he said that opportunities for those seeking jobs had never been better .
“ There is more opportunity today than ever before because of President Trump ’ s leadership , ” he told local WTMJ-TV .
“ President Trump has not only done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more job training to the prisons , he ’ s also increased the economy to the point where we now have the lowest unemployment rate in the last 50 years , and he passed opportunity zones , which is bringing more and more companies to the inner cities , ” said Kushner , who also played a key role in the just-passed United States-Mexico-Canada agreement .
In Wisconsin , he toured the Joseph Project , a career-placement program .
Trump won a surprise victory in Wisconsin in 2016 , and Kushner predicted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions and especially his focus on inner cities and criminal justice reform .
“ He campaigned on fighting for the forgotten men and women of this country , and the more he learned about what happened with people in prison and the struggles that they face getting out , he thought that there wasn ’ t anybody more forgotten or underrepresented than the people in prison and that it was his job as president of the United States is to try to give them more opportunity to get a job and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get to society , so they don ’ t have to turn back to a life of crime , ” Kushner said .
It was his third visit to the city , and he marveled at the glow the whole state is under because the Green Bay Packers are still in the Super Bowl hunt .
Asked if he ’ d change to become a Packers fan , Kushner smiled and offered , “ I ’ m from New York , so I ’ m a Giants fan , which these days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a Packers fan .
”

Jared Kushner, the president’s special adviser who played a key role in prison reform legislation, this week praised a Wisconsin program that helps ex-convicts get jobs.
A day after the president held a rally in Milwaukee, his son-in-law visited a Christian program endorsed by Trump ally Sen. Ron Johnson, where he said that opportunities for those seeking jobs had never been better.
“There is more opportunity today than ever before because of President Trump’s leadership,” he told local WTMJ-TV.
“President Trump has not only done criminal justice reform, which is bringing more job training to the prisons, he’s also increased the economy to the point where we now have the lowest unemployment rate in the last 50 years, and he passed opportunity zones, which is bringing more and more companies to the inner cities,” said Kushner, who also played a key role in the just-passed United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.
More on my exclusive interview with @jaredkushner on First Step Act which gives federal inmates early release and job training opportunities to transition to work. “The policies that have been in place here for a long time have not been working and it’s time to try new things. pic.twitter.com/v7smnzxmlj — Charles Benson (@CharlesBenson4) January 15, 2020
In Wisconsin, he toured the Joseph Project, a career-placement program.
“It’s working,” he said.
Trump won a surprise victory in Wisconsin in 2016, and Kushner predicted a wider victory in 2020 because of Trump’s actions and especially his focus on inner cities and criminal justice reform.
The Alliance was proud to attend a special program of the Joseph Project, which included a roundtable discussion led by Jared Kushner, senior advisor to President Donald Trump, U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, Pastor Jerome Smith, and Ja’Ron Smith, deputy assistant to President Trump. pic.twitter.com/6kN2FZQrgq — Waukesha Co. Biz (@WCBizAlliance) January 15, 2020
“He campaigned on fighting for the forgotten men and women of this country, and the more he learned about what happened with people in prison and the struggles that they face getting out, he thought that there wasn’t anybody more forgotten or underrepresented than the people in prison and that it was his job as president of the United States is to try to give them more opportunity to get a job and get back on to their feet once they get to society, so they don’t have to turn back to a life of crime,” Kushner said.
It was his third visit to the city, and he marveled at the glow the whole state is under because the Green Bay Packers are still in the Super Bowl hunt.
Asked if he’d change to become a Packers fan, Kushner smiled and offered, “I’m from New York, so I’m a Giants fan, which these days, it would be much better to be a Packers fan.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Gun groups: Virginia Democrats want violence to disrupt, ‘smear’ gun control protest

Second Amendment groups heading a planned protest and rally of potentially 130,000 supporters Monday in Richmond , Virginia , are warning members to be on the lookout for agitators “ invited ” by gun control advocates to stir up violence and discredit their effort .
In an alert sent by one of the groups leading the “ lobbying day ” effort , supporters were advised to look the other way should counterprotesters challenge them .
“ If someone tries to provoke you , smile and walk away .
There is probably someone secretly recording the interaction , with the intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on your part .
Do n't take the bait .
It 's not worth the bad press , ” said the alert from the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which has conducted annual lobby day events peacefully since 2002 .
On Wednesday , Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam declared an emergency around the state capital for the Monday event , declaring that there “ are considered credible threats ” of violence , but he didn ’ t give details .
As a result , guns are banned in the area , even by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
VCDL and others , however , said that they have heard of no threats , especially by gun owners , and suggested the governor was instigating leftist protesters .
It is also eyeing a challenge to Northam 's temporary ban .
“ The Democrats are afraid of the voters and want to portray this peaceful assembly of law-abiding gun owners in the worst possible way .
They would love for it to degenerate to ‘ violence , rioting , and insurrection ’ in order to smear gun owners .
Has the Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the purpose of disrupting our peaceful assembly ?
” said the alert .
“ The eyes of the nation and the world are on Virginia and VCDL right now and we must show them that gun owners are not the problem .
Lead by example .
We have been , and continue to be , in close contact with several law enforcement agencies and will keep them informed of all potential threats that we become aware of .
Law enforcement will be in abundance at the event , both uniformed and plain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sincerely appreciative of their efforts to keep everyone as safe as possible , ” it added .
In his statement , Northam singled out VCDL and noted the peaceful protest held Monday by the National Rifle Association during its lobbying day .
On that day , a Senate committee approved several gun control measures opposed by gun owners , VCDL , Gun Owners of America , and the NRA .
“ I thank the NRA for hosting a peaceful event .
Now , I call on the Virginia Citizens Defense League and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s example , and make your event a peaceful display too as you have done in the past .
Please do not dishonor Virginia or your cause , ” he said .
Some media has also played up unsubstantiated reports of potential violence , pointing the finger at pro-gun supporters .
The gun groups , however , have for weeks been urging members to protest calmly , and they point to the meetings held in county and city halls over the past two months that have attracted over 100,000 to peacefully support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 130 communities have approved .
Said VCDL , “ Every year since 2002 , VCDL has come to the General Assembly to peacefully assemble and lobby our elected officials on Martin Luther King Day .
The only difference this year is that the crowd size is expected to be significantly larger due to the Democrat leadership 's promise to pass draconian gun control laws that would adversely affect law-abiding citizens while having minimal impact on criminals .
”

Second Amendment groups heading a planned protest and rally of potentially 130,000 supporters Monday in Richmond, Virginia, are warning members to be on the lookout for agitators “invited” by gun control advocates to stir up violence and discredit their effort.
In an alert sent by one of the groups leading the “lobbying day” effort, supporters were advised to look the other way should counterprotesters challenge them.
“If someone tries to provoke you, smile and walk away. There is probably someone secretly recording the interaction, with the intent of capturing some kind of inappropriate reaction on your part. Don't take the bait. It's not worth the bad press,” said the alert from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which has conducted annual lobby day events peacefully since 2002.
On Wednesday, Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam declared an emergency around the state capital for the Monday event, declaring that there “are considered credible threats” of violence, but he didn’t give details. As a result, guns are banned in the area, even by those who have legal concealed carry permits.
VCDL and others, however, said that they have heard of no threats, especially by gun owners, and suggested the governor was instigating leftist protesters. It is also eyeing a challenge to Northam's temporary ban.
“The Democrats are afraid of the voters and want to portray this peaceful assembly of law-abiding gun owners in the worst possible way. They would love for it to degenerate to ‘violence, rioting, and insurrection’ in order to smear gun owners. Has the Democrat leadership actually invited violent groups to attend for the purpose of disrupting our peaceful assembly?” said the alert.
“The eyes of the nation and the world are on Virginia and VCDL right now and we must show them that gun owners are not the problem. Lead by example. We have been, and continue to be, in close contact with several law enforcement agencies and will keep them informed of all potential threats that we become aware of. Law enforcement will be in abundance at the event, both uniformed and plain clothes, to provide security and we are sincerely appreciative of their efforts to keep everyone as safe as possible,” it added.
In his statement, Northam singled out VCDL and noted the peaceful protest held Monday by the National Rifle Association during its lobbying day. On that day, a Senate committee approved several gun control measures opposed by gun owners, VCDL, Gun Owners of America, and the NRA.
“I thank the NRA for hosting a peaceful event. Now, I call on the Virginia Citizens Defense League and its members to follow the NRA’s example, and make your event a peaceful display too as you have done in the past. Please do not dishonor Virginia or your cause,” he said.
Some media has also played up unsubstantiated reports of potential violence, pointing the finger at pro-gun supporters.
The gun groups, however, have for weeks been urging members to protest calmly, and they point to the meetings held in county and city halls over the past two months that have attracted over 100,000 to peacefully support the gun “sanctuary” movement and votes that 130 communities have approved.
Said VCDL, “Every year since 2002, VCDL has come to the General Assembly to peacefully assemble and lobby our elected officials on Martin Luther King Day. The only difference this year is that the crowd size is expected to be significantly larger due to the Democrat leadership's promise to pass draconian gun control laws that would adversely affect law-abiding citizens while having minimal impact on criminals.”