thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Trump, at National Prayer Breakfast, teases retribution for those who tried to remove him from offic

Trump, at National Prayer Breakfast, teases retribution for those who tried to remove him from office

President Trump sounds like he is ready to dish out some payback , whatever that looks like .
On Thursday , during his introduction at the 68th annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington , D.C. , the president appeared to be in good spirits , holding high for his audience two newspapers whose headlines bore a simple word : “ ACQUITTED.
” Later , after former American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks gave an address wherein he implored attendees to resist the allure of treating opponents with contempt , the president took the opportunity to deliver a decidedly different message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ I don ’ t know if I agree with you.
” After some brief introductory remarks , the president then turned his attention to his recently ended impeachment trial .
“ As everybody knows , my family , our great country , and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people , ” Trump said .
“ They have done everything possible to destroy us and , by so doing , very badly hurt our nation .
They know what they are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far ahead of our great country.
” As he spoke , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , who sat five seats down on the dais from the president , looked apprehensive .
“ Weeks ago , ” Trump continued , “ and again yesterday , courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom , fortitude , and strength to do what everyone knows was right.
” This is where it appears the president went off-script , taking a darker and more personal tone .
“ I don ’ t like people who use their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know is wrong , ” he said .
“ Nor do I like people who say , ‘ I pray for you , ’ when they know that is not so.
” Trump ’ s remarks may have been a direct swipe at Pelosi herself , who told reporters last September that she prays for the president “ all the time.
” The president ’ s comments may have also been a knock at Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah , the only Republican member of the Senate to vote `` guilty '' on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
During a speech Wednesday in the U.S. Senate , Romney claimed his Mormon faith led him to vote “ guilty.
” “ So many people have been hurt , and we can ’ t let that go on , ” Trump added in a note of warning .
“ And I ’ ll be discussing that a little bit later at the White House.
” The Senate voted Wednesday to acquit the president on two separate articles on impeachment , the first being abuse of power and the second being obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted down by a margin of 48 to 52 , and the obstruction charge was defeated 47 to 53 .
On Thursday , as Trump addressed the National Prayer Breakfast , he again appeared to go off-script as he brought his address to a close .
“ To the people in this room for the love that they show , not one religion but many religions , ” he said .
“ They ’ re brave , they ’ re brilliant , they ’ re fighters .
They like people , and sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorry .
I apologize .
I ’ m trying to learn .
It ’ s not easy .
It ’ s not easy.
” “ When they impeach you for nothing , then you ’ re supposed to like them ?
It ’ s not easy , folks .
I do my best , ” he said to laughs .
If I did not know any better , I would say the president has moved on already from the victory lap stage of his acquittal and is ready for retribution .
Pelosi was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prayer Breakfast address .
I know I would be .

President Trump sounds like he is ready to dish out some payback, whatever that looks like.
On Thursday, during his introduction at the 68th annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., the president appeared to be in good spirits, holding high for his audience two newspapers whose headlines bore a simple word: “ACQUITTED.”
The crowd loved it.
Later, after former American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks gave an address wherein he implored attendees to resist the allure of treating opponents with contempt, the president took the opportunity to deliver a decidedly different message.
“Arthur,” Trump smiled, “I don’t know if I agree with you.”
After some brief introductory remarks, the president then turned his attention to his recently ended impeachment trial.
“As everybody knows, my family, our great country, and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people,” Trump said. “They have done everything possible to destroy us and, by so doing, very badly hurt our nation. They know what they are doing is wrong, but they put themselves far ahead of our great country.”
As he spoke, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who sat five seats down on the dais from the president, looked apprehensive.
“Weeks ago,” Trump continued, “and again yesterday, courageous Republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows was right.”
This is where it appears the president went off-script, taking a darker and more personal tone.
“I don’t like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong,” he said. “Nor do I like people who say, ‘I pray for you,’ when they know that is not so.”
Trump’s remarks may have been a direct swipe at Pelosi herself, who told reporters last September that she prays for the president “all the time.” The president’s comments may have also been a knock at Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the only Republican member of the Senate to vote "guilty" on either of the impeachment charges brought against Trump. During a speech Wednesday in the U.S. Senate, Romney claimed his Mormon faith led him to vote “guilty.”
“So many people have been hurt, and we can’t let that go on,” Trump added in a note of warning. “And I’ll be discussing that a little bit later at the White House.”
The Senate voted Wednesday to acquit the president on two separate articles on impeachment, the first being abuse of power and the second being obstruction of Congress. The abuse article was voted down by a margin of 48 to 52, and the obstruction charge was defeated 47 to 53.
On Thursday, as Trump addressed the National Prayer Breakfast, he again appeared to go off-script as he brought his address to a close.
“To the people in this room for the love that they show, not one religion but many religions,” he said. “They’re brave, they’re brilliant, they’re fighters. They like people, and sometimes they hate people. I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m trying to learn. It’s not easy. It’s not easy.”
“When they impeach you for nothing, then you’re supposed to like them? It’s not easy, folks. I do my best,” he said to laughs.
If I did not know any better, I would say the president has moved on already from the victory lap stage of his acquittal and is ready for retribution. Pelosi was probably right to look nervous during his Prayer Breakfast address. I know I would be.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--House panel highlights role of regulations in making child care unaffordable

Regulations have contributed to a dearth in child care that has forced parents to abandon their jobs , witnesses said in a Tuesday congressional hearing .
The lack of care has driven some parents from the workplace because they ca n't afford the child care available to them , or there are no options in their area .
Part of the problem is that daycare licensing requirements have left the market with fewer providers , making them more expensive .
`` In the case of child care , occupational licensing raises the cost of being a provider , reducing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in supply increases prices for consumers , '' said Veronique de Rugy in prepared remarks for Tuesday 's House Small Business subcommittee hearing .
De Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University , a right-leaning organization .
Rep. Abby Finkenauer , a Democrat from Iowa who is chairwoman of the subcommittee , declared the lack of child care a “ crisis.
” Several Democrats seeking the Oval Office have plans to lessen the child care burden .
Among them , Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all Americans .
Pete Buttigieg would provide universal full-day child care and pre-K for all children from infancy to age 5 .
“ We need to address this crisis and bring down the cost of child care , ” Finkenauer said , adding , “ It isn ’ t just a family issue , it ’ s an economic issue . ''
The congresswoman said that parents are either turning down raises and promotions because they ’ re afraid to lose child care assistance benefits , or they are leaving the workforce because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home than to pay for child care .
`` Jobs are going unfilled ; employers are struggling to attract talent because of the lack of affordable child care in our communities , '' she said .
The annual cost to the economy in lost earnings , productivity , and revenue is $ 57 billion , according to ReadyNation , a Washington think tank that examines the work-life balance .
Loosening regulations would help reduce that cost .
A Mercatus Center study found that relaxing staff-to-child ratios by one child across all age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by at least 9 % .
“ The cost of child care is rightly a matter of concern .
However , the academic evidence suggests a solution that should be considered carefully : It is child care licensing laws that keep these costs of child care high and the supply of child care restricted , ” de Rugy said .
Tuesday ’ s hearing raised the issue of “ child care deserts ” where parents either have providers , but no spots are available to them , or they simply have no choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fill open posts because daycare is out of reach for parents seeking employment .
“ Even if parents can afford child care , they often can ’ t find it , '' said Sarah Piepenburg , owner of Vinaigrette , a specialty oil and vinegar shop in Minneapolis , Minnesota , who also testified before the subcommittee .
`` In my state , for example , 44 % of Minnesotans live in a child care desert , where there are simply no spots for anyone.
” Another witness , Dan Levi , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that “ the waiting lists [ in his state ] are in the thousands and it is impacting families and our economy … When a community has child care available , it is able to recruit and retain businesses , employees , and families.
” '' Private businesses , and my own business , understand the lack of potential employees in Iowa as a barrier to economic growth .
The costs associated with recruitment and retention combined with the limited hiring pool keeps many businesses ( including the clients I work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in prepared remarks .
“ We need lawmakers to invest in high-quality child care for everyone in our country , ” Piepenburg said .
Finkenauer intends to introduce legislation that addresses this problem .
It would “ expand financing options for child care , '' the congresswoman said .
It is not clear if the legislation would address the regulation issue raised during today ’ s hearing .

Regulations have contributed to a dearth in child care that has forced parents to abandon their jobs, witnesses said in a Tuesday congressional hearing.
The lack of care has driven some parents from the workplace because they can't afford the child care available to them, or there are no options in their area. Part of the problem is that daycare licensing requirements have left the market with fewer providers, making them more expensive.
"In the case of child care, occupational licensing raises the cost of being a provider, reducing the supply. In turn, that reduction in supply increases prices for consumers," said Veronique de Rugy in prepared remarks for Tuesday's House Small Business subcommittee hearing. De Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a right-leaning organization.
Rep. Abby Finkenauer, a Democrat from Iowa who is chairwoman of the subcommittee, declared the lack of child care a “crisis.”
Several Democrats seeking the Oval Office have plans to lessen the child care burden. Among them, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would have the government provide child care to all Americans. Pete Buttigieg would provide universal full-day child care and pre-K for all children from infancy to age 5.
“We need to address this crisis and bring down the cost of child care,” Finkenauer said, adding, “It isn’t just a family issue, it’s an economic issue."
The congresswoman said that parents are either turning down raises and promotions because they’re afraid to lose child care assistance benefits, or they are leaving the workforce because it’s less expensive to stay at home than to pay for child care.
"Jobs are going unfilled; employers are struggling to attract talent because of the lack of affordable child care in our communities," she said.
The annual cost to the economy in lost earnings, productivity, and revenue is $57 billion, according to ReadyNation, a Washington think tank that examines the work-life balance. Loosening regulations would help reduce that cost. A Mercatus Center study found that relaxing staff-to-child ratios by one child across all age groups would reduce the cost of daycare by at least 9%.
“The cost of child care is rightly a matter of concern. However, the academic evidence suggests a solution that should be considered carefully: It is child care licensing laws that keep these costs of child care high and the supply of child care restricted,” de Rugy said.
Tuesday’s hearing raised the issue of “child care deserts” where parents either have providers, but no spots are available to them, or they simply have no choices. This makes it difficult for businesses to fill open posts because daycare is out of reach for parents seeking employment.
“Even if parents can afford child care, they often can’t find it," said Sarah Piepenburg, owner of Vinaigrette, a specialty oil and vinegar shop in Minneapolis, Minnesota, who also testified before the subcommittee. "In my state, for example, 44% of Minnesotans live in a child care desert, where there are simply no spots for anyone.”
Another witness, Dan Levi, president of Levi Architecture in Iowa, said that “the waiting lists [in his state] are in the thousands and it is impacting families and our economy … When a community has child care available, it is able to recruit and retain businesses, employees, and families.”
"Private businesses, and my own business, understand the lack of potential employees in Iowa as a barrier to economic growth. The costs associated with recruitment and retention combined with the limited hiring pool keeps many businesses (including the clients I work for daily) from expanding," Levi said in prepared remarks.
“We need lawmakers to invest in high-quality child care for everyone in our country,” Piepenburg said.
Finkenauer intends to introduce legislation that addresses this problem. It would “expand financing options for child care," the congresswoman said. It is not clear if the legislation would address the regulation issue raised during today’s hearing.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Trump and Pelosi's incivility is hurting the government's ability to function

President Trump and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent the internet into a frenzy after this week ’ s State of the Union address with twin acts of incivility .
Before his speech , Trump seemingly declined to shake Pelosi ’ s hand after she extended it , and , at the end of the speech , Pelosi tore her copy of Trump ’ s remarks in half .
Incivility in our politics isn ’ t exactly new : Over the years , lawmakers in Congress have seen canings , brawls , death by duel , and tarring and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pair ’ s actions weren ’ t the most uncivil conduct on record , but the antics still are not acceptable .
In fact , Trump and Pelosi are setting awful examples for their supporters , considering we ’ re more divided than ever .
Some experts estimate that political polarization is at its worst since the Civil War , and childish feuds aren ’ t helping .
History tells us that we can ’ t afford to disregard civility during hardship or partisan disputes .
Indeed , a look to the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is , and civility is the necessary social glue that binds us together in times of adversity .
This is because true civility requires a fundamental respect for human dignity .
Injustices from our past and present illustrate the consequences of failing to recognize the humanity and value of every person , especially for those we really don ’ t like , those who can ’ t benefit us , and those with whom we strongly disagree .
Unfortunately , though , it often seems that people ’ s willingness to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely on whether the offender is a member of the right political tribe .
If you ’ re not on my team , the logic goes , then your incivility is an unforgivable affront to common decency , but , if you are , then your incivility is for a greater good and is therefore justified .
It ’ s also becoming more and more common to hear that we are in a post-civility era — the stakes are simply far too high to care about pleasantries and niceties , some say .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ barbaric canings and brawls , this willingness to dispense with common courtesies is nothing new in history , but it ’ s nonetheless troubling , as civility is also necessary in particular for our unique system of limited government to thrive .
Indeed , sincere civility promotes the equality , tolerance , and self-governance necessary for such a system to succeed .
We live out our national credo that “ all men are created equal ” when we act civilly , and we should be proud that we rejected the rules and social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe where people were bound to a certain rank from birth to death and were always expected to defer to their social superiors .
When we disagree , civility is how we can peacefully live together in spite of our disagreement .
Reasonable minds can peacefully disagree , and , indeed , true civility means that even unreasonable minds deserve some basic level of respect .
This is because , again , our disagreement doesn ’ t negate our value as people .
Our national motto is , `` E pluribus unum '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When you have a lot of people living in a nation together , there will be differences and discord , but we ought to be connected and unified by our common humanity .
Lastly , civility is necessary to our democracy because it encourages self-governance .
A free society of diverse individuals can function without strict governmental restraints on behavior only when individuals exercise self-restraint and selflessness , when they act well even when they have the opportunity not to .
Holding the door open for the person behind us , standing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the queue , and resisting the urge to cut someone off in traffic , even though we may be in a hurry .
When too many of us fail to exercise self-restraint and common courtesy , people will begin calling for the government to restrain us through burdensome laws and regulations .
Civility , then , is essential to our democracy .
In recognizing this , we understand that our everyday interactions matter , whether the entire nation is watching , such as at the State of the Union , or whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the sake of our nation , it ’ s imperative that more of our national leaders realize this in the days to come .
Alexandra Hudson ( @ LexiOHudson ) is an Indianapolis-based writer , a 2020 Novak fellow , and a Young Voices contributor .
She is writing a book on civility and American civic renewal .

President Trump and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent the internet into a frenzy after this week’s State of the Union address with twin acts of incivility. Before his speech, Trump seemingly declined to shake Pelosi’s hand after she extended it, and, at the end of the speech, Pelosi tore her copy of Trump’s remarks in half.
Incivility in our politics isn’t exactly new: Over the years, lawmakers in Congress have seen canings, brawls, death by duel, and tarring and feathering. So, then, the pair’s actions weren’t the most uncivil conduct on record, but the antics still are not acceptable. In fact, Trump and Pelosi are setting awful examples for their supporters, considering we’re more divided than ever. Some experts estimate that political polarization is at its worst since the Civil War, and childish feuds aren’t helping.
History tells us that we can’t afford to disregard civility during hardship or partisan disputes.
Indeed, a look to the past shows us how fragile our system of government is, and civility is the necessary social glue that binds us together in times of adversity. This is because true civility requires a fundamental respect for human dignity. Injustices from our past and present illustrate the consequences of failing to recognize the humanity and value of every person, especially for those we really don’t like, those who can’t benefit us, and those with whom we strongly disagree.
Unfortunately, though, it often seems that people’s willingness to defend or condemn instances of incivility today depends entirely on whether the offender is a member of the right political tribe.
If you’re not on my team, the logic goes, then your incivility is an unforgivable affront to common decency, but, if you are, then your incivility is for a greater good and is therefore justified. It’s also becoming more and more common to hear that we are in a post-civility era — the stakes are simply far too high to care about pleasantries and niceties, some say.
Of course, thinking back to the barbaric canings and brawls, this willingness to dispense with common courtesies is nothing new in history, but it’s nonetheless troubling, as civility is also necessary in particular for our unique system of limited government to thrive. Indeed, sincere civility promotes the equality, tolerance, and self-governance necessary for such a system to succeed.
We live out our national credo that “all men are created equal” when we act civilly, and we should be proud that we rejected the rules and social norms of the old aristocratic world of Europe where people were bound to a certain rank from birth to death and were always expected to defer to their social superiors.
Civility entails tolerance.
When we disagree, civility is how we can peacefully live together in spite of our disagreement. Reasonable minds can peacefully disagree, and, indeed, true civility means that even unreasonable minds deserve some basic level of respect. This is because, again, our disagreement doesn’t negate our value as people. Our national motto is, "E pluribus unum": Out of many, one. When you have a lot of people living in a nation together, there will be differences and discord, but we ought to be connected and unified by our common humanity.
Lastly, civility is necessary to our democracy because it encourages self-governance.
A free society of diverse individuals can function without strict governmental restraints on behavior only when individuals exercise self-restraint and selflessness, when they act well even when they have the opportunity not to. Holding the door open for the person behind us, standing in line instead of jumping to the front of the queue, and resisting the urge to cut someone off in traffic, even though we may be in a hurry. When too many of us fail to exercise self-restraint and common courtesy, people will begin calling for the government to restrain us through burdensome laws and regulations.
Civility, then, is essential to our democracy. In recognizing this, we understand that our everyday interactions matter, whether the entire nation is watching, such as at the State of the Union, or whether no one is paying attention at all. For the sake of our nation, it’s imperative that more of our national leaders realize this in the days to come.
Alexandra Hudson (@LexiOHudson) is an Indianapolis-based writer, a 2020 Novak fellow, and a Young Voices contributor. She is writing a book on civility and American civic renewal.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--FISA court dodges GOP questions about 'clearly biased' Obama official who worked on reforms

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court dodged questions posed by Republican congressmen concerned about its selection of Obama official and longtime FBI defender David Kris to advise it on FISA reforms .
Judge James Boasberg , the FISA court ’ s presiding judge , did not mention Kris ’ s name in the two-page letter obtained by the Washington Examiner , but said the input the court would receive from the hand-picked adviser , known as an amicus curiae , is “ purely advisory , and it is the court , not the amicus , that oversees each matter and determines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent the FISA court a letter in mid-January , asking specific questions about which candidates aside from Kris the spy court had considered .
In their letter , the lawmakers asked whether the court had considered biased writings and statements Kris made about the matter he was asked to about Trump campaign associate Carter Page , his criticisms of former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes , and his defenses of the FBI ’ s Trump-Russia actions .
“ While we readily acknowledge that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand these matters thoroughly , it would be inconsistent with well-established principles of judicial conduct and ethics , as well as longstanding traditions of separation of powers among the branches , for the Court to comment on matters that have come before it or to discuss its thought processes or internal deliberations , ” Boasberg wrote at the end of January .
He assured congressmen that “ our Court recognizes how important it is to the nation that the FISA process operates efficiently and fairly.
” Boasberg provided only what he called a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amici.
” The judge pointed to the list of eight possible current court-approved advisers , including Kris , and said “ it is not uncommon for the most qualified amici to have written , lectured , and spoken on issues within their expertise ” and “ in picking from the group of designated amici on a given matter , the FISC typically considers availability , interest , subject-matter expertise , as well as potential financial or fiduciary conflicts of interest in the individual matter.
” Kris , a former assistant attorney general with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ division during the Obama administration , had supported the FBI ’ s Trump-Russia investigation and criticized Nunes 's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses .
Last month , he was selected to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department report by DOJ watchdog Michael Horowitz on serious errors found in the FBI 's efforts to wiretap Page .
A Republican official with knowledge of the ongoing congressional FISA reform process blasted the judge ’ s letter .
“ The FISC ’ s response , or lack thereof , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious about FISA reform and the illegal surveillance of Carter Page , ” the GOP official said .
“ By failing to even mention David Kris in the letter , the FISC made it clear that they have no problem using a clearly biased , Obama-era official , who doesn ’ t even believe that Carter Page was illegally surveilled , to oversee reforms of the failed FISA process.
” Said the GOP official : “ It ’ s really quite something that a court like the FISC would so blatantly ignore a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a letter with the FISA court last month 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 previously laid out three main objections to Kris ’ s appointment by the court .
The first was that Kris “ boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants ” prior to the Nunes FISA memo and then claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 predicted that “ it ’ s going to get worse , not better ” for Page .
But , the congressmen said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI illegally surveilled Mr.
Page.
” And thirdly , following the release of the Horowitz report , Kris “ seemed to minimize the FBI ’ s actions ” when he said the FBI ’ s misconduct wasn ’ t “ political ” and when he attributed the missteps to sloppiness .
“ 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 .
Remaining unanswered were a number of questions .
These included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FISA abuse , when it first received evidence the FBI was misleading the court and how it responded , and other matters .

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court dodged questions posed by Republican congressmen concerned about its selection of Obama official and longtime FBI defender David Kris to advise it on FISA reforms.
Judge James Boasberg, the FISA court’s presiding judge, did not mention Kris’s name in the two-page letter obtained by the Washington Examiner, but said the input the court would receive from the hand-picked adviser, known as an amicus curiae, is “purely advisory, and it is the court, not the amicus, that oversees each matter and determines its outcome.”
Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent the FISA court a letter in mid-January, asking specific questions about which candidates aside from Kris the spy court had considered. In their letter, the lawmakers asked whether the court had considered biased writings and statements Kris made about the matter he was asked to about Trump campaign associate Carter Page, his criticisms of former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, and his defenses of the FBI’s Trump-Russia actions.
“While we readily acknowledge that it is important for interested members of Congress to understand these matters thoroughly, it would be inconsistent with well-established principles of judicial conduct and ethics, as well as longstanding traditions of separation of powers among the branches, for the Court to comment on matters that have come before it or to discuss its thought processes or internal deliberations,” Boasberg wrote at the end of January. He assured congressmen that “our Court recognizes how important it is to the nation that the FISA process operates efficiently and fairly.”
Boasberg provided only what he called a “general explanation regarding the selection of amici.” The judge pointed to the list of eight possible current court-approved advisers, including Kris, and said “it is not uncommon for the most qualified amici to have written, lectured, and spoken on issues within their expertise” and “in picking from the group of designated amici on a given matter, the FISC typically considers availability, interest, subject-matter expertise, as well as potential financial or fiduciary conflicts of interest in the individual matter.”
Kris, a former assistant attorney general with the Justice Department’s national security division during the Obama administration, had supported the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation and criticized Nunes's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses. Last month, he was selected to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department report by DOJ watchdog Michael Horowitz on serious errors found in the FBI's efforts to wiretap Page.
A Republican official with knowledge of the ongoing congressional FISA reform process blasted the judge’s letter.
“The FISC’s response, or lack thereof, raises alarms about whether the court is serious about FISA reform and the illegal surveillance of Carter Page,” the GOP official said. “By failing to even mention David Kris in the letter, the FISC made it clear that they have no problem using a clearly biased, Obama-era official, who doesn’t even believe that Carter Page was illegally surveilled, to oversee reforms of the failed FISA process.”
Said the GOP official: “It’s really quite something that a court like the FISC would so blatantly ignore a legitimate congressional inquiry."
Kris filed a letter with the FISA court last month 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 previously laid out three main objections to Kris’s appointment by the court.
The first was that Kris “boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants” prior to the Nunes FISA memo and then claimed Nunes’s assertion 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 predicted that “it’s going to get worse, not better” for Page.
But, the congressmen said, the inspector general “confirmed that the FBI illegally surveilled Mr. Page.”
And thirdly, following the release of the Horowitz report, Kris “seemed to minimize the FBI’s actions” when he said the FBI’s misconduct wasn’t “political” and when he attributed the missteps to sloppiness.
“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.
Remaining unanswered were a number of questions. These included whether the FISA court bore responsibility for the FISA abuse, when it first received evidence the FBI was misleading the court and how it responded, and other matters.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Top senator presses Pompeo for missing details in Clinton emails report

A top Republican senator asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for information about the State Department ’ s administrative review of the handling of classified information on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ’ s private email server .
Back in October , the agency identified almost 600 security violations in its review of 33,000 email records of former agency officials and aides to Clinton .
Ninety-one `` valid violations '' were attributable to 38 different people .
An additional 497 violations could not be connected to any one person .
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson , chairman of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sent a letter to Pompeo on Wednesday with several information requests .
It noted the State Department 's report `` states that ‘ the unprecedented nature and scale of this event posed many significant challenges ’ for the Department ’ s investigation.
” He added , “ These challenges included a four-month pause requested by the FBI and a ‘ significant break in time ( five to nine years ) between when the incidents occurred and when they were reviewed.
’ That meant , among other things , that ‘ many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviewed at all , as they have moved on from the Department and could not be reached . '
'' The State Department review began after the FBI investigated Clinton 's use of an unauthorized server hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua , New York , during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 .
Clinton insists the email setup was simply a matter of `` convenience . ''
The security violations with the handling of classified information , Johnson said , were so pervasive in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have to be prosecuted in order to have a semblance of accountability .
“ It is unfortunate that the Department was unable to interview all the individuals needed to assess the extent to which Department employees mishandled classified information .
Interestingly , a prosecutor who worked on the FBI ’ s investigation of Clinton ’ s private email server told the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General , ‘ the problem was the State Department was so screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to prosecute 150 State Department people.
’ The seemingly widespread and pervasive nature of these security violations , especially for the handling of classified information , is simply unacceptable , ” he wrote .
Johnson called on Pompeo to provide further information to his committee , including the names and titles of the “ dozens of past and present [ Department ] employees and senior officials ” who were contacted for the review as well as the names of the 38 people who committed a valid security violation and whether they continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Johnson pressed Pompeo to disclose whether the 38 officials tied to `` valid violations '' were interviewed by the State Department for the report .
He requested information concerning which of the 91 violations were attributed to each of them and whether disciplinary action was taken in any instance .
Johnson also inquired about whether Clinton , her former counsel Cheryl Mills , her former aide Huma Abedin , her former counsel Heather Samuelson , or her former aide Jake Sullivan were involved in any of the 497 security violations cited in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ granted immunity deals by the FBI during the agency 's investigation into Clinton 's use of the unauthorized server .
“ After the discovery of the private email server , did the Department send instructions to former-Secretary Clinton or her staff with respect to the transmission of classified materials ?
If so , what were those instructions , who transmitted them , and when were they sent ?
” Johnson asked , adding when the Department first became aware that Clinton exclusively emailed from a private server and who at the Department was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deadline to provide the information no later than Feb. 20 .

A top Republican senator asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for information about the State Department’s administrative review of the handling of classified information on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
Back in October, the agency identified almost 600 security violations in its review of 33,000 email records of former agency officials and aides to Clinton. Ninety-one "valid violations" were attributable to 38 different people. An additional 497 violations could not be connected to any one person.
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Pompeo on Wednesday with several information requests. It noted the State Department's report "states that ‘the unprecedented nature and scale of this event posed many significant challenges’ for the Department’s investigation.”
He added, “These challenges included a four-month pause requested by the FBI and a ‘significant break in time (five to nine years) between when the incidents occurred and when they were reviewed.’ That meant, among other things, that ‘many of the individuals [were] unavailable to be interviewed at all, as they have moved on from the Department and could not be reached.'"
The State Department review began after the FBI investigated Clinton's use of an unauthorized server hosted in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, New York, during her time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Clinton insists the email setup was simply a matter of "convenience."
The security violations with the handling of classified information, Johnson said, were so pervasive in the State Department under Clinton that many individuals would have to be prosecuted in order to have a semblance of accountability.
“It is unfortunate that the Department was unable to interview all the individuals needed to assess the extent to which Department employees mishandled classified information. Interestingly, a prosecutor who worked on the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s private email server told the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, ‘the problem was the State Department was so screwed up in the way they treated classified information that if you wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton, you would have had to prosecute 150 State Department people.’ The seemingly widespread and pervasive nature of these security violations, especially for the handling of classified information, is simply unacceptable,” he wrote.
Johnson called on Pompeo to provide further information to his committee, including the names and titles of the “dozens of past and present [Department] employees and senior officials” who were contacted for the review as well as the names of the 38 people who committed a valid security violation and whether they continue to work at the department.
Additionally, Johnson pressed Pompeo to disclose whether the 38 officials tied to "valid violations" were interviewed by the State Department for the report. He requested information concerning which of the 91 violations were attributed to each of them and whether disciplinary action was taken in any instance.
Johnson also inquired about whether Clinton, her former counsel Cheryl Mills, her former aide Huma Abedin, her former counsel Heather Samuelson, or her former aide Jake Sullivan were involved in any of the 497 security violations cited in the review. Mills and Samuelson were granted immunity deals by the FBI during the agency's investigation into Clinton's use of the unauthorized server.
“After the discovery of the private email server, did the Department send instructions to former-Secretary Clinton or her staff with respect to the transmission of classified materials? If so, what were those instructions, who transmitted them, and when were they sent?” Johnson asked, adding when the Department first became aware that Clinton exclusively emailed from a private server and who at the Department was notified.
The chairman gave Pompeo a deadline to provide the information no later than Feb. 20.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Nancy Pelosi was classless to rip up Trump's State of the Union speech, but stop freaking out

On Tuesday evening , President Trump delivered a strong State of the Union address that largely focused on good economic news everyone can appreciate .
However , the speech ’ s actual content has largely been overshadowed in the days since — partly due to other breaking stories , but also because the drama from the State of the Union has taken center stage over the substance .
One moment from that night that went viral was Speaker Nancy Pelosi of the president ’ s speech after he finished .
She dubiously it was the “ courteous ” thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dirty.
” She joined other Democrats in their rather extreme criticisms of what seemed a fairly benign speech to any objective observer whose brain is n't clouded by partisan vitriol .
I certainly agree with conservative critics that Pelosi ’ s behavior was classless , uncalled for , and needlessly divisive .
( Although , as my Washington Examiner colleague Madeline Fry , it ’ s a bit rich to hear calls for civility coming from people who admire Trump . )
Yet some of these critics are taking things way , way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ territory of conservative snowflakery .
Rep. Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. , for instance , told Fox News that he “ will be filing charges against Nancy Pelosi in the House Ethics Committee.
” The Florida Republican continued , “ The law does not allow the speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House , and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don ’ t like what the president of the United States says.
” Gaetz is by fellow Republican Reps. Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , R-Ariz .
I understand why they 're angry -- Pelosi 's conduct was clearly classless and rude -- but to claim she broke the law or deserves official sanction is ridiculous .
It ’ s not illegal to pull a political stunt .
If it were , Gaetz himself would be in some serious trouble .
As far as “ destroying official records ” is concerned , it does not appear that this was .
It was just a paper copy of Trump ’ s speech , provided as a courtesy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi deserves criticism for her juvenile behavior .
But when the same Republicans and conservatives who ( rightly ) cry foul over liberal political correctness and snowflakery wildly overreact to Democratic acts of incivility , they discredit the underlying merit of their complaints .

On Tuesday evening, President Trump delivered a strong State of the Union address that largely focused on good economic news everyone can appreciate. However, the speech’s actual content has largely been overshadowed in the days since — partly due to other breaking stories, but also because the drama from the State of the Union has taken center stage over the substance.
One moment from that night that went viral was Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up her written copy of the president’s speech after he finished. She dubiously claimed it was the “courteous” thing to do, saying the speech was “dirty.” She joined other Democrats in their rather extreme criticisms of what seemed a fairly benign speech to any objective observer whose brain isn't clouded by partisan vitriol.
As @realDonaldTrump concludes his #SOTU address, @SpeakerPelosi rips up a copy of the speech he gave her before he began. pic.twitter.com/XpmULnEDz2 — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) February 5, 2020
I certainly agree with conservative critics that Pelosi’s behavior was classless, uncalled for, and needlessly divisive. (Although, as my Washington Examiner colleague Madeline Fry noted , it’s a bit rich to hear calls for civility coming from people who admire Trump.)
Yet some of these critics are taking things way, way too far, and quickly entering the territory of conservative snowflakery.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., for instance, told Fox News that he “will be filing charges against Nancy Pelosi in the House Ethics Committee.” The Florida Republican continued, “The law does not allow the speaker of the House to destroy the records of the House, and the rules of the House do not permit some little temper tantrum just because you don’t like what the president of the United States says.”
Gaetz is joined in his overreaction by fellow Republican Reps. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.
I understand why they're angry -- Pelosi's conduct was clearly classless and rude -- but to claim she broke the law or deserves official sanction is ridiculous. It’s not illegal to pull a political stunt. If it were, Gaetz himself would be in some serious trouble. As far as “destroying official records” is concerned, it does not appear that this was an official House record . It was just a paper copy of Trump’s speech, provided as a courtesy for Pelosi to follow along.
Yes, Pelosi deserves criticism for her juvenile behavior. But when the same Republicans and conservatives who (rightly) cry foul over liberal political correctness and snowflakery wildly overreact to Democratic acts of incivility, they discredit the underlying merit of their complaints.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Liberals in Congress seek to punish right-to-work states, strangle gig economy

Thomas Jefferson once wrote , “ To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
” Today , Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bring to the House floor H.R .
2474 , which would do just that .
The Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act would force workers to fund unions .
Rather than require unions to increase transparency and accountability , Democrats are enabling labor union leaders to exert political influence , harming very workers they purport to protect .
There isn ’ t a single person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unsafe working conditions , inadequate compensation for competent work , or a toxic work environment .
While the PRO Act claims to be in favor of combating these issues , it would instead make it more difficult for employers and businesses to invest in American workers .
The American Action Forum predicted in a recent report that employers will face nearly $ 50 billion in new annual costs from the implementation of the PRO Act , which will only shrink the number of employees they can hire .
We need to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend are not harmed by the adverse consequences of these ideas .
By creating new obstacles for companies to hire independent contractors , this bill would suffocate the gig economy , to which people are increasingly turning for the freedom , flexibility , and adaptable income that it offers .
Many of these hardworking individuals prefer the liberty of freelance contracting over the less flexible opportunities available through traditional full-time employment .
They would lose opportunities under this prohibitive legislation .
The PRO Act also mandates that employers collect and report workers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addresses and phone numbers , to union organizers — without the workers ’ consent .
Giving union bosses more power without measures of accountability also facilitates corruption that is already flagrant in several industries — corruption that in some cases includes the direction of union workers ’ dues toward .
The PRO Act would force more workers into a one-size-fits-all union contract — to make them sacrifice a chunk of their paychecks involuntarily as an automatic condition of employment .
Workers would have to pay an additional aggregate of millions of dollars out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not want to be represented by a union .
It inherently infringes upon the rights and paychecks of workers .
A worker ’ s access to work and the ability to support their families should not be dependent on contributions to an entity that may not have their best interests in mind .
including my home state of Arkansas , have right-to-work laws that guarantee that workers can not be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment .
In accordance with the values our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens deserve the freedom of choice in matters affecting their livelihoods .
Right-to-work protections also guarantee that , if a worker opts out of paying union fees , he or she will not be excluded from the basic protections deserved by all workers in the workplace .
The PRO Act would overturn right-to-work laws in all of those states , infringing on state powers and the individual liberties of American workers to choose the best opportunities for themselves and their families .
Official statistics from the Department of Labor show that right-to-work states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower unemployment rates and fewer work stoppages .
Right-to-work is a demonstrated better economic model for states .
The PRO Act ironically steals freedom of choice from the workers of America .
For Arkansans and others , the PRO Act violates liberties intended to be protected by the Founding Fathers .
The imprudent PRO Act will chip away at workers ’ rights and employer opportunities ; it would harm the economy while rewarding labor union bosses .
Protection of America ’ s workers and their right to work are crucial to the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bring to the House floor H.R. 2474, which would do just that.
The Protecting the Right to Organize or PRO Act would force workers to fund unions. Rather than require unions to increase transparency and accountability, Democrats are enabling labor union leaders to exert political influence, harming very workers they purport to protect.
There isn’t a single person in this country who is in favor of unsafe working conditions, inadequate compensation for competent work, or a toxic work environment. While the PRO Act claims to be in favor of combating these issues, it would instead make it more difficult for employers and businesses to invest in American workers.
The American Action Forum predicted in a recent report that employers will face nearly $50 billion in new annual costs from the implementation of the PRO Act, which will only shrink the number of employees they can hire. We need to ensure that the people this proposal claims to defend are not harmed by the adverse consequences of these ideas.
By creating new obstacles for companies to hire independent contractors, this bill would suffocate the gig economy, to which people are increasingly turning for the freedom, flexibility, and adaptable income that it offers. Many of these hardworking individuals prefer the liberty of freelance contracting over the less flexible opportunities available through traditional full-time employment. They would lose opportunities under this prohibitive legislation.
The PRO Act also mandates that employers collect and report workers’ private, personal information, such as addresses and phone numbers, to union organizers — without the workers’ consent. Giving union bosses more power without measures of accountability also facilitates corruption that is already flagrant in several industries — corruption that in some cases includes the direction of union workers’ dues toward lavish personal spending of senior-ranking union officials .
The PRO Act would force more workers into a one-size-fits-all union contract — to make them sacrifice a chunk of their paychecks involuntarily as an automatic condition of employment. Workers would have to pay an additional aggregate of millions of dollars out of their hard-earned paychecks even if they do not want to be represented by a union. It inherently infringes upon the rights and paychecks of workers. A worker’s access to work and the ability to support their families should not be dependent on contributions to an entity that may not have their best interests in mind.
Twenty-seven states, including my home state of Arkansas, have right-to-work laws that guarantee that workers cannot be forced to join a union or pay union dues as a condition of employment. In accordance with the values our country was founded upon, I believe that citizens deserve the freedom of choice in matters affecting their livelihoods. Right-to-work protections also guarantee that, if a worker opts out of paying union fees, he or she will not be excluded from the basic protections deserved by all workers in the workplace.
The PRO Act would overturn right-to-work laws in all of those states, infringing on state powers and the individual liberties of American workers to choose the best opportunities for themselves and their families. Official statistics from the Department of Labor show that right-to-work states have greater economic vitality because of their lower unemployment rates and fewer work stoppages. Right-to-work is a demonstrated better economic model for states.
The PRO Act ironically steals freedom of choice from the workers of America. For Arkansans and others, the PRO Act violates liberties intended to be protected by the Founding Fathers. The imprudent PRO Act will chip away at workers’ rights and employer opportunities; it would harm the economy while rewarding labor union bosses. Protection of America’s workers and their right to work are crucial to the economic success and prosperity of our beloved country.
U.S. Rep. French Hill, a Republican, represents Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--‘Frozen by paralysis of analysis’: Obama administration botched response to election meddling from R

‘Frozen by paralysis of analysis’: Obama administration botched response to election meddling from Russia, senators say

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report on Thursday , criticizing the Obama administration for being unprepared to combat Russia ’ s election interference in 2016 and for fumbling the response .
The committee ’ s 54-page heavily redacted report , the third installment in the committee ’ s investigation into the Kremlin ’ s foreign influence campaign in 2016 , “ found the U.S. government was not well-postured to counter Russian election interference activity with a full range of readily-available policy options.
” The report said that , while high-level warnings were delivered to Russian officials , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tempered Moscow ’ s activity ” and “ Russia continued disseminating stolen emails , conducting social media-based influence operations , and working to access state voting infrastructure through Election Day 2016.
” Republican Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said , “ After discovering the existence , if not the full scope , of Russia ’ s election interference efforts in late-2016 , the Obama administration struggled to determine the appropriate response .
Frozen by ‘ paralysis of analysis , ’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived , Obama officials debated courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Added Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia : “ There were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack , but it ’ s worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system — problems that can and should be corrected . ''
The report found that the Obama administration “ was constrained in its response by a number of external and internal concerns , ” including that “ public warnings would themselves undermine confidence in the election . ''
The Obama administration treated cyber @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures campaign as separate issues , the committee said .
“ This bifurcated approach may have prevented the Administration from understanding the full extent of the threat Russia posed , limiting its ability to respond.
” The committee concluded that “ the decision to limit and delay information sharing about the foreign influence threat inadvertently constrained the Obama administration ’ s ability to respond.
” President Barack Obama , then-Vice President Joe Biden , and the Democratic Party harshly criticized then-candidate Mitt Romney for his warnings about Russia and Putin in 2012 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main culprits for President Trump ’ s victory four years later .
Obama famously drubbed Romney over Russia in an October 2012 debate , saying , “ Gov .
Romney , I ’ m glad you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat , because a couple of months ago when you were asked what ’ s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America , you said Russia .
And the 1980 's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.
” Romney , now a junior senator representing Utah , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I indicated , is a geopolitical foe .
And I said in the same paragraph that Iran is the greatest national security threat that we face , '' he said .
“ I have clear eyes on this .
I ’ m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin.
” Biden derided Romney during the campaign , claiming he was “ mired in a Cold War mindset ” and calling him a `` Cold War holdover '' with an “ apparent determination to take U.S.-Russian relations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden defeated Romney and won a second term in 2012 , Putin ’ s Russia annexed Crimea and made military incursions into eastern Ukraine , among other actions .
`` Despite the unprecedented scale and sophistication of the 2016 Russian active measures campaign , Moscow has a decades-long history of conducting active measures campaigns against the United States , '' the Senate Intelligence Committee report noted .
The U.S. intelligence community concluded in 2017 that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking thousands of Democratic emails and providing those stolen records to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from special counsel Robert Mueller bolstered this conclusion , though Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians .
The first volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee 's Russia investigation , released last July , concluded that “ Russian government-affiliated cyber actors conducted an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure in the run-up to the 2016 ” and likely attempted intrusions in all 50 states .
But the committee found “ no evidence ” that vote tallies were altered or that voter registry files were deleted or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intelligence community ’ s insight into that is limited .
The second volume , released in October , said Russian operatives working through the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency masqueraded as Americans online and used ads , fake articles , and false personas to push disinformation to tens of millions of social media users in the U.S. to harm Clinton , help Trump , and sow discord .
It criticized the Obama administration ’ s weak response , including its decision to hand over its social media inquiry to a third-party investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or viewed the work `` as not warranting more institutionalized consideration ” and never contacted Twitter about possible Russian disinformation operations until the election ended .

The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report on Thursday, criticizing the Obama administration for being unprepared to combat Russia’s election interference in 2016 and for fumbling the response.
The committee’s 54-page heavily redacted report, the third installment in the committee’s investigation into the Kremlin’s foreign influence campaign in 2016, “found the U.S. government was not well-postured to counter Russian election interference activity with a full range of readily-available policy options.”
The report said that, while high-level warnings were delivered to Russian officials, “those warnings may or may not have tempered Moscow’s activity” and “Russia continued disseminating stolen emails, conducting social media-based influence operations, and working to access state voting infrastructure through Election Day 2016.”
Republican Chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina said, “After discovering the existence, if not the full scope, of Russia’s election interference efforts in late-2016, the Obama administration struggled to determine the appropriate response. Frozen by ‘paralysis of analysis,’ hamstrung by constraints both real and perceived, Obama officials debated courses of action without truly taking one.”
Added Democratic Vice Chairman Mark Warner of Virginia: “There were many flaws with the U.S. response to the 2016 attack, but it’s worth noting that many of those were due to problems with our own system — problems that can and should be corrected."
The report found that the Obama administration “was constrained in its response by a number of external and internal concerns,” including that “public warnings would themselves undermine confidence in the election."
The Obama administration treated cyber and geopolitical aspects of the Russian active measures campaign as separate issues, the committee said. “This bifurcated approach may have prevented the Administration from understanding the full extent of the threat Russia posed, limiting its ability to respond.”
The committee concluded that “the decision to limit and delay information sharing about the foreign influence threat inadvertently constrained the Obama administration’s ability to respond.”
President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden, and the Democratic Party harshly criticized then-candidate Mitt Romney for his warnings about Russia and Putin in 2012, but blamed the Kremlin as one of the main culprits for President Trump’s victory four years later.
Obama famously drubbed Romney over Russia in an October 2012 debate, saying, “Gov. Romney, I’m glad you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat, because a couple of months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. And the 1980's are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
Romney, now a junior senator representing Utah, held his ground. “Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe. And I said in the same paragraph that Iran is the greatest national security threat that we face," he said. “I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin.”
Biden derided Romney during the campaign, claiming he was “mired in a Cold War mindset” and calling him a "Cold War holdover" with an “apparent determination to take U.S.-Russian relations back to the 1950s.”
After Obama and Biden defeated Romney and won a second term in 2012, Putin’s Russia annexed Crimea and made military incursions into eastern Ukraine, among other actions.
"Despite the unprecedented scale and sophistication of the 2016 Russian active measures campaign, Moscow has a decades-long history of conducting active measures campaigns against the United States," the Senate Intelligence Committee report noted.
The U.S. intelligence community concluded in 2017 that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking thousands of Democratic emails and providing those stolen records to WikiLeaks. An investigation by and indictments from special counsel Robert Mueller bolstered this conclusion, though Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Russians.
The first volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation, released last July, concluded that “Russian government-affiliated cyber actors conducted an unprecedented level of activity against state election infrastructure in the run-up to the 2016” and likely attempted intrusions in all 50 states. But the committee found “no evidence” that vote tallies were altered or that voter registry files were deleted or modified, though the committee said that the intelligence community’s insight into that is limited.
The second volume, released in October, said Russian operatives working through the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency masqueraded as Americans online and used ads, fake articles, and false personas to push disinformation to tens of millions of social media users in the U.S. to harm Clinton, help Trump, and sow discord. It criticized the Obama administration’s weak response, including its decision to hand over its social media inquiry to a third-party investigator, suggesting the FBI either lacked resources or viewed the work "as not warranting more institutionalized consideration” and never contacted Twitter about possible Russian disinformation operations until the election ended.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Top Pence aide: Mitt Romney ungrateful, ‘who’s not giving forgiveness?’

The chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence ripped Sen. Mitt Romney as an ungrateful politician who repeatedly begged for the president ’ s support then turned on him .
Marc Short said that the media was focusing too much on concerns that President Trump might ostracize Romney for being the lone Republican in the Senate to vote to convict the president on one of the impeachment counts .
Instead , he said the focus should be on Romney 's beef with the president .
On Fox ’ s Varney & Co. show , he said , “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Wallace in which he questions whether or not this president will go after him and forgive Mitt Romney.
” Short then said , “ At some point , when are we going to ask the other question : In 2012 , Donald Trump endorsed [ Republican presidential nominee ] Mitt Romney .
In 2016 , Mitt Romney led the Never Trump campaign .
In 2018 , he asked for Donald Trump ’ s endorsement , and Donald Trump gave it to him for his Senate race .
And as soon as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ op-ed in the Washington Post about how he ’ s going to oppose this president.
” He added , “ At some point , we have to ask the question , who ’ s not giving forgiveness here ?
” Short spoke as the president and vice president were attending Thursday 's National Prayer Breakfast , during which the president shrugged off claims by his critics that they pray for him .
Host Stuart Varney asked about Romney ’ s statement Wednesday that his Mormon faith drove him to condemn the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Mike Lee didn ’ t vote to convict Trump .
“ If his Mormon faith led him to want to convict the president , I don ’ t know if that is an indictment of Mike Lee ’ s Mormon faith because his fellow senator from Utah , I don ’ t know if he is implying Mike Lee didn ’ t rely on his prayer to come to his conclusion for acquittal , ” said Short .
And he ripped the hypocrisy in the media that is quick to condemn politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes but herald others who use it criticize Trump , like Romney did .
For example when politicians cite faith to support a pro-life agenda , said Short , “ typically they are condemned by the media . ''
But , he added , if they cite faith to impeach the president , like Romney did , then the “ mainstream media celebrates that , ” he said , adding , “ That ’ s a serious contradiction .
”

The chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence ripped Sen. Mitt Romney as an ungrateful politician who repeatedly begged for the president’s support then turned on him.
Marc Short said that the media was focusing too much on concerns that President Trump might ostracize Romney for being the lone Republican in the Senate to vote to convict the president on one of the impeachment counts. Instead, he said the focus should be on Romney's beef with the president.
On Fox’s Varney & Co. show, he said, “I saw the interview on your network with Chris Wallace in which he questions whether or not this president will go after him and forgive Mitt Romney.”
Short then said, “At some point, when are we going to ask the other question: In 2012, Donald Trump endorsed [Republican presidential nominee] Mitt Romney. In 2016, Mitt Romney led the Never Trump campaign. In 2018, he asked for Donald Trump’s endorsement, and Donald Trump gave it to him for his Senate race. And as soon as he comes to Washington, he writes an op-ed in the Washington Post about how he’s going to oppose this president.”
He added, “At some point, we have to ask the question, who’s not giving forgiveness here?”
Short spoke as the president and vice president were attending Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast, during which the president shrugged off claims by his critics that they pray for him.
Host Stuart Varney asked about Romney’s statement Wednesday that his Mormon faith drove him to condemn the president. Short noted that fellow Mormon and Utah Sen. Mike Lee didn’t vote to convict Trump.
“If his Mormon faith led him to want to convict the president, I don’t know if that is an indictment of Mike Lee’s Mormon faith because his fellow senator from Utah, I don’t know if he is implying Mike Lee didn’t rely on his prayer to come to his conclusion for acquittal,” said Short.
And he ripped the hypocrisy in the media that is quick to condemn politicians who cite their faith in supporting conservative causes but herald others who use it criticize Trump, like Romney did.
For example when politicians cite faith to support a pro-life agenda, said Short, “typically they are condemned by the media."
But, he added, if they cite faith to impeach the president, like Romney did, then the “mainstream media celebrates that,” he said, adding, “That’s a serious contradiction.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--2020 odds jump for Trump, 59.99% chance for reelection, 16.7% for Sanders

A week of strong job approval polls for President Trump has ended with the one survey that sizes up his chances for reelection , and the odds are nearly 60 % that he will win a second term .
Betting aggregator Oddschecker.com put Trump ’ s chances at 59.99 % , and the site shows that Trump has been soaring in the past few weeks , paralleling national job approval surveys including Gallup and the highly watched RealClearPolitics “ Trump Job Approval ” average .
Trump ’ s odds of victory are now 5-7 , according to Oddschecker .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told Secrets that “ Trump is at an all-time high.
” Far behind is Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders , who has a 16.7 % chance of winning the White House , and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with an 11 % chance .
But with the Democratic race in turmoil after Iowa flubbed its caucuses and indications showing a strong first- or second-place finish for former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , gamblers are scrambling to fine-tune their bets among the sites Oddschecker examines .
Notably , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Hampshire primary next week have started to pull the bets for former Vice President Joe Biden , rejected again by Iowa Democrats , and put more on Sanders and Buttigieg .
The chances of Buttigieg winning the New Hampshire primary , for example , tripled overnight .
“ Some oddsmakers have gone into full panic mode , ” Watt said .
“ It seems that Buttigieg ’ s gain has been Biden ’ s loss , with the former VP going very much in the other direction , ” he added .

A week of strong job approval polls for President Trump has ended with the one survey that sizes up his chances for reelection, and the odds are nearly 60% that he will win a second term.
Betting aggregator Oddschecker.com put Trump’s chances at 59.99%, and the site shows that Trump has been soaring in the past few weeks, paralleling national job approval surveys including Gallup and the highly watched RealClearPolitics “Trump Job Approval” average.
Trump’s odds of victory are now 5-7, according to Oddschecker. The firm’s spokesman, Pete Watt, told Secrets that “Trump is at an all-time high.”
Far behind is Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has a 16.7% chance of winning the White House, and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with an 11% chance.
But with the Democratic race in turmoil after Iowa flubbed its caucuses and indications showing a strong first- or second-place finish for former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, gamblers are scrambling to fine-tune their bets among the sites Oddschecker examines.
Notably, those betting on the outcome of the New Hampshire primary next week have started to pull the bets for former Vice President Joe Biden, rejected again by Iowa Democrats, and put more on Sanders and Buttigieg.
The chances of Buttigieg winning the New Hampshire primary, for example, tripled overnight.
“Some oddsmakers have gone into full panic mode,” Watt said.
“It seems that Buttigieg’s gain has been Biden’s loss, with the former VP going very much in the other direction,” he added.
New Hampshire primary current best odds:


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Pete Buttigieg admits he’s an abortion radical

In case voters needed more evidence that Pete Buttigieg ’ s supposedly “ moderate ” candidacy , he just revealed his true far-left stances on The View .
Bringing up the subject of late-term abortion , host Meghan McCain comments from September in which Buttigieg appeared to support abortion up until birth .
“ Right now , [ Republicans ] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion , which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally , ” Buttigieg at the time .
“ Then again , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath , and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.
” McCain asked Buttigieg to clarify whether he meant that life only begins when the baby takes his or her first breath , which would mean Buttigieg supports abortion up until the point of birth , a radical stance even by the majority of those who call themselves pro-abortion .
Buttigieg hedged , “ We live in a country where it is extremely important that no one person have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interpretation of their own religion.
” McCain pressed him again , asking where he would draw the line .
“ My point is that it shouldn ’ t be up to a government official to draw the line , it should be up to the woman who ’ s confronted with the choice , ” he responded , echoing a typical .
Buttigieg built the pathos of the situation , implying that a woman only chooses late-term abortion when she learns something “ excruciating ” about her child .
Could it be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg insisted that if a woman is in the situation where she ’ s considering a late-term abortion , “ I trust her.
” The audience erupted with applause .
McCain concluded by noting , correctly , that Buttigieg ’ s radical stance on abortion will hurt him with Republicans he needs to win over .
The most disconcerting element of this exchange is that Buttigieg would refuse to explicitly say that a woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any point .
It ’ s easy to applaud “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrate a politician for saying he really doesn ’ t care about unborn babies ’ lives .

In case voters needed more evidence that Pete Buttigieg’s supposedly “moderate” candidacy is a sham , he just revealed his true far-left stances on The View.
Bringing up the subject of late-term abortion, host Meghan McCain mentioned comments from September in which Buttigieg appeared to support abortion up until birth.
“Right now, [Republicans] hold everybody in line with this one piece of doctrine about abortion, which is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people to think through morally,” Buttigieg said at the time. “Then again, there’s a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath, and so even that is something that we can interpret differently.”
McCain asked Buttigieg to clarify whether he meant that life only begins when the baby takes his or her first breath, which would mean Buttigieg supports abortion up until the point of birth, a radical stance opposed even by the majority of those who call themselves pro-abortion.
Buttigieg hedged, “We live in a country where it is extremely important that no one person have to be subject to some other person’s interpretation of their own religion.”
McCain pressed him again, asking where he would draw the line.
“My point is that it shouldn’t be up to a government official to draw the line, it should be up to the woman who’s confronted with the choice,” he responded, echoing a typical Democratic talking point .
McCain pushed, “What about infanticide?”
Buttigieg built the pathos of the situation, implying that a woman only chooses late-term abortion when she learns something “excruciating” about her child. Could it be that she simply wants to abort her baby with special needs ?
Buttigieg insisted that if a woman is in the situation where she’s considering a late-term abortion, “I trust her.”
The audience erupted with applause. McCain concluded by noting, correctly, that Buttigieg’s radical stance on abortion will hurt him with Republicans he needs to win over.
The most disconcerting element of this exchange is that Buttigieg would refuse to explicitly say that a woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any point. It’s easy to applaud “I trust her” and much harder to celebrate a politician for saying he really doesn’t care about unborn babies’ lives.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Democratic candidates get nasty in final days before New Hampshire primary

The unsettled results from the Iowa caucuses have convinced a number of Democratic front-runners that it 's finally time to get into the mud .
Some of the first shots following the Iowa debacle came from Joe Biden , widely regarded as the loser from the first nominating contest on Monday in which he appears to have finished fourth .
At a campaign stop Wednesday in New Hampshire , the former vice president blasted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 's socialist bona fides .
`` Every Democrat will have to carry the label Senator Sanders chose for himself .
He calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t mean to criticize him , a 'democratic socialist , ' '' Biden , 77 , said in Somersworth , New Hampshire .
`` And we 've already seen what Donald Trump is going to do with that . ''
Sanders , first elected to the House in 1990 and the Senate in 2006 , is all talk and no action , Biden said .
`` Bernie has talked about the single-payer , 'Medicare for all ' healthcare system for the country for 30 years , now , '' Biden said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inch .
Matter of fact , both the Vermont past governors have endorsed me . ''
At the same campaign rally , Biden aimed his fire at Pete Buttigieg , 38 .
“ Is he really saying the Obama-Biden administration was a failure ?
Pete , just say it out loud , ” Biden said .
Biden was responding to the former South Bend , Indiana , mayor 's criticisms of him the prior week in Iowa , although Biden appeared uninterested until after his poor performance in the caucuses .
Those results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who landed in fourth place and just above the delegate threshold at roughly 15 % of the vote .
Before then , Biden kept his remarks short and said , `` I have great respect of Mayor Pete and his service to the country . ''
But Biden is n't alone .
Elizabeth Warren , who placed third in the caucuses , entered New Hampshire with a strong accusation against Buttigieg .
A top aide to the Massachusetts senator claimed Buttigieg 's campaign might be in violation of federal election law because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pete 's military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it 's critical they see this on the air through the caucus , '' wrote Michael Halle , the senior adviser to Buttigieg .
`` Was this meant to be a DM [ direct message ] or did you mean to tweet out this instruction to your super PAC ? ''
Warren 's campaign manager Roger Lau responded .
The accusation was echoed in a press release from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee , a political action committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the race as a Boy Scout but has corrupted his brand by becoming the candidate of big-money corporate donors .
It 's a slap in the face of campaign finance law to so brazenly and unethically direct a Super PAC how to spend on his behalf — all while leaving New Hampshire to do big-money New York fundraisers , '' said PCCC co-founder Adam Green in a statement .
`` Donald Trump would call him part of the corrupt swamp if he were ever the nominee . ''
A RealClearPolitics average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire .
Although Sanders leads at 25.5 % support , Biden trails him at 17.7 % , Buttigieg at 15.7 % , and Warren at 13.8 % .

The unsettled results from the Iowa caucuses have convinced a number of Democratic front-runners that it's finally time to get into the mud.
Some of the first shots following the Iowa debacle came from Joe Biden, widely regarded as the loser from the first nominating contest on Monday in which he appears to have finished fourth. At a campaign stop Wednesday in New Hampshire, the former vice president blasted Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders's socialist bona fides.
"Every Democrat will have to carry the label Senator Sanders chose for himself. He calls him[self], and I don’t mean to criticize him, a 'democratic socialist,'" Biden, 77, said in Somersworth, New Hampshire. "And we've already seen what Donald Trump is going to do with that."
Sanders, first elected to the House in 1990 and the Senate in 2006, is all talk and no action, Biden said.
"Bernie has talked about the single-payer, 'Medicare for all' healthcare system for the country for 30 years, now," Biden said. "Hasn't moved it an inch. Matter of fact, both the Vermont past governors have endorsed me."
At the same campaign rally, Biden aimed his fire at Pete Buttigieg, 38.
“Is he really saying the Obama-Biden administration was a failure? Pete, just say it out loud,” Biden said.
Biden was responding to the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor's criticisms of him the prior week in Iowa, although Biden appeared uninterested until after his poor performance in the caucuses.
Those results constituted a worst-case scenario for Biden, who landed in fourth place and just above the delegate threshold at roughly 15% of the vote. Before then, Biden kept his remarks short and said, "I have great respect of Mayor Pete and his service to the country."
But Biden isn't alone. Elizabeth Warren, who placed third in the caucuses, entered New Hampshire with a strong accusation against Buttigieg.
A top aide to the Massachusetts senator claimed Buttigieg's campaign might be in violation of federal election law because of a vague tweet on Wednesday.
"Pete's military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it's critical they see this on the air through the caucus," wrote Michael Halle, the senior adviser to Buttigieg.
"Was this meant to be a DM [direct message] or did you mean to tweet out this instruction to your super PAC?" Warren's campaign manager Roger Lau responded.
The accusation was echoed in a press release from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a political action committee closely tied with Warren.
"Pete entered the race as a Boy Scout but has corrupted his brand by becoming the candidate of big-money corporate donors. It's a slap in the face of campaign finance law to so brazenly and unethically direct a Super PAC how to spend on his behalf — all while leaving New Hampshire to do big-money New York fundraisers," said PCCC co-founder Adam Green in a statement. "Donald Trump would call him part of the corrupt swamp if he were ever the nominee."
A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows a tight race in New Hampshire. Although Sanders leads at 25.5% support, Biden trails him at 17.7%, Buttigieg at 15.7%, and Warren at 13.8%.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--‘Just as radical as I thought’: Meghan McCain confronts Buttigieg over late-term abortion stance

Meghan McCain and Pete Buttigieg clashed on the issue of late-term abortion after The View host claimed the former mayor would struggle to win over voters in centrist states .
Fresh off his top-tier finish in Iowa , Buttigieg was asked by McCain to justify his support for late-term abortions , which are procedures that take place in the final trimester of a pregnancy .
Buttigieg , who identifies as Christian , has argued that it is not the government ’ s role to tell mothers whether they can have an abortion .
McCain , 35 , cited an argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christian .
In September , Buttigieg said , “ There 's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath .
So even that is something we can interpret differently.
” She asked him , “ I wanted you to clarify because I found that statement to be pretty radical.
” Buttigieg , 38 , responded , “ I ’ m just pointing to the fact that different people will interpret their own moral lights and , for that matter , interpret Scripture differently .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely important that no one person has to be subjected to some other person ’ s interpretation of their own religion.
” McCain cited remarks made by Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam , where he explained , “ If a mother is in labor , I can tell you exactly what would happen .
The infant would be delivered .
The infant would be kept comfortable .
The infant would be resuscitated if that ’ s what the mother and the family desired , and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northam ’ s description depicted infanticide and asked if Buttigieg supported such a measure .
Buttigieg responded , “ Does anybody seriously think that ’ s what these cases are about ?
Think about the situation : If this is a late-term situation , then by definition , it ’ s one where a woman was expecting to carry the pregnancy to term.
” Buttigieg went on to explain that he didn ’ t want a government official drawing the line for a woman who had to make that decision late in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect what you ’ re saying because you didn ’ t back down from it .
This is going to hurt you in the middle of the country with the Republicans you ’ re trying to win over .
People like me , this is a hard line , and quite frankly , that answer is just as radical as I thought it was , sorry.
” Buttigieg has been on the campaign trail .
He recently told one voter that he didn ’ t believe there needed to be a change to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters .

Meghan McCain and Pete Buttigieg clashed on the issue of late-term abortion after The View host claimed the former mayor would struggle to win over voters in centrist states.
Fresh off his top-tier finish in Iowa, Buttigieg was asked by McCain to justify his support for late-term abortions, which are procedures that take place in the final trimester of a pregnancy. Buttigieg, who identifies as Christian, has argued that it is not the government’s role to tell mothers whether they can have an abortion.
McCain, 35, cited an argument Buttigieg used to defend his support for late-term abortion access while being Christian. In September, Buttigieg said, “There's a lot of parts of the Bible that talk about how life begins with breath. So even that is something we can interpret differently.”
She asked him, “I wanted you to clarify because I found that statement to be pretty radical.”
Buttigieg, 38, responded, “I’m just pointing to the fact that different people will interpret their own moral lights and, for that matter, interpret Scripture differently. But we live in a country where it is extremely important that no one person has to be subjected to some other person’s interpretation of their own religion.”
McCain cited remarks made by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, where he explained, “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
She said that Northam’s description depicted infanticide and asked if Buttigieg supported such a measure. Buttigieg responded, “Does anybody seriously think that’s what these cases are about? Think about the situation: If this is a late-term situation, then by definition, it’s one where a woman was expecting to carry the pregnancy to term.”
Buttigieg went on to explain that he didn’t want a government official drawing the line for a woman who had to make that decision late in the pregnancy.
McCain responded, “I respect what you’re saying because you didn’t back down from it. This is going to hurt you in the middle of the country with the Republicans you’re trying to win over. People like me, this is a hard line, and quite frankly, that answer is just as radical as I thought it was, sorry.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-06--Pete Buttigieg’s commander-in-chief problem

After days of waiting , the results of this week ’ s Iowa caucuses are nearly complete .
With 97 % of precincts reporting , Pete Buttigieg is at the top of the pack with a razor-thin 0.1 percentage point lead in delegate count , in a near-tie with Bernie Sanders .
No matter how the final tally pans out , it 's true that in less than a year , Buttigieg has gone from a mayor with no national name identification to a top-tier presidential contender .
While Iowa is only the first state in the Democratic primary process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we all seriously need to consider how he would perform as commander in chief .
Foreign policy has been a third-rate issue in the Democratic primary thus far .
Many Democratic voters are far more interested in healthcare , immigration reform , and electability than on how many troops the different candidates would deploy to Europe .
When foreign policy has been discussed at all , it ’ s usually in the context of criticizing President Trump .
Debate moderators , reporters covering the beat , and the campaigns themselves need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a foreign policy vision that is humble , realistic , and makes sense .
We must ask : How would a President Buttigieg deal with overseas challenges ?
We won ’ t know for sure until Buttigieg is actually sworn in , but a cursory look at his public remarks shows an aspiring politician who isn ’ t interested in revolutionizing how the United States does business overseas .
He only seems interested in marginal changes .
Buttigieg does talk a lot about finally ending America ’ s endless war in Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he left Afghanistan after completing his service as a military intelligence analyst , he thought U.S. involvement was coming to a close .
Of course , this wasn ’ t how things played out .
The war continues today .
On Afghanistan and the Middle East in general , Buttigieg wants to have his cake and eat it too .
On Syria , for instance , he says conventional forces would withdraw , but special operators and counterterrorism units to prevent terrorists from exploiting the situation .
In effect , Buttigieg is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as he just wants to make those wars somewhat smaller and make our participation in them less visible to the public .
On Iran , Buttigieg has backed the sensible option : reentering the 2015 nuclear deal the Trump administration bailed out of and using the momentum generated to with the Iranians on issues such as regional security , terrorism , and ballistic missiles .
Buttigieg ’ s proposed strategy is probably the only one that would give us an opportunity to deescalate tensions with Iran before the relationship becomes unsalvageable or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will also need to have a China policy that is coherent , well-thought-out , and grounded in realistic objectives .
China has quickly become a serious competitor to the U.S .
But the foreign policy community has yet to arrive at a consensus for how to manage relations with this Asian superpower — other than condemning Beijing for human rights abuses , challenging its trade practices , and conducting Navy operations in the South China Sea .
If Buttigieg ’ s are a guide to his thinking , he would take a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resist them when he must ” approach to China .
This might be the most prudent course , given the economic interdependency between Washington and Beijing and the fact that China ’ s rise is inevitable at this point .
The question , as always , is what the details would look like .
On this , Buttigieg is hardly the only Democratic candidate who hasn ’ t figured them out .
So , yes , the candidate passed his first test in Iowa .
But if Buttigieg wants to win the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to convince the public he could be a strong commander in chief .
Daniel DePetris ( @ DanDePetris ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's Beltway Confidential blog .
His opinions are his own .

After days of waiting, the results of this week’s Iowa caucuses are nearly complete. With 97% of precincts reporting, Pete Buttigieg is at the top of the pack with a razor-thin 0.1 percentage point lead in delegate count, in a near-tie with Bernie Sanders.
No matter how the final tally pans out, it's true that in less than a year, Buttigieg has gone from a mayor with no national name identification to a top-tier presidential contender. While Iowa is only the first state in the Democratic primary process, Buttigieg’s solid performance means that we all seriously need to consider how he would perform as commander in chief.
Foreign policy has been a third-rate issue in the Democratic primary thus far. Many Democratic voters are far more interested in healthcare, immigration reform, and electability than on how many troops the different candidates would deploy to Europe. When foreign policy has been discussed at all, it’s usually in the context of criticizing President Trump. Debate moderators, reporters covering the beat, and the campaigns themselves need to spend more time ensuring their candidates offer a foreign policy vision that is humble, realistic, and makes sense.
We must ask: How would a President Buttigieg deal with overseas challenges?
We won’t know for sure until Buttigieg is actually sworn in, but a cursory look at his public remarks shows an aspiring politician who isn’t interested in revolutionizing how the United States does business overseas. He only seems interested in marginal changes.
Buttigieg does talk a lot about finally ending America’s endless war in Afghanistan. The mayor frequently reminds voters that when he left Afghanistan in 2014 after completing his service as a military intelligence analyst, he thought U.S. involvement was coming to a close. Of course, this wasn’t how things played out. The war continues today.
On Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, Buttigieg wants to have his cake and eat it too. On Syria, for instance, he says conventional forces would withdraw, but special operators and counterterrorism units would stay behind to prevent terrorists from exploiting the situation. In effect, Buttigieg is not seeking to end our endless wars as much as he just wants to make those wars somewhat smaller and make our participation in them less visible to the public.
On Iran, Buttigieg has backed the sensible option: reentering the 2015 nuclear deal the Trump administration bailed out of and using the momentum generated to begin a bilateral dialogue with the Iranians on issues such as regional security, terrorism, and ballistic missiles. Buttigieg’s proposed strategy is probably the only one that would give us an opportunity to deescalate tensions with Iran before the relationship becomes unsalvageable or conflict breaks out.
Our future president will also need to have a China policy that is coherent, well-thought-out, and grounded in realistic objectives.
China has quickly become a serious competitor to the U.S. But the foreign policy community has yet to arrive at a consensus for how to manage relations with this Asian superpower — other than condemning Beijing for human rights abuses, challenging its trade practices, and conducting Navy operations in the South China Sea.
If Buttigieg’s remarks are a guide to his thinking, he would take a “deal with them when we can, resist them when he must” approach to China. This might be the most prudent course, given the economic interdependency between Washington and Beijing and the fact that China’s rise is inevitable at this point. The question, as always, is what the details would look like. On this, Buttigieg is hardly the only Democratic candidate who hasn’t figured them out.
So, yes, the candidate passed his first test in Iowa. But if Buttigieg wants to win the White House, he still has work to do to convince the public he could be a strong commander in chief.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.