thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Democrats’ proposal would ruin Medicare Part D

Beware every single Democratic presidential candidate when it comes to the Medicare prescription drug benefit .
All of them would implement a change that would ruin one of the most successful elements of the program .
Again and again on Tuesday night , as was the case in all discussions on the issue in prior debates , all the candidates agreed that “ the government ” should “ negotiate ” the prices for Medicare Part D drugs .
Democrats have been pushing this idea for two decades , even before the Part D program was created in 2003 legislation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , and that the system has worked immensely better without government negotiation ever since .
Democrats originally would have “ pegged ” the average monthly premium cost at $ 35 for 2005 , with government negotiation designed to keep annual cost increases no higher than the cost of medical inflation afterward .
The idea was that the “ purchasing power ” of the federal government would keep drug companies and insurance companies from profiteering , thus keeping the prices down .
Republicans insisted instead that the free market would keep costs down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would instead drive private insurers out of the market , such that less competition would result in higher , not lower , prices in the long run .
The numbers show Republicans were right .
When fully implemented in 2006 , the actual average premium was not the $ 35 peg-plus-one-year-of-inflation the Democrats projected , but $ 32 — a 14 % savings from the original projection .
Since then , the market has kept the average premium exactly in line with overall , ordinary inflation in the economy , rather than with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the intervening years .
The $ 32 monthly in 2006 , adjusted for overall inflation , is the almost-exact equivalent of the $ 42 monthly premium in force for 2020 .
On the other hand , if insurance premiums had risen at the higher rate of healthcare inflation since 2005 , the “ government-negotiated ” premium would now be $ 56 , or 33 % higher than it is .
Granted , Democrats believe government negotiation would have been far more successful than that , but not even the most optimistic Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private-only system would rise so little for nearly two decades .
The steady premium costs are more remarkable considering that Congress in later years significantly narrowed the so-called “ doughnut hole ” in Part D — originally a “ gap ” in coverage in which patients had to pay 100 % of the drug cots .
One would have expected the narrowing of the doughnut hole to increase demand for prescriptions significantly , thus sending prices higher .
Instead , the market absorbed the change without any significant price increase .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nowhere near as high as predicted .
When passed in 2003 , the projected price tag of Medicare Part D was $ 552 billion for the first ten years ( which is as far as the projection went ) .
Instead , the cost came in $ 194 billion less than that , at $ 358 billion .
Moreover , by providing drugs at low cost , Part D saved significant money in other parts of Medicare as well ( for both patients and taxpayers ) by keeping manageable health problems from getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitalizations .
There ’ s also good reason to believe that letting government try to control prices would significantly deter research and development of new medicines , causing “ millions to die , ” as one think tank put it .
In sum , Democrats are proposing to fix a Medicare prescription drug program that already works just fine and to fix it in a way that will probably make it worse .
The old maxim should still apply : If it ain ’ t broke , don ’ t fix it .

Beware every single Democratic presidential candidate when it comes to the Medicare prescription drug benefit. All of them would implement a change that would ruin one of the most successful elements of the program.
Again and again on Tuesday night, as was the case in all discussions on the issue in prior debates, all the candidates agreed that “the government” should “negotiate” the prices for Medicare Part D drugs. Democrats have been pushing this idea for two decades, even before the Part D program was created in 2003 legislation. The statistics show the idea was bad then, and that the system has worked immensely better without government negotiation ever since.
Democrats originally would have “pegged” the average monthly premium cost at $35 for 2005, with government negotiation designed to keep annual cost increases no higher than the cost of medical inflation afterward. The idea was that the “purchasing power” of the federal government would keep drug companies and insurance companies from profiteering, thus keeping the prices down.
Republicans insisted instead that the free market would keep costs down better, and that artificial government interference would instead drive private insurers out of the market, such that less competition would result in higher, not lower, prices in the long run.
The numbers show Republicans were right. When fully implemented in 2006, the actual average premium was not the $35 peg-plus-one-year-of-inflation the Democrats projected, but $32 — a 14% savings from the original projection. Since then, the market has kept the average premium exactly in line with overall, ordinary inflation in the economy, rather than with the much higher rate of healthcare inflation in the intervening years. The $32 monthly in 2006, adjusted for overall inflation, is the almost-exact equivalent of the $42 monthly premium in force for 2020.
On the other hand, if insurance premiums had risen at the higher rate of healthcare inflation since 2005, the “government-negotiated” premium would now be $56, or 33% higher than it is. Granted, Democrats believe government negotiation would have been far more successful than that, but not even the most optimistic Democrat in 2003 would have predicted premiums under a private-only system would rise so little for nearly two decades.
The steady premium costs are more remarkable considering that Congress in later years significantly narrowed the so-called “doughnut hole” in Part D — originally a “gap” in coverage in which patients had to pay 100% of the drug costs. One would have expected the narrowing of the doughnut hole to increase demand for prescriptions significantly, thus sending prices higher. Instead, the market absorbed the change without any significant price increase.
Meanwhile, the costs to taxpayers have been nowhere near as high as predicted. When passed in 2003, the projected price tag of Medicare Part D was $552 billion for the first ten years (which is as far as the projection went). Instead, the cost came in $194 billion less than that, at $358 billion. Moreover, by providing drugs at low cost, Part D saved significant money in other parts of Medicare as well (for both patients and taxpayers) by keeping manageable health problems from getting worse, thus reducing the incidence of hospitalizations.
There’s also good reason to believe that letting government try to control prices would significantly deter research and development of new medicines, causing “millions to die,” as one think tank put it.
In sum, Democrats are proposing to fix a Medicare prescription drug program that already works just fine and to fix it in a way that will probably make it worse. The old maxim should still apply: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Bloomberg $1.1M ad spend on one NFL playoff game more than half Biden campaign total

Commercial breaks during NFL playoff games are swamped with ads for Michael Bloomberg 's presidential campaign , drawing complaints from some viewers .
But the ads show the political potency of his deep pockets .
Bloomberg 's ad spending for just one playoff game rivals the total television spending so far by top-tier competitors .
The mega-billionaire , financial services company founder , and former New York City mayor purchased national time on Fox during Sunday 's Green Bay vs. Seattle NFC divisional game for $ 1.1 million , according to ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics .
The national spot ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-program ad spend is massive compared with what other top-tier competitors have spent on television ads so far in the Democratic presidential race , which generally only run in early nominating contest states such as Iowa rather than nationwide .
According to FiveThirtyEight 's ad tracker , Bloomberg 's $ 1.1 million spend amounts to about a fifth of the $ 5.1 million former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg has spent so far , more than 60 % of the $ 1.8 million in ad buys from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of former Vice President Joe Biden 's $ 2 million spend , and about a sixth of the $ 6.9 million Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has spent .
The Bloomberg campaign will run a 60-second ad during the Super Bowl for $ 11 million , according to Advertising Analytics .
President Trump 's campaign will also run a $ 11 million ad during the game .
Bloomberg , 77 , is self-funding his presidential campaign and has already spent more than $ 200 million on advertisements alone since his late November campaign launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of his high-paid campaign staff of more than 1,000 people .
His massive spending is a target for primary rivals who accuse him of trying to buy the Democratic presidential nomination .
The crowded field of candidates makes it hard for late-entry Bloomberg to break through in early states , so he is skipping competing in the first four nominating contests in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , and South Carolina , instead hoping to win delegates in March 3 Super Tuesday states and beyond , explaining his focus on national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's heavy spending will spell success for him in the Democratic primaries .
Candidates must meet 15 % support in districts or statewide to earn nominating delegates to the Democratic National Convention , and Bloomberg sits at 6.6 % support in the RealClearPolitics average of national primary polls .
Bloomberg 's self-financing presents another challenge .
Because he is not accepting campaign donations , he can not qualify for Democratic presidential debates , which require candidates to meet an individual donor threshold and polling threshold to qualify .
To make up for Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lost media attention , his campaign staged a series of eccentric jokes on Twitter that included photo editing his face onto a meatball .

Commercial breaks during NFL playoff games are swamped with ads for Michael Bloomberg's presidential campaign, drawing complaints from some viewers.
But the ads show the political potency of his deep pockets. Bloomberg's ad spending for just one playoff game rivals the total television spending so far by top-tier competitors.
The mega-billionaire, financial services company founder, and former New York City mayor purchased national time on Fox during Sunday's Green Bay vs. Seattle NFC divisional game for $1.1 million, according to ad-tracking firm Advertising Analytics. The national spot ran in all 210 television markets.
That one-program ad spend is massive compared with what other top-tier competitors have spent on television ads so far in the Democratic presidential race, which generally only run in early nominating contest states such as Iowa rather than nationwide.
According to FiveThirtyEight's ad tracker, Bloomberg's $1.1 million spend amounts to about a fifth of the $5.1 million former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg has spent so far, more than 60% of the $1.8 million in ad buys from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's campaign, more than half of former Vice President Joe Biden's $2 million spend, and about a sixth of the $6.9 million Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has spent.
The Bloomberg campaign will run a 60-second ad during the Super Bowl for $11 million, according to Advertising Analytics. President Trump's campaign will also run a $11 million ad during the game.
Bloomberg, 77, is self-funding his presidential campaign and has already spent more than $200 million on advertisements alone since his late November campaign launch, and that does not include the cost of his high-paid campaign staff of more than 1,000 people. His massive spending is a target for primary rivals who accuse him of trying to buy the Democratic presidential nomination.
The crowded field of candidates makes it hard for late-entry Bloomberg to break through in early states, so he is skipping competing in the first four nominating contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, instead hoping to win delegates in March 3 Super Tuesday states and beyond, explaining his focus on national ads.
It is unclear whether Bloomberg's heavy spending will spell success for him in the Democratic primaries. Candidates must meet 15% support in districts or statewide to earn nominating delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and Bloomberg sits at 6.6% support in the RealClearPolitics average of national primary polls.
Bloomberg's self-financing presents another challenge. Because he is not accepting campaign donations, he can not qualify for Democratic presidential debates, which require candidates to meet an individual donor threshold and polling threshold to qualify. To make up for Bloomberg's absence on Tuesday's debate stage and lost media attention, his campaign staged a series of eccentric jokes on Twitter that included photo editing his face onto a meatball.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Bernie Sanders campaign rips CNN: Debate 'a cringe-worthy moment'

DES MOINES , Iowa — Two senior members of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders 's presidential campaign attacked CNN 's moderating during Tuesday night 's Democratic primary debate , claiming bias over the wording of several questions .
`` Oh , no , no , no , no .
Clearly not , '' campaign spokesman Jeff Weaver told the Washington Examiner after being asked if CNN treated his candidate fairly over the phrasing of a question about whether Sanders , 78 , had told Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren that a woman could not win the presidency .
`` Basically , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumed facts , not evidence .
And so yes , we 've talked to some folks at CNN , who said it was a 'cringe-worthy ' moment as well . ''
Shortly after , Sanders campaign co-chairwoman and former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner joined Weaver in his condemnation .
`` No , it was not fair the way they asked the question .
It was not fair .
Everybody heard the way they asked that question , '' she told the Washington Examiner , before adding it was a `` glaring example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
`` It was patently unfair , and if it happened to Sen. Sanders , then it can happen to anybody .
Journalists are supposed to be fair , that 's all we 're asking for .
We 're not asking to make friends .
We 're just asking for fair .
And that question was unfair .
Period . ''
During the debate , CNN moderator Abby Phillips framed her question about an alleged 2018 incident in a way that assumed Warren , 70 , was telling the truth .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018 , you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election , '' Phillips asked .
`` Why did you say that ?
” Sanders then repeated his denial that the incident took place .
Sanders also noted his 2016 Democratic primary rival , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , had beaten President Trump in the popular vote , buttressing his argument that a woman could win the presidency .
Sanders also vowed to campaign for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed Sanders 's answer with a question to Warren that implied there was no doubt about her side of the story .
“ Sen .
Warren , what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election ?
” Phillips asked .
Sanders and his campaign have made targeting the media central to their message , repeatedly making claims that there is an institutional bias against the socialist 's candidacy .
In August , Sanders claimed that unfavorable coverage in the Washington Post is due to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ And then I wonder why the Washington Post , which is owned by Jeff Bezos , who owns Amazon , doesn ’ t write particularly good articles about me , ” Sanders said in New Hampshire in August .
“ I don ’ t know why .
But I guess maybe there ’ s a connection .
Maybe we helped raise the minimum wage at Amazon to 15-bucks-an-hour as well.
” The Sanders crusade against the media was also emphasized by the hiring of activist David Sirota as a speechwriter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the Sanders campaign with the explicit purpose to spread the campaign 's message by bypassing traditional news outlets .
Since his entrance into national politics , Sanders has long blamed the media for the failure of his policies to win popular support .
In a 1988 speech , Sanders blamed his failed House race on unfair coverage toward the Left .
`` The function of private media is to make money for the people who own the media , '' Sanders said .
`` You can be damn sure that when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own and control the media . ''

DES MOINES, Iowa — Two senior members of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign attacked CNN's moderating during Tuesday night's Democratic primary debate, claiming bias over the wording of several questions.
"Oh, no, no, no, no. Clearly not," campaign spokesman Jeff Weaver told the Washington Examiner after being asked if CNN treated his candidate fairly over the phrasing of a question about whether Sanders, 78, had told Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren that a woman could not win the presidency. "Basically, what we would say in a courtroom, assumed facts, not evidence. And so yes, we've talked to some folks at CNN, who said it was a 'cringe-worthy' moment as well."
Shortly after, Sanders campaign co-chairwoman and former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner joined Weaver in his condemnation.
"No, it was not fair the way they asked the question. It was not fair. Everybody heard the way they asked that question," she told the Washington Examiner, before adding it was a "glaring example" of how the media mistreats their campaign. "It was patently unfair, and if it happened to Sen. Sanders, then it can happen to anybody. Journalists are supposed to be fair, that's all we're asking for. We're not asking to make friends. We're just asking for fair. And that question was unfair. Period."
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips framed her question about an alleged 2018 incident in a way that assumed Warren, 70, was telling the truth.
“Sen. Sanders, CNN reported yesterday, and Sen. Warren confirmed in a statement that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election," Phillips asked. "Why did you say that?”
Sanders then repeated his denial that the incident took place. Sanders also noted his 2016 Democratic primary rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had beaten President Trump in the popular vote, buttressing his argument that a woman could win the presidency. Sanders also vowed to campaign for whoever Democratic voters nominate.
But Philips followed Sanders's answer with a question to Warren that implied there was no doubt about her side of the story.
“Sen. Warren, what did you think when Sen. Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?” Phillips asked.
Sanders and his campaign have made targeting the media central to their message, repeatedly making claims that there is an institutional bias against the socialist's candidacy. In August, Sanders claimed that unfavorable coverage in the Washington Post is due to its ownership by a billionaire, Jeff Bezos.
“And then I wonder why the Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn’t write particularly good articles about me,” Sanders said in New Hampshire in August. “I don’t know why. But I guess maybe there’s a connection. Maybe we helped raise the minimum wage at Amazon to 15-bucks-an-hour as well.”
The Sanders crusade against the media was also emphasized by the hiring of activist David Sirota as a speechwriter. Last year, Sirota started a newsletter through the Sanders campaign with the explicit purpose to spread the campaign's message by bypassing traditional news outlets.
Since his entrance into national politics, Sanders has long blamed the media for the failure of his policies to win popular support. In a 1988 speech, Sanders blamed his failed House race on unfair coverage toward the Left.
"The function of private media is to make money for the people who own the media," Sanders said. "You can be damn sure that when you own and control this country, you own and control the media."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Democratic super PAC to spend $150M in bid to counter Trump digital ad edge

The premier Democratic super PAC is boosting its campaign against President Trump by $ 50 million to counter an advertising advantage that has given him a crucial head start in reaching and eventually turning out voters .
Priorities USA announced this week that it was now on track to spend $ 150 million on digital and television advertising prior to the mid-July Democratic nominating convention , which includes $ 70 million in battleground states .
The battleground state buy breaks down to $ 40 million for spots on YouTube , Hulu , and Pandora and $ 30 million for television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps , months from being settled , and this investment could help the party compete with Trump , whose campaign is operating at near full-strength .
`` While most of our party is focused on choosing our nominee , Donald Trump will be spending unprecedented amounts of money in battleground states in an effort to define the election before our nominee has a chance to defend themselves .
We will not let this go unanswered , ” Guy Cecil , Priorities USA chairman , said in a statement .
[ Read more : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with $ 46M fourth-quarter haul ] The super PAC 's first television ads will air in Wisconsin on Feb. 25 .
The buy is worth $ 5.8 million .
Priorities USA also has reserved $ 12.6 million of television time in Florida , beginning March 24 ; $ 6 million in Michigan , starting March 17 ; and $ 5.9 million in Pennsylvania on March 17 .
Together , with the Republican National Committee , the Trump campaign began the election year with $ 200 million to spend against the Democrats .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters were to headline a handful of major campaign events , choosing to engage on the stump far earlier than his predecessors .

The premier Democratic super PAC is boosting its campaign against President Trump by $50 million to counter an advertising advantage that has given him a crucial head start in reaching and eventually turning out voters.
Priorities USA announced this week that it was now on track to spend $150 million on digital and television advertising prior to the mid-July Democratic nominating convention, which includes $70 million in battleground states. The battleground state buy breaks down to $40 million for spots on YouTube, Hulu, and Pandora and $30 million for television ads. The Democratic primary is, perhaps, months from being settled, and this investment could help the party compete with Trump, whose campaign is operating at near full-strength.
"While most of our party is focused on choosing our nominee, Donald Trump will be spending unprecedented amounts of money in battleground states in an effort to define the election before our nominee has a chance to defend themselves. We will not let this go unanswered,” Guy Cecil, Priorities USA chairman, said in a statement.
[Read more: 'Unstoppable': Trump campaign outpaces Democrats with $46M fourth-quarter haul]
The super PAC's first television ads will air in Wisconsin on Feb. 25. The buy is worth $5.8 million. Priorities USA also has reserved $12.6 million of television time in Florida, beginning March 24; $6 million in Michigan, starting March 17; and $5.9 million in Pennsylvania on March 17.
Together, with the Republican National Committee, the Trump campaign began the election year with $200 million to spend against the Democrats. In January alone, Trump and his prominent supporters were to headline a handful of major campaign events, choosing to engage on the stump far earlier than his predecessors.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Bloomberg: Trump was a real estate 'promoter,' not a developer

Michael Bloomberg took a dig at President Trump 's real estate career on late-night TV .
`` He was reasonably well-known .
He was a real estate promoter , '' the former New York City mayor and 2020 Democrat told CBS 's Stephen Colbert when asked about his relationship with Trump when he ran the nation 's largest city .
`` A lot of the buildings he did n't build , he just put his name on it . ''
Bloomberg , who booked the spot on The Late Show after missing out on the Iowa debate , added Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scrupulous in how he counts strokes '' on the golf course and that he did n't bother to keep his personal cellphone number after the then-president-elect gave it to him before his inauguration .
Bloomberg , 77 , who is skipping the early-voting states in favor of a `` Super Tuesday '' strategy , failed to qualify for the seventh primary debate because , as a self-funder , he did n't meet the fundraising thresholds .
To compete with the six candidates on the debate stage , his staff staged a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he also explained why he felt the need to apologize for `` stop-and-frisk '' policies he introduced as mayor .
He said he implemented the measures to `` stop the carnage '' of a rampant homicide rate on his city 's streets before realizing his police force `` was getting out of control and doing it too much . ''
`` If you ca n't apologize , I do n't know how you live with yourself , '' he said .

Michael Bloomberg took a dig at President Trump's real estate career on late-night TV.
"He was reasonably well-known. He was a real estate promoter," the former New York City mayor and 2020 Democrat told CBS's Stephen Colbert when asked about his relationship with Trump when he ran the nation's largest city. "A lot of the buildings he didn't build, he just put his name on it."
Bloomberg, who booked the spot on The Late Show after missing out on the Iowa debate, added Trump "has a reputation for not being scrupulous in how he counts strokes" on the golf course and that he didn't bother to keep his personal cellphone number after the then-president-elect gave it to him before his inauguration.
Bloomberg, 77, who is skipping the early-voting states in favor of a "Super Tuesday" strategy, failed to qualify for the seventh primary debate because, as a self-funder, he didn't meet the fundraising thresholds. To compete with the six candidates on the debate stage, his staff staged a series of eccentric social media jokes.
On Tuesday, he also explained why he felt the need to apologize for "stop-and-frisk" policies he introduced as mayor. He said he implemented the measures to "stop the carnage" of a rampant homicide rate on his city's streets before realizing his police force "was getting out of control and doing it too much."
"If you can't apologize, I don't know how you live with yourself," he said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-15--Sanders campaign claims Warren tried to ‘raise a concern’ with him before refusing to shake hands

Bernie Sanders ’ s campaign manager said Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren approached the Vermont senator right after the CNN/Des Moines Register debate to “ raise a concern ” when she refused to shake his hand .
The two presidential candidates ditched their typically friendly relationship during Tuesday 's debate following Warren ’ s accusation of sexism against Sanders .
She claimed that Sanders told her in 2018 that women could not win the presidency , something he denied .
Tensions between the two erupted in the final moments on the debate stage when Warren refused to shake Sanders ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very brief but heated exchange before parting ways .
CNN did not air the audio of the conversation .
Faiz Shakir , Sanders ’ s campaign manager , told the Washington Post Wednesday that Warren confronted his candidate to bring up an issue , which Sanders asked her to do later .
`` She came to raise a concern , and he said let 's talk about that later , '' Shakir explained .
Businessman Tom Steyer confirmed the tension during an interview with reporters after the debate .
He explained , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to both Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders was it ’ s great to see you , thank you for participating in this .
I do n't know what they were saying .
Whatever they were going on between each other , I was trying to get out of the way as fast as possible.
” Neither candidate has explained what concern Warren tried to bring up moments after the debate .
The two have been vying for the left-wing voter base in the primary race .
Sanders seems to have the edge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden in most nationwide polls .
Sanders was leading the pack of Democrats in an Iowa poll that was released less than a week ago , but Biden reclaimed the lead just days later .
It is not clear who will win when the caucuses take place on Feb. 3 .

Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager said Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren approached the Vermont senator right after the CNN/Des Moines Register debate to “raise a concern” when she refused to shake his hand.
The two presidential candidates ditched their typically friendly relationship during Tuesday's debate following Warren’s accusation of sexism against Sanders. She claimed that Sanders told her in 2018 that women could not win the presidency, something he denied.
Tensions between the two erupted in the final moments on the debate stage when Warren refused to shake Sanders’s hand. The two senators engaged in a very brief but heated exchange before parting ways. CNN did not air the audio of the conversation.
Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager, told the Washington Post Wednesday that Warren confronted his candidate to bring up an issue, which Sanders asked her to do later.
"She came to raise a concern, and he said let's talk about that later," Shakir explained.
Businessman Tom Steyer confirmed the tension during an interview with reporters after the debate.
He explained, "All I was trying to say was to both Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders was it’s great to see you, thank you for participating in this. I don't know what they were saying. Whatever they were going on between each other, I was trying to get out of the way as fast as possible.”
Neither candidate has explained what concern Warren tried to bring up moments after the debate. The two have been vying for the left-wing voter base in the primary race.
Sanders seems to have the edge over Warren, though both trail former Vice President Joe Biden in most nationwide polls. Sanders was leading the pack of Democrats in an Iowa poll that was released less than a week ago, but Biden reclaimed the lead just days later. It is not clear who will win when the caucuses take place on Feb. 3.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--'Insufficient': Obama official picked by FISA court says FBI 'must restore' a 'culture of accuracy a

'Insufficient': Obama official picked by FISA court says FBI 'must restore' a 'culture of accuracy and completeness'

The Obama Justice Department official appointed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to scrutinize the FBI ’ s FISA reforms determined the bureau ’ s reforms would be insufficient without a change in the FBI ’ s culture .
David Kris , a controversial pick for the job after his full-throated defenses of the FBI ’ s decision-making throughout the Trump-Russia investigation , said the changes FBI Director Christopher Wray proposed in the wake of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz ’ s damning report on FISA abuse were insufficient and told the court its review “ should not obscure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures , checklists and questionnaires , automated workflows , training modules , and after-the-fact audits are all important , but they can not be allowed to substitute for a strong FBI culture of individual ownership and responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of FISA applications , ” Kris said in a Wednesday filing .
“ Without that , even the best procedures will not suffice ; indeed , expanded procedures dictating multiple layers of review and approval could backfire , creating a kind of moral hazard in which each layer believes , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be caught by the others .
Organizational culture is paramount to real reform , and the inspector general 's report suggests that the FBI 's culture of accuracy has suffered.
” Horowitz ’ s report , released on Dec. 9 , lambasted the DOJ and the FBI for 17 “ significant errors and omissions ” related to its targeting of Carter Page , stretching from October 2016 to summer 2017 , and critiqued the broader counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign , dubbed Crossfire Hurricane .
Kris addressed his 15-page letter to presiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve as the court ’ s amicus curiae earlier in January , a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court .
The former assistant attorney general with the DOJ spent most of President Trump ’ s term defending the bureau ’ s actions , including its use of British ex-spy Christopher Steele ’ s salacious and unverified dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against Page .
Kris had also harshly criticized the FISA memo put together by Republican California Rep. Devin Nunes in early 2018 , which alleged `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the FBI .
Kris responded Monday to Wray , who was in turn responding to then-presiding FISA court Judge Rosemary Collyer ’ s public order , released on Dec. 17 , in which she demanded the bureau explain `` what it has done and plans to do ” about its problematic FISA process .
The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith , the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page and was referred to the DOJ for possible criminal investigation .
Wray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to address the Horowitz report , among them 12 related to the FISA process .
To emphasize the “ importance ” of compliance with these changes being implemented , Wray said he distributed a video to the workforce and followed up with a bureauwide email on Monday .
He said , “ The FBI leadership believes that the repeated messaging to its workforce of the absolute need for accuracy and completeness in all FISA applications '' and the implementation of `` corrective actions '' will `` result in a substantially renewed institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and completeness in all FISA applications.
” But Kris said , “ A key method of improving organizational culture is through improved tone at the top ” and called Wray ’ s current efforts a “ reasonable beginning , but they are not sufficient and should be expanded and supplemented.
” “ Director Wray and other FBI leaders , as well as relevant leaders at the Department of Justice , should include discussions of compliance not only in one or two messages but in virtually every significant communication with the workforce for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Every time ( or almost every time ) Director Wray visits a field office in 2020 , for example , his remarks should include appropriate references to the paramount and urgent need for accuracy and rigor in FISA applications .
He should also require his subordinates to deliver similar remarks.
” Kris said , “ The message , and seriousness of purpose , should cascade ” from the top of the FBI all the way down , adding that “ repeated and relentless communication is often required to convey a corrective message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , complex , and proud as the FBI.
” “ This court has rightly questioned whether it can continue to trust FBI affidavits and demanded assurances of accuracy and completeness .
The government has proposed 12 corrective actions which point in the right direction but do not go far enough , ” Kris concluded .
“ Above all , however , the FBI must restore — and the court should insist that it restore — a strong organizational culture of accuracy and completeness.
” The Page FISA applications were approved by a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Comey , FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates , all of whom have since left the government .
In testimony about his report , Horowitz later faulted the FBI 's `` entire chain of command '' in seeking the warrants .
Dana Boente is the only signatory still remaining in active government service , working as the Trump administration ’ s top lawyer at the FBI beginning in January 2018 .

The Obama Justice Department official appointed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to scrutinize the FBI’s FISA reforms determined the bureau’s reforms would be insufficient without a change in the FBI’s culture.
David Kris, a controversial pick for the job after his full-throated defenses of the FBI’s decision-making throughout the Trump-Russia investigation, said the changes FBI Director Christopher Wray proposed in the wake of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s damning report on FISA abuse were insufficient and told the court its review “should not obscure the larger issues presented.”
“Standards and procedures, checklists and questionnaires, automated workflows, training modules, and after-the-fact audits are all important, but they cannot be allowed to substitute for a strong FBI culture of individual ownership and responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of FISA applications,” Kris said in a Wednesday filing. “Without that, even the best procedures will not suffice; indeed, expanded procedures dictating multiple layers of review and approval could backfire, creating a kind of moral hazard in which each layer believes, or assumes, that errors have or will be caught by the others. Organizational culture is paramount to real reform, and the inspector general's report suggests that the FBI's culture of accuracy has suffered.”
Horowitz’s report, released on Dec. 9, lambasted the DOJ and the FBI for 17 “significant errors and omissions” related to its targeting of Carter Page, stretching from October 2016 to summer 2017, and critiqued the broader counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane.
Kris addressed his 15-page letter to presiding Judge James Boasberg, who appointed Kris to serve as the court’s amicus curiae earlier in January, a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court. The former assistant attorney general with the DOJ spent most of President Trump’s term defending the bureau’s actions, including its use of British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified dossier to obtain surveillance warrants against Page. Kris had also harshly criticized the FISA memo put together by Republican California Rep. Devin Nunes in early 2018, which alleged "abuses related to the FISA process" by the FBI.
Kris responded Monday to Wray, who was in turn responding to then-presiding FISA court Judge Rosemary Collyer’s public order, released on Dec. 17, in which she demanded the bureau explain "what it has done and plans to do” about its problematic FISA process. The FISA court also ordered a review of all FISA filings handled by Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered a key document about Page and was referred to the DOJ for possible criminal investigation.
Wray ordered more than 40 “corrective steps” to address the Horowitz report, among them 12 related to the FISA process. To emphasize the “importance” of compliance with these changes being implemented, Wray said he distributed a video to the workforce and followed up with a bureauwide email on Monday. He said, “The FBI leadership believes that the repeated messaging to its workforce of the absolute need for accuracy and completeness in all FISA applications" and the implementation of "corrective actions" will "result in a substantially renewed institutional focus on ensuring accuracy, transparency, and completeness in all FISA applications.”
But Kris said, “A key method of improving organizational culture is through improved tone at the top” and called Wray’s current efforts a “reasonable beginning, but they are not sufficient and should be expanded and supplemented.”
“Director Wray and other FBI leaders, as well as relevant leaders at the Department of Justice, should include discussions of compliance not only in one or two messages but in virtually every significant communication with the workforce for the foreseeable future,” Kris wrote. “Every time (or almost every time) Director Wray visits a field office in 2020, for example, his remarks should include appropriate references to the paramount and urgent need for accuracy and rigor in FISA applications. He should also require his subordinates to deliver similar remarks.”
Kris said, “The message, and seriousness of purpose, should cascade” from the top of the FBI all the way down, adding that “repeated and relentless communication is often required to convey a corrective message to an organization as large, dispersed, complex, and proud as the FBI.”
“This court has rightly questioned whether it can continue to trust FBI affidavits and demanded assurances of accuracy and completeness. The government has proposed 12 corrective actions which point in the right direction but do not go far enough,” Kris concluded. “Above all, however, the FBI must restore — and the court should insist that it restore — a strong organizational culture of accuracy and completeness.”
The Page FISA applications were approved by a number of high-ranking officials, including FBI Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, all of whom have since left the government. In testimony about his report, Horowitz later faulted the FBI's "entire chain of command" in seeking the warrants. Dana Boente is the only signatory still remaining in active government service, working as the Trump administration’s top lawyer at the FBI beginning in January 2018.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Alleged stalker of Ukraine ambassador went bowling at the White House

A man whose communications with an associate of President Trump 's attorney Rudy Giuliani suggest he was stalking the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine posted numerous photos with Trump to social media and even went bowling at the White House last year .
Documents released this week by the House Intelligence Committee show Robert Hyde , 40 , a retired Marine in conversation via WhatsApp with Giuliani associate Lev Parnas discussing a plot to oust and monitor then-Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
“ She talked to three people .
Her phone is off .
Computer is off , ” Hyde wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pictured bowling at the White House on May 7 , 2019 , in a photograph posted to Instagram on July 8 , as reported by 1100 Pennsylvania .
He claims he got the guests onto the White House grounds .
`` I took twenty people bowling at the White House ...
I flew in from a meeting in Toronto with Jeffrey Peterson , '' Hyde said , citing the Quepasa founder and millionaire .
`` Skipped an RNC bundler event with Vice President Pence .
And had one of the best times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hyde met with Trump or with any senior officials or staffers during his visit to the Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley and how many times Hyde had visited the White House , the White House declined to comment .
In pictures shared to his website and social media , Hyde appears alongside Trump at least eight times .
He is pictured with Giuliani , senior administration officials Vice President Mike Pence and Ben Carson , GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , Rep. Matt Gaetz , Sen. Rand Paul , Florida Gov .
Ron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the president 's children .
Hyde , a Mar-a-Lago member , appears in pictures at Trump properties , including at the Trump International Hotel in Washington .
Last year , a police incident report detailed his arrest at Trump National Doral , with Hyde explaining at the time that he feared for his life and `` that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him . ''
Hyde is running for the House this year , one of five Republican challengers to Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes .

A man whose communications with an associate of President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani suggest he was stalking the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine posted numerous photos with Trump to social media and even went bowling at the White House last year.
Documents released this week by the House Intelligence Committee show Robert Hyde, 40, a retired Marine in conversation via WhatsApp with Giuliani associate Lev Parnas discussing a plot to oust and monitor then-Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
“She talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off,” Hyde wrote in one of the messages.
Hyde is pictured bowling at the White House on May 7, 2019, in a photograph posted to Instagram on July 8, as reported by 1100 Pennsylvania. He claims he got the guests onto the White House grounds. "I took twenty people bowling at the White House ... I flew in from a meeting in Toronto with Jeffrey Peterson," Hyde said, citing the Quepasa founder and millionaire. "Skipped an RNC bundler event with Vice President Pence. And had one of the best times of my life."
Asked if Hyde met with Trump or with any senior officials or staffers during his visit to the Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley and how many times Hyde had visited the White House, the White House declined to comment.
In pictures shared to his website and social media, Hyde appears alongside Trump at least eight times. He is pictured with Giuliani, senior administration officials Vice President Mike Pence and Ben Carson, GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Roger Stone, and each of the president's children.
Hyde, a Mar-a-Lago member, appears in pictures at Trump properties, including at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Last year, a police incident report detailed his arrest at Trump National Doral, with Hyde explaining at the time that he feared for his life and "that he was paranoid that someone was out to get him."
Hyde is running for the House this year, one of five Republican challengers to Connecticut Democrat Jahana Hayes.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Devin Nunes recalls 'odd' phone call from Lev Parnas

California Rep. Devin Nunes said he now remembers a phone call he received from Lev Parnas , an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
During a Fox News appearance Wednesday evening , the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee belittled that conversation when asked to respond to a clip of Parnas saying during an MSNBC interview that his dealings in Ukraine , now the subject of impeachment scrutiny , were done with Trump 's knowledge .
Call records were released as part of a congressional report released in December showing Nunes had been in contact with Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nunes said he did not `` recall '' Parnas 's name and that he 'd have to go back and check his phone records .
On Wednesday , Nunes said , after going through his records , he was able to remember where he was when he received the call from Parnas on his cellphone .
`` I remember that call , which was very odd , random , talking about random things , '' Nunes said , adding that he simply told Parnas to talk to his staff .
Parnas , 47 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Igor Fruman , was charged over an alleged scheme to funnel foreign money to Republican politicians .
House Democrats began releasing a trove of texts and documents Tuesday evening that related to efforts to remove then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv .
Nunes said the first time he remembered hearing Yovanovitch 's name was when the `` impeachment sham '' started .
He also broached Parnas 's lawyer , Joseph Bondy , who claimed his client was willing to tell Congress that the congressman met with a top Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden .
Accusing Parnas of having `` a problem with the truth , '' Nunes said Democrats are playing a `` cat-and-mouse '' game with Parnas in which the Ukrainian American businessman could be vying for an `` immunity deal . ''
The new Parnas documents were made public shortly before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned to give the Ukraine-related articles of impeachment alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress to the Republican-led Senate .

California Rep. Devin Nunes said he now remembers a phone call he received from Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani.
During a Fox News appearance Wednesday evening, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee belittled that conversation when asked to respond to a clip of Parnas saying during an MSNBC interview that his dealings in Ukraine, now the subject of impeachment scrutiny, were done with Trump's knowledge.
Call records were released as part of a congressional report released in December showing Nunes had been in contact with Giuliani and Parnas. At the time, Nunes said he did not "recall" Parnas's name and that he'd have to go back and check his phone records.
On Wednesday, Nunes said, after going through his records, he was able to remember where he was when he received the call from Parnas on his cellphone.
"I remember that call, which was very odd, random, talking about random things," Nunes said, adding that he simply told Parnas to talk to his staff.
Parnas, 47, along with another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, was charged over an alleged scheme to funnel foreign money to Republican politicians. House Democrats began releasing a trove of texts and documents Tuesday evening that related to efforts to remove then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch from her post in Kyiv.
Nunes said the first time he remembered hearing Yovanovitch's name was when the "impeachment sham" started. He also broached Parnas's lawyer, Joseph Bondy, who claimed his client was willing to tell Congress that the congressman met with a top Ukrainian prosecutor in Vienna in 2018, seeking political dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden.
Accusing Parnas of having "a problem with the truth," Nunes said Democrats are playing a "cat-and-mouse" game with Parnas in which the Ukrainian American businessman could be vying for an "immunity deal."
The new Parnas documents were made public shortly before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi planned to give the Ukraine-related articles of impeachment alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress to the Republican-led Senate.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-16--Guyanese charged with killing and raping 92-year-old overstayed visa and dodged ICE detainer

A 21-year-old Latin American man charged in New York City with raping and murdering a 92-year-old woman overstayed his 2016 tourist visa , a serious immigration crime that can lead to deportation and a complete ban from ever entering the country .
Federal law enforcement officials told Secrets late Wednesday that Guyanese Reeaz Khan 's illegal status is what prompted them to ask city police to detain him for deportation after his arrest on Nov. 27 for assaulting his father with a broken ceramic mug .
But , instead , the city followed Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and released him , ignoring the detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
The police said they did n't get a detainer , a claim ICE rejected .
Exactly 40 days later , according to police , Khan sexually abused Maria Fuertes , 92 , in Queens .
She later died of her injuries .
Court papers cited in media reports said she was sexually assaulted and strangled and died outside in 32-degree weather from injuries that included a broken spine .
Officials said that Khan arrived sometime in 2016 on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` for pleasure . ''
He entered the United States through John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens .
The city declines thousands of ICE detainers a year as it remains committed to its sanctuary status .
The administration has been critical of New York and de Blasio ’ s policies in the past , but the murder has prompted a new focus on the city ’ s policies and a withering attack from immigration officials .
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf tweeted , `` There has been a complete breakdown of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws & bragged about it for months .
But now they , & more importantly , the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies . ''
Ken Cuccinelli , acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security , tweeted , `` A 92-y.o .
woman was raped & murdered in New York after NYPD failed to honor an ICE detainer because NYPD refuses to cooperate with ICE .
NYPD denied receiving the detainer ( though they got one ! )
, but doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the media coverage ?
Where ’ s the outrage ? ''
A senior DHS official told Secrets , `` Sanctuary cities and counties around the country including those in New York , North Carolina , and elsewhere act as illegal incubators for criminal alien activity , harboring dangerous offenders and often releasing them back to the streets where many will re-offend .
These do n't just include drugs and weapons offenses , robbery , sexual assault , kidnapping , and drunk driving charges , but completely preventable acts of brutal rape and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when self-serving politicians like the mayor release criminal aliens from custody instead of protecting the very people they 've sworn an oath to put first . ''
ICE ’ s New York chief for Enforcement and Removal Operations also issued a statement .
“ It is made clear that New York City ’ s stance against honoring detainers is dangerously flawed .
It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges , and he now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Thomas Decker , field office director for ERO New York .
“ New York City ’ s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs , as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation , ” he said .
Decker also pointed his finger at de Blasio .
`` Politicians care more about criminal illegal aliens than the citizens they are elected to serve and protect , '' he said .
And so did Immigration expert Jessica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies for the Center for Immigration Studies , who said NYC cops want to cooperate with ICE but ca n't .
`` In this case ICE did actually find out about him , since he was arrested and jailed , but because of New York ’ s extreme sanctuary policies , the police and other authorities ignored and thwarted ICE ’ s effort .
New York cops want people like Khan off the streets and into ICE hands , knowing the high likelihood that they will victimize people again , but their hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And , she added , `` The pro-sanctuary politicians feel no sense of regret , concern or shame when these things happen .
They make up excuses and blame ICE , just as here they tried to claim they never got the detainer .
We will have to wait until later this year to see if the Supreme Court will affirm ICE ’ s authority , thus giving the Trump administration the opportunity to impose consequences on sanctuaries , but it would be better if Congress would update the immigration law to try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has taken a special interest in sanctuary policies dating back to his 2016 presidential campaign when he expressed shock at the murder in San Francisco of Kate Steinle , shot and murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been repeatedly deported and recently released by San Francisco police .
This case has sparked a renewed attention on New York City .
And it comes amid a broader focus on New York state , which has decided to give driver ’ s licenses to illegal immigrants but block the federal government from accessing @ @ @ @ @

A 21-year-old Latin American man charged in New York City with raping and murdering a 92-year-old woman overstayed his 2016 tourist visa, a serious immigration crime that can lead to deportation and a complete ban from ever entering the country.
Federal law enforcement officials told Secrets late Wednesday that Guyanese Reeaz Khan's illegal status is what prompted them to ask city police to detain him for deportation after his arrest on Nov. 27 for assaulting his father with a broken ceramic mug.
But, instead, the city followed Mayor Bill de Blasio’s “sanctuary city” policies for illegal immigrants and released him, ignoring the detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The police said they didn't get a detainer, a claim ICE rejected.
.@ICE is way right on this... x10 https://t.co/xU4cTl9xwc — Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli (@HomelandKen) January 16, 2020
Exactly 40 days later, according to police, Khan sexually abused Maria Fuertes, 92, in Queens. She later died of her injuries. Court papers cited in media reports said she was sexually assaulted and strangled and died outside in 32-degree weather from injuries that included a broken spine.
Officials said that Khan arrived sometime in 2016 on a B-2 visa that provided a six-month visit "for pleasure." He entered the United States through John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens.
.@ICEgov Field Office Director Thomas Decker: “New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the 5 boroughs, as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation." https://t.co/hXchyGt3tb https://t.co/qS3uJZuU2z — Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 15, 2020
The city declines thousands of ICE detainers a year as it remains committed to its sanctuary status.
The administration has been critical of New York and de Blasio’s policies in the past, but the murder has prompted a new focus on the city’s policies and a withering attack from immigration officials.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf tweeted, "There has been a complete breakdown of law & order in New York City. NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws & bragged about it for months. But now they, & more importantly, the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies."
There has been a complete breakdown of law & order in New York City. NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws & bragged about it for months. But now they, & more importantly, the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies. https://t.co/esXd5yYi1Q — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) January 16, 2020
Ken Cuccinelli, acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security, tweeted, "A 92-y.o. woman was raped & murdered in New York after NYPD failed to honor an ICE detainer because NYPD refuses to cooperate with ICE. NYPD denied receiving the detainer (though they got one!), but doesn’t honor them anyway! Where’s the media coverage? Where’s the outrage?"
Michael Bars, a DHS spokesman, told Secrets, "Sanctuary cities and counties around the country including those in New York, North Carolina, and elsewhere act as illegal incubators for criminal alien activity, harboring dangerous offenders and often releasing them back to the streets where many will re-offend. These don't just include drugs and weapons offenses, robbery, sexual assault, kidnapping, and drunk driving charges, but completely preventable acts of brutal rape and murder. These are the deadly consequences when self-serving politicians like the mayor release criminal aliens from custody instead of protecting the very people they've sworn an oath to put first."
ICE’s New York chief for Enforcement and Removal Operations also issued a statement. “It is made clear that New York City’s stance against honoring detainers is dangerously flawed. It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” said Thomas Decker, field office director for ERO New York. “New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs, as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation,” he said.
Unreal. This is the illegal alien that NYPD released in defiance of federal law after he was arrested a month before on assault on firearms charges https://t.co/53BmJx9epU — Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) January 15, 2020
Decker also pointed his finger at de Blasio. "Politicians care more about criminal illegal aliens than the citizens they are elected to serve and protect," he said.
And so did immigration expert Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, who said New York City police want to cooperate with ICE but can't.
"In this case, ICE did actually find out about him, since he was arrested and jailed, but because of New York’s extreme sanctuary policies, the police and other authorities ignored and thwarted ICE’s effort. New York cops want people like Khan off the streets and into ICE hands, knowing the high likelihood that they will victimize people again, but their hands are tied by politically motivated policies."
And, she added, "The pro-sanctuary politicians feel no sense of regret, concern, or shame when these things happen. They make up excuses and blame ICE, just as here they tried to claim they never got the detainer. We will have to wait until later this year to see if the Supreme Court will affirm ICE’s authority, thus giving the Trump administration the opportunity to impose consequences on sanctuaries, but it would be better if Congress would update the immigration law to try to prevent these tragedies."
President Trump has taken a special interest in sanctuary policies dating back to his 2016 presidential campaign when he expressed shock at the murder in San Francisco of Kate Steinle, shot and murdered by an illegal immigrant who had been repeatedly deported and recently released by San Francisco police.
This case has sparked a renewed attention on New York City.
And it comes amid a broader focus on New York state, which has decided to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants but block the federal government from accessing information about the holders.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--Ted Cruz: If Democrats call Bolton as impeachment witness, GOP can call Hunter Biden

Republicans could compel Hunter Biden to testify if Democrats succeed in calling former national security adviser John Bolton to be a witness in the Senate impeachment trial .
So said Sen. Ted Cruz in an interview Thursday with the Washington Examiner , shortly after he was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts for the Ukraine impeachment trial set to begin next week .
The Texas Republican made it clear that , while no decision has been reached on whether new witnesses would be called , he believed the Republican Senate majority would support Trump 's legal team getting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own witnesses , potentially including 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden 's son , if Democratic House managers for the trial are allowed to call in further people to testify .
“ If additional witnesses are called , at a minimum we should respect the principle of reciprocity , ” said Cruz .
“ So , if the prosecution is allowed one witness , the White House ought to be allowed at least one witness .
If the prosecution is allowed two witnesses , the White House ought to be allowed two witnesses.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would mean , as a practical matter , if the House managers called , for example , John Bolton , that the White House defense team could call as a witness , say , Hunter Biden.
” The two articles of impeachment passed by the House charge the president with soliciting Ukraine 's help to interfere in the 2020 election while withholding military aid and with obstructing the congressional investigation into the matter .
Bolton 's former aide , Fiona Hill , testified that Bolton opposed the alleged Ukraine pressure campaign , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described as a `` drug deal . ''
And Bolton , who left the White House in September , announced last week he is willing to testify in the trial .
The GOP would be keen on hearing from Biden ’ s ethically-plagued son about his dealings in Ukraine and his lucrative position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company , Burisma , in response .
Cruz , 49 , is a conservative stalwart who clashed with Trump in 2016 ’ s brutal GOP presidential primary , but he 's been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called the Democratic “ show trial ” in the House , vowing the Senate would n't become a “ kangaroo court.
” He said the first order of business next week would be voting on a schedule similar to the one in President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment trial two decades ago , including a “ phase one ” with opening arguments from Democratic House managers for 24 hours over two days , then opening arguments from Trump ’ s defense team for up to 24 hours over another two days , followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ submitted through and read by Justice Roberts .
Only then would more possible witnesses be discussed , if Republicans get their way , although Democrats want to force the vote early next week .
Cruz was n't sure the required 51 senators would want to hear additional witnesses after each side made its case .
“ I don ’ t know which way that vote will go , ” Cruz said .
“ If the Senate goes down the road of additional witnesses , it needs to be fair and even-handed and respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly who gets selected shouldn ’ t be up to the senators .
“ That ’ s a determination for the House managers on the prosecution side and a determination for the White House defense team on the defense side , ” Cruz said .

Republicans could compel Hunter Biden to testify if Democrats succeed in calling former national security adviser John Bolton to be a witness in the Senate impeachment trial.
So said Sen. Ted Cruz in an interview Thursday with the Washington Examiner, shortly after he was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts for the Ukraine impeachment trial set to begin next week. The Texas Republican made it clear that, while no decision has been reached on whether new witnesses would be called, he believed the Republican Senate majority would support Trump's legal team getting to call at least an equal number of its own witnesses, potentially including 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden's son, if Democratic House managers for the trial are allowed to call in further people to testify.
“If additional witnesses are called, at a minimum we should respect the principle of reciprocity,” said Cruz. “So, if the prosecution is allowed one witness, the White House ought to be allowed at least one witness. If the prosecution is allowed two witnesses, the White House ought to be allowed two witnesses.”
The Republican said: “That would mean, as a practical matter, if the House managers called, for example, John Bolton, that the White House defense team could call as a witness, say, Hunter Biden.”
The two articles of impeachment passed by the House charge the president with soliciting Ukraine's help to interfere in the 2020 election while withholding military aid and with obstructing the congressional investigation into the matter.
Bolton's former aide, Fiona Hill, testified that Bolton opposed the alleged Ukraine pressure campaign, saying he wanted no part of what he described as a "drug deal." And Bolton, who left the White House in September, announced last week he is willing to testify in the trial. The GOP would be keen on hearing from Biden’s ethically-plagued son about his dealings in Ukraine and his lucrative position on the board of the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, in response.
Cruz, 49, is a conservative stalwart who clashed with Trump in 2016’s brutal GOP presidential primary, but he's been a defender of the president against what he called the Democratic “show trial” in the House, vowing the Senate wouldn't become a “kangaroo court.”
He said the first order of business next week would be voting on a schedule similar to the one in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial two decades ago, including a “phase one” with opening arguments from Democratic House managers for 24 hours over two days, then opening arguments from Trump’s defense team for up to 24 hours over another two days, followed by written questions to the legal teams submitted through and read by Justice Roberts. Only then would more possible witnesses be discussed, if Republicans get their way, although Democrats want to force the vote early next week.
Cruz wasn't sure the required 51 senators would want to hear additional witnesses after each side made its case.
“I don’t know which way that vote will go,” Cruz said. “If the Senate goes down the road of additional witnesses, it needs to be fair and even-handed and respect due process."
But he said exactly who gets selected shouldn’t be up to the senators.
“That’s a determination for the House managers on the prosecution side and a determination for the White House defense team on the defense side,” Cruz said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-17--It's the institutions, stupid

It's the institutions, stupid

Yuval Levin , a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of the journal National Affairs , is not only one of the most thoughtful policy intellectuals on the Right but , at a time when plenty of people across the spectrum have lost their cool , one of the most sober .
His fifth book , A Time to Build , hits shelves on Jan. 21 .
It is among the many recent attempts to explain what , exactly , has gone wrong with politics over the past decade .
Its answer , in a word , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but they are surprisingly tricky things to define .
What characteristics unite the family , a prelegal building block of society , with a corporate entity such as a university ?
Levin describes institutions as “ the durable forms of our common life , ” or “ the frameworks and structures of what we do together.
” The word “ form ” is important — for Levin , institutions are forms in the deep , Aristotelian sense of the word : The “ shape of the whole ” that “ speaks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , its logic , its function , and its meaning.
” Institutions stand over and above their members , molding them to fit roles and imbuing them with institutional values .
A doctor , for instance , gives up part of his individuality in order to fulfill his professional responsibilities ( an emergency room is not the place for self-expression ) .
Ideally , he also internalizes the institutional mission of his profession : Do no harm .
In Levin ’ s view , the main problem with politics today is that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no longer “ molds , ” willing and able to shape their members in accordance with whatever higher goal they serve .
Instead , they have become “ platforms , ” which “ allow people to be themselves and to display themselves before a wider world.
” In a mold , the individual serves the institution ; in a platform , the individual uses the institution to serve him- or herself .
If this all sounds fatally abstract , consider the transformation of the New York Times of 20 years ago into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prior to the advent of social media , journalists had to build prestige and respect within the newspaper in order to advance their careers , which required them to abide by the standards of the paper and the wider journalistic profession .
Those standards have not exactly vanished today , but it is far easier now for writers for the New York Times to build a following outside of the institution , reducing their incentive to dilute their own personal brands ( or compromise their own beliefs ) in order to conform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ may frustrate editors who want your reporting to appear neutral , but for you , it may be the quickest way to build an audience or land a higher-paying job at some other outlet .
The downside is that as the public loses faith in an institution ’ s ability to mold its members , it also loses faith in the institution .
Why should I trust the New York Times ’ s reporting if I know it ’ s done by the same people I see saying foolish things on Twitter all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same point applies to all publications , not just the New York Times . )
Levin argues that a version of this dynamic is playing out in essentially every major institution in American life , from Congress to the universities to journalism to the legal profession , with the result that public faith in our institutions is collapsing across the board .
And if he is somewhat fuzzy as to what caused this change , citing post-Watergate transparency reforms in the case of Congress and the rise of the internet and social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic diagnosis rings true .
As to what can be done about our institutions , Levin is modest , almost to a fault .
He suggests that we can “ only really break the cycle [ of institutional degradation ] by consciously changing our attitudes about the institutions we are a part of , and by reforming those institutions to better form us.
” It ’ s good advice , but throughout the book , Levin puts considerably more emphasis on the attitude-changing than on the reforming , the possible contours of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too bad , since the institutional deformations he describes are the result not of bad attitudes but bad incentives , to which no one is fully immune .
How to fix those incentives would seem to be the first question that any would-be reformer should answer , and Levin leaves the reader wondering what his own answer might be .
Park MacDougald is Life and Arts editor of the Washington Examiner magazine .

Yuval Levin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of the journal National Affairs, is not only one of the most thoughtful policy intellectuals on the Right but, at a time when plenty of people across the spectrum have lost their cool, one of the most sober. His fifth book, A Time to Build, hits shelves on Jan. 21. It is among the many recent attempts to explain what, exactly, has gone wrong with politics over the past decade. Its answer, in a word, is “institutions.”
Institutions are everywhere, but they are surprisingly tricky things to define. What characteristics unite the family, a prelegal building block of society, with a corporate entity such as a university? Levin describes institutions as “the durable forms of our common life,” or “the frameworks and structures of what we do together.” The word “form” is important — for Levin, institutions are forms in the deep, Aristotelian sense of the word: The “shape of the whole” that “speaks of [the whole’s] purpose, its logic, its function, and its meaning.” Institutions stand over and above their members, molding them to fit roles and imbuing them with institutional values. A doctor, for instance, gives up part of his individuality in order to fulfill his professional responsibilities (an emergency room is not the place for self-expression). Ideally, he also internalizes the institutional mission of his profession: Do no harm.
In Levin’s view, the main problem with politics today is that our institutions are “deformed” — they are no longer “molds,” willing and able to shape their members in accordance with whatever higher goal they serve. Instead, they have become “platforms,” which “allow people to be themselves and to display themselves before a wider world.” In a mold, the individual serves the institution; in a platform, the individual uses the institution to serve him- or herself.
A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream, by Yuval Levin. Basic Books, 256 pp., $25.20.
If this all sounds fatally abstract, consider the transformation of the New York Times of 20 years ago into the New York Times of today. Prior to the advent of social media, journalists had to build prestige and respect within the newspaper in order to advance their careers, which required them to abide by the standards of the paper and the wider journalistic profession. Those standards have not exactly vanished today, but it is far easier now for writers for the New York Times to build a following outside of the institution, reducing their incentive to dilute their own personal brands (or compromise their own beliefs) in order to conform. Revealing your own political beliefs on Twitter may frustrate editors who want your reporting to appear neutral, but for you, it may be the quickest way to build an audience or land a higher-paying job at some other outlet. The downside is that as the public loses faith in an institution’s ability to mold its members, it also loses faith in the institution. Why should I trust the New York Times’s reporting if I know it’s done by the same people I see saying foolish things on Twitter all day? (Of course, the same point applies to all publications, not just the New York Times.)
Levin argues that a version of this dynamic is playing out in essentially every major institution in American life, from Congress to the universities to journalism to the legal profession, with the result that public faith in our institutions is collapsing across the board. And if he is somewhat fuzzy as to what caused this change, citing post-Watergate transparency reforms in the case of Congress and the rise of the internet and social media in the case of journalism, his basic diagnosis rings true.
As to what can be done about our institutions, Levin is modest, almost to a fault. He suggests that we can “only really break the cycle [of institutional degradation] by consciously changing our attitudes about the institutions we are a part of, and by reforming those institutions to better form us.” It’s good advice, but throughout the book, Levin puts considerably more emphasis on the attitude-changing than on the reforming, the possible contours of which are left blank. That’s too bad, since the institutional deformations he describes are the result not of bad attitudes but bad incentives, to which no one is fully immune. How to fix those incentives would seem to be the first question that any would-be reformer should answer, and Levin leaves the reader wondering what his own answer might be.
Park MacDougald is Life and Arts editor of the Washington Examiner magazine.