thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Tony Bobulinski says his claims about the Biden family are not 'Russian disinformation'

Hunter Biden ’ s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski said it was “ disgusting ” that his claims about Joe Biden ’ s son and brother pursuing a lucrative Chinese business deal using the Biden family name were being associated with claims of “ Russian disinformation.
” During an hourlong interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson that aired Tuesday night , Bobulinski , a Navy veteran who has done business deals around the globe , pinned his emergence into the public eye on comments made by Rep. Adam Schiff and former Vice President Joe Biden .
`` I held a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency ] and the [ Department of Energy ] .
I served this country for four years in one of the most elite environments in the world , the naval nuclear power training command .
And to have a congressman out there speaking about Russian disinformation , or Joe Biden at a public debate referencing Russian disinformation when he knows he sat face to face with me , that I was traveled around the world with his son and his brother , to say that and associate that with my name is absolutely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding , `` This is n't a political focus of mine .
People were accusing my family of treason after I served this country.
” Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , repeatedly declared to CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer earlier this month that the Hunter Biden laptop issue was a Russian disinformation plot , though he provided no evidence , saying that `` we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin ” while lamenting `` another wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding up a newspaper promoting Kremlin propaganda.
” Bobulinksi said Schiff 's allegations of Russian disinformation were `` disgusting '' and prompted him to call Biden family associate Rob Walker ( also another ex-Hunter Biden business partner ) to deliver an ultimatum that the California Democrat 's claim needed to be retracted .
“ I saw Adam Schiff go on record talking about Russian disinformation after this email had been posted online by the New York Post ... And so I called [ Biden family business associate ] Rob Walker and I told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retracted by Congressman Schiff , by midnight on Sunday , that I was going on record and I was disclosing all the facts to the American government , to the American citizen , and the world , ” Bobulinski said on Tuesday .
“ I was hoping the Bidens would do the right thing , or Schiff would retract his statement , but I could not allow another minute , another hour , or a day from my family 's name to be associated or muddied up around Russian disinformation . ''
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden cited how 50 ex-intelligence officials , including former CIA Director John Brennan , signed on to a letter related to the Hunter Biden laptop story , claiming that it “ has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation ” while admitting that “ we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.
” “ There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he ’ s accusing me of is a Russian plan .
They have said this is , has all the — four , five former heads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he ’ s saying is a bunch of garbage , '' Biden said after President Trump brought up the `` laptop from hell . ''
Earlier in the debate , Biden had claimed that Trump 's `` buddy , Rudy Giuliani , he ’ s being used as a Russian pawn , he ’ s being fed information that is Russian — that is not true.
” Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said last week that he did n't believe the news related to the laptop and emails are connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear : The intelligence community doesn ’ t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that , and we have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden ’ s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign .
It is simply not true , ” Ratcliffe said .
Giuliani , Trump 's personal lawyer , worked with numerous sources inside the United States and abroad , including Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach , to push allegations that Joe Biden had abused his power in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received a copy of the laptop and hard drive that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden and then shared its contents with New York Post and others .
A week out from Election Day , Bobulinksi said he hopes the Bidens will reverse course and , in his eyes , clear his name .
`` So even as I sit here today , I would ask the Biden family to come on record and stop using my name or associating it with Russian disinformation , '' Bobulinksi told Carlson .
Bobulinski also recently verified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , email from investor James Gilliar to himself , Walker , and James and Hunter Biden detailing a business deal between a Chinese company called CEFC and themselves , which included a reference to “ the big guy ” — who Bobulinski claims was Joe Biden .
The texts are part of a trove of hundreds of documents from Bobulinski obtained by the Washington Examiner .
The records show that James Biden planned outreach to a host of Democratic politicians and world leaders as the group pursued business deals with China in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid having to register as a foreign agent .
`` Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family nor in any overseas business whatsoever , '' Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told the Washington Examiner last week .
`` He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member , or any other person ever held stock for him . ''
But Bobulinski said Tuesday that it was `` crystal clear '' that Biden was aware of the Chinese business efforts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with him in 2017 .

Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski said it was “disgusting” that his claims about Joe Biden’s son and brother pursuing a lucrative Chinese business deal using the Biden family name were being associated with claims of “Russian disinformation.”
During an hourlong interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson that aired Tuesday night, Bobulinski, a Navy veteran who has done business deals around the globe, pinned his emergence into the public eye on comments made by Rep. Adam Schiff and former Vice President Joe Biden.
"I held a top-secret clearance from the [National Security Agency] and the [Department of Energy]. I served this country for four years in one of the most elite environments in the world, the naval nuclear power training command. And to have a congressman out there speaking about Russian disinformation, or Joe Biden at a public debate referencing Russian disinformation when he knows he sat face to face with me, that I was traveled around the world with his son and his brother, to say that and associate that with my name is absolutely disgusting to me,” Bobulinski said, adding, "This isn't a political focus of mine. People were accusing my family of treason after I served this country.”
Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly declared to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this month that the Hunter Biden laptop issue was a Russian disinformation plot, though he provided no evidence, saying that "we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden comes from the Kremlin” while lamenting "another wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin, seeing the president of the United States holding up a newspaper promoting Kremlin propaganda.”
Bobulinksi said Schiff's allegations of Russian disinformation were "disgusting" and prompted him to call Biden family associate Rob Walker (also another ex-Hunter Biden business partner) to deliver an ultimatum that the California Democrat's claim needed to be retracted.
“I saw Adam Schiff go on record talking about Russian disinformation after this email had been posted online by the New York Post ... And so I called [Biden family business associate] Rob Walker and I told him that if that statement isn't retracted by Congressman Schiff, by midnight on Sunday, that I was going on record and I was disclosing all the facts to the American government, to the American citizen, and the world,” Bobulinski said on Tuesday. “I was hoping the Bidens would do the right thing, or Schiff would retract his statement, but I could not allow another minute, another hour, or a day from my family's name to be associated or muddied up around Russian disinformation."
During the final presidential debate last week, Biden cited how 50 ex-intelligence officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, signed on to a letter related to the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming that it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” while admitting that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”
“There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this is, has all the — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage," Biden said after President Trump brought up the "laptop from hell." Earlier in the debate, Biden had claimed that Trump's "buddy, Rudy Giuliani, he’s being used as a Russian pawn, he’s being fed information that is Russian — that is not true.”
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said last week that he didn't believe the news related to the laptop and emails are connected to the Kremlin. “Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that, and we have shared no intelligence with Chairman Schiff or any other member of Congress that Hunter Biden’s laptop is part of some Russian disinformation campaign. It is simply not true,” Ratcliffe said.
Giuliani, Trump's personal lawyer, worked with numerous sources inside the United States and abroad, including Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach, to push allegations that Joe Biden had abused his power in Ukraine. He was the one who received a copy of the laptop and hard drive that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden and then shared its contents with New York Post and others.
A week out from Election Day, Bobulinksi said he hopes the Bidens will reverse course and, in his eyes, clear his name.
"So even as I sit here today, I would ask the Biden family to come on record and stop using my name or associating it with Russian disinformation," Bobulinksi told Carlson.
Bobulinski also recently verified the authenticity of a May 13, 2017, email from investor James Gilliar to himself, Walker, and James and Hunter Biden detailing a business deal between a Chinese company called CEFC and themselves, which included a reference to “the big guy” — who Bobulinski claims was Joe Biden.
The texts are part of a trove of hundreds of documents from Bobulinski obtained by the Washington Examiner. The records show that James Biden planned outreach to a host of Democratic politicians and world leaders as the group pursued business deals with China in 2017, and that Hunter Biden aimed to avoid having to register as a foreign agent.
"Joe Biden has never even considered being involved in business with his family nor in any overseas business whatsoever," Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates told the Washington Examiner last week. "He has never held stock in any such business arrangements nor has any family member, or any other person ever held stock for him."
But Bobulinski said Tuesday that it was "crystal clear" that Biden was aware of the Chinese business efforts of his brother and son when Bobulinski met with him in 2017.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Susan Collins just behind Democratic challenger in new poll

Republican Sen. Susan Collins is within striking distance of Democratic challenger Sara Gideon in the hotly contested Maine Senate race , according to a new poll .
The survey from Colby College in Waterville , Maine , conducted between Wednesday and Sunday , found Gideon leading Collins 46.6 % to 43.4 % among likely voters , with 3.6 % undecided .
Gideon ’ s margin over Collins is inside the poll ’ s margin of error of 3.3 percentage points .
If the data in the poll are indicative of a late trend , Collins could be in a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Maine House of Representatives , and win a fifth term .
“ After more than $ 160 million coming in from all corners of the country , massive media attention , and untold hours of hard work , the race will probably come down to an age-old truism , ” Dan Shea , the head of Colby College 's government department and the lead researcher on the poll , said in a statement .
“ It ’ s all about turnout.
” Both political parties and aligned outside groups , plus small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left , have spent tens of millions of dollars on this race alone .
If Collins can hang on after trailing Gideon in nearly every public opinion poll for several months , the Senate Democrats might have a much harder time erasing the Republicans ’ three-seat majority and winning control of the chamber .
The GOP is on defense across the country , trying to hold off Democratic challengers in nearly a dozen seats : Alaska , Arizona , Colorado , Iowa , two seats in Georgia , Kansas , Montana , North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republicans are on offense in only two contests : one in Alabama and the other in Michigan .
Meanwhile , the Colby College poll showed Democratic nominee Joe Biden leading President Trump statewide in Maine , 51 % to 38 % , with 8 % undecided .
Biden was slightly ahead of Trump in Maine ’ s 2nd Congressional District , 46 % to 42 % , with 9 % undecided .
If Trump can overtake Biden in the 2nd District , he would net one vote in the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional district .

Republican Sen. Susan Collins is within striking distance of Democratic challenger Sara Gideon in the hotly contested Maine Senate race, according to a new poll.
The survey from Colby College in Waterville, Maine, conducted between Wednesday and Sunday, found Gideon leading Collins 46.6% to 43.4% among likely voters, with 3.6% undecided. Gideon’s margin over Collins is inside the poll’s margin of error of 3.3 percentage points. If the data in the poll are indicative of a late trend, Collins could be in a position to defeat Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, and win a fifth term.
“After more than $160 million coming in from all corners of the country, massive media attention, and untold hours of hard work, the race will probably come down to an age-old truism,” Dan Shea, the head of Colby College's government department and the lead researcher on the poll, said in a statement. “It’s all about turnout.”
Both political parties and aligned outside groups, plus small grassroots donors on the Right and the Left, have spent tens of millions of dollars on this race alone. If Collins can hang on after trailing Gideon in nearly every public opinion poll for several months, the Senate Democrats might have a much harder time erasing the Republicans’ three-seat majority and winning control of the chamber.
The GOP is on defense across the country, trying to hold off Democratic challengers in nearly a dozen seats: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, two seats in Georgia, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina — plus Maine. The Republicans are on offense in only two contests: one in Alabama and the other in Michigan.
Meanwhile, the Colby College poll showed Democratic nominee Joe Biden leading President Trump statewide in Maine, 51% to 38%, with 8% undecided. Biden was slightly ahead of Trump in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, 46% to 42%, with 9% undecided. If Trump can overtake Biden in the 2nd District, he would net one vote in the Electoral College, as Maine distributes electoral votes per congressional district.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Jeff Van Drew, New Jersey congressman who ditched Democrats, walks back 'undying support' for Trump

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew , the congressman who left the Democratic Party over the push to impeach President Trump , is walking back some of the comments he made at the time of his switch to the Republican Party .
Van Drew , who is in a tough reelection battle against Amy Kennedy , told CNN that his word choice last year did not reflect what was in his heart .
`` I think the words did n't explain as well what I exactly felt , '' Van Drew said .
`` It 's not undying support that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do , or undying support , I agree with whatever you say .
It was undying support for the presidency , for the idea of the greatness of America , for a friendship , but not necessarily that I 'm going to agree with everything . ''
`` I think voters understand that when you 're in the Oval Office and you 're having a very exciting day and you 're making a little piece of history , '' he added , `` that sometimes we all say things . ''
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeach Trump , Van Drew told the president in a meeting in the Oval Office that he has his “ undying support , '' and that , “ I believe that this is just a better fit for me . ''
Trump was impeached by the House on two counts but was later acquitted by the GOP-led Senate .

New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, the congressman who left the Democratic Party over the push to impeach President Trump, is walking back some of the comments he made at the time of his switch to the Republican Party.
Van Drew, who is in a tough reelection battle against Amy Kennedy, told CNN that his word choice last year did not reflect what was in his heart.
"I think the words didn't explain as well what I exactly felt," Van Drew said. "It's not undying support that, whatever you say I'm going to do, or undying support, I agree with whatever you say. It was undying support for the presidency, for the idea of the greatness of America, for a friendship, but not necessarily that I'm going to agree with everything."
"I think voters understand that when you're in the Oval Office and you're having a very exciting day and you're making a little piece of history," he added, "that sometimes we all say things."
At the time House Democrats were seeking to impeach Trump, Van Drew told the president in a meeting in the Oval Office that he has his “undying support," and that, “I believe that this is just a better fit for me." Trump was impeached by the House on two counts but was later acquitted by the GOP-led Senate.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Court rules Texans who contract coronavirus before election need doctor's note to vote absentee

Texas voters who unexpectedly contract the coronavirus and seek late absentee ballots in the days before the election will need a doctor 's note .
On Friday , the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that Texans who are unable to go to a polling location on Election Day because they contracted COVID-19 and missed the general deadline for absentee ballot applications must have a certified physician 's note to obtain an emergency absentee ballot in accordance with state law .
The decision overruled a lower court order that said it `` would change the longstanding requirements governing late mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two of the justices on the appeal court panel are Democrats , and one is a Republican .
The decision was unanimous .
The general deadline for absentee ballot applications in Texas is 11 days before the election , which this year was on Friday .
Voting rights group Move Texas Action Fund challenged the law in court , arguing it placed an undue burden on the right to vote .
Earlier this month , Texas Judge Tim Sulak , the presiding judge in the lower court , said the doctor 's note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fundamental right to vote . ''
The case will be further reviewed after the election .
Move Texas said it does n't plan to appeal the temporary decision , but instead , it is attempting to connect sick voters with physicians willing to meet virtually and sign late ballot applications for them .
`` Understanding that doctors are extremely busy during the pandemic , safety measures limit in-person meetings , and the high costs of navigating our healthcare system for low-income , young people of color , MOVE is here to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts online .

Texas voters who unexpectedly contract the coronavirus and seek late absentee ballots in the days before the election will need a doctor's note.
On Friday, the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that Texans who are unable to go to a polling location on Election Day because they contracted COVID-19 and missed the general deadline for absentee ballot applications must have a certified physician's note to obtain an emergency absentee ballot in accordance with state law.
The decision overruled a lower court order that said it "would change the longstanding requirements governing late mail-in ballots and risk voter confusion." Two of the justices on the appeal court panel are Democrats, and one is a Republican. The decision was unanimous.
The general deadline for absentee ballot applications in Texas is 11 days before the election, which this year was on Friday.
Voting rights group Move Texas Action Fund challenged the law in court, arguing it placed an undue burden on the right to vote. Earlier this month, Texas Judge Tim Sulak, the presiding judge in the lower court, said the doctor's note requirement "constitutes an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote." The case will be further reviewed after the election.
Move Texas said it doesn't plan to appeal the temporary decision, but instead, it is attempting to connect sick voters with physicians willing to meet virtually and sign late ballot applications for them. "Understanding that doctors are extremely busy during the pandemic, safety measures limit in-person meetings, and the high costs of navigating our healthcare system for low-income, young people of color, MOVE is here to help," the group said about its efforts online.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Coronavirus media coverage won't go away after the election. It will get worse

President Trump has bought into the idea , mostly found on the Right , that the media 's hysterical coverage of the pandemic goes away immediately after the election .
He 's wrong .
It will still be there , but depending on who wins , it may look a little different .
If Trump wins , the media will continue to hate him and insist that yet more lives are being lost because of his administration 's failures .
There may be nominally less coverage , but it wo n't go away because the liberal audiences of CNN and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Biden wins , only the tone of the coverage will change , shifting from a face-melting panic to a he's-got-this calm .
If COVID-19 infection numbers go down , the media will credit Biden .
If they go up , the media will say it 's not his fault because there was a mess he inherited from Trump .
Even worse , the media 's drumbeat of total hospitalizations and deaths will still be needed for Biden and congressional Democrats to continue their push for more federal spending aimed at keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to normal economic activity , and dependent on the government for indefinite help .
Democrats have enjoyed every minute of being portrayed by the media as hard truth-telling leaders who take charge in a moment of crisis .
Why would they want to give that up ?
It 's wishful thinking to believe that saturation coverage of the pandemic has only been a political maneuver by the media and that it serves a purpose only up until the election .
Its utility goes long past that .

President Trump has bought into the idea, mostly found on the Right, that the media's hysterical coverage of the pandemic goes away immediately after the election.
He's wrong. It will still be there, but depending on who wins, it may look a little different.
If Trump wins, the media will continue to hate him and insist that yet more lives are being lost because of his administration's failures. There may be nominally less coverage, but it won't go away because the liberal audiences of CNN and MSNBC need it as a security blanket.
If Biden wins, only the tone of the coverage will change, shifting from a face-melting panic to a he's-got-this calm. If COVID-19 infection numbers go down, the media will credit Biden. If they go up, the media will say it's not his fault because there was a mess he inherited from Trump.
Even worse, the media's drumbeat of total hospitalizations and deaths will still be needed for Biden and congressional Democrats to continue their push for more federal spending aimed at keeping people locked inside their homes, unable to return to normal economic activity, and dependent on the government for indefinite help. Democrats have enjoyed every minute of being portrayed by the media as hard truth-telling leaders who take charge in a moment of crisis. Why would they want to give that up?
It's wishful thinking to believe that saturation coverage of the pandemic has only been a political maneuver by the media and that it serves a purpose only up until the election. Its utility goes long past that.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Nearly 2 out of 3 Democrats worried about government spending levels, Washington Examiner/YouGov pol

Nearly 2 out of 3 Democrats worried about government spending levels, Washington Examiner/YouGov poll finds

Large majorities of Republicans , Democrats , and independents are worried about the current level of government spending , according to a new poll .
A Washington Examiner/YouGov poll found that 70 % of voters were very or somewhat concerned about present government spending levels .
This includes 77 % of Republicans , 70 % of independents , and 65 % of Democrats .
Only 7 % said they were not worried at all about current government spending , including 10 % of Democrats , 8 % of independents , and 4 % of Republicans .
A higher percentage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very worried , with only minor partisan variations : 18 % of Democrats , 17 % of independents , and 15 % of Republicans .
The results come amid perceptions that support for spending restraint has collapsed within both parties in Washington , D.C. , amid the pandemic , economic downturn , and the arrival of a Republican administration that curbed the influence of fiscal conservatives within the GOP .
Under President Trump , the annual federal budget deficit was expected to approach $ 1 trillion even with low unemployment .
After the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates have run as high as $ 4 trillion .
The current Congressional Budget Office projection is $ 3.3 trillion .
Trump campaigned against the type of entitlement reforms favored by then-House Speaker Paul Ryan , a Wisconsin Republican , in 2016 while favoring increased defense spending .
An analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s spending proposals would cost $ 11 trillion over 10 years .
The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated Biden would add $ 2 trillion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with $ 5.4 trillion in new spending only partially offset by tax increases .
Estimates for more ambitious Democratic proposals , such as the Green New Deal , run even higher .
Bernie Sanders and other supporters of significantly greater federal spending have gained traction within the party in recent years .
Biden oversaw a nearly $ 1 trillion fiscal stimulus program while serving as vice president under Barack Obama .
During the Obama administration , the Tea Party railed against increased federal spending and rising budget deficits .
Candidates won Republican primaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ryan ’ s budget blueprints , which reduced the rate of growth of entitlement spending , ascended to congressional leadership .
Spending control was widely seen as a lower priority when Trump took office alongside Republican majorities in both houses of Congress .
The GOP lost control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections .
The Freedom Caucus , a fiscally conservative group in that chamber , counts among its members some of Trump ’ s strongest supporters .
His last two White House chiefs of staff , Mark Meadows and Mick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putting up little resistance to trillion-dollar economic rescue packages during the pandemic , bipartisan talks over another relief bill have stalled in part due to Republicans balking at the Democrats ' preferred price tag .
The Washington Examiner/YouGov poll interviewed 1,194 registered voters on Oct. 26-27 , with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points .

Large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents are worried about the current level of government spending, according to a new poll.
A Washington Examiner/YouGov poll found that 70% of voters were very or somewhat concerned about present government spending levels. This includes 77% of Republicans, 70% of independents, and 65% of Democrats.
Only 7% said they were not worried at all about current government spending, including 10% of Democrats, 8% of independents, and 4% of Republicans. A higher percentage, 18%, said they were not very worried, with only minor partisan variations: 18% of Democrats, 17% of independents, and 15% of Republicans.
The results come amid perceptions that support for spending restraint has collapsed within both parties in Washington, D.C., amid the pandemic, economic downturn, and the arrival of a Republican administration that curbed the influence of fiscal conservatives within the GOP.
Under President Trump, the annual federal budget deficit was expected to approach $1 trillion even with low unemployment. After the COVID-19 outbreak and resulting economic downturn, estimates have run as high as $4 trillion. The current Congressional Budget Office projection is $3.3 trillion. Trump campaigned against the type of entitlement reforms favored by then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, in 2016 while favoring increased defense spending.
An analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s spending proposals would cost $11 trillion over 10 years.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated Biden would add $2 trillion to budget deficits over the next decade, with $5.4 trillion in new spending only partially offset by tax increases. Estimates for more ambitious Democratic proposals, such as the Green New Deal, run even higher. Bernie Sanders and other supporters of significantly greater federal spending have gained traction within the party in recent years.
Biden oversaw a nearly $1 trillion fiscal stimulus program while serving as vice president under Barack Obama. During the Obama administration, the Tea Party railed against increased federal spending and rising budget deficits. Candidates won Republican primaries on anti-spending platforms, and supporters of Ryan’s budget blueprints, which reduced the rate of growth of entitlement spending, ascended to congressional leadership.
Spending control was widely seen as a lower priority when Trump took office alongside Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. The GOP lost control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. The Freedom Caucus, a fiscally conservative group in that chamber, counts among its members some of Trump’s strongest supporters. His last two White House chiefs of staff, Mark Meadows and Mick Mulvaney, were founders.
After initially putting up little resistance to trillion-dollar economic rescue packages during the pandemic, bipartisan talks over another relief bill have stalled in part due to Republicans balking at the Democrats' preferred price tag.
The Washington Examiner/YouGov poll interviewed 1,194 registered voters on Oct. 26-27, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-28--Voters split on phasing out gas and oil after Biden debate remarks, Washington Examiner/YouGov poll

Voters split on phasing out gas and oil after Biden debate remarks, Washington Examiner/YouGov poll finds

The public is split on phasing out gas and oil , as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden proposed in the final debate , according to a new poll .
A Washington Examiner/YouGov poll found that 46 % favor a federal energy policy that seeks to phase out oil and gas to 43 % who would oppose it , a result within the margin of error .
The opposition is more intense , suggesting those who are against phasing out gas and oil may be more likely to vote on the issue : 34 % say they strongly oppose the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while 27 % strongly support the idea to 19 % who say they somewhat support it .
Eleven percent say they don ’ t know .
Republicans are overwhelmingly against a phaseout , with 83 % saying they are opposed and 73 % strongly opposed .
Democrats support such a policy by a 65-point margin , though they are split between 46 % who strongly support it and 30 % who somewhat support it .
Independents are split evenly on the question , with 44 % in support and 44 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether he will eliminate energy industry jobs in pursuit of environmental policy goals .
Trump has pointed to statements against fracking made by Biden and running mate Kamala Harris during the Democratic primaries .
Biden and Harris have since denied they will ban fracking .
But Biden did say in the final debate that he would back a transition away from some traditional energy sources .
“ Would you close down the oil industry ?
” Trump demanded .
“ I would transition from the oil industry , ” Biden replied .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Trump responded mockingly .
He added of Biden , “ Basically , what he ’ s saying is he ’ s going to destroy the oil industry .
Will you remember that , Texas ?
Will you remember that , Pennsylvania ?
Oklahoma ?
Ohio ?
” Trump used Hillary Clinton ’ s perceived indifference to energy industry jobs against her in 2016 , carrying coal mining-friendly West Virginia , a reliably Democratic state until 2000 , by 42 points .
His campaign hopes to use these issues to hold Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ path to an Electoral College majority .
The president has also tried to tie Biden to the Green New Deal , which Harris has supported and which influences the “ unity ” agenda the Democrats developed in concert with Bernie Sanders supporters ahead of their party ’ s nominating convention earlier this year .
Biden has emphasized that he , not Sanders , is the Democratic standard-bearer .
The poll nevertheless shows there is significant support for a transition away from gas and oil , as Democrats and some independent voters embrace green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would strongly oppose this policy , with another 4 % somewhat opposed .
The question is whether voters who are more dependent on the energy industry for employment will be more likely to cast their presidential ballots on the issue , as has traditionally been the case .
Trump ’ s 2016 win resulted from puncturing the Democrats ’ “ blue wall ” in the manufacturing-heavy Rust Belt .
The Washington Examiner/YouGov poll was conducted with 1,194 registered voters interviewed on Oct. 26-27 , and the margin of error is plus or minus @ @ @ @

The public is split on phasing out gas and oil, as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden proposed in the final debate, according to a new poll.
A Washington Examiner/YouGov poll found that 46% favor a federal energy policy that seeks to phase out oil and gas to 43% who would oppose it, a result within the margin of error. The opposition is more intense, suggesting those who are against phasing out gas and oil may be more likely to vote on the issue: 34% say they strongly oppose the idea to just 9% who somewhat oppose, while 27% strongly support the idea to 19% who say they somewhat support it. Eleven percent say they don’t know.
Republicans are overwhelmingly against a phaseout, with 83% saying they are opposed and 73% strongly opposed. Democrats support such a policy by a 65-point margin, though they are split between 46% who strongly support it and 30% who somewhat support it. Independents are split evenly on the question, with 44% in support and 44% in opposition.
President Trump has hammered Biden on whether he will eliminate energy industry jobs in pursuit of environmental policy goals. Trump has pointed to statements against fracking made by Biden and running mate Kamala Harris during the Democratic primaries. Biden and Harris have since denied they will ban fracking.
But Biden did say in the final debate that he would back a transition away from some traditional energy sources.
“Would you close down the oil industry?” Trump demanded. “I would transition from the oil industry,” Biden replied. “Yes.”
“Oh, transition,” Trump responded mockingly. He added of Biden, “Basically, what he’s saying is he’s going to destroy the oil industry. Will you remember that, Texas? Will you remember that, Pennsylvania? Oklahoma? Ohio?”
Trump used Hillary Clinton’s perceived indifference to energy industry jobs against her in 2016, carrying coal mining-friendly West Virginia, a reliably Democratic state until 2000, by 42 points. His campaign hopes to use these issues to hold Texas and Pennsylvania, complicating Biden’s path to an Electoral College majority.
The president has also tried to tie Biden to the Green New Deal, which Harris has supported and which influences the “unity” agenda the Democrats developed in concert with Bernie Sanders supporters ahead of their party’s nominating convention earlier this year. Biden has emphasized that he, not Sanders, is the Democratic standard-bearer.
The poll nevertheless shows there is significant support for a transition away from gas and oil, as Democrats and some independent voters embrace green policies. Only 7% of Democrats would strongly oppose this policy, with another 4% somewhat opposed. The question is whether voters who are more dependent on the energy industry for employment will be more likely to cast their presidential ballots on the issue, as has traditionally been the case. Trump’s 2016 win resulted from puncturing the Democrats’ “blue wall” in the manufacturing-heavy Rust Belt.
The Washington Examiner/YouGov poll was conducted with 1,194 registered voters interviewed on Oct. 26-27, and the margin of error is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Supreme Court rulings on Pennsylvania ballots favorable to Democrats signal the issue isn't fully re

Supreme Court rulings on Pennsylvania ballots favorable to Democrats signal the issue isn't fully resolved

Despite a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions about Pennsylvania 's mail-in-voting rules favorable to Democrats , justices made clear they could reconsider the issue before Election Day .
The court 's 5-3 ruling on Wednesday blocked an attempt by the Pennsylvania Republican Party to stop an extension of counting mail-in ballot three days after Nov. 3 , as long as they were postmarked by the time polls closed .
That followed a 4-4 decision on the issue last week , before the confirmation Monday night of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
The newest justice said she did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had n't had time to read through the legal briefs and other documents on the issue .
But she could if Pennsylvania ballot litigation reaches the Supreme Court again by Tuesday , a distinct possibility with several lawsuits filed over the issue .
And Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he would have granted the GOP 's request to limit ballot counting after Nov. 3 , disagreeing with a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court .
“ There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court 's decision to deny the GOP 's request .
“ The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures , not state courts , the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.
” Alito , whose dissent was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch , made clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Pennsylvania court 's decision after Election Day .
`` [ The Supreme Court 's denial today ] is not a denial of a request for this Court to order that ballots received after election day be segregated so that if the State Supreme Court ’ s decision is ultimately overturned , a targeted remedy will be available , '' Alito wrote .
The majority , which included Justices John Roberts , Sonia Sotomayor , Elena Kagan , and Brett Kavanaugh , did not offer an opinion on blocking the GOP 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Democrat , urged voters in Pennsylvania to cease mailing back ballots out of concern the Supreme Court could issue a ruling after Election Day voiding ballots not returned on time .
“ The Commonwealth has taken careful steps to ensure all eligible Pennsylvania votes will be counted and to stave off further anticipated legal challenges , ” he said .
“ We call on all voters to submit their mail-in ballots to a drop box or county election office as soon as possible.
” The fight over mail-in ballots has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including President Trump , have long said the unprecedented amount of remote voting this election year opens the process up to fraud .
Democratic activists and Republican attorneys general have wound up in court over how many ballots should be sent out , to who , and when they should no longer be counted .
Concerns that ballots that arrive in the mail after Election Day will no longer be counted have prompted Democrats from around the country to reverse on their previous push of the practice .
“ I hope that people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Democratic Speaker of the House California Rep. Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday during a press conference .
“ Even the Postal Service is saying it ’ s too late now to mail a first-class piece of mail , to take more than five or six days to reach its destination , it just speaks for itself . ''

Despite a pair of recent Supreme Court decisions about Pennsylvania's mail-in-voting rules favorable to Democrats, justices made clear they could reconsider the issue before Election Day.
The court's 5-3 ruling on Wednesday blocked an attempt by the Pennsylvania Republican Party to stop an extension of counting mail-in ballot three days after Nov. 3, as long as they were postmarked by the time polls closed. That followed a 4-4 decision on the issue last week, before the confirmation Monday night of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The newest justice said she didn't participate in the latest ruling because she hadn't had time to read through the legal briefs and other documents on the issue. But she could if Pennsylvania ballot litigation reaches the Supreme Court again by Tuesday, a distinct possibility with several lawsuits filed over the issue.
And Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he would have granted the GOP's request to limit ballot counting after Nov. 3, disagreeing with a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
“There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution,” Alito wrote, referencing the Pennsylvania court's decision to deny the GOP's request.
“The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Alito, whose dissent was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, made clear that the Supreme Court could still rule on the Pennsylvania court's decision after Election Day.
"[The Supreme Court's denial today] is not a denial of a request for this Court to order that ballots received after election day be segregated so that if the State Supreme Court’s decision is ultimately overturned, a targeted remedy will be available," Alito wrote.
The majority, which included Justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh, did not offer an opinion on blocking the GOP's request.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, urged voters in Pennsylvania to cease mailing back ballots out of concern the Supreme Court could issue a ruling after Election Day voiding ballots not returned on time.
“The Commonwealth has taken careful steps to ensure all eligible Pennsylvania votes will be counted and to stave off further anticipated legal challenges,” he said. “We call on all voters to submit their mail-in ballots to a drop box or county election office as soon as possible.”
The fight over mail-in ballots has taken place for months, as Republicans, including President Trump, have long said the unprecedented amount of remote voting this election year opens the process up to fraud. Democratic activists and Republican attorneys general have wound up in court over how many ballots should be sent out, to who, and when they should no longer be counted.
Concerns that ballots that arrive in the mail after Election Day will no longer be counted have prompted Democrats from around the country to reverse on their previous push of the practice.
“I hope that people will not depend on the mail,” Democratic Speaker of the House California Rep. Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday during a press conference. “Even the Postal Service is saying it’s too late now to mail a first-class piece of mail, to take more than five or six days to reach its destination, it just speaks for itself."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Gingrich expects Trump landslide and says the Left will be 'terribly shocked' on Election Day

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich refused to shy away from predicting a major electoral victory for President Trump next week .
During an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday evening , Gingrich said Trump was in a better position in the presidential race this year than four years ago , with little less than a week to go in the election .
`` He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016 , when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly , '' Gingrich said .
`` The people I trust the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most accurate over the last five or six years , who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump . ''
Gingrich called an electoral map showing a landslide Trump victory with 326 electoral votes , `` the first Electoral College map that made sense '' before claiming that the Left will be `` terribly shocked '' following Election Day .
Gingrich argued Trump 's appeal was not ideological but based on the strength he projects on the campaign trail in light of the coronavirus pandemic and constant criticism from major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sean , it comes down to something which is psychological , not ideological , '' Gingrich said .
`` In the end , as you watched these two candidates campaigning , I think it 's coming down to sort of a bunny rabbit hiding in a basement protected by the news media and a bear who is wandering around on the stage courageously without fear . ''
Gingrich chided Biden 's campaign strategy , which has seen the former vice president calling a `` lid , '' or shortened day , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Election Day .
`` I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns , the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship , '' Gingrich said .
`` My personal bet is it will lead to a surprising majority for Trump . ''
Some media outlets have argued the race is much closer than Gingrich 's prediction .
NBC News 's latest battleground map found Biden holding a slim electoral majority heading into the final week of the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published an article outlining the ways in which both Biden and Trump could capture an Electoral College victory on Tuesday .

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich refused to shy away from predicting a major electoral victory for President Trump next week.
During an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Wednesday evening, Gingrich said Trump was in a better position in the presidential race this year than four years ago, with little less than a week to go in the election.
"He has a better likelihood than he did at this stage in 2016, when he was clearly behind and closing rapidly," Gingrich said. "The people I trust the most, the pollsters that have been the most accurate over the last five or six years, who seem to understand the dynamics of the age of Trump."
Gingrich called an electoral map showing a landslide Trump victory with 326 electoral votes, "the first Electoral College map that made sense" before claiming that the Left will be "terribly shocked" following Election Day.
Gingrich argued Trump's appeal was not ideological but based on the strength he projects on the campaign trail in light of the coronavirus pandemic and constant criticism from major media corporations.
"I actually think, Sean, it comes down to something which is psychological, not ideological," Gingrich said. "In the end, as you watched these two candidates campaigning, I think it's coming down to sort of a bunny rabbit hiding in a basement protected by the news media and a bear who is wandering around on the stage courageously without fear."
Gingrich chided Biden's campaign strategy, which has seen the former vice president calling a "lid," or shortened day, for most of the final campaign stretch heading into Election Day.
"I think every day that Biden hides and Trump goes out and campaigns, the psychological message being driven to the American people is really deeper than just ideology or partisanship," Gingrich said. "My personal bet is it will lead to a surprising majority for Trump."
Some media outlets have argued the race is much closer than Gingrich's prediction. NBC News's latest battleground map found Biden holding a slim electoral majority heading into the final week of the election. On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article outlining the ways in which both Biden and Trump could capture an Electoral College victory on Tuesday.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Trump demands 'major criminal liability' over 'Anonymous' op-ed and author Miles Taylor

President Trump threatened the `` Anonymous '' author of a 2018 essay published by the New York Times that claimed there was an internal `` resistance '' afoot within his administration .
At a campaign rally in Tampa , Florida , on Thursday , Trump slammed the New York Times for how it described the author , revealed on Wednesday to be Miles Taylor , a former Department of Homeland Security official who was also a counterterrorism adviser to then-White House chief of staff John Kelly .
`` It turns out to be this lowlife that nobody knows who the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do with us , '' Trump said .
`` This is a disgrace to our country , it should n't happen , and he should be prosecuted .
Are you listening to me back in Washington ?
He should be prosecuted along with the New York Times . ''
In the publication of `` I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration , '' Taylor was characterized as a “ senior administration official ” by the New York Times , although he did not appear on the DHS website as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed as chief of staff in late February 2019 , more than 150 days after the op-ed was published .
Trump accused the New York Times of purposefully misleading Taylor 's credentials in order to boost his credibility as he criticized the president .
`` Then , somebody gets it at the New York Times , the fake New York Times , and all of a sudden , he becomes nasty , '' Trump said .
`` And they say , a top White House official .
Well , he was a staffer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the White House .
He had nothing to do , and he goes in , and you know what ?
There should be major criminal liability for some scum like this . ''
The 2018 op-ed did not claim that Taylor was a White House official .
James Dao , an op-ed editor for the New York Times , said a few days after publishing the Anonymous article that the term “ senior administration official ” is “ used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the one held by this writer.
” On Wednesday , CNN host Chris Cuomo confronted Taylor live on-air , pointing out that he lied to CNN colleague Anderson Cooper about his authorship of the essay when asked about it on the Aug. 21 episode of his show .
Taylor said he `` owed '' Cooper a beer for the lie .
Taylor , who left the administration last year and also wrote a book , A Warning , joined CNN as a contributor in September .
`` You know who he works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taylor .
`` CNN .
He works for CNN .
Right there .
See the camera right there with the light that just went off ?
See that , honey [ referring to first lady Melania Trump ] ?
That red light just went off . ''
The crowd of thousands standing packed side-by-side shouted , `` CNN sucks , '' in response to Trump .
`` Anderson Cooper asked him , 'Are you Anonymous ? '
'' Trump said .
`` And he lied to them .
He said , 'No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm not . '
And he works for CNN .
I would think CNN would be firing him about it , but this is a real lowlife .
You know who else he works for ?
Google .
He works for Google .
I think Google should fire him very quickly because bad things are going to happen to him . ''

President Trump threatened the "Anonymous" author of a 2018 essay published by the New York Times that claimed there was an internal "resistance" afoot within his administration.
At a campaign rally in Tampa, Florida, on Thursday, Trump slammed the New York Times for how it described the author, revealed on Wednesday to be Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who was also a counterterrorism adviser to then-White House chief of staff John Kelly.
"It turns out to be this lowlife that nobody knows who the hell he is. He had nothing to do with us," Trump said. "This is a disgrace to our country, it shouldn't happen, and he should be prosecuted. Are you listening to me back in Washington? He should be prosecuted along with the New York Times."
In the publication of "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration," Taylor was characterized as a “senior administration official” by the New York Times, although he did not appear on the DHS website as part of its leadership until he was listed as chief of staff in late February 2019, more than 150 days after the op-ed was published.
Trump accused the New York Times of purposefully misleading Taylor's credentials in order to boost his credibility as he criticized the president.
"Then, somebody gets it at the New York Times, the fake New York Times, and all of a sudden, he becomes nasty," Trump said. "And they say, a top White House official. Well, he was a staffer, low, had nothing to do with the White House. He had nothing to do, and he goes in, and you know what? There should be major criminal liability for some scum like this."
The 2018 op-ed did not claim that Taylor was a White House official.
James Dao, an op-ed editor for the New York Times, said a few days after publishing the Anonymous article that the term “senior administration official” is “used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the upper echelon of an administration, such as the one held by this writer.”
On Wednesday, CNN host Chris Cuomo confronted Taylor live on-air, pointing out that he lied to CNN colleague Anderson Cooper about his authorship of the essay when asked about it on the Aug. 21 episode of his show. Taylor said he "owed" Cooper a beer for the lie. Taylor, who left the administration last year and also wrote a book, A Warning, joined CNN as a contributor in September.
"You know who he works for now?" Trump asked of Taylor. "CNN. He works for CNN. Right there. See the camera right there with the light that just went off? See that, honey [referring to first lady Melania Trump]? That red light just went off."
The crowd of thousands standing packed side-by-side shouted, "CNN sucks," in response to Trump.
"Anderson Cooper asked him, 'Are you Anonymous?'" Trump said. "And he lied to them. He said, 'No,' essentially. Said, 'No, I'm not.' And he works for CNN. I would think CNN would be firing him about it, but this is a real lowlife. You know who else he works for? Google. He works for Google. I think Google should fire him very quickly because bad things are going to happen to him."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Trump mocks 'anonymous' writer Miles Taylor as 'little known staffer' who 'scammed CNN'

President Trump took to social media to mock a pro-Biden former Department of Homeland Security official who penned a widely read , anonymous New York Times op-ed in 2018 about an internal `` resistance '' in the Trump administration .
Miles Taylor , who revealed that he authored the op-ed on Wednesday , was characterized by the newspaper as a “ senior administration official , '' but he did not appear on the DHS website as part of its leadership until he was listed as chief of staff on Feb. 21 , 2019 , five months after the article was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson Cooper when directly asked if he was the individual who wrote the op-ed .
“ I wear a mask for two things , Anderson : Halloweens and pandemics .
So , no , '' he said at the time .
`` So it turns out that the wise guy promoted as 'Anonymous ' by the @ nytimes , named Miles Taylor ( who I never even heard of ! )
, was only a little known 'staffer ' as opposed to a 'Senior Administration Official ' .
He then scammed @ CNN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got a job there , '' Trump wrote on Twitter .
`` He also worked at , of all places , @ Google .
They all have big liability !
!
! ''
CNN host Chris Cuomo confronted Taylor about lying to his network on Wednesday .
`` You were asked in August if you were 'Anonymous ' here with Anderson Cooper , and you said no .
Now , why should CNN keep you on the payroll after lying like that ? ''
Cuomo asked .
Taylor defended his deception to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymous book that `` if asked , I would strenuously deny I was the author . ''
`` When asked by Anderson ...
I said what I was going to do .
I temporarily denied it .
But I always said I would ultimately come out under my own name .
But that said , I owe Anderson Cooper a beer , '' Taylor continued .
A CNN spokesperson confirmed to the Washington Post that the network planned to keep Taylor on as a contributor despite his on-the-record lie to Cooper .

President Trump took to social media to mock a pro-Biden former Department of Homeland Security official who penned a widely read, anonymous New York Times op-ed in 2018 about an internal "resistance" in the Trump administration.
Miles Taylor, who revealed that he authored the op-ed on Wednesday, was characterized by the newspaper as a “senior administration official," but he did not appear on the DHS website as part of its leadership until he was listed as chief of staff on Feb. 21, 2019, five months after the article was published. Taylor lied to CNN's Anderson Cooper when directly asked if he was the individual who wrote the op-ed. “I wear a mask for two things, Anderson: Halloweens and pandemics. So, no," he said at the time.
"So it turns out that the wise guy promoted as 'Anonymous' by the @nytimes, named Miles Taylor (who I never even heard of!), was only a little known 'staffer' as opposed to a 'Senior Administration Official'. He then scammed @CNN, lied to @andersoncooper, & got a job there," Trump wrote on Twitter. "He also worked at, of all places, @Google. They all have big liability!!!"
....He also worked at, of all places, @Google. They all have big liability!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2020
CNN host Chris Cuomo confronted Taylor about lying to his network on Wednesday. "You were asked in August if you were 'Anonymous' here with Anderson Cooper, and you said no. Now, why should CNN keep you on the payroll after lying like that?" Cuomo asked.
Taylor defended his deception to the network, saying he wrote in his anonymous book that "if asked, I would strenuously deny I was the author."
"When asked by Anderson ... I said what I was going to do. I temporarily denied it. But I always said I would ultimately come out under my own name. But that said, I owe Anderson Cooper a beer," Taylor continued.
A CNN spokesperson confirmed to the Washington Post that the network planned to keep Taylor on as a contributor despite his on-the-record lie to Cooper.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Add Florida to list of swing states where early voting data favors a Trump victory

Republicans have closed Democrats ' early voting lead in Florida by about 300,000 votes since early , in-person voting began and only trail in the state by 3 points five days before Election Day .
“ Anyone Democrat feeling really confident right now should look at Florida ’ s early voting numbers .
Republicans are having another huge day across the state , ” NBC ’ s Joe Scarborough noted Tuesday .
Democrats carried an in Florida into Election Day in 2016 as well only to have that margin erased by the GOP , resulting in Trump winning the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going into Election Day might have to be larger than usual .
An of Democrats have indicated they plan to or already have voted by mail or done early voting , while those voting for Trump have indicated they .
As the Democrats lead continues to narrow ahead of Nov. 3 , a wave of Republican voters could help push Trump over the top in the state .
“ Democrats ' early voting across the state is actually falling well short of what they would need to win if they lose Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Again , the advantage goes to Republicans in Florida.
” “ Forbes polling indicates that roughly half of all voters plan to vote early , with 62 percent of Democrats planning to vote early while 72 percent of Republicans plan to wait and vote on Election Day , ” Pudner wrote .
“ If that happened and independents split evenly ( last time Trump won them ) , then Democrats would need to win early voting at least 70 percent to 30 percent to be on pace to barely overcome a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan Election Day votes.
” Democrats only have a early and mail-in voting lead in Florida as of Thursday .
The early voting results in the battleground state of Florida look similar to the numbers out of and , which both show Republicans leading the early vote in the states despite polls showing Trump lagging .
Republicans have an even larger lead in Ohio , a swing state Trump leads in most polls .
Florida ’ s numbers could be more accurate , as the state makes voter registration data publicly available , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump won all four states in 2016 .
One state where Democrats are hitting their expected target is Pennsylvania , which shows Democrats leading 68 % -22 % .
Trump narrowly won Pennsylvania in 2016 , and the state is currently rated as the most likely to decide the election .
Polls currently show Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden with a in Florida , while FiveThirtyEight only gives Trump a of winning the state as of Thursday .

Republicans have closed Democrats' early voting lead in Florida by about 300,000 votes since early, in-person voting began and only trail in the state by 3 points five days before Election Day.
“Anyone Democrat feeling really confident right now should look at Florida’s early voting numbers. Republicans are having another huge day across the state,” NBC’s Joe Scarborough noted Tuesday.
Anyone Democrat feeling really confident right now should look at Florida’s early voting numbers. Republicans are having another huge day across the state. — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) October 27, 2020
Democrats carried an early voting lead in Florida into Election Day in 2016 as well only to have that margin erased by the GOP, resulting in Trump winning the state.
This year, the Democratic lead going into Election Day might have to be larger than usual. An overwhelming majority of Democrats have indicated they plan to or already have voted by mail or done early voting, while those voting for Trump have indicated they plan to vote on Election Day . As the Democrats lead continues to narrow ahead of Nov. 3, a wave of Republican voters could help push Trump over the top in the state.
“Democrats' early voting across the state is actually falling well short of what they would need to win if they lose Election Day, observed the Hill’s John Pudner. “Again, the advantage goes to Republicans in Florida.”
“Forbes polling indicates that roughly half of all voters plan to vote early, with 62 percent of Democrats planning to vote early while 72 percent of Republicans plan to wait and vote on Election Day,” Pudner wrote. “If that happened and independents split evenly (last time Trump won them), then Democrats would need to win early voting at least 70 percent to 30 percent to be on pace to barely overcome a 31 percent to 69 percent disadvantage in partisan Election Day votes.”
Democrats only have a slim 41%-38% early and mail-in voting lead in Florida as of Thursday.
The early voting results in the battleground state of Florida look similar to the numbers out of Michigan and Wisconsin , which both show Republicans leading the early vote in the states despite polls showing Trump lagging. Republicans have an even larger lead in Ohio, a swing state Trump leads in most polls. Florida’s numbers could be more accurate, as the state makes voter registration data publicly available, unlike Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio.
Trump won all four states in 2016.
One state where Democrats are hitting their expected target is Pennsylvania, which shows Democrats leading 68%-22%. Trump narrowly won Pennsylvania in 2016, and the state is currently rated as the most likely to decide the election.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--The real story behind the New York Times's big 'anonymous' op-ed is exceptionally sleazy

The true story behind the New York Times ’ s 2018 anonymous opinion article is exceptionally sleazy .
Indeed , based on what we know now , everyone involved in this sad episode comes across as exceptionally unethical , most especially the op-ed ’ s author , former Department of Homeland Security employee Miles Taylor .
For starters , Taylor and the New York Times grossly exaggerated his credentials as a “ senior ” member of the Trump administration .
Taylor served as a “ Deputy Chief of Staff ” at the time he submitted his op-ed to the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of chief of staff until later .
Yet , the New York Times billed him anyway in the op-ed as a “ senior official in the Trump administration , ” an overblown descriptor that Taylor himself made no effort to correct .
New York Times Deputy Editorial Page Editor James Dao at the time defended the paper 's characterization of Taylor ’ s role in the Trump administration , saying [ emphasis added ] : The New York Times knew what it was doing when it presented the author of the essay as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misled readers into believing a White House official with hard power and influence was acting as a double agent .
This poses a separate problem that is unique to the New York Times .
Knowing now how it chose to mischaracterize Taylor ’ s role in the Trump administration , what reason do we have to trust the say-so of any of its anonymous sources ?
If the paper is willing to misrepresent the importance of some obscure , middling bureaucrat , providing him with a platform to level serious allegations against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cloak of anonymity , who is to say that the paper ’ s next big “ scoop ” will not be sourced entirely to , say , the White House cook ?
And Taylor himself is complicit in misleading the public .
He surely lied in his op-ed when he alleged he was “ working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [ Trump 's ] agenda and his worst inclinations.
” Now that he no longer needs to worry about anonymity , it is incumbent on Taylor to explain what , exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his position at the time as deputy chief of staff to “ frustrate parts ” of the president ’ s agenda .
Next , in the long litany of everything that is rotten about this episode , is the fact that Taylor silently stood by as former National Security Council official Victoria Coates took all the heat for his op-ed , resulting in her eventual demotion and reassignment to the Department of Energy .
Even more sociopathic than allowing Coates to suffer the consequences for his op-ed is the fact that Taylor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government throughout this entire episode , actually accepted a promotion to chief of staff at DHS after the New York Times published his article .
Then , there is the moment that Taylor made fools of his alleged friends at Republican Voters Against Trump , including when he silently stood by as the group ’ s co-founder , Sarah Longwell , said on social media , “ People should stop paying attention to ‘ Anonymous ’ and focus on the Trump officials who are willing to put themselves out there publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like [ Miles Taylor ] .
” Taylor , who serves now as a CNN contributor , even lied on Aug. 21 when host Anderson Cooper asked directly if he is the New York Times ’ s “ anonymous ” author .
If it is any consolation to the people wronged by Taylor , the anti-Trump “ resistance ” is not at all interested in embracing him as their own .
Quite the contrary .
Taylor ’ s big reveal on Wednesday immediately inspired loud boos and hissing from the people he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is there anything in the world more on-brand than a former Bush staffer and professional anti-Trump guy displaying himself before a hostile political faction with the total confidence that he will be accepted as a liberator ?
But really , from allowing innocent parties to take the blame for his handiwork to abusing his own allies , this is straight-up sociopathic behavior from Taylor — and all with the blessing and sponsorship of the New York Times .

The true story behind the New York Times’s 2018 anonymous opinion article is exceptionally sleazy.
Indeed, based on what we know now, everyone involved in this sad episode comes across as remarkably unethical, most especially the op-ed’s author, former Department of Homeland Security employee Miles Taylor.
For starters, Taylor and the New York Times grossly exaggerated his credentials as a “senior” member of the Trump administration. Taylor served as a “Deputy Chief of Staff” at the time he submitted his op-ed to the paper. He did not hold the position of chief of staff until later. Yet, the New York Times billed him anyway as a “senior official in the Trump administration,” an overblown descriptor that Taylor himself made no effort to correct.
New York Times Deputy Editorial Page Editor James Dao at the time defended the paper's characterization of Taylor’s role in the Trump administration, saying [emphasis added]:
I understand readers’ frustration that we didn’t provide a more precise description of the official. But we felt strongly that a broader categorization was necessary to protect the author from reprisal, and that concern has been borne out by the president’s reaction to the essay. The term we chose, senior administration official, is used in Washington by both journalists and government officials to describe positions in the upper echelon of an administration, such as the one held by this writer.
The New York Times knew what it was doing when it presented the author of the essay as a "senior official.” It willfully misled readers into believing a White House official with hard power and influence was acting as a double agent.
This poses a separate problem that is unique to the New York Times. Knowing now how it chose to mischaracterize Taylor’s role in the Trump administration, what reason do we have to trust the say-so of any of its anonymous sources? If the paper is willing to misrepresent the importance of some obscure, middling bureaucrat, providing him with a platform to level serious allegations against a sitting president and all from behind the cloak of anonymity, who is to say that the paper’s next big “scoop” will not be sourced entirely to, say, the White House cook?
And Taylor himself is complicit in misleading the public. He surely lied in his op-ed when he alleged he was “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations.” Now that he no longer needs to worry about anonymity, it is incumbent on Taylor to explain what, exactly, it was that he did in his position at the time as deputy chief of staff to “frustrate parts” of the president’s agenda.
Next, in the long litany of everything that is rotten about this episode, is the fact that Taylor silently stood by as former National Security Council official Victoria Coates took all the heat for his op-ed, including her eventual demotion and reassignment to the Department of Energy.
Even more sociopathic than allowing Coates to suffer the consequences for his op-ed is the fact that Taylor, who continued to draw a paycheck from the federal government throughout this entire episode, actually accepted a promotion to chief of staff at DHS after the New York Times published his article.
Then, there is the moment that Taylor made fools of his alleged friends at Republican Voters Against Trump, including when he said nothing when the group’s co-founder, Sarah Longwell, declared on social media, “People should stop paying attention to ‘Anonymous’ and focus on the Trump officials who are willing to put themselves out there publicly with [Republican Voters Against Trump]. Like [Miles Taylor].”
Taylor, who serves now as a CNN contributor, even lied on Aug. 21 when host Anderson Cooper asked directly if he is the New York Times’s “anonymous” author.
If it is any consolation to the people wronged by Taylor, the anti-Trump “resistance” is not at all interested in embracing him as their own. Quite the contrary. Taylor’s big reveal on Wednesday immediately inspired loud boos and hissing from the people he clearly thought would cheer his arrival. Is there anything in the world more on-brand than a former Bush staffer and professional anti-Trump guy displaying himself before a hostile political faction with the total confidence that he will be accepted as a liberator?
But really, from allowing innocent parties to take the blame for his handiwork to abusing his own allies, this is straight-up sociopathic behavior from Taylor — and all with the blessing and sponsorship of the New York Times.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Why Christians should reject Joe Biden's candidacy

In many ways , this election , like the 2016 election before it , is a moral calculation for Christians .
Do we vote for a man whose character is lacking , whose words and actions are unbecoming of the office he holds , but whose policies have helped advance principles upon which Christians depend ?
Or do we vote for the candidate who is stable , whose rhetoric would hopefully unite us rather than divide , but whose policies would undermine all of the things Christians claim to believe in and love ?
Some look at this predicament and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is really between immediate and long-term success .
Trump ’ s reelection might be good for the church and the pro-life movement right now , but a Biden presidency would bring back the decency and stability that a conservative culture needs to thrive .
But immediate actions have long-term consequences , and the pro-choice policies that a Biden administration would implement would not only undo the Trump administration ’ s pro-life gains , but also bolster and encourage a culture that is already hostile to the pro-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why should the church feel comfortable electing a man whose running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris , openly suggested that a judicial nominee was unfit for the role because of the person 's Catholic faith ?
Are we supposed to believe a vice president like that would help create a culture that welcomes and celebrates people of faith ?
If anything , we should believe the opposite .
Biden might claim to be a moderate , but the policies that his party now proposes would push the entire federal government towards leftism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human life .
Liberals want to pack the Supreme Court with leftist judges who would permanently prevent pro-life victories and make sure Christians such as Colorado baker Jack Phillips are forced to obey wokeism .
They want to get rid of the Senate ’ s filibuster and make Washington , D.C. , a state in order to jam liberal policies through Congress and make them the law of the land .
These are policies that would permanently alter the structure of government and create a culture in which leftism is king — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does ( or , perhaps , even if he does ) , Christians should recognize what ’ s at stake .
There is nothing to gain from a Biden presidency — and a lot to lose .
Biden will not stand in the way of his party ’ s pro-abortion ambitions .
He ’ s already flipped positions on the Hyde Amendment ( taxpayer funding of abortion ) , and his vice president admitted during the primaries that she supports zero restrictions on abortion access .
The church would no longer be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for help when debates over religious freedom arise , and we ’ d likely see far more Christians in court fighting for their rights than we do now .
I understand the decision not to vote for Trump .
Character matters , and Christians should not pretend that Trump ’ s behavior won ’ t stain the presidency and enable this country ’ s worst impulses .
It is for this reason I chose not to vote for Trump in 2016 , and in some ways , the past four years have proved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand the decision to vote for Biden , a man who , even if he has the right temperament for the job , lacks the spine to stand up to the worst parts of his party .
Put simply , a vote for Biden is a vote against the Hyde Amendment .
A vote for Biden is a vote for Obamacare ’ s contraceptive mandate .
A vote for Biden is a vote for a party that embraces abortion extremism , fights against religious freedom when that freedom clashes with its woke agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power permanently .
The first threat ( that of abortion extremism ) should weigh on our minds the most .
As Christians , we are called to uphold the sanctity of life and defend human dignity .
I agree that abortion is not the only policy debate that matters .
There are questions of economic policy , healthcare , foreign affairs , racial injustice , and immigration that demand attention as well .
But how can we wade through the nuance these questions require if we can not uphold the fundamental principle on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , the choice really isn ’ t between Biden or Trump ; it ’ s whether to vote for Trump or not to vote .
There is a Christian argument against Trump , but there is no Christian argument for Biden .
There is no pro-life case for Biden .
It just does not exist .

In many ways, this election, like the 2016 election before it, is a moral calculation for Christians. Do we vote for a man whose character is lacking, whose words and actions are unbecoming of the office he holds, but whose policies have helped advance principles upon which Christians depend? Or do we vote for the candidate who is stable, whose rhetoric would hopefully unite us rather than divide, but whose policies would undermine all of the things Christians claim to believe in and love?
Some look at this predicament and argue that the choice between President Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is really between immediate and long-term success. Trump’s reelection might be good for the church and the pro-life movement right now, but a Biden presidency would bring back the decency and stability that a conservative culture needs to thrive.
But immediate actions have long-term consequences, and the pro-choice policies that a Biden administration would implement would not only undo the Trump administration’s pro-life gains, but also bolster and encourage a culture that is already hostile to the pro-life movement. For that same reason, why should the church feel comfortable electing a man whose running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, openly suggested that a judicial nominee was unfit for the role because of the person's Catholic faith? Are we supposed to believe a vice president like that would help create a culture that welcomes and celebrates people of faith?
If anything, we should believe the opposite. Biden might claim to be a moderate, but the policies that his party now proposes would push the entire federal government towards leftism and away from religious freedom and respect for human life. Liberals want to pack the Supreme Court with leftist judges who would permanently prevent pro-life victories and make sure Christians such as Colorado baker Jack Phillips are forced to obey wokeism. They want to get rid of the Senate’s filibuster and make Washington, D.C., a state in order to jam liberal policies through Congress and make them the law of the land.
These are policies that would permanently alter the structure of government and create a culture in which leftism is king — and Biden refuses to condemn either. Until he does (or, perhaps, even if he does), Christians should recognize what’s at stake. There is nothing to gain from a Biden presidency — and a lot to lose. Biden will not stand in the way of his party’s pro-abortion ambitions. He’s already flipped positions on the Hyde Amendment (taxpayer funding of abortion), and his vice president admitted during the primaries that she supports zero restrictions on abortion access. The church would no longer be able to depend on the Justice Department for help when debates over religious freedom arise, and we’d likely see far more Christians in court fighting for their rights than we do now.
I understand the decision not to vote for Trump. Character matters, and Christians should not pretend that Trump’s behavior won’t stain the presidency and enable this country’s worst impulses. It is for this reason I chose not to vote for Trump in 2016, and in some ways, the past four years have proved me right.
But I do not understand the decision to vote for Biden, a man who, even if he has the right temperament for the job, lacks the spine to stand up to the worst parts of his party. Put simply, a vote for Biden is a vote against the Hyde Amendment. A vote for Biden is a vote for Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. A vote for Biden is a vote for a party that embraces abortion extremism, fights against religious freedom when that freedom clashes with its woke agenda, and threatens to cement itself into power permanently.
The first threat (that of abortion extremism) should weigh on our minds the most. As Christians, we are called to uphold the sanctity of life and defend human dignity. I agree that abortion is not the only policy debate that matters. There are questions of economic policy, healthcare, foreign affairs, racial injustice, and immigration that demand attention as well. But how can we wade through the nuance these questions require if we cannot uphold the fundamental principle on which they all depend?
In other words, the choice really isn’t between Biden or Trump; it’s whether to vote for Trump or not to vote. There is a Christian argument against Trump, but there is no Christian argument for Biden. There is no pro-life case for Biden. It just does not exist.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-10-29--Californians might just save their state from reinstituting affirmative action

Earlier this year , it looked certain that California would throw itself further down the hole of identity politics , reinstituting affirmative action in university admissions and government hiring .
Now , polls are showing that ’ s not as clear as it seems , and progressive activists seem worried .
California ’ s Proposition 16 would reinstate racial- and gender-based quotas in the state , allowing universities and government agencies to make admission and hiring decisions based on those immutable characteristics .
After a similar 2014 effort went down in flames , a 2020 push off the back of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought to be a sure thing .
Yet , polls show that Proposition 16 is in danger of failing in the most progressive state in the country .
The Public Policy Institute of California found that it was underwater by 13 points in October , with 12 % of voters undecided .
This fact was lamented by San Francisco State University professor Yumi Wilson , who wrote in the Washington Post that California ’ s system is broken for black and “ Latinx ” Californians and that “ those of us who think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that more California voters than the current polling indicates decide they agree.
” The problem with her analysis ?
The very groups she claims to speak for oppose affirmative action broadly .
A Pew Research Center poll in 2019 found that 73 % of people don ’ t think race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions , including 62 % of blacks and 65 % of Hispanics .
Both race and gender were ranked below athletic ability and having a relative who attended the school in factors that people thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even legacy admissions are more popular than race- and gender-based admissions .
Californians have the chance to show that their state is not a backward-looking one seeking to discriminate against its residents based on race and gender .
Residents appropriately banned affirmative action in 1996 at the ballot box and pressured legislators to kill a previous attempt to bring it back in 2014 .
The shine of the Golden State has continued to fade , but voters have a chance to restore some of it through Election Day .

Earlier this year, it looked certain that California would throw itself further down the hole of identity politics, reinstituting affirmative action in university admissions and government hiring. Now, polls are showing that’s not as clear as it seems, and progressive activists seem worried.
California’s Proposition 16 would reinstate racial- and gender-based quotas in the state, allowing universities and government agencies to make admission and hiring decisions based on those immutable characteristics. After a similar 2014 effort went down in flames, a 2020 push off the back of George Floyd's death in Minnesota was thought to be a sure thing. Yet, polls show that Proposition 16 is in danger of failing in the most progressive state in the country. The Public Policy Institute of California found that it was underwater by 13 points in October, with 12% of voters undecided.
This fact was lamented by San Francisco State University professor Yumi Wilson, who wrote in the Washington Post that California’s system is broken for black and “Latinx” Californians and that “those of us who think change is long overdue can only hope that more California voters than the current polling indicates decide they agree.”
The problem with her analysis? The very groups she claims to speak for oppose affirmative action broadly.
A Pew Research Center poll in 2019 found that 73% of people don’t think race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions, including 62% of blacks and 65% of Hispanics. Both race and gender were ranked below athletic ability and having a relative who attended the school in factors that people thought should be considered.
So, yes, even legacy admissions are more popular than race- and gender-based admissions.
Californians have the chance to show that their state is not a backward-looking one seeking to discriminate against its residents based on race and gender. Residents appropriately banned affirmative action in 1996 at the ballot box and pressured legislators to kill a previous attempt to bring it back in 2014. The shine of the Golden State has continued to fade, but voters have a chance to restore some of it through Election Day.