thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--In Senate impeachment trial, Trump’s power must be curtailed

It is clear from listening to the case made in the Senate by President Trump ’ s lawyers that their defense of his conduct relies on a highly expansive assertion of executive power .
Their theory of an uber-powerful president is constitutionally bogus and , worse , quite dangerous .
To be clear , I write this as a particularly avid disciple of James Madison ’ s distrust of highly centralized power wherever it occurs .
“ It will not be denied , ” he wrote , “ that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigned to it.
” The American presidency is a uniquely powerful sort of national executive , much more so than the prime minister in a parliamentary system .
As the national government has grown so much more massive and pervasive than ever envisioned by the founders , it should be obvious that the dangers of concentrated power are particularly great when in the hands of an unfettered president of such a big government in such a big country .
It is for that reason , Madison explained repeatedly in the Federalist Papers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ separation ” of powers , the Constitution instead partially separated and partially blended almost every power it detailed .
That way , no single branch of government would have the sort of exclusive control on any one power that would allow it to abuse that power without pushback or repercussion .
In that light , it is instructive that even the single foremost founding advocate of a strong executive , Alexander Hamilton , wrote that Americans should beware of entrusting too much power to presidents even in foreign affairs .
He wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own aggrandizement , by the aid of a foreign power , the price of his treachery to his constituents.
” Read that again .
This is exactly what President Trump is accused of doing : seeking his own aggrandizement with the aid of a foreign power .
Hamilton ’ s very next sentences continued this thought process : “ The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the rest of the world , to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.
” In sum and contrary to the arguments of Trump ’ s legal team : The Constitution puts limits on presidential powers even in matters of foreign relations .
In the case of Trump ’ s delay of statutorily mandated military assistance to Ukraine , a delay about which he wrongly refused to inform the Senate , one overcome only after the whistle was blown against him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failure to distribute $ 35 million by the legal deadline , Trump actually transgressed upon the single most important authority of Congress , namely the power of the purse .
Therefore , he didn ’ t merely fail to abide by limits on a power assigned largely but not exclusively to him .
Instead , he directly contravened a power assigned primarily to Congress .
Now , let ’ s move to practicalities .
These Trumpian transgressions are not merely academic matters or abstruse political theory .
A president who is not held @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast bureaucratic state , power over the Justice Department and the IRS , and the too-infrequently-restricted authority over the armed forces , is a president who can install his own “ deep state ” agents , with impunity , to harass political enemies at will .
Conservatives willing to cede such massive power to Trump will suffer when the next Barack Obama takes office with a free hand and an iron fist .

It is clear from listening to the case made in the Senate by President Trump’s lawyers that their defense of his conduct relies on a highly expansive assertion of executive power. Their theory of an uber-powerful president is constitutionally bogus and, worse, quite dangerous.
To be clear, I write this as a particularly avid disciple of James Madison’s distrust of highly centralized power wherever it occurs. “It will not be denied,” he wrote, “that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”
The American presidency is a uniquely powerful sort of national executive, much more so than the prime minister in a parliamentary system. As the national government has grown so much more massive and pervasive than ever envisioned by the founders, it should be obvious that the dangers of concentrated power are particularly great when in the hands of an unfettered president of such a big government in such a big country.
It is for that reason, Madison explained repeatedly in the Federalist Papers, that rather than setting up a pure “separation” of powers, the Constitution instead partially separated and partially blended almost every power it detailed. That way, no single branch of government would have the sort of exclusive control on any one power that would allow it to abuse that power without pushback or repercussion.
In that light, it is instructive that even the single foremost founding advocate of a strong executive, Alexander Hamilton, wrote that Americans should beware of entrusting too much power to presidents even in foreign affairs.
He wrote: “An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.”
Read that again. This is exactly what President Trump is accused of doing: seeking his own aggrandizement with the aid of a foreign power.
Hamilton’s very next sentences continued this thought process: “The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as to those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”
In sum and contrary to the arguments of Trump’s legal team: The Constitution puts limits on presidential powers even in matters of foreign relations.
In the case of Trump’s delay of statutorily mandated military assistance to Ukraine, a delay about which he wrongly refused to inform the Senate, one overcome only after the whistle was blown against him and which even then resulted in a failure to distribute $35 million by the legal deadline, Trump actually transgressed upon the single most important authority of Congress, namely the power of the purse. Therefore, he didn’t merely fail to abide by limits on a power assigned largely but not exclusively to him. Instead, he directly contravened a power assigned primarily to Congress.
Now, let’s move to practicalities. These Trumpian transgressions are not merely academic matters or abstruse political theory. A president who is not held to account, one with control of the vast bureaucratic state, power over the Justice Department and the IRS, and the too-infrequently-restricted authority over the armed forces, is a president who can install his own “deep state” agents, with impunity, to harass political enemies at will.
Conservatives willing to cede such massive power to Trump will suffer when the next Barack Obama takes office with a free hand and an iron fist.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--'It's asking a lot': Never Trump Republicans draw the line at Bernie Sanders

The rise of socialist Bernie Sanders is frustrating Never Trump Republicans who are hoping the Democratic Party nominates a consensus , center-left presidential candidate they are comfortable supporting in November .
If Sanders is the Democratic nominee , many will sit out the election and be deprived of the opportunity of voting against President Trump , they said .
Sanders is surging days before the Iowa caucuses and a couple of weeks before the New Hampshire primary , leaving Republican operatives avowedly opposed to Trump worried and perplexed .
Most are convinced swing voters in key battlegrounds would reject Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reelection .
They are also convinced the Vermont senator , 78 , is simply too liberal to earn their vote .
With a Sanders nomination , Never Trump Republicans are unsure of what comes next .
“ I don ’ t know where the anti-Trump movement goes from there , ” said Jennifer Horn , a Never Trump Republican and former New Hampshire GOP chairwoman who is affiliated with the Lincoln Project , a group of anti-Trump Republicans who have pressured GOP senators to support impeachment .
“ It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategist Sarah Longwell , a Never Trump Republican at the center of an unsuccessful effort to recruit a formidable candidate to challenge the president in the 2020 GOP primary .
Anti-Trump Republicans are holding out hope for 77-year-old Joe Biden .
The former vice president is a Democrat they can embrace , they said : liberal , but not too far left , and moderate in tone .
Biden consistently polls well against Trump and leads the Democratic field nationally .
He now trails a climbing Sanders in the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he leads in the other critical early states and is better positioned to win the party ’ s crown than other contenders they could stomach , such as Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , and Mike Bloomberg .
If Biden wins the nomination , many Never Trump Republicans are prepared to work on his behalf to attract disaffected voters on the Right just like them , but Never Trump Republicans have limits .
Philosophically conservative and not wanting to be perceived as otherwise , they view Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equally problematic and might skip 2020 altogether if he leads the Democratic ticket .
“ It ’ s asking a lot from people on the center-right or in the old Reagan wing of GOP to go full Sanders in November , ” said Jerry Taylor , who runs the Niskanen Center , a Washington think tank that has become a hub for the Never Trump community .
Taylor does plan to support Sanders in the general election if the senator wins the Democratic nod but described himself , and others like him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I would not feel particularly happy about it , but I would swallow hard and pull the lever , ” Taylor said .
Should Sanders emerge , Never Trump Republicans say they and independent conservatives itching to oust Trump in the fall are likely to sit on their hands or vote for a hopeless third-party candidate in protest .
That is what Longwell concluded after two years and several focus groups with persuadable voters in the Rust Belt as part of her extensive research into the best strategy for holding Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would juice the liberal base , but she said his plans for expansive government and European-style foreign policy would scare away the voters he needs in the Midwest to produce an Electoral College majority .
This includes the soft Republicans , suburban swing voters , and college-educated women who often voted GOP in the past but supported mainstream Democrats in droves in the midterm elections .
“ Bernie Sanders will get beaten by Donald Trump , ” Longwell said .
“ He ’ s a nonstarter for swing voters .
”

The rise of socialist Bernie Sanders is frustrating Never Trump Republicans who are hoping the Democratic Party nominates a consensus, center-left presidential candidate they are comfortable supporting in November. If Sanders is the Democratic nominee, many will sit out the election and be deprived of the opportunity of voting against President Trump, they said.
Sanders is surging days before the Iowa caucuses and a couple of weeks before the New Hampshire primary, leaving Republican operatives avowedly opposed to Trump worried and perplexed. Most are convinced swing voters in key battlegrounds would reject Sanders, paving the way for Trump’s reelection. They are also convinced the Vermont senator, 78, is simply too liberal to earn their vote. With a Sanders nomination, Never Trump Republicans are unsure of what comes next.
“I don’t know where the anti-Trump movement goes from there,” said Jennifer Horn, a Never Trump Republican and former New Hampshire GOP chairwoman who is affiliated with the Lincoln Project, a group of anti-Trump Republicans who have pressured GOP senators to support impeachment.
“It’s a really tough question,” added political strategist Sarah Longwell, a Never Trump Republican at the center of an unsuccessful effort to recruit a formidable candidate to challenge the president in the 2020 GOP primary.
Anti-Trump Republicans are holding out hope for 77-year-old Joe Biden.
The former vice president is a Democrat they can embrace, they said: liberal, but not too far left, and moderate in tone. Biden consistently polls well against Trump and leads the Democratic field nationally. He now trails a climbing Sanders in the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses and the Feb. 11 New Hampshire primary, but he leads in the other critical early states and is better positioned to win the party’s crown than other contenders they could stomach, such as Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Mike Bloomberg.
If Biden wins the nomination, many Never Trump Republicans are prepared to work on his behalf to attract disaffected voters on the Right just like them, but Never Trump Republicans have limits. Philosophically conservative and not wanting to be perceived as otherwise, they view Sanders’s self-professed "democratic socialism" as equally problematic and might skip 2020 altogether if he leads the Democratic ticket.
“It’s asking a lot from people on the center-right or in the old Reagan wing of GOP to go full Sanders in November,” said Jerry Taylor, who runs the Niskanen Center, a Washington think tank that has become a hub for the Never Trump community. Taylor does plan to support Sanders in the general election if the senator wins the Democratic nod but described himself, and others like him, as the exception to the rule.
“I would not feel particularly happy about it, but I would swallow hard and pull the lever,” Taylor said.
Should Sanders emerge, Never Trump Republicans say they and independent conservatives itching to oust Trump in the fall are likely to sit on their hands or vote for a hopeless third-party candidate in protest.
That is what Longwell concluded after two years and several focus groups with persuadable voters in the Rust Belt as part of her extensive research into the best strategy for holding Trump to a single term.
Longwell conceded Sanders would juice the liberal base, but she said his plans for expansive government and European-style foreign policy would scare away the voters he needs in the Midwest to produce an Electoral College majority. This includes the soft Republicans, suburban swing voters, and college-educated women who often voted GOP in the past but supported mainstream Democrats in droves in the midterm elections.
“Bernie Sanders will get beaten by Donald Trump,” Longwell said. “He’s a nonstarter for swing voters.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--'Go vote for someone else': Biden confronted by climate activist he assumes supports Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden had a tense exchange with an Iowa climate activist and assumed the man supported Bernie Sanders .
`` I 'm going to support you if you win the nomination .
We have to beat Trump , but what are we going to do about climate change ? ''
Ed Fallon , a former Iowa state representative who works with climate activist group Bold Iowa , said to Biden at an event on Tuesday .
`` You say you 're against pipelines , but then you want to replace these gas lines .
That 's not going to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else , '' Biden said as he put his hand on Fallon 's chest .
`` You 're not going to vote for me in the primary , '' he said , putting his finger on Fallon 's chest .
`` I 'm going to vote for you in the general , '' Fallon said .
`` Look , you ask for a picture with me , you 're coming up to tell me you do n't support me , '' Biden said .
`` I 'm looking for a primary , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm looking for , OK ?
Now , you believe that Bernie could do something by 2030 ? ''
`` Well , that 's good , '' Biden said .
`` You 've got the right guy . ''
Fallon endorsed Tom Steyer , a billionaire former hedge fund manager-turned-climate activist and impeachment proponent , about a month ago .
Bold Iowa led a demonstration in 2018 where they walked nearly 100 miles across the state to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline .
Steyer responded to the video on Tuesday , scolding Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is no way to treat an Iowan .
He said he 'd vote for the Dem in the general b/c he knows how important it is to beat Trump .
We need immediate action on climate .
If you do n't agree , happy to talk @ debate , '' Steyer wrote .
Biden faced another confrontation about climate change on Saturday in New Hampshire .
`` Not a single solitary scientist thinks it 'd work , '' Biden told a woman who identified herself as Ann about Sanders 's climate plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero emissions by 2030 .
It 's impossible . ''

Joe Biden had a tense exchange with an Iowa climate activist and assumed the man supported Bernie Sanders.
"I'm going to support you if you win the nomination. We have to beat Trump, but what are we going to do about climate change?" Ed Fallon, a former Iowa state representative who works with climate activist group Bold Iowa, said to Biden at an event on Tuesday. "You say you're against pipelines, but then you want to replace these gas lines. That's not going to work."
"Go vote for someone else," Biden said as he put his hand on Fallon's chest. "You're not going to vote for me in the primary," he said, putting his finger on Fallon's chest.
"I'm going to vote for you in the general," Fallon said.
"Look, you ask for a picture with me, you're coming up to tell me you don't support me," Biden said. "I'm looking for a primary, in a caucus, that's what I'm looking for, OK? Now, you believe that Bernie could do something by 2030?"
"I'm actually supporting Tom Steyer," Fallon said.
"Well, that's good," Biden said. "You've got the right guy."
Fallon endorsed Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager-turned-climate activist and impeachment proponent, about a month ago. Bold Iowa led a demonstration in 2018 where they walked nearly 100 miles across the state to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Steyer responded to the video on Tuesday, scolding Biden for how he treated Fallon.
"This is no way to treat an Iowan. He said he'd vote for the Dem in the general b/c he knows how important it is to beat Trump. We need immediate action on climate. If you don't agree, happy to talk @ debate," Steyer wrote.
Biden faced another confrontation about climate change on Saturday in New Hampshire.
"Not a single solitary scientist thinks it'd work," Biden told a woman who identified herself as Ann about Sanders's climate plan. "You can not get to zero emissions by 2030. It's impossible."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--The decline of the primaries. From RFK to Beto

In 1960 , four politicians were running for president .
Each had begun his national journey in the late 1940 ’ s .
Each had a record as long as your arm .
In 1948 , Hubert H. Humphrey and Lyndon B. Johnson went into the Senate together from Minnesota and Texas , respectively .
Each had spent a decade or so in tumultuous state politics .
In 1946 , John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon had entered the U.S. House straight from the Navy .
Nixon became a senator in 1950 and then Dwight Eisenhower ’ s vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years after that .
Both served on important committees and won reputations as serious people with a particular interest in foreign affairs .
It would no doubt stagger Pete Buttigieg , running for president on his record as mayor of Indiana 's fourth-largest city , to realize that Kennedy was assailed when he ran as a `` boy '' and a Johnny-come-lately .
Despite his war service and his time in the Senate , Kennedy was told he should wait ten years more .
Clearly , standards have changed since those far-off days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat in the Senate in 2016 , started running for president the day she took office .
Julian Castro and Beto O ’ Rourke ran from the House despite having no real achievements .
O ’ Rourke and Stacy Abrams , who had both lost narrowly in statewide races , planned to run on the fact they had done better than expected .
Their losses were thus almost as good as wins .
Abrams , complaining that the vote had actually been rigged in her home state of Georgia ( she lost by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first that she was the rightful governor , that suggestions she run for another state office insulted her dignity , but that she might deign to accept the post of vice president if she were asked nicely .
O ’ Rourke , apparently deciding that his loss to Ted Cruz in Texas in 2018 was a sure sign he could beat President Trump two years later , started running for president in 2019 , dropping out some months later at about 2 % in the polls .
So yes , the candidates of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectful view of the size and demands of the office , to say nothing of a more realistic idea of themselves .
Nothing says more about the decline of the Democrats than the difference between the two Robert Francises — Robert F. Kennedy and Beto O ’ Rourke .
They stand at the opposite ends of the sixty-year chasm between them .
Beto was laid back and ephemeral ; Bobby was intense .
Bobby 's swimming coach at Harvard called him “ heavy in the water ” — drownable , dense .
Beto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a feather , as if even a strong breeze could blow him away .
Beto was a dilettante who wafted his way through various interests ; Bobby was knee-deep in vital concerns : crime and punishment ; civil rights and segregation ; aggressive communism vs. the West .
It 's quite a shock to realize that Beto today is four years older than Bobby was when he was murdered .
Beto today looks like a young person , whereas Bobby looked like an old man .
In his last campaign , when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought Beto ’ s resembled , people who covered Bobby were stunned by his looks .
`` The brown-blond hair was turning gray , and the once-boyish face was deeply lined , '' wrote Evan Thomas .
Columnist Joe Kraft had “ never seen him look so bad , so tired ; his blue eyes were standing out really like a death ’ s head from his skull . ''
Nobody needs a president to look quite that bad , but the unlined vacuity of some of these candidates seems at least as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines on his visage or at least traces of thought .
The lowering of the experience bar shows disrespect for the office and arrogance on the part of some of the candidates .
Anyone bright enough to one day become president surely should understand that .

In 1960, four politicians were running for president. Each had begun his national journey in the late 1940’s. Each had a record as long as your arm.
In 1948, Hubert H. Humphrey and Lyndon B. Johnson went into the Senate together from Minnesota and Texas, respectively. Each had spent a decade or so in tumultuous state politics. In 1946, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon had entered the U.S. House straight from the Navy. Nixon became a senator in 1950 and then Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president; Kennedy reached the Senate two years after that. Both served on important committees and won reputations as serious people with a particular interest in foreign affairs.
It would no doubt stagger Pete Buttigieg, running for president on his record as mayor of Indiana's fourth-largest city, to realize that Kennedy was assailed when he ran as a "boy" and a Johnny-come-lately. Despite his war service and his time in the Senate, Kennedy was told he should wait ten years more.
Clearly, standards have changed since those far-off days. Kamala Harris, who won a seat in the Senate in 2016, started running for president the day she took office. Julian Castro and Beto O’Rourke ran from the House despite having no real achievements. O’Rourke and Stacy Abrams, who had both lost narrowly in statewide races, planned to run on the fact they had done better than expected. Their losses were thus almost as good as wins.
Abrams, complaining that the vote had actually been rigged in her home state of Georgia (she lost by only 50,000 votes), claimed at first that she was the rightful governor, that suggestions she run for another state office insulted her dignity, but that she might deign to accept the post of vice president if she were asked nicely. O’Rourke, apparently deciding that his loss to Ted Cruz in Texas in 2018 was a sure sign he could beat President Trump two years later, started running for president in 2019, dropping out some months later at about 2% in the polls.
So yes, the candidates of old probably tended to have a more respectful view of the size and demands of the office, to say nothing of a more realistic idea of themselves.
Nothing says more about the decline of the Democrats than the difference between the two Robert Francises — Robert F. Kennedy and Beto O’Rourke. They stand at the opposite ends of the sixty-year chasm between them. Beto was laid back and ephemeral; Bobby was intense. Bobby's swimming coach at Harvard called him “heavy in the water” — drownable, dense. Beto, by contrast, seemed light as a feather, as if even a strong breeze could blow him away.
Beto was a dilettante who wafted his way through various interests; Bobby was knee-deep in vital concerns: crime and punishment; civil rights and segregation; aggressive communism vs. the West. It's quite a shock to realize that Beto today is four years older than Bobby was when he was murdered. Beto today looks like a young person, whereas Bobby looked like an old man.
In his last campaign, when he drew the hysterical crowds some people today thought Beto’s resembled, people who covered Bobby were stunned by his looks. "The brown-blond hair was turning gray, and the once-boyish face was deeply lined," wrote Evan Thomas. Columnist Joe Kraft had “never seen him look so bad, so tired; his blue eyes were standing out really like a death’s head from his skull."
Nobody needs a president to look quite that bad, but the unlined vacuity of some of these candidates seems at least as disturbing: a candidate needs a few lines on his visage or at least traces of thought. The lowering of the experience bar shows disrespect for the office and arrogance on the part of some of the candidates. Anyone bright enough to one day become president surely should understand that.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Border Patrol chooses new leadership after turbulent search

U.S. Border Patrol named Raul Ortiz to the second-highest post within the 21,000-person agency , completing a full swap of the agency ’ s leadership after several turbulent months of debate over who should take over .
Border Patrol ’ s overseeing agency , U.S. Customs and Border Protection , announced the move in a phone call with employees Monday and shared the promotion on social media Wednesday .
The move comes days after Rodney Scott , a lifelong agent , was named as the replacement to national chief Carla Provost .
Scott and Ortiz ’ s jobs do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the acting CBP commissioner , Mark Morgan .
The Washington Examiner first reported last May that Provost was expected to retire by the year ’ s end after taking over shortly after President Trump took office .
In November , senior CBP officials said Morgan was unsure about tapping Scott for Provost ’ s job and Chavez for deputy chief due to concerns about having a white man atop an agency that largely arrests people from Latin American countries .
CBP stuck with Scott , who is white , but pulled Chavez , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chavez ’ s husband , Gustavo Zamora , a senior Border Patrol official who worked in Arizona and lived in California , received four felony charges for the rape and kidnapping of a female employee .
Nine Border Patrol employees who spoke with the Washington Examiner in December said Zamora did not face internal discipline over the incident and retired as a result of his internal connections .
Chavez is known to be very well connected both in the region and with officials in Washington .
Two weeks after Chavez ’ s husband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her post atop southeastern California operations to El Paso , Texas .
Senior CBP officials told the Washington Examiner earlier this month that Chavez was increasingly viewed as a liability for the organization due to her affiliation with Zamora .
Her long-anticipated promotion to Washington was axed in December .
`` If her husband is found guilty , it 's going to be pretty hard for her to continue as the deputy chief , '' one of the CBP officials said .
The new deputy chief , Ortiz , most recently oversaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central Texas region of Del Rio .
The 53-year-old worked six years as the second-highest official in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas , which sees the most apprehensions of illegal border crossers on the U.S.-Mexico border and is considered a grooming post for managers who are promoted elsewhere .
Ortiz first started as an agent in 1991 and was in the agency for 18 years .
In 2009 , he moved to Afghanistan and led a border management task force and then was promoted to several other Department of Homeland Security jobs @ @ @ @ @

U.S. Border Patrol named Raul Ortiz to the second-highest post within the 21,000-person agency, completing a full swap of the agency’s leadership after several turbulent months of debate over who should take over.
Border Patrol’s overseeing agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, announced the move in a phone call with employees Monday and shared the promotion on social media Wednesday. The move comes days after Rodney Scott, a lifelong agent, was named as the replacement to national chief Carla Provost. Scott and Ortiz’s jobs do not require Senate confirmation and are named by the acting CBP commissioner, Mark Morgan.
The Washington Examiner first reported last May that Provost was expected to retire by the year’s end after taking over shortly after President Trump took office. In November, senior CBP officials said Morgan was unsure about tapping Scott for Provost’s job and Chavez for deputy chief due to concerns about having a white man atop an agency that largely arrests people from Latin American countries. CBP stuck with Scott, who is white, but pulled Chavez, a Latina, for other reasons.
Chavez’s husband, Gustavo Zamora, a senior Border Patrol official who worked in Arizona and lived in California, received four felony charges for the rape and kidnapping of a female employee. Nine Border Patrol employees who spoke with the Washington Examiner in December said Zamora did not face internal discipline over the incident and retired as a result of his internal connections. Chavez is known to be very well connected both in the region and with officials in Washington.
Two weeks after Chavez’s husband was charged, Chavez was abruptly moved from her post atop southeastern California operations to El Paso, Texas. Senior CBP officials told the Washington Examiner earlier this month that Chavez was increasingly viewed as a liability for the organization due to her affiliation with Zamora. Her long-anticipated promotion to Washington was axed in December.
"If her husband is found guilty, it's going to be pretty hard for her to continue as the deputy chief," one of the CBP officials said.
The new deputy chief, Ortiz, most recently oversaw all Border Patrol operations in the south central Texas region of Del Rio. The 53-year-old worked six years as the second-highest official in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, which sees the most apprehensions of illegal border crossers on the U.S.-Mexico border and is considered a grooming post for managers who are promoted elsewhere.
Ortiz first started as an agent in 1991 and was in the agency for 18 years. In 2009, he moved to Afghanistan and led a border management task force and then was promoted to several other Department of Homeland Security jobs in Afghanistan and Pakistan.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--White House says Bolton book contains top-secret information

The White House told John Bolton , President Trump ’ s former national security adviser , that his tell-all book about his experience in the White House contains classified information .
The White House 's National Security Council 's Records Management Division sent a letter to Bolton 's attorney last week that said his manuscript `` appears to contain significant amounts of classified information . ''
`` It also appears that some of this classified information is at the TOP SECRET level , '' the letter said .
`` Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified information , the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information . ''
Early Wednesday , Trump attacked Bolton on Twitter and questioned his motives for detailing his alleged conduct toward Ukraine in his forthcoming book , The Room Where It Happened .
Contents of the book were reported by the New York Times after Bolton turned it over to the White House ’ s National Security Council for review .
Bolton ’ s lawyer has accused the White House of corrupting the vetting process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those outside the National Security Council 's Records Management Division .
Bolton alleged that Trump made security aid to Ukraine dependent on the country investigating his political rival Joe Biden , undermining the Trump defense team 's claim that the freeze of security assistance was not linked to the pressure campaign .
The revelation came amid the Senate impeachment trial and has helped fuel calls for witnesses .

The White House told John Bolton, President Trump’s former national security adviser, that his tell-all book about his experience in the White House contains classified information.
The White House's National Security Council's Records Management Division sent a letter to Bolton's attorney last week that said his manuscript "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information."
"It also appears that some of this classified information is at the TOP SECRET level," the letter said. "Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed, as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information."
Early Wednesday, Trump attacked Bolton on Twitter and questioned his motives for detailing his alleged conduct toward Ukraine in his forthcoming book, The Room Where It Happened.
Contents of the book were reported by the New York Times after Bolton turned it over to the White House’s National Security Council for review. Bolton’s lawyer has accused the White House of corrupting the vetting process by sharing details of the book with those outside the National Security Council's Records Management Division.
Bolton alleged that Trump made security aid to Ukraine dependent on the country investigating his political rival Joe Biden, undermining the Trump defense team's claim that the freeze of security assistance was not linked to the pressure campaign.
The revelation came amid the Senate impeachment trial and has helped fuel calls for witnesses.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Bolton's old friends are now enemies, and old enemies friends — as long as he is useful against Trum

Bolton's old friends are now enemies, and old enemies friends — as long as he is useful against Trump

How intense are feelings about John Bolton in some quarters of the U.S. Senate ?
Consider these snippets of conversation Tuesday with a GOP senator : Me : `` What is John Bolton up to ? ''
Senator : `` I have no f -- -ing idea .
This is not funny .
If he has something to say , he should say it and stop trying to sell books . ''
Me : `` It is odd that financial considerations have played a role in something like this . ''
Senator : `` I hope he chokes on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran those sentiments by a couple of other Republican senators .
They did not endorse those words , but they were clearly unhappy with President Trump 's former national security adviser .
`` I think we all know Bolton is no shrinking violet , '' said one senator in an email exchange .
`` If he had felt the president had stepped over a line , he would have walked right into the legal counsel office and reported .
This is all about selling a book .
The timing is no coincidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as less about money than about the nature of Bolton 's personality .
`` I assume he 's motivated at least as much by ego and score-settling at his age and stage of life , '' the senator said via text .
`` Surely he does n't need the money .
But I think he needs to be right . ''
Not long after the senators spoke , Trump opened fire on Bolton with a three-tweet attack : '' For a guy who could n't get approved for the Ambassador to the UN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for anything since , 'begged ' me for a non Senate approved job , which I gave him despite many saying 'Do n't do it , sir , ' takes the job , mistakenly says 'Libyan Model ' on TV , and many more mistakes of judgment , gets fired because frankly , if I listened to him , we would be in World War Six by now , and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book .
All Classified National Security .
Who would do this ?
Why did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' a long time ago , when he was very publicly terminated .
He said , not that it matters , NOTHING ! ''
Other Republicans , meanwhile , are now attacking Bolton 's credibility .
They quoted President George W. Bush saying in 2008 , `` Let me just say from the outset that I do n't consider Bolton credible . ''
An article in Yahoo News quoted Bush administration veteran Carl Ford as calling Bolton a `` kiss-up , kick-down sort of guy '' who `` goes out of his way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crossed him .
Yahoo News even dredged up the case of a woman who in 2005 accused Bolton of harassing her , telling a Senate committee in 2005 that `` John Bolton put me through hell . ''
Democrats , who in the past would have embraced all those accusations , now suggest Bolton will be a very credible witness .
Republicans , who in the past would have rejected all those accusations , now suggest Bolton might not be a credible witness at all .
Some of Bolton 's old friends are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his old enemies are now his friends — at least as long as he might be useful in the cause of removing Trump from office or , failing that , damaging his reelection prospects .
It is not at all clear what Bolton will do and what the Senate will want him to do .
For a moment on Wednesday , the leaks of his book 's contents seem to have paused .
But it seems difficult to believe they will stop , especially as decision time on Bolton nears .

How intense are feelings about John Bolton in some quarters of the U.S. Senate? Consider these snippets of conversation Tuesday with a GOP senator:
Me: "What is John Bolton up to?"
Senator: "I have no f---ing idea. This is not funny. If he has something to say, he should say it and stop trying to sell books."
Me: "It is odd that financial considerations have played a role in something like this."
Senator: "I hope he chokes on the money."
After that, I ran those sentiments by a couple of other Republican senators. They did not endorse those words, but they were clearly unhappy with President Trump's former national security adviser.
"I think we all know Bolton is no shrinking violet," said one senator in an email exchange. "If he had felt the president had stepped over a line, he would have walked right into the legal counsel office and reported. This is all about selling a book. The timing is no coincidence."
Yet another senator saw the matter as less about money than about the nature of Bolton's personality. "I assume he's motivated at least as much by ego and score-settling at his age and stage of life," the senator said via text. "Surely he doesn't need the money. But I think he needs to be right."
Not long after the senators spoke, Trump opened fire on Bolton with a three-tweet attack:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the UN years ago, couldn't get approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on TV, and many more mistakes of judgment, gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this? Why didn't John Bolton complain about this 'nonsense' a long time ago, when he was very publicly terminated. He said, not that it matters, NOTHING!"
Other Republicans, meanwhile, are now attacking Bolton's credibility. They quoted President George W. Bush saying in 2008, "Let me just say from the outset that I don't consider Bolton credible." An article in Yahoo News quoted Bush administration veteran Carl Ford as calling Bolton a "kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy" who "goes out of his way to retaliate" against people who have crossed him.
Yahoo News even dredged up the case of a woman who in 2005 accused Bolton of harassing her, telling a Senate committee in 2005 that "John Bolton put me through hell."
Democrats, who in the past would have embraced all those accusations, now suggest Bolton will be a very credible witness. Republicans, who in the past would have rejected all those accusations, now suggest Bolton might not be a credible witness at all.
Some of Bolton's old friends are now his enemies, and some of his old enemies are now his friends — at least as long as he might be useful in the cause of removing Trump from office or, failing that, damaging his reelection prospects.
It is not at all clear what Bolton will do and what the Senate will want him to do. For a moment on Wednesday, the leaks of his book's contents seem to have paused. But it seems difficult to believe they will stop, especially as decision time on Bolton nears.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--If McConnell lacks the votes, then which witnesses might we hear from?

The Senate ’ s opening arguments have now concluded , which means the next step is a vote on whether to call impeachment trial witnesses .
As of right now , it looks like a majority of senators will vote in favor of additional testimony .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told his party this week he didn ’ t have the votes to block the Democrats from subpoenaing former national security adviser John Bolton or acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Bolton has already agreed to testify if asked , and Mulvaney will almost certainly reject the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege .
This means we could hear from Bolton as soon as next week .
The White House is still optimistic that McConnell can whip up the necessary votes by Friday .
“ We are still in the game , ” one official said .
But the report this weekend detailing Bolton ’ s missing link pushed the vote count in the Democrats ’ favor , one Senate aide told me .
The firsthand nature of Bolton ’ s account has made it even more consequential , and thus , the vote count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift again .
McConnell is actively working to keep his party unified , and during the next two days of questioning , Republicans hope to turn the attention back to Bolton and portray his testimony as unnecessary and even irrelevant .
“ How are we supposed to get the proof of what ’ s in the president ’ s head ?
” asked deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin .
Still , McConnell will almost certainly lose Sens .
Susan Collins and Mitt Romney during the vote on trial witnesses .
But Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re eyeing Sen. Lisa Murkowski as a third , and now the White House is concerned it could lose Pat Toomey and Rob Portman , too .
Meanwhile , some Democrats , namely , the presidential candidates who have been kept off the campaign trail because of the impeachment trial , are beginning to worry that a prolonged trial could hurt more than help .
The Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses are only a few weeks away , and every day spent in Washington , D.C. , is a day lost .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — both of whom need to perform well in the caucuses to remain in the race — are beginning to feel that pressure .
Democrats also know that if they call Bolton , the Republicans will almost certainly subpoena the anonymous Ukraine whistleblower and/or Hunter Biden .
This presents an uncontrollable factor that Democrats are hesitant to face .
And most Democrats understand that even if Bolton were to testify , they would not be able to reach a two-thirds supermajority to convict and remove Trump from office .
So , if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no matter what , the question for Democrats now becomes : Is Bolton worth it ?
It ’ s still possible both parties could reach some sort of agreement .
Both sides have a vested interest in concluding this trial as soon as possible , though the Democrats are too stubborn to admit as much .
One option , floated by Sen. James Lankford and supported by Sen. Lindsey Graham , would make Bolton ’ s unreleased memoir available to the Senate in a classified setting for review .
The senators who care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to do so but not on the trial ’ s clock .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has so far rejected this proposal , but given that the other option is allowing Republicans to call Hunter Biden , Schumer might just change his mind .
Come Friday , we ’ ll know one way or the other .

The Senate’s opening arguments have now concluded, which means the next step is a vote on whether to call impeachment trial witnesses. As of right now, it looks like a majority of senators will vote in favor of additional testimony.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly told his party this week he didn’t have the votes to block the Democrats from subpoenaing former national security adviser John Bolton or acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Bolton has already agreed to testify if asked, and Mulvaney will almost certainly reject the Senate’s subpoena and cite executive privilege. This means we could hear from Bolton as soon as next week.
The White House is still optimistic that McConnell can whip up the necessary votes by Friday. “We are still in the game,” one official said. But the report this weekend detailing Bolton’s missing link pushed the vote count in the Democrats’ favor, one Senate aide told me. The firsthand nature of Bolton’s account has made it even more consequential, and thus, the vote count has shifted.
But it could easily shift again. McConnell is actively working to keep his party unified, and during the next two days of questioning, Republicans hope to turn the attention back to Bolton and portray his testimony as unnecessary and even irrelevant. “How are we supposed to get the proof of what’s in the president’s head?” asked deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin.
Still, McConnell will almost certainly lose Sens. Susan Collins and Mitt Romney during the vote on trial witnesses. But Democrats need four Republican votes total. They’re eyeing Sen. Lisa Murkowski as a third, and now the White House is concerned it could lose Pat Toomey and Rob Portman, too.
Meanwhile, some Democrats, namely, the presidential candidates who have been kept off the campaign trail because of the impeachment trial, are beginning to worry that a prolonged trial could hurt more than help. The Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses are only a few weeks away, and every day spent in Washington, D.C., is a day lost. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren — both of whom need to perform well in the caucuses to remain in the race — are beginning to feel that pressure.
Democrats also know that if they call Bolton, the Republicans will almost certainly subpoena the anonymous Ukraine whistleblower and/or Hunter Biden. This presents an uncontrollable factor that Democrats are hesitant to face. And most Democrats understand that even if Bolton were to testify, they would not be able to reach a two-thirds supermajority to convict and remove Trump from office.
So, if the result is going to be an acquittal no matter what, the question for Democrats now becomes: Is Bolton worth it?
It’s still possible both parties could reach some sort of agreement. Both sides have a vested interest in concluding this trial as soon as possible, though the Democrats are too stubborn to admit as much. One option, floated by Sen. James Lankford and supported by Sen. Lindsey Graham, would make Bolton’s unreleased memoir available to the Senate in a classified setting for review. The senators who care to see what Bolton knows would thus be able to do so but not on the trial’s clock.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has so far rejected this proposal, but given that the other option is allowing Republicans to call Hunter Biden, Schumer might just change his mind. Come Friday, we’ll know one way or the other.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--WATCH: Trump signs US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement

President Trump will participate in a signing ceremony for the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement at 11 a.m. EST on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ campaign promise to replace the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement .
The USMCA was @ @ @ @ @ last year , and the Senate approved it earlier this month .

President Trump will participate in a signing ceremony for the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement at 11 a.m. EST on Wednesday, following through on a major campaign promise to replace the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement. The USMCA was passed by the House late last year, and the Senate approved it earlier this month.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--'He's a backstabber': Giuliani says he thought Bolton was his 'friend'

President Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said he was blindsided by explosive claims made by former national security John Bolton about the president ’ s actions toward Ukraine .
`` He never said to me , ' I 've got a problem with what you are doing in Ukraine , ' '' Giuliani said in an interview with CBS This Morning that aired Wednesday .
`` Never once , never winked , never sent me a little note .
He is a personal friend , I thought .
So , here 's the only conclusion I can come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one , and I feel very bad about it : He 's a backstabber . ''
He continued , “ If your friend was complaining about you behind your back and didn ’ t have the guts to come up to your face and tell you , ‘ I think you ’ re screwing up , Catherine , ’ that ’ d be a backstabber .
That ’ s a classic backstabber .
So , I feel I got a swamp character here.
” Bolton alleged in his forthcoming book , The Room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to Ukraine on the country investigating Joe Biden , the former vice president and a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination , undercutting the Trump defense team 's claim that the freeze on security assistance was not connected to an investigation .
Giuliani , who was part of the pressure campaign , said he doesn ’ t believe Bolton ’ s claims .
“ I can ’ t imagine the president of the United States said that to him , ” Giuliani said .

President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani said he was blindsided by explosive claims made by former national security John Bolton about the president’s actions toward Ukraine.
"He never said to me, 'I've got a problem with what you are doing in Ukraine,'" Giuliani said in an interview with CBS This Morning that aired Wednesday. "Never once, never winked, never sent me a little note. He is a personal friend, I thought. So, here's the only conclusion I can come to, and it's a harsh one, and I feel very bad about it: He's a backstabber."
He continued, “If your friend was complaining about you behind your back and didn’t have the guts to come up to your face and tell you, ‘I think you’re screwing up, Catherine,’ that’d be a backstabber. That’s a classic backstabber. So, I feel I got a swamp character here.”
NEW: President Trump's personal attorney @RudyGiuliani called John Bolton a "backstabber" and told @CBS_Herridge he doesn't think the former national security adviser should testify in the Senate impeachment trial.
More on @CBSThisMorning Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/TR1vCveIOQ — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 28, 2020
Bolton alleged in his forthcoming book, The Room Where it Happened, that Trump conditioned aid to Ukraine on the country investigating Joe Biden, the former vice president and a top contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, undercutting the Trump defense team's claim that the freeze on security assistance was not connected to an investigation.
Giuliani, who was part of the pressure campaign, said he doesn’t believe Bolton’s claims.
“I can’t imagine the president of the United States said that to him,” Giuliani said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--'Stunned': Tim Kaine confronts Trump impeachment lawyer over jab at 1619 Project

Sen. Tim Kaine came face-to-face with President Trump 's impeachment defense lawyer , who took a swipe at a New York Times series on the history of slavery in America .
`` What does that have to do with the articles of impeachment ? ''
Kaine told USA Today on Tuesday .
`` I was stunned by it . ''
During closing arguments from Trump 's defense team on Tuesday , attorney Robert Ray criticized the House impeachment managers ' take on the impeachment of former President Andrew Johnson in 1868 .
Johnson , House Democrats said , was impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of power to undermine Reconstruction and subordinate African Americans following the Civil War . ''
Ray said that comparing Johnson 's impeachment to Trump 's was an `` ahistorical sleight of hand worthy only of the New York Times recent 1619 series . ''
The publication 's series , the 1619 Project , is an examination of the history of slavery and the subsequent oppression of black people in America .
The series makes the central point that American history should begin with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was met with criticism , ranging from accusations of factual errors to charges of ideological bias .
Ray called the project `` too politically correct '' when confronted by Kaine , the Virginia Democrat said .
`` To me , it seemed like an ad hominem attack on people trying to get at the roots of the effects of slavery in the United States , '' Kaine said .
Trump faces two articles of impeachment : abuse of power and obstruction of Congress .
Democrats allege Trump shook down the leader of Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country while seeking investigations into a domestic political rival , Joe Biden .
Both House impeachment managers and Trump 's defense lawyers have concluded their arguments in the trial .
Senators will submit questions to each side 's representatives on Wednesday and Thursday .
A vote on whether to call witnesses to testify in the trial is expected Friday .

Sen. Tim Kaine came face-to-face with President Trump's impeachment defense lawyer, who took a swipe at a New York Times series on the history of slavery in America.
"What does that have to do with the articles of impeachment?" Kaine told USA Today on Tuesday. "I was stunned by it."
During closing arguments from Trump's defense team on Tuesday, attorney Robert Ray criticized the House impeachment managers' take on the impeachment of former President Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson, House Democrats said, was impeached as a result of "his illegitimate use of power to undermine Reconstruction and subordinate African Americans following the Civil War."
Ray said that comparing Johnson's impeachment to Trump's was an "ahistorical sleight of hand worthy only of the New York Times recent 1619 series."
The publication's series, the 1619 Project, is an examination of the history of slavery and the subsequent oppression of black people in America. The series makes the central point that American history should begin with the arrival of the first enslaved Africans in America, rather than with 1776. It was met with criticism, ranging from accusations of factual errors to charges of ideological bias.
Ray called the project "too politically correct" when confronted by Kaine, the Virginia Democrat said.
"To me, it seemed like an ad hominem attack on people trying to get at the roots of the effects of slavery in the United States," Kaine said.
Trump faces two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats allege Trump shook down the leader of Ukraine and withheld congressionally approved military aid to the country while seeking investigations into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden.
Both House impeachment managers and Trump's defense lawyers have concluded their arguments in the trial. Senators will submit questions to each side's representatives on Wednesday and Thursday. A vote on whether to call witnesses to testify in the trial is expected Friday.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--House Democrats announce $760B infrastructure plan

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a $ 760 billion five-year plan aimed at rebuilding U.S. infrastructure .
The plan does not contain the legislative details to become law , but it serves as a guide for the House committees that will advance legislation affecting the country ’ s highways , airports , and waterways .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that the plan , dubbed the “ Moving Forward Framework , ” is “ just one part of what we will have ” when it comes to infrastructure .
Other projects will focus on housing , education , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure plan has not been determined .
Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts , chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee , mentioned that last spring , President Trump pegged infrastructure projects totaling $ 2 trillion .
Neal said that number seemed to be in the ballpark , but he said , “ We will not volunteer a revenue stream until the administration ” is on board .
Democrats and Trump attempted last spring to join together on infrastructure legislation , but that effort ended abruptly when the conversation turned to Democrats announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Trump 's actions .
The speaker stressed that the $ 760 billion cost is for all five years , which leaves another $ 1.2 trillion in limbo if $ 2 trillion is the total cost .
Pelosi also said that there is no timeline for when House Democratic leaders will present the final draft of the legislation .
“ We ’ ll go to the floor when we ’ re ready , ” Pelosi said .
“ Don ’ t worry about the timetable .
”

House Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a $760 billion five-year plan aimed at rebuilding U.S. infrastructure.
The plan does not contain the legislative details to become law, but it serves as a guide for the House committees that will advance legislation affecting the country’s highways, airports, and waterways.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that the plan, dubbed the “Moving Forward Framework,” is “just one part of what we will have” when it comes to infrastructure. Other projects will focus on housing, education, and construction.
How to pay for the infrastructure plan has not been determined. Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, mentioned that last spring, President Trump pegged infrastructure projects totaling $2 trillion. Neal said that number seemed to be in the ballpark, but he said, “We will not volunteer a revenue stream until the administration” is on board.
Democrats and Trump attempted last spring to join together on infrastructure legislation, but that effort ended abruptly when the conversation turned to Democrats announcing that they were opening an impeachment investigation into Trump's actions.
The speaker stressed that the $760 billion cost is for all five years, which leaves another $1.2 trillion in limbo if $2 trillion is the total cost. Pelosi also said that there is no timeline for when House Democratic leaders will present the final draft of the legislation.
“We’ll go to the floor when we’re ready,” Pelosi said. “Don’t worry about the timetable.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--GOP senator plans to ask Adam Schiff during impeachment trial about contact with whistleblower

Sen. Josh Hawley , a Republican from Missouri , knows who he wants to question in President Trump 's Senate impeachment trial — Rep. Adam Schiff , the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee .
Hawley on Wednesday or Thursday plans to focus on the Democratic House impeachment manager from California and his staff concerning their contact with the Ukraine whistleblower , who remains unnamed .
That individual 's complaint about Trump 's actions toward Ukraine to the Intelligence Committee inspector general triggered the impeachment trial .
“ After listening to the Dems ’ 20+ hours of argument and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve got lots of questions for the Dems .
Like this one : Why did Schiff lie about his contact with the “ whistleblower ” ?
More to come !
” Hawley tweeted .
Hawley , 40 , followed with another tweet : “ Two days of questions coming up .
And I ’ ve got lots — about Burisma , Hunter Biden , and Adam Schiff and the backchannel contacts with the “ whistleblower ” that started all this.
” Schiff , 59 , previously claimed he did not know details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff did not have contact with the whistleblower either .
But he later conceded this was not true .
Democrats consider that line of questioning a conspiracy theory that diverts attention from Trump 's actions , including pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up political dirt of former Vice President Joe Biden , the 2020 Democratic front-runner .
Hawley is not the only Republican member who wants to ask Schiff about the whistleblower .
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina previously told the Washington Examiner that he expects other Republicans , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think they 've brought up a lot of issues [ during the House impeachment investigation ] .
They put people forward to testify in their case .
Did any of these witnesses that were presented to us , did they have any contact with the whistleblower ?
I do n't know ?
I 'd like to ask , ” Graham said .
“ I think some people may ask about is there a connection between the whistleblower and anybody on the manager 's staff ?
Yeah , that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also think it ’ s very relevant who this person is , ” Graham added .
Members of the Senate will submit their questions to Chief Justice John Roberts , who will then read the questions aloud to either the president 's legal team or the House impeachment managers over a 16-hour period divided between Wednesday and Thursday .
Trump has been charged by the House with two articles of impeachment — obstruction of Congress and abuse of power .
Senators will eventually vote on whether to acquit or remove the president based @ @ @ @

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, knows who he wants to question in President Trump's Senate impeachment trial — Rep. Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Hawley on Wednesday or Thursday plans to focus on the Democratic House impeachment manager from California and his staff concerning their contact with the Ukraine whistleblower, who remains unnamed. That individual's complaint about Trump's actions toward Ukraine to the Intelligence Committee inspector general triggered the impeachment trial.
“After listening to the Dems’ 20+ hours of argument and the rebuttal arguments from @realDonaldTrump, I’ve got lots of questions for the Dems. Like this one: Why did Schiff lie about his contact with the “whistleblower”? More to come!” Hawley tweeted.
Hawley, 40, followed with another tweet: “Two days of questions coming up. And I’ve got lots — about Burisma, Hunter Biden, and Adam Schiff and the backchannel contacts with the “whistleblower” that started all this.”
Schiff, 59, previously claimed he did not know details of the whistleblower complaint and that his staff did not have contact with the whistleblower either. But he later conceded this was not true.
Democrats consider that line of questioning a conspiracy theory that diverts attention from Trump's actions, including pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up political dirt of former Vice President Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner.
Hawley is not the only Republican member who wants to ask Schiff about the whistleblower. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina previously told the Washington Examiner that he expects other Republicans, including himself, to ask about this issue.
“I think they've brought up a lot of issues [during the House impeachment investigation]. They put people forward to testify in their case. Did any of these witnesses that were presented to us, did they have any contact with the whistleblower? I don't know? I'd like to ask,” Graham said.
“I think some people may ask about is there a connection between the whistleblower and anybody on the manager's staff? Yeah, that would be a good question to ask. I also think it’s very relevant who this person is,” Graham added.
Members of the Senate will submit their questions to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will then read the questions aloud to either the president's legal team or the House impeachment managers over a 16-hour period divided between Wednesday and Thursday.
Trump has been charged by the House with two articles of impeachment — obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. Senators will eventually vote on whether to acquit or remove the president based on these articles.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--WATCH: Republicans spar with NBC reporter who asked for examples of Ukrainian corruption

A group of Republican members of Congress exchanged heated words with an NBC News reporter after she asked them questions about Ukraine .
Reps. Lee Zeldin of New York , Elise Stefanik of New York , and Mike Johnson of Louisiana gaggled with reporters on Tuesday when NBC 's Heidi Przybyla asked for an example of Ukrainian corruption of concern to President Trump that does n't relate to him personally .
They tussled with the reporter as she asked them to explain the corruption the president was concerned about besides allegations surrounding the Bidens and the Crowdstrike theory .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , which was the catalyst behind his impeachment .
Zeldin started to answer the question but then said , “ If I give a good answer , that doesn ’ t mean that you have to cut me off , OK ?
I know that if I give a bad answer , you ’ d probably let me go all day.
” Then , as he was about to answer the question again , he opted to ask if other reporters had different questions .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question , ” Przybyla said , adding that Trump “ is not on the record mentioning anything other than Biden and Crowdstrike , and you haven ’ t mentioned anything else.
” “ I ’ m happy to answer your question , but all I was asking was , because you have a lot of colleagues here , ” Zeldin said as Przybyla interjected , “ You guys want the answer , right ?
” Other reporters spoke up in agreement , and Zeldin said , “ OK , I ’ m happy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a unique style , OK , and it ’ s one that might not be as , I mean , you ’ re not looking around to see if anyone else has any other questions . ''
Zeldin and Przybyla proceeded to argue over the testimony heard in the House of Representative 's impeachment proceedings .
Stefanik and Johnson then both tried stepping up to the podium to answer Przybyla 's question but also ended up arguing with her .

A group of Republican members of Congress exchanged heated words with an NBC News reporter after she asked them questions about Ukraine.
Reps. Lee Zeldin of New York, Elise Stefanik of New York, and Mike Johnson of Louisiana gaggled with reporters on Tuesday when NBC's Heidi Przybyla asked for an example of Ukrainian corruption of concern to President Trump that doesn't relate to him personally.
They tussled with the reporter as she asked them to explain the corruption the president was concerned about besides allegations surrounding the Bidens and the Crowdstrike theory. The president referenced both in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which was the catalyst behind his impeachment.
Zeldin started to answer the question but then said, “If I give a good answer, that doesn’t mean that you have to cut me off, OK? I know that if I give a bad answer, you’d probably let me go all day.”
Then, as he was about to answer the question again, he opted to ask if other reporters had different questions.
“I know it’s a hard question,” Przybyla said, adding that Trump “is not on the record mentioning anything other than Biden and Crowdstrike, and you haven’t mentioned anything else.”
“I’m happy to answer your question, but all I was asking was, because you have a lot of colleagues here,” Zeldin said as Przybyla interjected, “You guys want the answer, right?”
Other reporters spoke up in agreement, and Zeldin said, “OK, I’m happy to, but just, you have a unique style, OK, and it’s one that might not be as, I mean, you’re not looking around to see if anyone else has any other questions."
Zeldin and Przybyla proceeded to argue over the testimony heard in the House of Representative's impeachment proceedings. Stefanik and Johnson then both tried stepping up to the podium to answer Przybyla's question but also ended up arguing with her.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Trump set to make record fourth CPAC appearance: ‘I’m coming’

President Trump is set to make his historic and record-breaking fourth appearance at the annual CPAC conference next month in a bid to shore up his base for his 2020 reelection bid .
While there has been no official announcement of his plan to attend the fast-selling Conservative Political Action Conference 2020 , which is from Feb. 26 to 29 , its boss , Matt Schlapp , indicated Wednesday that Trump wouldn ’ t miss it and his chance to talk directly to the audience of conservative youths the convention attracts .
Interviewed by the Washington Examiner ’ s Larry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on WMAL and KABC , Schlapp , president of the American Conservative Union , said that Trump has told him that he is coming .
“ Every time I see the president , he says , ‘ I ’ m coming , I ’ m coming , ' ” Schlapp told O ’ Connor .
“ I 'm taking all the intrigue out of it , ” he added .
“ But I feel pretty good that he ’ s going to make it.
” Clearly , CPAC fans are expecting Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisers and conservative stars , such as Dan Bongino , since it is selling out faster than ever .
“ The ticket sales are going at an outrageous rate , three times the rate last year , which was a previous record , ” said Schlapp .
“ This thing is going to be a sellout , ” he added .
CPAC is one of the few groups that Trump won ’ t miss a chance to address .
His 2019 speech was considered epic and lasted two hours .
One other is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he has addressed all of their conventions as president .

President Trump is set to make his historic and record-breaking fourth appearance at the annual CPAC conference next month in a bid to shore up his base for his 2020 reelection bid.
While there has been no official announcement of his plan to attend the fast-selling Conservative Political Action Conference 2020, which is from Feb. 26 to 29, its boss, Matt Schlapp, indicated Wednesday that Trump wouldn’t miss it and his chance to talk directly to the audience of conservative youths the convention attracts.
Interviewed by the Washington Examiner’s Larry O’Connor during his daily show on WMAL and KABC, Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union, said that Trump has told him that he is coming.
“Every time I see the president, he says, ‘I’m coming, I’m coming,'” Schlapp told O’Connor.
“I'm taking all the intrigue out of it,” he added. “But I feel pretty good that he’s going to make it.”
Clearly, CPAC fans are expecting Trump to speak, as well as his top advisers and conservative stars, such as Dan Bongino, since it is selling out faster than ever.
“The ticket sales are going at an outrageous rate, three times the rate last year, which was a previous record,” said Schlapp.
“This thing is going to be a sellout,” he added.
CPAC is one of the few groups that Trump won’t miss a chance to address. His 2019 speech was considered epic and lasted two hours.
One other is the National Rifle Association. Like CPAC, he has addressed all of their conventions as president.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Anti-gun ‘expert’ says ‘how you hold the gun makes it’ an assault weapon

Pro-Second Amendment groups fighting gun control efforts in Virginia have seized on a video showing the author of a sweeping ban fumbling over defining the “ assault weapons '' he wants to outlaw .
In the video , Democratic Virginia Del .
Mark Levine said the biggest difference between hunting rifles and “ assault weapons ” is “ how you hold the gun.
” Speaking at a public meeting , the author of legislation to ban AR-style guns and large , bullet-holding magazines used in semi-automatic weapons also said shooters could use several fingers to pull the trigger and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot through a “ silencer ” better than humans .
As audience members were heard chuckling in the background , Levine said : “ In terms of the differences of the guns , the heart of the difference is how you hold the gun .
It makes it a semi-automatic.
” He showed his trigger finger moving , and added , “ Meaning you can shoot with each finger , not like a bolt-action ” rifle typically used in hunting .
“ Basically , the difference between guns that go like this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long , presumably to show holding a long barrel .
“ These are rifles , you use them to shoot an animal , and you can shoot very precisely.
” Asked to define guns he would ban at a meeting last week , he said , “ Mass shooters don ’ t like things that go like this , ” posing as if holding a bolt-action rifle .
Explaining why , he said : “ What that means is , that somebody could hit the rifle butt against their head .
Deer don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do this , but humans , trying to save their lives , do this.
” Then , waving his arm Rambo-style in a sweeping fashion , he said : “ Mass shooters use guns that go like this .
...
Guns that go like this are wildly inaccurate.
” His comments have been mocked by gun users , especially after the National Rifle Association posted the video .
Now it is being used by pro-gun forces in Virginia and the nation to stall anti-gun legislation .
“ He knows nothing about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Erich Pratt , senior vice president of Gun Owners of America .
“ Obviously , he ’ s watched too many movies , ” he said , noting that semi-automatic rifles and bolt-action rifles are held the same way .
Phil Van Cleave , who heads the Virginia Citizens Defense League , said , “ It ’ s clear that he ’ s way out of league , and he ’ s the one trying to make law.
” Levine did not respond to a request for comment .
Both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s massive pro-gun rally at the Virginia Capitol in Richmond .
While the new Democratic majority has pushed through several gun control measures , efforts to OK a ban on semi-automatic rifles have not moved forward .
Pratt and Van Cleave said they planned to distribute the video of Levine widely to help make their point that the ban is wrongheaded and authored by a lawmaker who is unfamiliar with the weapons .
“ It definitely showed ignorance , and he out-and-out lied about the facts , ” Pratt said .
AR-style rifles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hunting .
Virginia has become ground zero in the gun-ban fight .
Several new lawmakers were funded by groups sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg .
The controversy has also divided rural and urban areas , prompting the governor of West Virginia to invite disgruntled Virginia counties to join his state .
Levine said that in addition to semi-automatic weapons , he wanted to ban suppressors and large magazines .
In his address , according to Van Cleave and Pratt , he misstated how those work .
Levine , who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said that guns with magazines could be precise killers .
“ So if you have 30 bullets in your magazine , you can shoot 30 people just as fast as I can move my finger and kill them all , ” he said .
And he said that suppressors , encouraged for use by hunters in Europe , are dangerous .
“ A deer is going to run away no matter what , but it ’ s a human who may not understand it ’ s a gunshot when they hear a @ @ @ @ @ @

Pro-Second Amendment groups fighting gun control efforts in Virginia have seized on a video showing the author of a sweeping ban fumbling over defining the “assault weapons" he wants to outlaw.
In the video, Democratic Virginia Del. Mark Levine said the biggest difference between hunting rifles and “assault weapons” is “how you hold the gun.”
Speaking at a public meeting, the author of legislation to ban AR-style guns and large, bullet-holding magazines used in semi-automatic weapons also said shooters could use several fingers to pull the trigger and that deer know the sound of a bullet shot through a “silencer” better than humans.
As audience members were heard chuckling in the background, Levine said: “In terms of the differences of the guns, the heart of the difference is how you hold the gun. It makes it a semi-automatic.” He showed his trigger finger moving, and added, “Meaning you can shoot with each finger, not like a bolt-action” rifle typically used in hunting.
“Basically, the difference between guns that go like this,” he said, extending one arm long, presumably to show holding a long barrel. “These are rifles, you use them to shoot an animal, and you can shoot very precisely.”
Asked to define guns he would ban at a meeting last week, he said, “Mass shooters don’t like things that go like this,” posing as if holding a bolt-action rifle.
Explaining why, he said: “What that means is, that somebody could hit the rifle butt against their head. Deer don’t do this, elk don’t do this, but humans, trying to save their lives, do this.”
Then, waving his arm Rambo-style in a sweeping fashion, he said: “Mass shooters use guns that go like this. ... Guns that go like this are wildly inaccurate.”
His comments have been mocked by gun users, especially after the National Rifle Association posted the video.
This is pathetic. But, funny.
Virginia @DelegateMark (a Bloomberg-owned "Gun Sense Champion") introduced HB961 to ban "assault weapons."
A town hall attendee asked him to define "assault weapon." Bloomberg’s “champion” spewed garbage for 7 min & couldn't answer the question. pic.twitter.com/7DbwZ4csNd — NRA (@NRA) January 26, 2020
Now it is being used by pro-gun forces in Virginia and the nation to stall anti-gun legislation.
“He knows nothing about what he’s trying to ban,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America. “Obviously, he’s watched too many movies,” he said, noting that semi-automatic rifles and bolt-action rifles are held the same way.
Phil Van Cleave, who heads the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said, “It’s clear that he’s way out of league, and he’s the one trying to make law.”
Levine did not respond to a request for comment.
Both VCDL and GOA organized this month’s massive pro-gun rally at the Virginia Capitol in Richmond.
While the new Democratic majority has pushed through several gun control measures, efforts to OK a ban on semi-automatic rifles have not moved forward.
Pratt and Van Cleave said they planned to distribute the video of Levine widely to help make their point that the ban is wrongheaded and authored by a lawmaker who is unfamiliar with the weapons.
“It definitely showed ignorance, and he out-and-out lied about the facts,” Pratt said.
AR-style rifles are popular and used for sport shooting and hunting.
Virginia has become ground zero in the gun-ban fight. Several new lawmakers were funded by groups sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. The controversy has also divided rural and urban areas, prompting the governor of West Virginia to invite disgruntled Virginia counties to join his state.
Levine said that in addition to semi-automatic weapons, he wanted to ban suppressors and large magazines.
In his address, according to Van Cleave and Pratt, he misstated how those work.
Levine, who had previously said that assault weapons are inaccurate, said that guns with magazines could be precise killers. “So if you have 30 bullets in your magazine, you can shoot 30 people just as fast as I can move my finger and kill them all,” he said.
And he said that suppressors, encouraged for use by hunters in Europe, are dangerous.
“A deer is going to run away no matter what, but it’s a human who may not understand it’s a gunshot when they hear a silencer,” he said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Facebook tops Washington Post and New York Times for news

More people in the United States turn to Facebook for their political fix than the nation ’ s biggest and most influential newspapers , including the New York Times and Washington Post .
But a just-released study of American news reading habits also found that Facebook is the most distrusted social media source of political news by both Democrats and Republicans .
In a poll of 12,043 , 25 % said they go to Facebook for their news about politics .
For the New York Times , it was 20 % , and for the Washington Post 17 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cable and the Big Three networks are the nation ’ s dominant news sources .
While virtually every person is familiar with and uses Facebook , Pew Research Center ’ s survey found that just 15 % of adults trust the news they read on the website .
A huge 59 % “ distrust ” the political news on the site .
That is the highest for all top social media sites .
“ Facebook , the most widely used of the six social media sites examined when it comes to getting political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about six-in-ten U.S. adults ( 59 % ) .
That includes almost equal percentages of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic ( 59 % ) and Republicans and independents who lean Republican ( 62 % ) .
Close to half of all U.S. adults also say they distrust Twitter ( 48 % ) , and about four-in-ten ( 42 % ) distrust Instagram , ” said Pew in the survey that is part of its new “ Election News Pathways ” project .
But Pew found a caveat : Those who said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from social media sites generally trusted what they saw .
And , said the Pew survey shared with Secrets , “ The greater trust among this group in social media generally as a place for political news also plays out in less concern about made-up news and information during the 2020 election season — an issue that is often associated with social media .
”

More people in the United States turn to Facebook for their political fix than the nation’s biggest and most influential newspapers, including the New York Times and Washington Post.
But a just-released study of American news reading habits also found that Facebook is the most distrusted social media source of political news by both Democrats and Republicans.
In a poll of 12,043, 25% said they go to Facebook for their news about politics. For the New York Times, it was 20%, and for the Washington Post 17%, the same as YouTube.
Still, cable and the Big Three networks are the nation’s dominant news sources.
While virtually every person is familiar with and uses Facebook, Pew Research Center’s survey found that just 15% of adults trust the news they read on the website. A huge 59% “distrust” the political news on the site. That is the highest for all top social media sites.
“Facebook, the most widely used of the six social media sites examined when it comes to getting political and election news, is distrusted by about six-in-ten U.S. adults (59%). That includes almost equal percentages of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic (59%) and Republicans and independents who lean Republican (62%). Close to half of all U.S. adults also say they distrust Twitter (48%), and about four-in-ten (42%) distrust Instagram,” said Pew in the survey that is part of its new “Election News Pathways” project.
But Pew found a caveat: Those who said they got “most” of their news from social media sites generally trusted what they saw.
And, said the Pew survey shared with Secrets, “The greater trust among this group in social media generally as a place for political news also plays out in less concern about made-up news and information during the 2020 election season — an issue that is often associated with social media.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Libertarian John McAfee is running for president from exile

Software pioneer John McAfee has filed to run for U.S. president on the Libertarian Party ticket .
McAfee , 74 , has teased a presidential run for months on his Twitter feed .
Paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday designates his candidacy and his campaign , McAfee in 2020 .
McAfee ’ s presidential run is complicated as he says he is hiding from U.S. federal authorities for allegedly committing `` criminal acts against the U.S. government '' with cryptocurrencies .
In a video posted on Twitter on Jan. 22 , McAfee said the brunt of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing masks of his face .
`` Rob [ Loggia ] and one of our other volunteers are creating masks of my face which are going to be given to thousands of people in two different groups , '' McAfee said .
`` Our road warriors who , once a month , are going to appear in parks , street corners , restaurants all around America while I speak through loudspeakers through them . ''
McAfee also said some volunteers would go to conferences and other events while wearing a camera for McAfee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will conduct his presidential race largely from his boat that he is living on and sailing around the world as he allegedly evades U.S. authorities .
`` I will be going to conferences as a surrogate .
I will be looking at people through a camera , answering questions , shaking hands as I tell my surrogate to shake hands , and speaking , '' McAfee said .
McAfee founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987 .
He resigned from the company in 1994 .
He worked for various other technology and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was worth as much as $ 100 million .
After the 2008 economic recession , his net worth dropped significantly to about $ 4 million .
McAfee is an eager supporter of the growth of cryptocurrencies .
He says that widespread adoption of the cybercurrency would prevent governments from collecting taxes and eventually force them to downsize .

Software pioneer John McAfee has filed to run for U.S. president on the Libertarian Party ticket.
McAfee, 74, has teased a presidential run for months on his Twitter feed. Paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday designates his candidacy and his campaign, McAfee in 2020.
McAfee’s presidential run is complicated as he says he is hiding from U.S. federal authorities for allegedly committing "criminal acts against the U.S. government" with cryptocurrencies. In a video posted on Twitter on Jan. 22, McAfee said the brunt of his on-the-ground campaigning would be done by people wearing masks of his face.
"Rob [Loggia] and one of our other volunteers are creating masks of my face which are going to be given to thousands of people in two different groups," McAfee said. "Our road warriors who, once a month, are going to appear in parks, street corners, restaurants all around America while I speak through loudspeakers through them."
McAfee also said some volunteers would go to conferences and other events while wearing a camera for McAfee to see and speak through. McAfee will conduct his presidential race largely from his boat that he is living on and sailing around the world as he allegedly evades U.S. authorities.
"I will be going to conferences as a surrogate. I will be looking at people through a camera, answering questions, shaking hands as I tell my surrogate to shake hands, and speaking," McAfee said.
McAfee founded the software company McAfee Associates in 1987. He resigned from the company in 1994. He worked for various other technology and software companies after and at one time was worth as much as $100 million. After the 2008 economic recession, his net worth dropped significantly to about $4 million.
McAfee is an eager supporter of the growth of cryptocurrencies. He says that widespread adoption of the cybercurrency would prevent governments from collecting taxes and eventually force them to downsize.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Biden trashes Rick Scott Iowa ads: 'What do you think that’s about?'

SIOUX CITY , Iowa — Joe Biden shrugged off Republican attacks on him days out from Iowa 's opening Democratic caucuses , saying they indicated who the GOP was most afraid of facing in the general election .
`` A senator from Florida sitting in Washington has decided to start running negative ads against Joe Biden just days before the Iowa caucuses .
What do you think that ’ s about ? ''
Biden , 77 , said in Sioux City .
Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott paid for Iowa TV spots ripping the former vice president , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state and is not up for reelection until 2024 .
Biden 's campaign has already sent a fundraising blast , describing the ads as `` vicious lies and debunked conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump . ''
Biden on Wednesday also slammed Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst for linking President Trump 's impeachment trial in the Senate to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary .
`` By the way , did anyone see what Joni Ernst said the other day ?
She spilled the beans , did n't she ?
Oh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he said .
While the 36-year Delaware senator categorized Republican salvos lobbed at him and his family as `` smears , '' he said if elected to the White House , he would n't `` hold grudges . ''
Yet his appeal to remain above the political fray did n't stop him from calling Trump 's understating of the injuries suffered by U.S. troops hurt in Iraq after the Iranian missile attack as disgraceful .
`` If anybody 's headache , he 's a headache , '' Biden said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it . ''

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Joe Biden shrugged off Republican attacks on him days out from Iowa's opening Democratic caucuses, saying they indicated who the GOP was most afraid of facing in the general election.
"A senator from Florida sitting in Washington has decided to start running negative ads against Joe Biden just days before the Iowa caucuses. What do you think that’s about?" Biden, 77, said in Sioux City.
Republican Florida Sen. Rick Scott paid for Iowa TV spots ripping the former vice president, even though the senator is not running for office in the state and is not up for reelection until 2024. Biden's campaign has already sent a fundraising blast, describing the ads as "vicious lies and debunked conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump."
Biden on Wednesday also slammed Republican Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst for linking President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate to the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
"By the way, did anyone see what Joni Ernst said the other day? She spilled the beans, didn't she? Oh, lordy, lordy, lordy, lordy," he said.
While the 36-year Delaware senator categorized Republican salvos lobbed at him and his family as "smears," he said if elected to the White House, he wouldn't "hold grudges."
Yet his appeal to remain above the political fray didn't stop him from calling Trump's understating of the injuries suffered by U.S. troops hurt in Iraq after the Iranian missile attack as disgraceful.
"If anybody's headache, he's a headache," Biden said. "It makes me angry when I think about it."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-29--Democratic candidates' last pitch to voters: I can woo Republicans

CONCORD , New Hampshire — Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling to win over voters still on the fence pitch an electability message that looks across the aisle : Your Republican neighbors will vote for me .
“ A lot of folks when I 'm shaking hands after an appearance kind of reveal to me that they 're exactly that kind of ‘ future former Republican , ’ ” former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor told reporters in Durham , New Hampshire , last week .
“ It 's part of how we demonstrate that I 'm putting together the kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Most Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers , 68 % nationally according to an Economist/YouGov released Wednesday , prefer to back a candidate who can beat President Trump in November rather than one they might agree with more on policy issues .
That leads some voters to base their decision on who they envision can woo Republican neighbors and family members or an imagined swing-state voter who backed Trump in 2016 .
With five days until the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and two weeks until the New Hampshire primary , candidates are so aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-wing candidates , such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , are trying to make the case that they can win over Republicans .
“ I 'm going to start with something that not only our whole party can run on , but start with something that is really appealing to a lot of Republicans around the country , ” Warren , 70 , said during a call with Iowa supporters on Tuesday .
It is a striking message from Warren , whose bold plethora of plans such as a wealth tax , student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies have helped push the Democratic Party further left ideologically .
“ I get it , we 're not going to get every Republican , but we are going to treat people with respect , '' Warren said .
“ We 're going to treat them with dignity , and we 're going to treat their arguments as serious around these economic issues.
” [ Also read : 'It 's asking a lot ' : Never Trump Republicans draw the line at Bernie Sanders ] Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ’ s to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in addition to expanding the electorate , is central to his electability appeal .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , 77 , often touts his ability to work with elected officials in the opposite party , but he is signaling that he is already winning over Republican voters .
At a high-dollar fundraiser in Boston last week , the host noted that some of the people in the room were Republicans .
“ Whether you ’ re Democrat or Republican — and I hope there are Republicans here — there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Biden said in remarks at the fundraiser .
Those who support Biden argue that he has the ability to win over Republicans .
“ Joe Biden will be able to pull together a coalition of Democrats , independents , and Republicans to beat Donald Trump , I 'm quite confident with that , ” former New Hampshire Gov .
John Lynch told reporters on Monday .
Lower-tier candidates also demonstrate that they have Republican support .
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang often touts polls that show Trump voters picking him in the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Claremont , New Hampshire , last week , Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard , 38 , asked those in the room to raise their hand if they identified as Republican , independent , or libertarian .
A dozen hands went up .
“ Our campaign is already building the kind of diverse coalition of support , coming from Democrats , Republicans , independents , and libertarians that is necessary to win in November , ” Gabbard said .
However , Iowa voters are not quite convinced that a Democrat can win over those from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only reachable if they 're not Trump voters , ” Buttigieg supporter and Ottumwa , Iowa , resident Jackie Lauer , 73 , the Washington Examiner on Tuesday .

CONCORD, New Hampshire — Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling to win over voters still on the fence pitch an electability message that looks across the aisle: Your Republican neighbors will vote for me.
“A lot of folks when I'm shaking hands after an appearance kind of reveal to me that they're exactly that kind of ‘future former Republican,’” former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg told reporters in Durham, New Hampshire, last week. “It's part of how we demonstrate that I'm putting together the kind of campaign that can defeat Donald Trump.”
Most Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers, 68% nationally according to an Economist/YouGov poll released Wednesday, prefer to back a candidate who can beat President Trump in November rather than one they might agree with more on policy issues.
That leads some voters to base their decision on who they envision can woo Republican neighbors and family members or an imagined swing-state voter who backed Trump in 2016.
With five days until the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses and two weeks until the New Hampshire primary, candidates are so aware of Democratic voters’ angst that even left-wing candidates, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, are trying to make the case that they can win over Republicans.
“I'm going to start with something that not only our whole party can run on, but start with something that is really appealing to a lot of Republicans around the country,” Warren, 70, said during a call with Iowa supporters on Tuesday.
It is a striking message from Warren, whose bold plethora of plans such as a wealth tax, student debt forgiveness, and breaking up tech companies have helped push the Democratic Party further left ideologically.
“I get it, we're not going to get every Republican, but we are going to treat people with respect," Warren said. “We're going to treat them with dignity, and we're going to treat their arguments as serious around these economic issues.”
[Also read: 'It's asking a lot': Never Trump Republicans draw the line at Bernie Sanders]
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s plan to win over working-class people who voted for Trump, in addition to expanding the electorate, is central to his electability appeal.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, often touts his ability to work with elected officials in the opposite party, but he is signaling that he is already winning over Republican voters. At a high-dollar fundraiser in Boston last week, the host noted that some of the people in the room were Republicans.
“Whether you’re Democrat or Republican — and I hope there are Republicans here — there’s a lot on the ballot this year,” Biden said in remarks at the fundraiser.
Those who support Biden argue that he has the ability to win over Republicans.
“Joe Biden will be able to pull together a coalition of Democrats, independents, and Republicans to beat Donald Trump, I'm quite confident with that,” former New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch told reporters on Monday.
Lower-tier candidates also demonstrate that they have Republican support. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang often touts polls that show Trump voters picking him in the Democratic field. At a campaign stop in Claremont, New Hampshire, last week, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, 38, asked those in the room to raise their hand if they identified as Republican, independent, or libertarian. A dozen hands went up.
“Our campaign is already building the kind of diverse coalition of support, coming from Democrats, Republicans, independents, and libertarians that is necessary to win in November,” Gabbard said.
However, Iowa voters are not quite convinced that a Democrat can win over those from the opposite party.