thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Democrats trash and Republicans praise classified briefing on Soleimani killing

Democrats said Trump administration officials failed to provide a justification for the killing of Iranian Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani , which many of them believe was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination .
Republican lawmakers who left the briefing said information provided there showed the United States had no choice but to take out Soleimani .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other administration officials briefed senators and House lawmakers Wednesday in separate , classified briefings to explain why the U.S. launched a drone strike Thursday that killed Soleimani and several other officials .
“ They ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rationale for going after Soleimani , ” Sen. Marco Rubio , a Florida Republican , said .
Democrats were infuriated at what they described as a lack of information showing why the U.S. needed to kill Soleimani , an action that has prompted Iran to retaliate with ballistic missile attacks on Iraqi bases that house U.S. military .
“ There were so many important questions they did not answer , ” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , a New York Democrat .
“ We did not see a satisfying plan for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 15 asked questions .
As the questions began to get tough , they walked out.
” Senate Democrats complained the 75-minute briefing was far too short and never provided justification for the killing .
“ We did not get information in that briefing that there was a specific imminent threat that we were halting by the operation last Thursday.
” Sen. Jeff Merkley , an Oregon Democrat , said .
Most Republicans in the briefing said they heard plenty of evidence .
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch , an Idaho @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely crystal clear information ” on the rationale for taking out Soleimani , who has a long history of targeting and killing Americans in the region .
“ It would have been negligent .
It would have been reckless .
It would have been intentional disregard for the president not to act and not to take out Soleimani , ” Risch said .
Two Republicans , Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah , both longtime opponents of military intervention overseas , criticized the briefing .
Lee called the briefing “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for urging Congress not to take up a war powers resolution to curb the president ’ s authorization for the use of military force .
“ We were told , 'We should n't debate this too much because it might be harmful , ' ” Lee said .
“ After today , every time they pull a stunt like this , I ’ m ready to introduce any and all war powers resolutions.
” House lawmakers who received a similar classified briefing earlier in the day were divided along party lines .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and short discussion on why to act now and imminent threats , ” Rep. Brad Sherman , a California Democrat , said .
Republicans , like most of the GOP Senate colleagues , said the briefing convinced them that Soleimani was preparing to escalate attacks against Americans .
“ I can tell you with assurance this was not the same thing we ’ ve been seeing for the past few years , ” Rep. Chris Stewart , a Utah Republican who sits on the Intelligence Committee , said .
“ This was something @ @ @

Democrats said Trump administration officials failed to provide a justification for the killing of Iranian Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, which many of them believe was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination.
Republican lawmakers who left the briefing said information provided there showed the United States had no choice but to take out Soleimani.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other administration officials briefed senators and House lawmakers Wednesday in separate, classified briefings to explain why the U.S. launched a drone strike Thursday that killed Soleimani and several other officials.
“They’ve done an excellent job of outlining the rationale for going after Soleimani,” Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, said.
Democrats were infuriated at what they described as a lack of information showing why the U.S. needed to kill Soleimani, an action that has prompted Iran to retaliate with ballistic missile attacks on Iraqi bases that house U.S. military.
“There were so many important questions they did not answer,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat. “We did not see a satisfying plan for the future. We had 97 Senators there, 15 asked questions. As the questions began to get tough, they walked out.”
Senate Democrats complained the 75-minute briefing was far too short and never provided justification for the killing.
“We did not get information in that briefing that there was a specific imminent threat that we were halting by the operation last Thursday.” Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, said.
Most Republicans in the briefing said they heard plenty of evidence.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, said the briefing provided “absolutely crystal clear information” on the rationale for taking out Soleimani, who has a long history of targeting and killing Americans in the region.
“It would have been negligent. It would have been reckless. It would have been intentional disregard for the president not to act and not to take out Soleimani,” Risch said.
Two Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, both longtime opponents of military intervention overseas, criticized the briefing.
Lee called the briefing “demeaning” and condemned Trump administration officials for urging Congress not to take up a war powers resolution to curb the president’s authorization for the use of military force.
“We were told, 'We shouldn't debate this too much because it might be harmful,'” Lee said. “After today, every time they pull a stunt like this, I’m ready to introduce any and all war powers resolutions.”
House lawmakers who received a similar classified briefing earlier in the day were divided along party lines.
“What I heard was a very unpersuasive and short discussion on why to act now and imminent threats,” Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat, said.
Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, called the briefing “sophomoric and unpersuasive.”
Republicans, like most of the GOP Senate colleagues, said the briefing convinced them that Soleimani was preparing to escalate attacks against Americans.
“I can tell you with assurance this was not the same thing we’ve been seeing for the past few years,” Rep. Chris Stewart, a Utah Republican who sits on the Intelligence Committee, said. “This was something different.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--House will vote on war powers resolution Thursday

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House will vote Thursday on a resolution limiting President Trump 's military action with Iran .
The measure is in response to Trump 's decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani , which Democrats believe was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination .
“ Last week , the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials , ” Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday .
“ The Administration took this action without consulting Congress .
This action endangered our servicemembers , diplomats and others by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran .
Since then , the President has made clear that he does not have a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe , achieve de-escalation with Iran and ensure stability in the region.
” Democrats paused plans to vote on the measure after Tuesday night ’ s ballistic missile strikes fired by Iran , which targeted Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops .
Iran fired the missiles in reaction to the killing of Soleimani .
Democrats received a classified briefing Wednesday on the justification for the killing .
Many Democrats who emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prove their case .
“ The briefing was incredibly thin on facts , ” Sen. Tim Kaine , a Virginia Democrat , said .
“ They did not support any claim of an imminent threat that would justify any actions taken to eliminate Suleimani.
” Kaine will introduce his own war powers resolution as soon as next week .
It has at least two GOP supporters , Sens .
Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky .

Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House will vote Thursday on a resolution limiting President Trump's military action with Iran.
The measure is in response to Trump's decision to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, which Democrats believe was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination.
“Last week, the Trump Administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials,” Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday. “The Administration took this action without consulting Congress. This action endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran. Since then, the President has made clear that he does not have a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe, achieve de-escalation with Iran and ensure stability in the region.”
Democrats paused plans to vote on the measure after Tuesday night’s ballistic missile strikes fired by Iran, which targeted Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. Iran fired the missiles in reaction to the killing of Soleimani.
Democrats received a classified briefing Wednesday on the justification for the killing. Many Democrats who emerged from the meeting said administration officials did not prove their case.
“The briefing was incredibly thin on facts,” Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said. “They did not support any claim of an imminent threat that would justify any actions taken to eliminate Suleimani.”
Kaine will introduce his own war powers resolution as soon as next week. It has at least two GOP supporters, Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Rep. Will Hurd: Iran is not a victim

Rep. Will Hurd: Iran is not a victim

After almost a decade as an undercover officer in the CIA serving in the Middle East and South Asia , I never thought I would see the Iranian government be able to manipulate members of Congress , Democratic presidential candidates , and the Western media .
Qassem Soleimani was the head of the most dangerous and well-armed terrorist organization in the world .
Taking him out was an appropriate response after all the Iranian government and its proxies have done over the past few months , and it was a significant blow to the Iranian regime ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going through the Baghdad airport on the way to a holiday vacation .
He was in Iraq to coordinate attacks on American interests and our allies .
When you run a terrorist organization , this is what can happen to you : You are brought to justice for the death toll you have inflicted on innocent people .
Hiding behind the uniform of your government does not change the fact that you are a terrorist .
To my colleagues condemning this decision : We can not forget that Iran is the culprit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still the world 's top state sponsor of terrorism and has killed hundreds of thousands , including U.S. troops and more than 1,500 of its people for peacefully protesting .
The Iranian government has been at war with the United States for more than 40 years , since it stormed our embassy in Iran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days .
The Iranian regime , not the U.S. , is responsible for escalating tensions .
If the Iranian government wants to rejoin the international community , it must do a few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our allies ; stop lying about its nuclear program ; stop using terrorism and coercion to prevent the people of Iraq , Yemen , Lebanon , and Afghanistan from choosing their future ; and stop murdering your citizens for peacefully protesting .
No one wants another war in the Middle East , and under no circumstances should we or our allies bomb cultural sites in Iran or anywhere — our quarrel is with the Iranian government , not the Iranian people or Persian culture .
However , we can not give the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unfortunately , this is not the first time we have been here .
As I said this past summer , Congress ’ s inability to separate our opposition to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from the threats posed by the Houthis , Iranian military , and terrorists in Yemen sent a mixed message to the Iranian government .
When Iranian officials fail to receive international condemnation for their actions , and instead can spew disinformation during interviews with Western journalists , we are sending the Iranian government the wrong message .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking hard questions such as these : Why did your regime murder 1,500 of your unarmed citizens who were peacefully protesting ?
Why did your regime use Kataib Hezbollah to attack the U.S. Embassy in Iraq ?
Tehran will be responsible for any further escalation of tensions in the region .
Instead of giving tacit approval for the Iranian government to retaliate , I wish my colleagues would focus their efforts on letting the Iranian government know that no elected official in America is supportive of its behavior .
Failing to criticize or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as supporting these activities , and that is the last message we want to give to its tyrannical regime and the rest of its forces .
I also want to ask my colleagues condemning the decision to kill Soleimani : What is the alternative ?
Do nothing and fail to protect American lives and our shared interests with our Sunni Arab and Israeli partners ?
Let our embassy get attacked once more ?
Open our troops up to further attacks ?
To not support the Iranian people in their quest for freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing nothing ?
Appeasing the Iranian government by sitting down with it after it has increased attacks on civilian maritime traffic , civilian energy infrastructure , civilians protesting in their country , American military technology , and U.S. diplomatic facilities ?
When President Hassan Rouhani was first elected in 2013 , Iran had been crippled by international sanctions and sought out negotiations with the U.S .
The resulting Iran deal lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on the Iran nuclear program , but it failed to address Iran ’ s conventional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In recent years , we have seen the consequences of that omission : rebels in Yemen launching rocket attacks on civilians , Iranian forces supporting terrorism and moving closer to Israel ’ s borders in Syria , and a campaign of assassination and intimidation of dissidents across Europe .
Just as Britain and France thought in September 1938 that the Munich Agreement , which gave legitimacy to Hitler ’ s annexation of the German-speaking region of Czechoslovakia , would stop Hitler ’ s reign of terror against its neighbors , I fear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality that appeasing Iran will only make future conflict and bloodshed more likely .
The U.S. should not and can not deal with Iran alone .
I hope now that the Iranian regime has made it clear that it will enrich uranium without any limits , violating the terms of the Iran nuclear deal , and our European partners will work with us to reinstate snap-back sanctions and treat the ayatollahs as the pariahs they are .
Rep. Will Hurd , a Republican , represents Texas 's 23rd congressional district .
Hurd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nearly a decade .
He now serves on the House Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence .

After almost a decade as an undercover officer in the CIA serving in the Middle East and South Asia, I never thought I would see the Iranian government be able to manipulate members of Congress, Democratic presidential candidates, and the Western media.
Qassem Soleimani was the head of the most dangerous and well-armed terrorist organization in the world. Taking him out was an appropriate response after all the Iranian government and its proxies have done over the past few months, and it was a significant blow to the Iranian regime’s ability to conduct future terrorist attacks.
Soleimani was not going through the Baghdad airport on the way to a holiday vacation. He was in Iraq to coordinate attacks on American interests and our allies. When you run a terrorist organization, this is what can happen to you: You are brought to justice for the death toll you have inflicted on innocent people. Hiding behind the uniform of your government does not change the fact that you are a terrorist.
To my colleagues condemning this decision: We cannot forget that Iran is the culprit, not the victim.
It is still the world's top state sponsor of terrorism and has killed hundreds of thousands, including U.S. troops and more than 1,500 of its people for peacefully protesting . The Iranian government has been at war with the United States for more than 40 years, since it stormed our embassy in Iran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
The Iranian regime, not the U.S., is responsible for escalating tensions. If the Iranian government wants to rejoin the international community, it must do a few simple things: stop killing American citizens and our allies; stop lying about its nuclear program; stop using terrorism and coercion to prevent the people of Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Afghanistan from choosing their future; and stop murdering your citizens for peacefully protesting.
No one wants another war in the Middle East, and under no circumstances should we or our allies bomb cultural sites in Iran or anywhere — our quarrel is with the Iranian government, not the Iranian people or Persian culture. However, we cannot give the Iranian regime cover for further aggression, and unfortunately, this is not the first time we have been here.
As I said this past summer , Congress’s inability to separate our opposition to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi from the threats posed by the Houthis, Iranian military, and terrorists in Yemen sent a mixed message to the Iranian government. When Iranian officials fail to receive international condemnation for their actions, and instead can spew disinformation during interviews with Western journalists, we are sending the Iranian government the wrong message.
Why are interviewers of Iranian officials not asking hard questions such as these: Why did your regime murder 1,500 of your unarmed citizens who were peacefully protesting? Why did your regime use Kataib Hezbollah to attack the U.S. Embassy in Iraq?
Tehran will be responsible for any further escalation of tensions in the region. Instead of giving tacit approval for the Iranian government to retaliate, I wish my colleagues would focus their efforts on letting the Iranian government know that no elected official in America is supportive of its behavior. Failing to criticize or even publicly question its activities can be viewed as supporting these activities, and that is the last message we want to give to its tyrannical regime and the rest of its forces.
I also want to ask my colleagues condemning the decision to kill Soleimani: What is the alternative? Do nothing and fail to protect American lives and our shared interests with our Sunni Arab and Israeli partners? Let our embassy get attacked once more? Open our troops up to further attacks? To not support the Iranian people in their quest for freedom?
Is the alternative something worse than doing nothing? Appeasing the Iranian government by sitting down with it after it has increased attacks on civilian maritime traffic, civilian energy infrastructure, civilians protesting in their country, American military technology, and U.S. diplomatic facilities?
When President Hassan Rouhani was first elected in 2013, Iran had been crippled by international sanctions and sought out negotiations with the U.S. The resulting Iran deal lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on the Iran nuclear program, but it failed to address Iran’s conventional missile program and support for terrorism. In recent years, we have seen the consequences of that omission: rebels in Yemen launching rocket attacks on civilians, Iranian forces supporting terrorism and moving closer to Israel’s borders in Syria, and a campaign of assassination and intimidation of dissidents across Europe.
Just as Britain and France thought in September 1938 that the Munich Agreement, which gave legitimacy to Hitler’s annexation of the German-speaking region of Czechoslovakia, would stop Hitler’s reign of terror against its neighbors, I fear that some Americans and Europeans are blind to the reality that appeasing Iran will only make future conflict and bloodshed more likely.
The U.S. should not and cannot deal with Iran alone. I hope now that the Iranian regime has made it clear that it will enrich uranium without any limits, violating the terms of the Iran nuclear deal, and our European partners will work with us to reinstate snap-back sanctions and treat the ayatollahs as the pariahs they are.
Rep. Will Hurd, a Republican, represents Texas's 23rd congressional district. Hurd was an undercover officer in the CIA for nearly a decade. He now serves on the House Appropriations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Democratic defections ramp up pressure on Pelosi to send impeachment articles

House and Senate Republicans , and some Democrats , are increasing pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the Senate the articles impeaching President Trump that she has held onto for three weeks .
“ Even as her fellow Democrats are jumping ship , the speaker is trying to double down , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , a Kentucky Republican , said Wednesday .
Senate Democrats are increasingly eager for a Senate trial to begin .
It was set to start this week but is in limbo until Pelosi sends over the articles passed by the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left uncertain the timing of key legislation , including Sen. Tim Kaine ’ s effort to win passage of a resolution limiting President Trump ’ s authority to conduct military operations overseas .
“ It ’ s her decision to make , ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal , a Connecticut Democrat , said Wednesday .
“ But , we are ready , willing and able .
I ’ m ready… to try this case , but she will have to make a decision.
” Kaine , a Virginia Democrat , told the Washington Examiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over “ soon.
” Other Democrats have more bluntly called on Pelosi to send over the articles .
`` I think the time has passed , ” Chris Murphy , a Connecticut Democrat , said Tuesday .
“ She should send the articles over.
” Joe Manchin , a West Virginia Democrat , said he believed it was time to start the Senate trial .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , a Maryland Democrat , would not say when the House would send the articles or under what terms .
“ This matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and she will give you the information as to when , how , why , and what , ” Hoyer told the Washington Examiner .
McConnell announced Tuesday he has the support of 51 senators to pass a resolution setting rules for an impeachment trial that replicate those established unanimously by Senate lawmakers ahead of Clinton ’ s impeachment trial .
He said the announcement effectively quashes efforts by Democrats to try to force the Senate to agree to a pre-trial witness list comprised of key Trump administration officials .
Pelosi ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonexistent , ” and the Senate “ will not cede our authority to try this impeachment.
” But Pelosi said she ’ ll only send over the articles after she sees the details of the trial rules .
Pelosi , last night , sent a letter to House Democratic lawmakers criticizing McConnell ’ s trial rules and declaring she would appoint impeachment managers and send over the impeachment articles when McConnell publishes the resolution for the trial rules .
McConnell hasn ’ t specifically indicated whether he would do so .
House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol basement did not even talk about impeachment , lawmakers said afterward .
“ There was no discussion of that at today ’ s caucus meeting , ” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said .
“ I support the decision of the speaker to hold the articles until we get some clarity as to whether there will be a fair and impartial trial in the Senate.
” Senate Republicans , meanwhile , are building support for a plan to change the Senate rules and start the trial as soon as next week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a New York Democrat , suggested Tuesday Pelosi would be ready to send over the articles .
“ The speaker has said all along that she wanted to see the arena in which she was playing so she could appoint impeachment managers , ” Schumer said .
“ She has some idea what ’ s happened.
” Democrats are eager to force Senate Republicans to vote on trial motions calling for several key administration witnesses .
Democrats said even without a pre-trial agreement on witnesses , they will force Republicans to vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ There ’ s multiple bites at the apple , ” Kaine said .
Jeffries said before the House sends the articles , more details are needed , and Pelosi can ’ t appoint managers “ in the absence of understanding the rules of engagement and what the contours of the trial would look like .
”

House and Senate Republicans, and some Democrats, are increasing pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to send the Senate the articles impeaching President Trump that she has held onto for three weeks.
“Even as her fellow Democrats are jumping ship, the speaker is trying to double down,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday.
Senate Democrats are increasingly eager for a Senate trial to begin.
It was set to start this week but is in limbo until Pelosi sends over the articles passed by the House three weeks ago.
The delay has left uncertain the timing of key legislation, including Sen. Tim Kaine’s effort to win passage of a resolution limiting President Trump’s authority to conduct military operations overseas.
“It’s her decision to make,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said Wednesday. “But, we are ready, willing and able. I’m ready… to try this case, but she will have to make a decision.”
Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, told the Washington Examiner he believes Pelosi will send the articles over “soon.”
Other Democrats have more bluntly called on Pelosi to send over the articles. "I think the time has passed,” Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said Tuesday. “She should send the articles over.”
Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, said he believed it was time to start the Senate trial.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, would not say when the House would send the articles or under what terms. “This matter will be decided by the speaker, and she will give you the information as to when, how, why, and what,” Hoyer told the Washington Examiner.
McConnell announced Tuesday he has the support of 51 senators to pass a resolution setting rules for an impeachment trial that replicate those established unanimously by Senate lawmakers ahead of Clinton’s impeachment trial.
He said the announcement effectively quashes efforts by Democrats to try to force the Senate to agree to a pre-trial witness list comprised of key Trump administration officials. Pelosi’s leverage, he said, “is nonexistent,” and the Senate “will not cede our authority to try this impeachment.”
But Pelosi said she’ll only send over the articles after she sees the details of the trial rules.
Pelosi, last night, sent a letter to House Democratic lawmakers criticizing McConnell’s trial rules and declaring she would appoint impeachment managers and send over the impeachment articles when McConnell publishes the resolution for the trial rules. McConnell hasn’t specifically indicated whether he would do so.
House Democrats who met privately this morning in the Capitol basement did not even talk about impeachment, lawmakers said afterward.
“There was no discussion of that at today’s caucus meeting,” House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said. “I support the decision of the speaker to hold the articles until we get some clarity as to whether there will be a fair and impartial trial in the Senate.”
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are building support for a plan to change the Senate rules and start the trial as soon as next week.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, suggested Tuesday Pelosi would be ready to send over the articles.
“The speaker has said all along that she wanted to see the arena in which she was playing so she could appoint impeachment managers,” Schumer said. “She has some idea what’s happened.”
Democrats are eager to force Senate Republicans to vote on trial motions calling for several key administration witnesses. Democrats said even without a pre-trial agreement on witnesses, they will force Republicans to vote on calling witnesses once the trial starts.
“There’s multiple bites at the apple,” Kaine said.
Jeffries said before the House sends the articles, more details are needed, and Pelosi can’t appoint managers “in the absence of understanding the rules of engagement and what the contours of the trial would look like.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--McConnell lacks votes for Senate rules change to sidestep Pelosi impeachment delay

Senate Republicans are resigned to waiting out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she stalls sending over articles of impeachment needed to begin a trial .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell so far lacks the votes to change Senate impeachment rules ( should he decide that is what he wants to do ) and allow the trial of President Trump to begin without formal transmission of the articles , which the House approved last month .
Some Republicans are pushing to change the rules , easing the way to dismiss charges against Trump should Pelosi sit on the articles indefinitely .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were approved by House Democrats three weeks ago in a bid to pressure Senate Republicans to agree to subpoena witness testimony from current and former administration officials .
The gambit is not working .
On Tuesday , McConnell announced he had secured at least 51 Republican votes to proceed to a trial without an agreement on witnesses .
But if Pelosi holds out , delaying the trial further , Republicans are not prepared to take extraordinary measures to change the rules to proceed without receipt of the articles of impeachment from the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would actually go there , and change the rules to get there , is remote , ” said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri , a McConnell leadership deputy .
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said many Republicans are content to wait patiently and focus on regular legislative business , such as clearing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade and confirming more judicial nominees .
“ We ’ re in no hurry to have them deliver stuff ; we ’ ve got work to do ourselves , ” he said after Senate Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus lunch .
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has introduced a resolution , supported by about a dozen Republicans , that would change Senate rules to permit a vote on dismissing articles of impeachment against Trump absent receipt of the documents from the House .
House Democrats approved the two articles , one charging Trump with abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress .
But changing Senate rules requires a 67-vote supermajority , and Democrats would surely block Hawley ’ s resolution .
Accordingly , the Republicans ’ only viable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deploy the “ nuclear option.
” This rarely used and controversial procedural maneuver amounts to breaking Senate rules to change the rules with a simple majority vote .
It has been used by both parties , but only sparingly , and only to overcome minority filibusters of executive branch and judicial nominees .
A few Republicans , such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina , are open to this bold action .
But neither McConnell nor anywhere near 51 of 53 Senate Republicans have an appetite to go this route to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unlikely that 51 Republicans support Hawley 's proposal .
“ It is a rule of impeachment in the Senate that we must receive the papers ; it continues to be my hope that the speaker will send them on over .
The House argued that this was an emergency , ” McConnell told reporters .
There are signs that Pelosi ’ s delay could be coming to an end , with some Senate Democrats suggesting it has accomplished enough — and about all that it can .
Since Trump was impeached on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more information that Democrats say points to Trump ’ s guilt , and John Bolton , the president ’ s former national security adviser whose testimony they sought , has agreed to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate .
But some Republicans are warning that their patience is not endless .
If Pelosi delays transmission of the articles of impeachment indefinitely , Republican demands to counter the tactic could grow .
One response could be a floor vote on Hawley ’ s resolution .
It would fall short of 67 votes but would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustration .
At that point , if Pelosi still did not change course , John Thune of South Dakota , the No .
2-ranking Republican in the Senate , said support for bolder action among his GOP colleagues could increase .
“ My guess is , if the House continues to stall this and to violate the spirit of the whole process , then , at some point , we ’ ll look at other options , ” Thune said .

Senate Republicans are resigned to waiting out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as she stalls sending over articles of impeachment needed to begin a trial.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell so far lacks the votes to change Senate impeachment rules (should he decide that is what he wants to do) and allow the trial of President Trump to begin without formal transmission of the articles, which the House approved last month.
Some Republicans are pushing to change the rules, easing the way to dismiss charges against Trump should Pelosi sit on the articles indefinitely. Pelosi has withheld the documents since they were approved by House Democrats three weeks ago in a bid to pressure Senate Republicans to agree to subpoena witness testimony from current and former administration officials.
The gambit is not working. On Tuesday, McConnell announced he had secured at least 51 Republican votes to proceed to a trial without an agreement on witnesses. But if Pelosi holds out, delaying the trial further, Republicans are not prepared to take extraordinary measures to change the rules to proceed without receipt of the articles of impeachment from the House.
“The likelihood that the Senate would actually go there, and change the rules to get there, is remote,” said Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, a McConnell leadership deputy.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said many Republicans are content to wait patiently and focus on regular legislative business, such as clearing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade and confirming more judicial nominees. “We’re in no hurry to have them deliver stuff; we’ve got work to do ourselves,” he said after Senate Republicans discussed the issue privately during their weekly caucus lunch.
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has introduced a resolution, supported by about a dozen Republicans, that would change Senate rules to permit a vote on dismissing articles of impeachment against Trump absent receipt of the documents from the House. House Democrats approved the two articles, one charging Trump with abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress. But changing Senate rules requires a 67-vote supermajority, and Democrats would surely block Hawley’s resolution.
Accordingly, the Republicans’ only viable alternative to pass Hawley's measure is to deploy the “nuclear option.” This rarely used and controversial procedural maneuver amounts to breaking Senate rules to change the rules with a simple majority vote. It has been used by both parties, but only sparingly, and only to overcome minority filibusters of executive branch and judicial nominees.
A few Republicans, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, are open to this bold action. But neither McConnell nor anywhere near 51 of 53 Senate Republicans have an appetite to go this route to change impeachment rules. Presently, it is unlikely that 51 Republicans support Hawley's proposal.
“It is a rule of impeachment in the Senate that we must receive the papers; it continues to be my hope that the speaker will send them on over. The House argued that this was an emergency,” McConnell told reporters.
There are signs that Pelosi’s delay could be coming to an end, with some Senate Democrats suggesting it has accomplished enough — and about all that it can. Since Trump was impeached on Dec. 18, news reports have uncovered more information that Democrats say points to Trump’s guilt, and John Bolton, the president’s former national security adviser whose testimony they sought, has agreed to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.
But some Republicans are warning that their patience is not endless.
If Pelosi delays transmission of the articles of impeachment indefinitely, Republican demands to counter the tactic could grow. One response could be a floor vote on Hawley’s resolution. It would fall short of 67 votes but would give Republicans an opportunity to register their frustration. At that point, if Pelosi still did not change course, John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2-ranking Republican in the Senate, said support for bolder action among his GOP colleagues could increase.
“My guess is, if the House continues to stall this and to violate the spirit of the whole process, then, at some point, we’ll look at other options,” Thune said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--House Republican proposes using tax code to combat climate change

Republican Rep. Tom Reed will unveil a bipartisan bill Wednesday to provide federal tax subsidies for “ first-of-a-kind ” clean energy technologies for combating climate change .
“ We are putting our thumb on the scale to encourage energy innovation through the tax code , ” Reed , a centrist from New York , told the Washington Examiner in an exclusive preview of his bill .
Many Republicans have supported providing tax subsidies for renewable energy , but the party has mostly focused on increasing research and development spending to address climate change .
Reed 's legislation would go beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hopefully , this shows there are Republicans who want to come to a compromise position on climate change and use the tax code in a way that can solve this problem , ” Reed said of his bill .
Reed ’ s Energy Sector Innovation Credit is unique in that it is technology-neutral , providing new electricity sector tax credits to use applications rather than specific energy sources .
So , while existing clean energy tax policy provides subsidies for wind and solar , for example , Reed ’ s bill would direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , carbon capture for natural gas plants , advanced nuclear reactors , and offshore wind .
The existing subsidies for wind and solar have helped drive their costs down and make renewables competitive with fossil fuels .
Reed ’ s credits are similarly intended to boost advanced technologies that are new and not yet proven but would be critical to working with wind and solar to cut emissions .
“ What I have seen through tax credits is , when you pick winners and losers , it can become heavily distortive , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leveling the playing field by making it technology-neutral and open to reward innovation.
” Reed 's office has not yet scored the legislation for its effect on government revenue but is in the process of doing so .
Reed , a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee , is introducing the bill with Democrats on the panel , Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York and Jimmy Panetta of California .
Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republicans Darin LaHood of Illinois and David Schweikert of Arizona are also co-sponsors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focusing on every option that can improve energy efficiency for our country , ” Gottheimer told the Washington Examiner .
Kevin Brady of Texas , the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee , expressed openness to Reed 's bill .
“ The key to tackling climate change is American innovation , not through burdensome regulations and tax hikes , ” Brady said .
“ We also know that any solution must be bipartisan , and I want to applaud Tom for leading the charge on this bill , reaching across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bill has earned widespread praise , with conservatives , environmental groups , utilities , and clean energy groups all issuing supportive statements .
That includes the American Council on Renewable Energy , a trade group that unsuccessfully pushed hard for Congress to extend expiring tax credits for wind and solar as part of December ’ s year-end spending bill .
Reed ’ s bill would prevent wind and solar projects that receive existing incentives such as the Investment Tax Credit or Production Tax Credit from using the new subsidy .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as energy storage , which can provide backup power when the sun isn ’ t shining and the wind isn ’ t blowing .
“ We commend Rep. Reed ’ s commitment to energy innovation and look forward to working with him on the Energy Innovation Credit Act as the legislation moves forward , ” said Gregory Wetstone , president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy .
The bill includes a specific subsidy for energy storage , providing a 30 % investment tax credit for the first 20 gigawatts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office projects would cause the deployment of storage to increase by tenfold .
Reed ’ s legislation also has a built-in slowdown , with the amount of the tax credit sunsetting for each energy technology as it grows .
This provision is intended to address the criticism that the federal government is too willing to extend existing subsidies no matter whether the goal of the policy , lowering the cost of a technology to make it more competitive , has been achieved .
“ At the deployment phase , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of sense because you can avoid a situation where you are sinking money into losing technologies , ” said Noah Kaufman , an economist at Columbia University ’ s Center on Global Energy Policy .
“ By limiting the credit to emerging technologies you are restraining costs to the government so it will never be a very costly policy .
”

Republican Rep. Tom Reed will unveil a bipartisan bill Wednesday to provide federal tax subsidies for “first-of-a-kind” clean energy technologies for combating climate change.
“We are putting our thumb on the scale to encourage energy innovation through the tax code,” Reed, a centrist from New York, told the Washington Examiner in an exclusive preview of his bill.
Many Republicans have supported providing tax subsidies for renewable energy, but the party has mostly focused on increasing research and development spending to address climate change. Reed's legislation would go beyond what other Republicans have proposed.
“Hopefully, this shows there are Republicans who want to come to a compromise position on climate change and use the tax code in a way that can solve this problem,” Reed said of his bill.
Reed’s Energy Sector Innovation Credit is unique in that it is technology-neutral, providing new electricity sector tax credits to use applications rather than specific energy sources.
So, while existing clean energy tax policy provides subsidies for wind and solar, for example, Reed’s bill would direct credits to applications such as energy storage, carbon capture for natural gas plants, advanced nuclear reactors, and offshore wind.
The existing subsidies for wind and solar have helped drive their costs down and make renewables competitive with fossil fuels. Reed’s credits are similarly intended to boost advanced technologies that are new and not yet proven but would be critical to working with wind and solar to cut emissions.
“What I have seen through tax credits is, when you pick winners and losers, it can become heavily distortive,” Reed said. “This is about leveling the playing field by making it technology-neutral and open to reward innovation.”
Reed's office has not yet scored the legislation for its effect on government revenue but is in the process of doing so.
Reed, a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, is introducing the bill with Democrats on the panel, Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York and Jimmy Panetta of California.
Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republicans Darin LaHood of Illinois and David Schweikert of Arizona are also co-sponsors.
“We need an all-of-the-above approach, focusing on every option that can improve energy efficiency for our country,” Gottheimer told the Washington Examiner.
Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, expressed openness to Reed's bill.
“The key to tackling climate change is American innovation, not through burdensome regulations and tax hikes,” Brady said. “We also know that any solution must be bipartisan, and I want to applaud Tom for leading the charge on this bill, reaching across the aisle to build consensus and support.”
The bill has earned widespread praise, with conservatives, environmental groups, utilities, and clean energy groups all issuing supportive statements.
That includes the American Council on Renewable Energy, a trade group that unsuccessfully pushed hard for Congress to extend expiring tax credits for wind and solar as part of December’s year-end spending bill.
Reed’s bill would prevent wind and solar projects that receive existing incentives such as the Investment Tax Credit or Production Tax Credit from using the new subsidy. But it would benefit technologies that complement renewables, such as energy storage, which can provide backup power when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
“We commend Rep. Reed’s commitment to energy innovation and look forward to working with him on the Energy Innovation Credit Act as the legislation moves forward,” said Gregory Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy.
The bill includes a specific subsidy for energy storage, providing a 30% investment tax credit for the first 20 gigawatts of projects, a provision that Reed’s office projects would cause the deployment of storage to increase by tenfold.
Reed’s legislation also has a built-in slowdown, with the amount of the tax credit sunsetting for each energy technology as it grows.
This provision is intended to address the criticism that the federal government is too willing to extend existing subsidies no matter whether the goal of the policy, lowering the cost of a technology to make it more competitive, has been achieved.
“At the deployment phase, if you can avoid being technology specific that makes a lot of sense because you can avoid a situation where you are sinking money into losing technologies,” said Noah Kaufman, an economist at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “By limiting the credit to emerging technologies you are restraining costs to the government so it will never be a very costly policy.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--GOP senator: ‘Trump’s stock level is at an all-time high’

A key Republican senator on Wednesday said that respect for President Trump has surged since he ordered the killing of Iran ’ s top military leader , and he gave credit to the White House and Pentagon for reinvigorating U.S. deterrence power .
“ Trump ’ s stock value is at an all-time high , ” Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun told Secrets after attending a high-level administration briefing for all senators .
“ I felt good after listening to the total presentation ; it made sense , ” he said , adding that the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor that obviously had been lost in the Obama administration.
” Braun said that the briefing , led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley , and Defense Secretary Mark Esper , left some unanswered questions , but he was not harshly critical , like Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee , who dubbed it “ the worst briefing I 've seen.
” In fact , Braun said the briefing answered questions about the killing of Soleimani , who was compared to Osama bin Laden in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He also said the national security chiefs made a strong case over Democratic criticism that the threat posed by Soleimani was imminent .
“ It was clearly stated that there was one and that it would have been significant , ” said Braun , who noted that leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was in the audience .
Little was said of Iran 's missile attack on two U.S. bases in Iraq in retaliation .
There were no casualties .
However , he said , the briefers rebuffed reports that Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and he gave credit to military leaders for moving troops out of the line of fire .
He said that the briefers said that Iran ’ s leaders mistook Trump ’ s nonmilitary response to several attacks over the past months for weakness .
They said Iran also misunderstood his pledge to withdraw troops as a sign the U.S. was disengaging from the region .
“ They were testing Trump , ” said Braun .
“ They were confusing that with not realizing that when you cross a line with him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that enough is enough , ” said the senator .
What “ broke the camel ’ s back ” with Trump , he said , was the attack by Iran in Iraq last month that killed a U.S. contractor .
Despite his support for the president and his actions in the region against Iran , Braun said that it is time to reduce spending in the Middle East and for Congress to take a larger role , especially if Iran continues to threaten the region .
“ We still need to lessen our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Braun , who has been a leader in working to cut the federal deficit .

A key Republican senator on Wednesday said that respect for President Trump has surged since he ordered the killing of Iran’s top military leader, and he gave credit to the White House and Pentagon for reinvigorating U.S. deterrence power.
“Trump’s stock value is at an all-time high,” Indiana Republican Sen. Mike Braun told Secrets after attending a high-level administration briefing for all senators.
“I felt good after listening to the total presentation; it made sense,” he said, adding that the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani “did restore the deterrence factor that obviously had been lost in the Obama administration.”
Braun said that the briefing, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, left some unanswered questions, but he was not harshly critical, like Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who dubbed it “ the worst briefing I've seen.”
In fact, Braun said the briefing answered questions about the killing of Soleimani, who was compared to Osama bin Laden in his terrorist threat to the United States.
He also said the national security chiefs made a strong case over Democratic criticism that the threat posed by Soleimani was imminent.
“It was clearly stated that there was one and that it would have been significant,” said Braun, who noted that leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was in the audience.
Little was said of Iran's missile attack on two U.S. bases in Iraq in retaliation. There were no casualties. However, he said, the briefers rebuffed reports that Iran purposefully picked a "bad target," and he gave credit to military leaders for moving troops out of the line of fire.
He said that the briefers said that Iran’s leaders mistook Trump’s nonmilitary response to several attacks over the past months for weakness. They said Iran also misunderstood his pledge to withdraw troops as a sign the U.S. was disengaging from the region.
“They were testing Trump,” said Braun. “They were confusing that with not realizing that when you cross a line with him, as it should be with anyone, that enough is enough,” said the senator.
What “broke the camel’s back” with Trump, he said, was the attack by Iran in Iraq last month that killed a U.S. contractor.
Despite his support for the president and his actions in the region against Iran, Braun said that it is time to reduce spending in the Middle East and for Congress to take a larger role, especially if Iran continues to threaten the region.
“We still need to lessen our load throughout the entire world,” said Braun, who has been a leader in working to cut the federal deficit.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump was TV’s top ‘outrage’ in 2019, more than racism and #MeToo

Nothing caused TV ’ s big three networks to haul out the word “ outrage ” more in stories last year than President Trump and the GOP , according to a new study .
ABC , CBS , and NBC used the word 229 times , and it was directed at the president and his team over 22 % of the time , said a Media Research Center study .
“ But do n't think the term was employed even-handedly .
President Trump and his fellow Republicans received the lion ’ s share of the blame in this category : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all political outrage , while Democrats accounted for less than one-tenth of that ( just five stories , or 8 % ) .
For the remaining eight cases , the individuals or organizations said to be causing outrage were not explicitly partisan , ” said the analysis .
For perspective , while 51 out the nightly news “ outrages ” were directed at actions by Trump and the GOP , below are the other topics that got fewer “ outrages : ” The numbers are significant in getting a bead on the bias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research Center .
For example , sexual predators and # MeToo perpetrators were widely in the news , yet Trump was hit with the word four times as much .
“ Regardless of whether anyone at ABC , CBS , or NBC actually believes that the president and his party are three times as outrageous as rape , or twice as outrageous as child abuse , their reporting over the past year nonetheless suggests that this is the case .
Because loaded terms like ‘ outrage ’ are subjective , these networks can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without ever making a false claim , ” said the report from Bill D'Agostino , a research analyst with the Media Research Analyst .

Nothing caused TV’s big three networks to haul out the word “outrage” more in stories last year than President Trump and the GOP, according to a new study.
ABC, CBS, and NBC used the word 229 times, and it was directed at the president and his team over 22% of the time, said a Media Research Center study.
“But don't think the term was employed even-handedly. President Trump and his fellow Republicans received the lion’s share of the blame in this category: 51 instances, or 80% of all political outrage, while Democrats accounted for less than one-tenth of that (just five stories, or 8%). For the remaining eight cases, the individuals or organizations said to be causing outrage were not explicitly partisan,” said the analysis.
For perspective, while 51 out the nightly news “outrages” were directed at actions by Trump and the GOP, below are the other topics that got fewer “outrages:”
Police Brutality — 45
Racism/bigotry — 28
Child abuse — 25
Rape/sexual assault — 14
Murder of police — 1
The numbers are significant in getting a bead on the bias at the networks, suggested the Media Research Center. For example, sexual predators and #MeToo perpetrators were widely in the news, yet Trump was hit with the word four times as much.
“Regardless of whether anyone at ABC, CBS, or NBC actually believes that the president and his party are three times as outrageous as rape, or twice as outrageous as child abuse, their reporting over the past year nonetheless suggests that this is the case. Because loaded terms like ‘outrage’ are subjective, these networks can add a liberal spin to their coverage without ever making a false claim,” said the report from Bill D'Agostino, a research analyst with the Media Research Analyst.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Chance of Trump removal sinks to 12%, a ‘new low’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s delay in letting the Senate begin an impeachment trial of President Trump has taken the heat off the issue so much that now just 1 in 10 believe he will be removed from office .
The latest Rasmussen Reports revealed today that 12 % believe that the Senate will oust the president .
Removal was always a long shot because the unified GOP caucus is in the majority .
According to the polling analysis shared with Secrets : “ Only 12 % now feel it ’ s more likely that Trump will be impeached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first full term .
That ’ s down from a high of 29 % when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017 and marks a new low.
” And Trump is still in the driver ’ s seat when it comes to reelection in November , according to the report .
“ A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 46 % of likely U.S. voters believe the president will be reelected , marking little statistical change from the 44 % who felt that way in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who predicted reelection this past November .
Thirty-three percent ( 33 % ) think it ’ s more likely the Democratic nominee will defeat Trump , a finding that has ranged from 26 % to 33 % in previous surveys , ” according to the analysis .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s delay in letting the Senate begin an impeachment trial of President Trump has taken the heat off the issue so much that now just 1 in 10 believe he will be removed from office.
The latest Rasmussen Reports revealed today that 12% believe that the Senate will oust the president. Removal was always a long shot because the unified GOP caucus is in the majority.
According to the polling analysis shared with Secrets: “Only 12% now feel it’s more likely that Trump will be impeached and removed from office before serving his first full term. That’s down from a high of 29% when Rasmussen Reports first asked this question in late December 2017 and marks a new low.”
And Trump is still in the driver’s seat when it comes to reelection in November, according to the report.
“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 46% of likely U.S. voters believe the president will be reelected, marking little statistical change from the 44% who felt that way in March of last year and the 45% who predicted reelection this past November. Thirty-three percent (33%) think it’s more likely the Democratic nominee will defeat Trump, a finding that has ranged from 26% to 33% in previous surveys,” according to the analysis.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--World distrusts Trump and is mad over Iran: Pew

Although it ’ s not likely that he cares much , the world has a “ low ” opinion of President Trump , driven in part by people 's disagreement with his decision to withdraw from the Obama-era “ deal ” with Iran , according to a new survey .
Of the world ’ s top leaders , Pew Research Center found that only Chinese President Xi Jinping ranks lower than Trump when survey takers were asked if they have confidence that those leaders would do the right thing in world affairs .
Some 29 % have confidence in Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared with 28 % for Jinping and 33 % for Russian President Vladimir Putin , according to Pew .
The 32-nation survey was conducted before the U.S. drone strike in Baghdad that killed Iran ’ s military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
But it did find little support for Trump ’ s decision to pull out of former President Barack Obama ’ s cash and nuclear deal with Iran , with 29 % approving and 52 % disapproving .
Western European nations are especially down on the president , though those in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the least confidence , despite that nation ’ s move to cooperate with the administration on immigration issues .
“ As has been the case throughout his presidency , U.S. President Donald Trump receives largely negative reviews from publics around the world .
Across 32 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center , a median of 64 % say they do not have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs , while just 29 % express confidence in the American leader , ” the polling outfit wrote .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Europe : Roughly three-in-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany , Sweden , France , Spain and the Netherlands .
He also gets especially poor reviews in Mexico , where 89 % do not have confidence in him , ” Pew added .
But it ’ s not universal .
Those surveyed in African nations and Israel are much higher on Trump .
In Israel , 71 % have confidence in him .
Pew also said that countries with “ right-wing ” parties also harbor support for Trump .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world still has confidence in the United States .

Although it’s not likely that he cares much, the world has a “low” opinion of President Trump, driven in part by people's disagreement with his decision to withdraw from the Obama-era “deal” with Iran, according to a new survey.
Of the world’s top leaders, Pew Research Center found that only Chinese President Xi Jinping ranks lower than Trump when survey takers were asked if they have confidence that those leaders would do the right thing in world affairs.
Some 29% have confidence in Trump’s handling of world affairs, compared with 28% for Jinping and 33% for Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Pew.
The 32-nation survey was conducted before the U.S. drone strike in Baghdad that killed Iran’s military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani. But it did find little support for Trump’s decision to pull out of former President Barack Obama’s cash and nuclear deal with Iran, with 29% approving and 52% disapproving.
Western European nations are especially down on the president, though those in the east are less critical. And Mexicans have the least confidence, despite that nation’s move to cooperate with the administration on immigration issues.
“As has been the case throughout his presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump receives largely negative reviews from publics around the world. Across 32 countries surveyed by Pew Research Center, a median of 64% say they do not have confidence in Trump to do the right thing in world affairs, while just 29% express confidence in the American leader,” the polling outfit wrote.
“Anti-Trump sentiments are especially common in Western Europe: Roughly three-in-four or more lack confidence in Trump in Germany, Sweden, France, Spain and the Netherlands. He also gets especially poor reviews in Mexico, where 89% do not have confidence in him,” Pew added.
But it’s not universal. Those surveyed in African nations and Israel are much higher on Trump. In Israel, 71% have confidence in him. Pew also said that countries with “right-wing” parties also harbor support for Trump.
What’s more, the survey found that the world still has confidence in the United States.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump’s new constituency: Ex-cons

Trump’s new constituency: Ex-cons

First , President Trump pushed for cutting sentences on nonviolent criminals .
Then , the White House put its stamp of approval on letting former jailbirds get a shot at federal jobs through the just-signed Fair Chance Act .
As a result , Trump has a new MAGA constituency : ex-cons .
“ Many of us who have been sentenced to decades in prison for nonviolent crimes were praying for someone to come into government with the commitment and courage to finally get this done , and President Trump and his administration responded , ” said Matthew Charles , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s First Step Act .
“ Now , with the passage of the Fair Chance Act , those Americans can take the next step in their reintegration into society by gaining access to the federal job market .
With a paycheck in their pocket , these formerly incarcerated individuals like myself reduce their chances of ending up back behind bars , ” he told Secrets .
The legislation , part of the recently approved defense authorization bill , ended the federal jobs ban for some 70 million Americans ( 1 in 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` President Trump and leaders on both sides of the aisle know their continued support for criminal justice reform makes for sound policy and smart politics , ” said Holly Harris , executive director of the Justice Action Network .
She added , “ Frankly , it ’ s great to see President Trump and all Democratic challengers compete for who has done the most to make our justice system fairer and more effective . ''
And politically , it ’ s a potential winner , she added .
“ Surveys across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pennsylvania and Ohio , show these reforms poll out the roof with voters of all backgrounds , and frankly it ’ s great to see President Trump and all Democratic challengers compete for who has done the most to make our justice system fairer and more effective , ” she said .
Some 35 states have already begun implementing policies that mirror the Fair Chance Act , including Kentucky , Indiana , Louisiana , Massachusetts , New York , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .

First, President Trump pushed for cutting sentences on nonviolent criminals. Then, the White House put its stamp of approval on letting former jailbirds get a shot at federal jobs through the just-signed Fair Chance Act.
As a result, Trump has a new MAGA constituency: ex-cons.
“Many of us who have been sentenced to decades in prison for nonviolent crimes were praying for someone to come into government with the commitment and courage to finally get this done, and President Trump and his administration responded,” said Matthew Charles, one of the first convicts freed under Trump’s First Step Act.
“Now, with the passage of the Fair Chance Act, those Americans can take the next step in their reintegration into society by gaining access to the federal job market. With a paycheck in their pocket, these formerly incarcerated individuals like myself reduce their chances of ending up back behind bars,” he told Secrets.
The legislation, part of the recently approved defense authorization bill, ended the federal jobs ban for some 70 million Americans (1 in 3 adults) with some criminal background.
"President Trump and leaders on both sides of the aisle know their continued support for criminal justice reform makes for sound policy and smart politics,” said Holly Harris, executive director of the Justice Action Network. She added, “Frankly, it’s great to see President Trump and all Democratic challengers compete for who has done the most to make our justice system fairer and more effective."
And politically, it’s a potential winner, she added. “Surveys across the country, especially in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, show these reforms poll out the roof with voters of all backgrounds, and frankly it’s great to see President Trump and all Democratic challengers compete for who has done the most to make our justice system fairer and more effective,” she said.
Some 35 states have already begun implementing policies that mirror the Fair Chance Act, including Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--'Send them over': Dianne Feinstein tells Pelosi to end delay over articles of impeachment

Sen. Dianne Feinstein broke ranks with fellow San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi when she urged the House speaker to end her blockade of the Senate trial to adjudicate impeachment charges against President Trump .
Since House Democrats approved two articles of impeachment three weeks ago , Pelosi , 79 , coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York , has been sitting on the documents in a bid to pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to agree to more favorable terms for the trial .
But Senate Democrats are beginning to lose their patience with Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 86 , saying bluntly that the time had come for Pelosi to transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate makes it highly likely that her fellow Californian will do so .
`` If we 're going to do it , she should send them over , '' Feinstein said , according to a tweet posted by Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News .
`` I do n't see what good delay does . ''
Just 24 hours earlier , McConnell revealed that he had at least 51 Republican votes for a resolution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is very similar to the resolution adopted for the 1999 impeachment of President Bill Clinton .
Republicans are not budging on Democratic demands , specifically their call for key administration officials to testify at trial .
However , McConnell said Republicans would follow existing Senate rules and would wait for receipt of the articles before pursuing any trial action .
Pelosi , at least for now , has said she will continue to sit on the documents pending more information from McConnell regarding trial procedure .

Sen. Dianne Feinstein broke ranks with fellow San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi when she urged the House speaker to end her blockade of the Senate trial to adjudicate impeachment charges against President Trump.
Since House Democrats approved two articles of impeachment three weeks ago, Pelosi, 79, coordinating with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, has been sitting on the documents in a bid to pressure Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to agree to more favorable terms for the trial.
But Senate Democrats are beginning to lose their patience with Pelosi's maneuver. The intervention of Feinstein, 86, saying bluntly that the time had come for Pelosi to transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate makes it highly likely that her fellow Californian will do so.
"If we're going to do it, she should send them over," Feinstein said, according to a tweet posted by Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News. "I don't see what good delay does."
Just 24 hours earlier, McConnell revealed that he had at least 51 Republican votes for a resolution that would lay out terms for a trial that is very similar to the resolution adopted for the 1999 impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Republicans are not budging on Democratic demands, specifically their call for key administration officials to testify at trial. However, McConnell said Republicans would follow existing Senate rules and would wait for receipt of the articles before pursuing any trial action.
Pelosi, at least for now, has said she will continue to sit on the documents pending more information from McConnell regarding trial procedure.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Why President Trump would almost certainly beat Bernie Sanders

I would say Bernie Sanders can ’ t beat President Trump in 2020 .
But seeing as how Trump has already proved anything is possible in politics , let ’ s just say it ’ s very unlikely .
Others disagree .
Vox ’ s Matt Yglesias argued on Wednesday that Sanders can unify the Democratic Party and beat Trump .
It 's a debate worthy of consideration .
Were Elizabeth Warren 's progressive supporters to unify behind Sanders , he would be the easy front-runner for the Democratic mantle .
But let ’ s imagine we ’ re now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secured the delegates he needs for the nomination .
Suddenly , the campaign objective shifts from appealing to the very small number of Democratic loyalists who vote in primaries to securing independents and disaffected Republicans .
First issue : How does Sanders sell his plans to increase spending by tens of trillions of dollars a year ?
Sanders says he 'll just get the rich to pay more .
But that claim belies the fact that America 's income tax system is already one of the most progressive .
And Sanders necessarily assumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing their affairs in the same way even if they face newly punitive tax rates on their incomes and estates .
In the end , math means Sanders will either have to abandon the majority of his spending commitments or raise taxes sharply on the middle class .
Thus follow the obvious Trump campaign ads framing Sanders as the Titanic of fiscal credibility .
This concern bears even more relevance if the economy remains as strong as it is at present .
After all , that economic confidence will give Trump a reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not like everything I do , or most of what I say , but just look at the economy .
You really want to trust that to a socialist ? ''
A strong economy would also allow Trump to portray Sanders pledge to hike corporate taxes as a recipe for exporting American jobs abroad .
Social policy poses other challenges for Sanders .
Although he is adored on the Left for his longstanding credibility as an ardent voice in favor of socialized medicine , I suspect this would hurt rather than help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , socialized medicine can be provided at a lower per capita cost than private healthcare .
So in effect , Americans would save money in a socialized medical system — at least in the beginning .
But American aversion to `` Medicare for all '' is rooted in another substantive truth .
Namely , the very well-justified suspicion that a government-run healthcare system means longer waits for less personalized care of substantially lower quality , along with far less innovation in new treatments .
And let ’ s see how Sanders fares telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to securing Trump ’ s 2016 election — that he ’ s going to shred their health plans .
Well , for one , Sanders 's open desire to destroy the fossil fuel industry is also unlikely to play well with voters in energy-economy states or with voters across the nation who benefit from American energy independence and low energy prices .
Sanders would also have to grapple with voter opinions on his revolutionary foreign policy .
His Russia policy makes Trump look like Vladimir Putin ’ s biggest critic .
The senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically and pursue diplomatic avenues of counterterrorism .
Yglesias references polls which appear to support Sanders here , but a second look indicates most voters want a more robust counterterrorism policy than the Democrat offers .
These things might sound good to some Democrats , but not all .
Nor are they likely to find much favor with centrists .
The simple truth , as measured by a relative and longstanding peace from global war , by ever more goods at ever more affordable prices , is that the U.S.-led liberal international order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global citizens much safer , wealthier , and better .
To challenge that premise is a dangerous gambit .
Note the example of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain , who shares Sanders ’ s worldview .
His foreign policy views helped drive voters into the arms of the Conservative Party , securing Prime Minister Boris Johnson a nearly unprecedented electoral victory last month .
As I say , perhaps I ’ m wrong .
Perhaps Sanders would capture the public imagination as the Democratic heir to Trump ’ s 2016 populism .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I suspect Sanders ’ s nomination would secure a Trump landslide .
Not because voters love Trump , but because the more voters learned about Sanders ’ s socialism , the more they 'd oppose him .

I would say Bernie Sanders can’t beat President Trump in 2020. But seeing as how Trump has already proved anything is possible in politics, let’s just say it’s very unlikely.
Others disagree. Vox’s Matt Yglesias argued on Wednesday that Sanders can unify the Democratic Party and beat Trump. It's a debate worthy of consideration. Were Elizabeth Warren's progressive supporters to unify behind Sanders, he would be the easy front-runner for the Democratic mantle.
But let’s imagine we’re now in the summer and Sanders has just secured the delegates he needs for the nomination. Suddenly, the campaign objective shifts from appealing to the very small number of Democratic loyalists who vote in primaries to securing independents and disaffected Republicans.
First issue: How does Sanders sell his plans to increase spending by tens of trillions of dollars a year? Sanders says he'll just get the rich to pay more. But that claim belies the fact that America's income tax system is already one of the most progressive. And Sanders necessarily assumes that the rich will keep working and managing their affairs in the same way even if they face newly punitive tax rates on their incomes and estates. In the end, math means Sanders will either have to abandon the majority of his spending commitments or raise taxes sharply on the middle class. Thus follow the obvious Trump campaign ads framing Sanders as the Titanic of fiscal credibility.
This concern bears even more relevance if the economy remains as strong as it is at present. After all, that economic confidence will give Trump a reelection narrative along the lines of "you might not like everything I do, or most of what I say, but just look at the economy. You really want to trust that to a socialist?" A strong economy would also allow Trump to portray Sanders pledge to hike corporate taxes as a recipe for exporting American jobs abroad.
Social policy poses other challenges for Sanders. Although he is adored on the Left for his longstanding credibility as an ardent voice in favor of socialized medicine, I suspect this would hurt rather than help him in a general election. Yes, socialized medicine can be provided at a lower per capita cost than private healthcare. So in effect, Americans would save money in a socialized medical system — at least in the beginning.
But American aversion to "Medicare for all" is rooted in another substantive truth. Namely, the very well-justified suspicion that a government-run healthcare system means longer waits for less personalized care of substantially lower quality, along with far less innovation in new treatments. And let’s see how Sanders fares telling centrist union workers — those so instrumental to securing Trump’s 2016 election — that he’s going to shred their health plans.
Want more?
Well, for one, Sanders's open desire to destroy the fossil fuel industry is also unlikely to play well with voters in energy-economy states or with voters across the nation who benefit from American energy independence and low energy prices.
Sanders would also have to grapple with voter opinions on his revolutionary foreign policy. His Russia policy makes Trump look like Vladimir Putin’s biggest critic. The senator from Vermont wants to decrease defense spending dramatically and pursue diplomatic avenues of counterterrorism.
Yglesias references polls which appear to support Sanders here, but a second look indicates most voters want a more robust counterterrorism policy than the Democrat offers.
These things might sound good to some Democrats, but not all. Nor are they likely to find much favor with centrists. The simple truth, as measured by a relative and longstanding peace from global war, by ever more goods at ever more affordable prices, is that the U.S.-led liberal international order has made American lives and those of global citizens much safer, wealthier, and better. To challenge that premise is a dangerous gambit.
Note the example of Jeremy Corbyn in Britain, who shares Sanders’s worldview. His foreign policy views helped drive voters into the arms of the Conservative Party, securing Prime Minister Boris Johnson a nearly unprecedented electoral victory last month.
As I say, perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps Sanders would capture the public imagination as the Democratic heir to Trump’s 2016 populism. But I suspect not. In the end, I suspect Sanders’s nomination would secure a Trump landslide. Not because voters love Trump, but because the more voters learned about Sanders’s socialism, the more they'd oppose him.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--'I get broad support': Biden rejects AOC 'too big of a tent' party complaint

Joe Biden brushed off Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 's complaint that the U.S. political system places the ideological rivals in the same political party .
`` Differences in the party have always existed , '' Biden , 77 , said in an NBC News interview on Tuesday .
He mentioned that George McGovern , a left-wing South Dakota senator who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972 , lost badly to President Richard Nixon the same year Biden was first elected to the Senate .
`` He only won about 34 % of my state when I ran with him , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support from the African American community , the black and brown community , the working-class , middle-class folks , '' Biden added , `` a few of whom voted for Trump . ''
Earlier this week , Ocasio-Cortez , a first-term House member from New York who has endorsed socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential race , expressed frustration that the U.S. political system puts her on the same team as moderates like Biden .
`` Democrats can be too big of a tent , '' said Ocasio-Cortez , 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Congressional Progressive Caucus allows `` anybody who the cat dragged in to call themselves a progressive . ''
When asked about Biden , Ocasio-Cortez groaned .
`` In any other country , Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party , but in America , we are , '' she said .
After facing criticism for her comments , Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew before a House impeachment vote .
“ People are acting like a Dem didn ’ t just join the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' she tweeted Tuesday .
`` Other safe Dems actually fundraise for Republicans .
That ’ s not ‘ moderate .
’ ”

Joe Biden brushed off Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's complaint that the U.S. political system places the ideological rivals in the same political party.
"Differences in the party have always existed," Biden, 77, said in an NBC News interview on Tuesday. He mentioned that George McGovern, a left-wing South Dakota senator who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, lost badly to President Richard Nixon the same year Biden was first elected to the Senate. "He only won about 34% of my state when I ran with him," Biden said.
"I get broad support from the African American community, the black and brown community, the working-class, middle-class folks," Biden added, "a few of whom voted for Trump."
Earlier this week, Ocasio-Cortez, a first-term House member from New York who has endorsed socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential race, expressed frustration that the U.S. political system puts her on the same team as moderates like Biden.
"Democrats can be too big of a tent," said Ocasio-Cortez, 30, in an interview Monday, lamenting that the Congressional Progressive Caucus allows "anybody who the cat dragged in to call themselves a progressive."
When asked about Biden, Ocasio-Cortez groaned. "In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party, but in America, we are," she said.
After facing criticism for her comments, Ocasio-Cortez pointed out that New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew switched to the Republican Party before a House impeachment vote.
“People are acting like a Dem didn’t just join the GOP a few [weeks] ago," she tweeted Tuesday. "Other safe Dems actually fundraise for Republicans. That’s not ‘moderate.’”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Mike Lee says Iran briefers 'dismissive' on Trump war powers

A Republican senator blamed a `` dismissive attitude '' toward Congress for fueling his outburst after a classified briefing on Iran 's missile attacks on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops .
Mike Lee , a nine-year senator from Utah , told Fox News that he called the briefing `` insulting and demeaning '' because of how the top Trump administration officials refused to answer questions about needing Congress to authorize the use of military force .
`` We repeatedly asked them : Under what circumstances you would need to come back to us to get authority from Congress before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
`` For example , what if you decided you wanted to take out the supreme leader ?
Would you , in that circumstance , need to come back to Congress for a declaration of war and authorization for the use of military force ? ''
Lee said , `` Astoundingly , '' the briefers , including Defense Secretary Mark Esper , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , CIA Director Gina Haspel , and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley , would not directly answer the question .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Lee , who made headlines earlier in the day when he and fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul raged about the briefing in front of cameras .
Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq holding U.S. troops Tuesday night , claiming the attacks were in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al Muhandis in Baghdad last week .
President Trump signaled on Wednesday that he would not order fresh military action against Iran but warned that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he promised new sanctions on Tehran .
Still , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House will vote Thursday on a resolution limiting Trump 's military action with Iran , as Democrats believe his decision to kill Soleimani was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination .
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham , a more hawkish ally of Trump , said Lee and Paul were `` empowering the enemy '' by playing a `` game with the War Powers Act . ''
Asked to respond , Lee said , `` That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Look , I love Lindsey Graham .
He 's a fantastic guy .
We work closely together on a lot of issues .
He 's dead wrong in so far as he is suggesting that this is only a game , '' he added .

A Republican senator blamed a "dismissive attitude" toward Congress for fueling his outburst after a classified briefing on Iran's missile attacks on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops.
Mike Lee, a nine-year senator from Utah, told Fox News that he called the briefing "insulting and demeaning" because of how the top Trump administration officials refused to answer questions about needing Congress to authorize the use of military force.
"We repeatedly asked them: Under what circumstances you would need to come back to us to get authority from Congress before taking action against Iran," Lee said. "For example, what if you decided you wanted to take out the supreme leader? Would you, in that circumstance, need to come back to Congress for a declaration of war and authorization for the use of military force?"
Lee said, "Astoundingly," the briefers, including Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, would not directly answer the question.
"I find that simply unacceptable," said Lee, who made headlines earlier in the day when he and fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul raged about the briefing in front of cameras.
Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq holding U.S. troops Tuesday night, claiming the attacks were in retaliation for the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al Muhandis in Baghdad last week.
President Trump signaled on Wednesday that he would not order fresh military action against Iran but warned that the United States would not tolerate Iranian aggression, and he promised new sanctions on Tehran.
Still, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House will vote Thursday on a resolution limiting Trump's military action with Iran, as Democrats believe his decision to kill Soleimani was unjustified and some have labeled an assassination.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a more hawkish ally of Trump, said Lee and Paul were "empowering the enemy" by playing a "game with the War Powers Act."
Asked to respond, Lee said, "That is fundamentally antithetical to the Constitution."
"Look, I love Lindsey Graham. He's a fantastic guy. We work closely together on a lot of issues. He's dead wrong in so far as he is suggesting that this is only a game," he added.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-09--Mike Lee and Rand Paul have cause for frustration

The new War Powers Resolution just gained two Republican votes , and the Trump administration has itself to blame .
Sens .
Mike Lee of Utah , and Rand Paul of Kentucky both signaled their support for the resolution , which would force Trump to seek congressional authorization if hostilities toward Iran continue past 30 days , after leaving a briefing with administration officials .
The briefing was “ the worst ” Lee said he ’ s seen , “ at least on a military issue.
” The crux of Lee ’ s complaint has to do with the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Questioning Trump ’ s constitutional authority will only “ embolden ” Iran , officials told the senators , according to Lee .
`` I find this insulting and demeaning ... to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold .
I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States , ” he said .
“ After today , every time they pull a stunt like this , I ’ m willing to consider and introduce any and every war powers act resolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustration is understandable and even warranted if the administration tried to scold Republicans into silence .
The situation in Iran is complex , and so are the opinions on it — especially within the GOP , which houses pro-interventionists such as Lindsey Graham and strict libertarians such as Paul .
That ’ s why debate is necessary .
There can not be a concise , agreed-upon strategy until both sides are heard , and the administration ’ s attempt to force a uniform opinion has clearly had the opposite effect .
Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate ’ s war powers resolution .
It ’ s unclear how many other Republicans support it , but Lee ’ s frustration could ripple through the rest of the party .
And that wouldn ’ t necessarily be a bad thing .
The executive branch has operated abroad unchecked for far too long .
It would behoove Congress to limit its influence .
The substance of the resolution isn ’ t a problem , but the reason it was introduced amounts to nothing more than political theater .
Democrats have accused Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s authority by ordering the killing of terrorist and Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
This accusation is not true , as my colleague Tom Rogan explains here .
Democrats would like to think this is a Trump problem .
It is n't .
It ’ s an institutional problem , one that can be traced back to former Presidents Barack Obama , George W. Bush , and just about every president before them .
Congress is partially responsible .
The legislature has been gradually giving its powers to the executive branch for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in office does it suddenly want them back .
With that said , we should take checks and balances anywhere we can get them .
The motivations might be partisan , but the result would be a restoration of constitutional authority .
So , Lee is right to be upset .
The other Republicans should be , too .

The new War Powers Resolution just gained two Republican votes, and the Trump administration has itself to blame.
Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, and Rand Paul of Kentucky both signaled their support for the resolution, which would force Trump to seek congressional authorization if hostilities toward Iran continue past 30 days, after leaving a briefing with administration officials. The briefing was “the worst” Lee said he’s seen, “at least on a military issue.”
The crux of Lee’s complaint has to do with the administration’s attempt to stifle debate. Questioning Trump’s constitutional authority will only “embolden” Iran, officials told the senators, according to Lee. "I find this insulting and demeaning ... to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold. I find it insulting and demeaning to the Constitution of the United States,” he said.
.@SenMikeLee
: "It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government…to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. It's un-American. It's unconstitutional and it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/fVSE6b3EM0 — CSPAN (@cspan) January 8, 2020
“After today, every time they pull a stunt like this, I’m willing to consider and introduce any and every war powers act resolution,” Lee added.
Lee’s frustration is understandable and even warranted if the administration tried to scold Republicans into silence. The situation in Iran is complex, and so are the opinions on it — especially within the GOP, which houses pro-interventionists such as Lindsey Graham and strict libertarians such as Paul. That’s why debate is necessary. There cannot be a concise, agreed-upon strategy until both sides are heard, and the administration’s attempt to force a uniform opinion has clearly had the opposite effect.
Now, Lee and Paul will vote for the Senate’s war powers resolution. It’s unclear how many other Republicans support it, but Lee’s frustration could ripple through the rest of the party. And that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. The executive branch has operated abroad unchecked for far too long. It would behoove Congress to limit its influence.
The substance of the resolution isn’t a problem, but the reason it was introduced amounts to nothing more than political theater. Democrats have accused Trump of abusing his power and subverting Congress’s authority by ordering the killing of terrorist and Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. This accusation is not true, as my colleague Tom Rogan explains here.
Democrats would like to think this is a Trump problem. It isn't. It’s an institutional problem, one that can be traced back to former Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and just about every president before them. Congress is partially responsible. The legislature has been gradually giving its powers to the executive branch for decades, and only now that Trump is in office does it suddenly want them back.
With that said, we should take checks and balances anywhere we can get them. The motivations might be partisan, but the result would be a restoration of constitutional authority. So, Lee is right to be upset. The other Republicans should be, too.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump adds new constituency with prison reform