thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--‘I will not stand quietly by’: Tulsi Gabbard addresses lawsuit against Hillary Clinton

CHARLESTOWN , New Hampshire — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard addressed her $ 50 million defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton by warning she would not stand for incorrect representations of her character .
The remarks came in response to an attendee at a campaign town hall in Charlestown , New Hampshire , who asked the Hawaii Democrat why the former secretary of state called her a “ Russian asset.
” Gabbard , 38 , responded that he would have to ask Clinton .
“ And , look , I will not stand quietly by as Hillary Clinton or anyone else tries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedication to serving our country , ” Gabbard said in her first public comments about the case since news of it broke .
“ And I 've filed a lawsuit against her for that defamation , ” she added .
Her answer earned applause from the crowd of roughly 50 people in the crowd .
Gabbard declined to elaborate on any more details of the complaint , directing reporters to the details of the lawsuit .
`` I love our country , I ’ ve dedicated my life in service of protecting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , put my life on the line for our country with my 17 years , almost 17 years of service as a solider , the Army National Guard , and served my country in Congress now for seven-going-on-eight years , '' Gabbard said .
`` The lawsuit that I filed is to hold her accountable for those defamatory statements that she made.
” On Wednesday , Gabbard filed a complaint against Clinton for defamation , claiming that Clinton 's 2019 comments harmed her political ambitions .
During a podcast in October , Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and that the Kremlin was pushing her presidential bid to ensure President Trump 's reelection .
“ They are also going to do third party again , and I ’ m not making any predictions , but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate , ” Clinton said , before calling 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein a `` Russian asset , '' as well .
Gabbard swiftly responded to Clinton by calling her “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption , and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.
” Facing backlash , Clinton claimed she meant the GOP was `` grooming Tulsi , not Russia . ''
Unsatisfied with the explanation , Gabbard 's attorneys demanded that Clinton retract her statements in a November letter .
Despite her aggressive push in New Hampshire , Gabbard still remains a distant sixth place in the state .
A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows her with 4.5 % support .

CHARLESTOWN, New Hampshire — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard addressed her $50 million defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton by warning she would not stand for incorrect representations of her character.
The remarks came in response to an attendee at a campaign town hall in Charlestown, New Hampshire, who asked the Hawaii Democrat why the former secretary of state called her a “Russian asset.” Gabbard, 38, responded that he would have to ask Clinton.
“And, look, I will not stand quietly by as Hillary Clinton or anyone else tries to smear my character and my loyalty and dedication to serving our country,” Gabbard said in her first public comments about the case since news of it broke. “And I've filed a lawsuit against her for that defamation,” she added. Her answer earned applause from the crowd of roughly 50 people in the crowd.
Gabbard declined to elaborate on any more details of the complaint, directing reporters to the details of the lawsuit.
"I love our country, I’ve dedicated my life in service of protecting the safety and security of the American people, put my life on the line for our country with my 17 years, almost 17 years of service as a solider, the Army National Guard, and served my country in Congress now for seven-going-on-eight years," Gabbard said. "The lawsuit that I filed is to hold her accountable for those defamatory statements that she made.”
On Wednesday, Gabbard filed a complaint against Clinton for defamation, claiming that Clinton's 2019 comments harmed her political ambitions. During a podcast in October, Clinton claimed Gabbard was a "Russian asset" and that the Kremlin was pushing her presidential bid to ensure President Trump's reelection.
“They are also going to do third party again, and I’m not making any predictions, but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” Clinton said, before calling 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein a "Russian asset," as well.
Gabbard swiftly responded to Clinton by calling her “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long.”
Facing backlash, Clinton claimed she meant the GOP was "grooming Tulsi, not Russia." Unsatisfied with the explanation, Gabbard's attorneys demanded that Clinton retract her statements in a November letter.
Despite her aggressive push in New Hampshire, Gabbard still remains a distant sixth place in the state. A RealClearPolitics average of polls shows her with 4.5% support.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Biden says he wants 'no part' of a Senate testimony deal

IOWA CITY , Iowa — Former Vice President Joe Biden said during a campaign town hall he wanted `` no part '' of a deal between Democratic and Republican lawmakers .
“ The reason I would not make the deal , the bottom line is — this is a constitutional issue , ” Biden said Wednesday afternoon in Osage , Iowa .
After being asked whether he would offer testimony during the impeachment trial if it meant White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or former national security adviser John Bolton would also receive subpoenas , Biden replied , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it into a farce or political theater .
I want no part of that.
” Biden then defended his son , Hunter Biden , who has been accused of improperly serving on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings .
“ No one has suggested my son did anything wrong , ” Biden said .
“ There ’ s nobody that ’ s indicated there ’ s a single solitary thing he did that was inappropriate or wrong other than the appearance .
It looked bad that he was there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ignore a Senate subpoena , a position he would take several times before walking it back .
A number of House and Senate Republicans have long said testimony from both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden would damage the Democrats ' case against the president .
`` I want to clarify something I said yesterday .
In my 40 years in public life , I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP , my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Dec. 28 .
`` But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial .
That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate : this impeachment is about Trump ’ s conduct , not mine . ''
Last week , Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a `` witness reciprocity '' plan to party leadership that would trade a subpoena for Biden with subpoenas for Bolton and Mulvaney .
At the time , Senate Majority Leader Mitch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` We ’ ll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial , and I think it ’ s certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses if they wanted to hear from them , ” he said .
Several Senate Democrats have privately mulled that they are considering such a trade , saying Bolton 's and Mulvaney 's testimonies are crucial to making their case against Trump .

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Former Vice President Joe Biden said during a campaign town hall he wanted "no part" of a deal between Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
“The reason I would not make the deal, the bottom line is — this is a constitutional issue,” Biden said Wednesday afternoon in Osage, Iowa. After being asked whether he would offer testimony during the impeachment trial if it meant White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney or former national security adviser John Bolton would also receive subpoenas, Biden replied, “We’re not going to turn it into a farce or political theater. I want no part of that.”
Biden then defended his son, Hunter Biden, who has been accused of improperly serving on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.
“No one has suggested my son did anything wrong,” Biden said. “There’s nobody that’s indicated there’s a single solitary thing he did that was inappropriate or wrong other than the appearance. It looked bad that he was there."
In December, Biden said he would ignore a Senate subpoena, a position he would take several times before walking it back. A number of House and Senate Republicans have long said testimony from both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden would damage the Democrats' case against the president.
"I want to clarify something I said yesterday. In my 40 years in public life, I have always complied with a lawful order and in my eight years as VP, my office — unlike Donald Trump and Mike Pence — cooperated with legitimate congressional oversight requests," Biden tweeted on Dec. 28. "But I am just not going to pretend that there is any legal basis for Republican subpoenas for my testimony in the impeachment trial. That is the point I was making yesterday and I reiterate: this impeachment is about Trump’s conduct, not mine."
Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a "witness reciprocity" plan to party leadership that would trade a subpoena for Biden with subpoenas for Bolton and Mulvaney. At the time, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed open to the idea.
"We’ll be dealing with the witness issue at the appropriate time into the trial, and I think it’s certainly appropriate to point out that both sides would want to call witnesses if they wanted to hear from them,” he said.
Several Senate Democrats have privately mulled that they are considering such a trade, saying Bolton's and Mulvaney's testimonies are crucial to making their case against Trump.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-22--Deval Patrick says other 2020 candidates 'spent months and millions' but have 'not locked it down'

NASHUA , New Hampshire — Deval Patrick pointed to the failure of Democratic presidential candidates currently leading in the polls to shore up early voting states as justification for his candidacy .
At a campaign stop at a Unitarian Universalist church , a voter sitting in a semicircle in a group of about 20 asked the former Massachusetts governor , 63 , a pointed question : `` How are you going to sell yourself to the rest of the country ? ''
she said , when other people say , `` Who 's Deval Patrick ?
He 's too late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your mind ? ''
Patrick said .
`` No , '' she said .
`` Then I 'm not too late for you , '' he said .
Patrick announced his candidacy in November , long after others had been campaigning in early states and some had dropped out .
He delayed the announcement in part due to his wife being diagnosed with cancer but also entered the crowded field at a time when Democratic insiders doubted former Vice President Joe Biden 's strength as a candidate .
He has failed to break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patrick is adamant that there is still an opening for him .
`` I am skeptical of polls , anyway .
If the polls have been true , I would never been governor , '' he said .
`` We 're not asking the question , 'How come these other really capable candidates who 've spent months and millions have not locked it down ? '
So , if you 're not asking that question of them , do n't ask it of me , '' he said , jovially , to laughs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight race in Iowa and New Hampshire among Biden , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
Patrick 's `` exceptional '' message on policy and faith resonated with retired Merrimack resident Paula Super , 76 .
`` He deals with problems as a governor of Massachusetts ; his experience right there he was fabulous , '' she said .
But poll after poll shows that likely Democratic primary voters would rather have a candidate who can beat President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they agree with ideologically .
Unless Patrick gains traction in the race , his warm reception may be moot .
`` I 'm not gon na throw away a vote on somebody just because I like him , '' Super said , adding that she is also interested in Warren .
`` I 'm going to vote for the person that we think can beat Donald Trump .
If he 's near there , I will do it . ''

NASHUA, New Hampshire — Deval Patrick pointed to the failure of Democratic presidential candidates currently leading in the polls to shore up early voting states as justification for his candidacy.
At a campaign stop at a Unitarian Universalist church, a voter sitting in a semicircle in a group of about 20 asked the former Massachusetts governor, 63, a pointed question: "How are you going to sell yourself to the rest of the country?" she said, when other people say, "Who's Deval Patrick? He's too late."
"Have you made up your mind?" Patrick said.
"No," she said.
"Then I'm not too late for you," he said.
Patrick announced his candidacy in November, long after others had been campaigning in early states and some had dropped out. He delayed the announcement in part due to his wife being diagnosed with cancer but also entered the crowded field at a time when Democratic insiders doubted former Vice President Joe Biden's strength as a candidate.
He has failed to break 1% in recent polls. But Patrick is adamant that there is still an opening for him.
"I am skeptical of polls, anyway. If the polls have been true, I would never been governor," he said.
"We're not asking the question, 'How come these other really capable candidates who've spent months and millions have not locked it down?' So, if you're not asking that question of them, don't ask it of me," he said, jovially, to laughs in the room.
Polls show a tight race in Iowa and New Hampshire among Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Patrick's "exceptional" message on policy and faith resonated with retired Merrimack resident Paula Super, 76. "He deals with problems as a governor of Massachusetts; his experience right there he was fabulous," she said.
But poll after poll shows that likely Democratic primary voters would rather have a candidate who can beat President Trump in a general election than someone they agree with ideologically. Unless Patrick gains traction in the race, his warm reception may be moot.
"I'm not gonna throw away a vote on somebody just because I like him," Super said, adding that she is also interested in Warren. "I'm going to vote for the person that we think can beat Donald Trump. If he's near there, I will do it."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-22--Future relevance of Iowa caucuses in question

IOWA CITY , Iowa — Iowa 's self-prized first-in-the-nation nominating contest has for years caused seething and resentment among some Democrats .
Now a confluence of factors could put its post-2020 in question .
Several 2020 Democratic senators running for president are sidelined in Washington , D.C. , for President Trump 's impeachment trial .
While Sens .
Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota , Bernie Sanders of Vermont , and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are stuck sitting mute on the Senate floor , on the ground in Iowa , former Vice President Joe Biden , 77 , and former South Bend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 38 , largely have the run of the place to campaign .
Supporters of Klobuchar , 59 , Sanders , 78 , and Warren , 70 , are already saying the Feb. 3 caucus results should n't be given too much credence , particularly if their candidate does poorly due to limited campaigning in the state .
Those three candidates were all initially banking on a win or strong showing in the state to continue in the nomination fight .
Even before the Senate impeachment trial schedule became clear , the Iowa caucuses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Former 2020 Democrat Julian Castro was among the most prominent voices for change when he was in the race .
When running , Castro repeatedly claimed the current process was unfair for voters in a diverse party , because Iowa is 86 % white , and New Hampshire , with its primary on Feb. 11 , is 91 % white .
Castro , 45 , now a supporter of Warren , told reporters last week he spoke with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez about changing the primary process .
Castro said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that voters might see a different order of states in 2024 .
And the late-starting candidacy of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg provides a glimpse of what future Democratic primary processes may look like with Iowa taking on a lessened role .
The financial information and news company founder , worth more than $ 50 billion , is skipping Iowa altogether , along with the New Hampshire primary , Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22 , and South Carolina primary on Feb. 29 .
Bloomberg is instead banking on March 3 Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where television advertising still plays an important role in winning votes .
That approach is paying at least modest dividends .
Bloomberg , 77 , now polls at fourth place nationally in some surveys , though he joined the race two months ago , nearly a year after many of his rivals .
Members of his campaign have repeatedly claimed that privileging Iowa in the primary makes little sense and has gone as far as calling the caucuses a waste of resources .
The Iowa gripes are nothing new .
They go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 1972 .
That election cycle was the first under a new Democratic nominating system meant to take nominating power away from big-city political bosses and elected officials and disperse it to voters in caucuses and primaries .
New York Times writer Robert Bendiner lamented in 1972 about the `` haphazard , unfair and wildly illogical '' primary process that `` have no more relevance to the will of the people than the choice of President by a combination of poker , chess and roulette . ''

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Iowa's self-prized first-in-the-nation nominating contest has for years caused seething and resentment among some Democrats. Now a confluence of factors could put its post-2020 in question.
Several 2020 Democratic senators running for president are sidelined in Washington, D.C., for President Trump's impeachment trial. While Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are stuck sitting mute on the Senate floor, on the ground in Iowa, former Vice President Joe Biden, 77, and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, 38, largely have the run of the place to campaign.
Supporters of Klobuchar, 59, Sanders, 78, and Warren, 70, are already saying the Feb. 3 caucus results shouldn't be given too much credence, particularly if their candidate does poorly due to limited campaigning in the state. Those three candidates were all initially banking on a win or strong showing in the state to continue in the nomination fight.
Even before the Senate impeachment trial schedule became clear, the Iowa caucuses were under fire from some Democratic candidates. Former 2020 Democrat Julian Castro was among the most prominent voices for change when he was in the race. When running, Castro repeatedly claimed the current process was unfair for voters in a diverse party, because Iowa is 86% white, and New Hampshire, with its primary on Feb. 11, is 91% white.
Castro, 45, now a supporter of Warren, told reporters last week he spoke with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez about changing the primary process. Castro said Perez seemed receptive to his arguments and that voters might see a different order of states in 2024.
And the late-starting candidacy of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg provides a glimpse of what future Democratic primary processes may look like with Iowa taking on a lessened role. The financial information and news company founder, worth more than $50 billion, is skipping Iowa altogether, along with the New Hampshire primary, Nevada caucuses on Feb. 22, and South Carolina primary on Feb. 29.
Bloomberg is instead banking on March 3 Super Tuesday states such as California and Texas, where television advertising still plays an important role in winning votes. That approach is paying at least modest dividends. Bloomberg, 77, now polls at fourth place nationally in some surveys, though he joined the race two months ago, nearly a year after many of his rivals.
Members of his campaign have repeatedly claimed that privileging Iowa in the primary makes little sense and has gone as far as calling the caucuses a waste of resources.
The Iowa gripes are nothing new. They go back to the first Iowa caucuses in February 1972. That election cycle was the first under a new Democratic nominating system meant to take nominating power away from big-city political bosses and elected officials and disperse it to voters in caucuses and primaries.
New York Times writer Robert Bendiner lamented in 1972 about the "haphazard, unfair and wildly illogical" primary process that "have no more relevance to the will of the people than the choice of President by a combination of poker, chess and roulette."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-22--Warren promises to fill half of her Cabinet with women and nonbinary people

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren promised that , if she wins the 2020 presidential election , she will fill half of her Cabinet with women and nonbinary people .
In a Medium post entitled `` Restoring Integrity and Competence to Government After Trump , '' Warren , 70 , said her presidential administration would be committed to diverse racial and gender representation , providing a checklist of goals she intends to accomplish in office .
One such goal includes filling half of her Cabinet with either women or nonbinary individuals .
“ Our government officials can best serve the American public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country itself , '' she wrote .
“ I will build a Cabinet and senior leadership team that reflects the full diversity of America , including having at least 50 % of Cabinet positions filled by women and non-binary people . ''
Warren faced backlash from the co-hosts of ABC 's The View .
Meghan McCain , Whoopi Goldberg , and Joy Behar agreed that she was using the strategy of identity politics .
`` I know you guys hate when I say this , but I really don ’ t like identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative host on the show .
`` None of us like identity politics , '' Goldberg responded .
Sunny Hostin , a liberal host on the show , disagreed , adding that she likes identity politics .
But Goldberg fired back , `` This is how people say to you that you 're not smart enough to figure out who you want . ''
Warren 's promise echoed one she made during the PBS/Politico Democratic presidential primary debate in December , when she pledged to `` go to the Rose Garden once every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , of people of color , who have been killed in the past year . ''
Warren is not the only candidate to make such a promise .
In October 2019 , Pete Buttigieg also promised that at least half of his Cabinet would be filled with women .
`` Pete will nominate a gender- and racially-diverse Cabinet to ensure meaningful representation across federal agencies and throughout government , '' his campaign said .

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren promised that, if she wins the 2020 presidential election, she will fill half of her Cabinet with women and nonbinary people.
In a Medium post entitled "Restoring Integrity and Competence to Government After Trump," Warren, 70, said her presidential administration would be committed to diverse racial and gender representation, providing a checklist of goals she intends to accomplish in office. One such goal includes filling half of her Cabinet with either women or nonbinary individuals.
“Our government officials can best serve the American public when they reflect the diversity of the country itself," she wrote. “I will build a Cabinet and senior leadership team that reflects the full diversity of America, including having at least 50% of Cabinet positions filled by women and non-binary people."
Warren faced backlash from the co-hosts of ABC's The View. Meghan McCain, Whoopi Goldberg, and Joy Behar agreed that she was using the strategy of identity politics. "I know you guys hate when I say this, but I really don’t like identity politics," said McCain, the conservative host on the show. "None of us like identity politics," Goldberg responded. Sunny Hostin, a liberal host on the show, disagreed, adding that she likes identity politics. But Goldberg fired back, "This is how people say to you that you're not smart enough to figure out who you want."
Warren's promise echoed one she made during the PBS/Politico Democratic presidential primary debate in December, when she pledged to "go to the Rose Garden once every year to read the names of transgender women, of people of color, who have been killed in the past year."
Warren is not the only candidate to make such a promise. In October 2019, Pete Buttigieg also promised that at least half of his Cabinet would be filled with women.
"Pete will nominate a gender- and racially-diverse Cabinet to ensure meaningful representation across federal agencies and throughout government," his campaign said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-22--'Why, why, why, why, why?': Biden snaps at reporter

Joe Biden became visibly irate with CBS reporter Ed O'Keefe after the newsman asked the former vice president why he attacked Sen. Bernie Sanders this week .
`` Yesterday , you said you accepted Bernie 's apology .
Now , you 're attacking him , '' O'Keefe said .
`` Why are you doing that ?
Why was n't his apology enough , Mr. Vice President ?
Why attack Sanders ? ''
`` Why , why , why , why , why , why , why ? ''
Biden asked .
`` You 're getting nervous , man .
Calm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apologized for saying that I was corrupt .
He did n't say anything about whether or not I was telling the truth about Social Security . ''
Biden 's frustration comes as a CNN poll found Sanders leading the 2020 Democratic presidential field .
Biden had been leading the pack for much of the early primary season but has seen his front-runner status fade as supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren have drifted toward Sanders 's candidacy .
Biden , 77 , and his son , Hunter Biden , are at the center of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called for both to testify on benefits that the younger Biden may have received from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings while his father was vice president .
[ Read : Democratic pensioners fight it out as Sanders accuses Biden of slashing Social Security ]

Joe Biden became visibly irate with CBS reporter Ed O'Keefe after the newsman asked the former vice president why he attacked Sen. Bernie Sanders this week.
"Yesterday, you said you accepted Bernie's apology. Now, you're attacking him," O'Keefe said. "Why are you doing that? Why wasn't his apology enough, Mr. Vice President? Why attack Sanders?"
"Why, why, why, why, why, why, why?" Biden asked. "You're getting nervous, man. Calm down, it's okay. He apologized for saying that I was corrupt. He didn't say anything about whether or not I was telling the truth about Social Security."
Biden's frustration comes as a CNN poll found Sanders leading the 2020 Democratic presidential field. Biden had been leading the pack for much of the early primary season but has seen his front-runner status fade as supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren have drifted toward Sanders's candidacy.
Biden, 77, and his son, Hunter Biden, are at the center of President Trump's impeachment. Republicans have called for both to testify on benefits that the younger Biden may have received from the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings while his father was vice president.
[Read: Democratic pensioners fight it out as Sanders accuses Biden of slashing Social Security]


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-22--Senate Democrats use creative campaigning to work around impeachment ahead of 2020 contests

CONCORD , New Hampshire — The Senate impeachment trial comes at an inopportune time for Democratic presidential hopefuls who must also serve as jurors , keeping them away from campaigning in early states just weeks before the highly anticipated Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses and Feb. 11 New Hampshire primary .
But the campaigns are deploying creative campaign tactics to get around their inability to leave Washington during the week , including by giving family members and those who have endorsed them larger-than-usual roles as they scramble to make up for candidates ' absences .
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders , 78 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday night , but later canceled a planned rally due to changes in the impeachment trial schedule that will keep him in Washington .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the left-wing , firebrand representative from New York , will host three events for Sanders in Iowa on Friday and Saturday .
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s daughter is hosting “ hot-dish house parties ” in Iowa , using Minnesota ’ s signature casserole to lure voters .
New Hampshire state officials who endorsed Klobuchar are holding “ office hours ” in support of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bookers will have a chance to meet up at cafes , libraries , and field offices all around the state , ” said New Hampshire Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli , offering voters an opportunity to speak with those “ who have met Amy and can personally speak to her qualifications.
” The “ office hours ” aim to reach “ all corners of our electorate , ” Pignatelli explained , even though Klobuchar must sit in the impeachment trial rather than build relationships with communities in the state .
“ It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Foster , another Klobuchar supporter , during a chilly press conference at the New Hampshire state legislative office building surrounded by a dozen other supporters of the Minnesota senator .
“ When and if she can get up here , she will be here to campaign.
” Proxies are prepared to do more heavy lifting to lure voters they meet to Klobuchar events once she makes it back to the state .
“ When Amy is in town , or when there 's an event , my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I need to go and pick them up myself , I will , ” Pignatelli said .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be represented in Iowa this week by twin politicians Julian Castro , former secretary of state and ex-2020 presidential candidate , and Joaquin Castro , a Texas congressman .
Her husband , Bruce Mann , and Michigan Rep. Andy Levin will host events for her in New Hampshire over the weekend .
Actress Ashley Judd headlines three events in New Hampshire on Friday in Warren ’ s place .
Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the polls , is forgoing spending any time raising money during the trial and instead will virtually attend town halls in Iowa and New Hampshire through telephone and Facebook Live .
His wife , Susan Daggett , and former Ohio Gov .
Dick Celeste will stump for him in New Hampshire later this week .
Though impeachment risks boosting top-tier candidates former vice president Joe Biden and former South Bend , Indiana , mayor Pete Buttigieg , supporters of the juror candidates look on the bright side of the creative campaign events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her daughter here just shows how strong a family unit that they have , and I think getting to know the other people in the family lets you see the candidate in a different light , ” said New Hampshire state Sen. Jeanne Dietsch , who supports Klobuchar .

CONCORD, New Hampshire — The Senate impeachment trial comes at an inopportune time for Democratic presidential hopefuls who must also serve as jurors, keeping them away from campaigning in early states just weeks before the highly anticipated Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses and Feb. 11 New Hampshire primary.
But the campaigns are deploying creative campaign tactics to get around their inability to leave Washington during the week, including by giving family members and those who have endorsed them larger-than-usual roles as they scramble to make up for candidates' absences.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 78, had secured a private chartered flight to Iowa on Wednesday night, but later canceled a planned rally due to changes in the impeachment trial schedule that will keep him in Washington.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the left-wing, firebrand representative from New York, will host three events for Sanders in Iowa on Friday and Saturday.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s daughter is hosting “hot-dish house parties” in Iowa, using Minnesota’s signature casserole to lure voters. New Hampshire state officials who endorsed Klobuchar are holding “office hours” in support of her campaign.
“On evenings and weekends, bookers will have a chance to meet up at cafes, libraries, and field offices all around the state,” said New Hampshire Executive Councilor Debora Pignatelli, offering voters an opportunity to speak with those “who have met Amy and can personally speak to her qualifications.”
The “office hours” aim to reach “all corners of our electorate,” Pignatelli explained, even though Klobuchar must sit in the impeachment trial rather than build relationships with communities in the state.
“It's not an ideal situation,” said former New Hampshire Attorney General Joe Foster, another Klobuchar supporter, during a chilly press conference at the New Hampshire state legislative office building surrounded by a dozen other supporters of the Minnesota senator. “When and if she can get up here, she will be here to campaign.”
[Previous coverage: Looming Senate impeachment trial throws wrench in Democratic presidential campaign plans]
Proxies are prepared to do more heavy lifting to lure voters they meet to Klobuchar events once she makes it back to the state.
“When Amy is in town, or when there's an event, my hope is to call them, and if I need to go and pick them up myself, I will,” Pignatelli said.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be represented in Iowa this week by twin politicians Julian Castro, former secretary of state and ex-2020 presidential candidate, and Joaquin Castro, a Texas congressman. Her husband, Bruce Mann, and Michigan Rep. Andy Levin will host events for her in New Hampshire over the weekend. Actress Ashley Judd headlines three events in New Hampshire on Friday in Warren’s place.
Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who barely registers in the polls, is forgoing spending any time raising money during the trial and instead will virtually attend town halls in Iowa and New Hampshire through telephone and Facebook Live. His wife, Susan Daggett, and former Ohio Gov. Dick Celeste will stump for him in New Hampshire later this week.
Though impeachment risks boosting top-tier candidates former vice president Joe Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, supporters of the juror candidates look on the bright side of the creative campaign events.
“Having Amy's husband and her daughter here just shows how strong a family unit that they have, and I think getting to know the other people in the family lets you see the candidate in a different light,” said New Hampshire state Sen. Jeanne Dietsch, who supports Klobuchar.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Interrogator says he fought CIA to let him stop waterboarding accused terrorist

GUANTANAMO BAY , Cuba — The man considered to be the architect of the CIA ’ s enhanced interrogation program on Wednesday described his efforts to convince the agency to let him stop waterboarding a suspected terrorist .
Dr. James Mitchell , 67 , a clinical psychologist formerly of the Air Force survival school , appeared at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to testify in open court for the first time about designing the harsh interrogation program and waterboarding suspected al Qaeda terrorists .
The program was enacted after the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a CIA contractor as a patriotic duty , he grew disillusioned , he said , as CIA higher-ups pushed him to keep waterboarding alleged al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah , who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002 .
The psychologist claimed that he tried unsuccessfully to end the harsh interrogations .
“ We had a lot of phone calls with CIA headquarters , and we got a lot of disappointing responses , ” Mitchell testified .
“ They said that we were pussies … that we had lost our spine … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead Americans on our hands … and if we weren ’ t willing to carry their water , then they might send someone else to do it instead — and they might be harsher than we were.
” Mitchell , wearing a dark suit with a white shirt and red tie , testified that he was asked to observe interrogations of Zubaydah in April 2002 and to design a new program two months later .
By August of that year , he said , he was convinced Zubaydah was cooperating .
He and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed to be in Thailand , repeatedly relayed this to superiors , he said , but the CIA instructed them to carry on with the rough measures .
Mitchell testified that he and a fellow psychologist , Dr. John `` Bruce '' Jessen , continued interrogating the Saudi national while trying to come up with ways to get the agency to call it off .
The two men at the time ran a Spokane , Washington-based consulting firm , Mitchell Jessen and Associates , and are credited with developing enhanced interrogation techniques including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two were referenced in a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report , Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S .
Custody .
The headquarters of their now-defunct business previously drew protest ers who staged an anti-torture rally .
In his testimony this week , though , Mitchell claimed that he and his partner were so distraught by the waterboarding that they threatened to quit their CIA contract .
They invited the CIA ’ s chief of station and , later , members of CIA headquarters and its National Counterterrorism Center to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As recorded on video in now-destroyed tapes , Mitchell said , many CIA officials were brought to tears while watching the sessions .
“ Dr .
Jessen and I said we weren ’ t going to do it — they should bring their rubber boots and come on down if that ’ s what they wanted to do , ” the white-bearded psychologist said in one dramatic moment as alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , whom Mitchell also personally waterboarded , and other defendants watched just a few yards away .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zubaydah , now 48 , was badly wounded in a firefight and considered by the CIA to be a high-ranking member of al Qaeda .
In a detainee profile , the U.S. government describes him as the leader of a “ mujahadeen facilitation network ” who “ took a more active role in attack preparations by sending operatives ” to al Qaeda after 9/11 .
Zubaydah ’ s name appears more than 1,000 times in the then-Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee ’ s interrogation report from 2014 , describing Zubaydah as “ completely unresponsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , full mouth ” after one waterboarding session .
Under questioning from James Connell , a soft-spoken defense attorney for Mohammed ’ s nephew Ammar Al Baluchi , Mitchell said , “ CIA headquarters was very interested in this idea that KSM had people on the ground — which he did , ” but the CIA ’ s “ middle managers ” ignored his assessment that continuing to waterboard Zubaydah wouldn ’ t reveal further information on that .
Mitchell testified that he invited the CIA ’ s chief of station to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so that he could understand the situation .
“ If they were going to continue to force us to do it , I wanted it to be on tape .
… I wanted him to be on tape , ” Mitchell said .
“ If you want the person to experience what you ’ re experiencing , get them as close to it as possible.
” The man appeared on video dressed as a guard .
In a series of cables in August 2002 , Mitchell and the black site team members said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ actionable new information about current threats to the U.S. ” and worried the intense physical coercion “ approaches the legal limit.
” Mitchell said , “ we threw everything but the kitchen sink into this cable , ” but the station in charge cabled back that “ the aggressive phase must continue.
” Mitchell claimed the CIA ’ s “ middle managers … suggested we might have to find our own way home ” if they refused to comply .
“ I don ’ t want to use the word ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Mitchell said but claimed they “ dialed ” the interrogation techniques “ way back ” anyway .
Mitchell said he set up a video teleconference between the black site and CIA headquarters , where the psychologist and his team tried to convince a “ conference room full of people ” to let them end Zubaydah ’ s waterboarding , showing a waterboarding video and a highlight reel of some gruesome moments .
This didn ’ t work either , Mitchell said , so he asked the CIA to send down the person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harsh measures to see it in person .
“ If you want us to waterboard him , then you ’ re going to witness it , ” Mitchell says he told them .
“ We ’ re going to waterboard him one more time , then never again.
” The headquarters team sent to the black site in late August 2002 was led by a skeptical CIA official and a senior counsel with the counterterrorism center , who “ were thrilled ” with Zubaydah ’ s cooperation , yet still said waterboarding should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the room as he and Jessen waterboarded Zubaydah , and he described to the court the spray of water and snot from the Saudi as they did a couple of 20-second pours and 40-second pours with time for a few breaths in between .
“ Some people were tearful , ” Mitchell said , himself included .
“ And their decision after seeing this was ‘ we don ’ t need to be doing this ’ — and they left.
” Zubaydah has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2006 .

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba — The man considered to be the architect of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program on Wednesday described his efforts to convince the agency to let him stop waterboarding a suspected terrorist.
Dr. James Mitchell, 67, a clinical psychologist formerly of the Air Force survival school, appeared at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to testify in open court for the first time about designing the harsh interrogation program and waterboarding suspected al Qaeda terrorists. The program was enacted after the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
Though he portrayed his decision to work as a CIA contractor as a patriotic duty, he grew disillusioned, he said, as CIA higher-ups pushed him to keep waterboarding alleged al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002. The psychologist claimed that he tried unsuccessfully to end the harsh interrogations.
“We had a lot of phone calls with CIA headquarters, and we got a lot of disappointing responses,” Mitchell testified. “They said that we were pussies … that we had lost our spine … that we would have the blood of dead Americans on our hands … and if we weren’t willing to carry their water, then they might send someone else to do it instead — and they might be harsher than we were.”
Mitchell, wearing a dark suit with a white shirt and red tie, testified that he was asked to observe interrogations of Zubaydah in April 2002 and to design a new program two months later. By August of that year, he said, he was convinced Zubaydah was cooperating. He and others at a CIA black site, believed to be in Thailand, repeatedly relayed this to superiors, he said, but the CIA instructed them to carry on with the rough measures. Mitchell testified that he and a fellow psychologist, Dr. John "Bruce" Jessen, continued interrogating the Saudi national while trying to come up with ways to get the agency to call it off.
The two men at the time ran a Spokane, Washington-based consulting firm, Mitchell Jessen and Associates, and are credited with developing enhanced interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation and stress positions. The two were referenced in a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee report, Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. The headquarters of their now-defunct business previously drew protesters who staged an anti-torture rally.
In his testimony this week, though, Mitchell claimed that he and his partner were so distraught by the waterboarding that they threatened to quit their CIA contract. They invited the CIA’s chief of station and, later, members of CIA headquarters and its National Counterterrorism Center to be in the room while they waterboarded Zubaydah. As recorded on video in now-destroyed tapes, Mitchell said, many CIA officials were brought to tears while watching the sessions.
“Dr. Jessen and I said we weren’t going to do it — they should bring their rubber boots and come on down if that’s what they wanted to do,” the white-bearded psychologist said in one dramatic moment as alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom Mitchell also personally waterboarded, and other defendants watched just a few yards away.
At the time of his capture, Zubaydah, now 48, was badly wounded in a firefight and considered by the CIA to be a high-ranking member of al Qaeda. In a detainee profile, the U.S. government describes him as the leader of a “mujahadeen facilitation network” who “took a more active role in attack preparations by sending operatives” to al Qaeda after 9/11.
Zubaydah’s name appears more than 1,000 times in the then-Democrat-led Senate Intelligence Committee’s interrogation report from 2014, describing Zubaydah as “completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth” after one waterboarding session.
Under questioning from James Connell, a soft-spoken defense attorney for Mohammed’s nephew Ammar Al Baluchi, Mitchell said, “CIA headquarters was very interested in this idea that KSM had people on the ground — which he did,” but the CIA’s “middle managers” ignored his assessment that continuing to waterboard Zubaydah wouldn’t reveal further information on that.
Mitchell testified that he invited the CIA’s chief of station to be in the room for a waterboarding session so that he could understand the situation.
“If they were going to continue to force us to do it, I wanted it to be on tape. … I wanted him to be on tape,” Mitchell said. “If you want the person to experience what you’re experiencing, get them as close to it as possible.” The man appeared on video dressed as a guard.
In a series of cables in August 2002, Mitchell and the black site team members said it was “highly unlikely” Zubaydah had “actionable new information about current threats to the U.S.” and worried the intense physical coercion “approaches the legal limit.” Mitchell said, “we threw everything but the kitchen sink into this cable,” but the station in charge cabled back that “the aggressive phase must continue.” Mitchell claimed the CIA’s “middle managers … suggested we might have to find our own way home” if they refused to comply.
“I don’t want to use the word ‘perfunctory’ for something that horrible," Mitchell said but claimed they “dialed” the interrogation techniques “way back” anyway.
Mitchell said he set up a video teleconference between the black site and CIA headquarters, where the psychologist and his team tried to convince a “conference room full of people” to let them end Zubaydah’s waterboarding, showing a waterboarding video and a highlight reel of some gruesome moments. This didn’t work either, Mitchell said, so he asked the CIA to send down the person “most skeptical” about ending the harsh measures to see it in person.
“If you want us to waterboard him, then you’re going to witness it,” Mitchell says he told them. “We’re going to waterboard him one more time, then never again.”
The headquarters team sent to the black site in late August 2002 was led by a skeptical CIA official and a senior counsel with the counterterrorism center, who “were thrilled” with Zubaydah’s cooperation, yet still said waterboarding should likely continue.
Mitchell brought them into the room as he and Jessen waterboarded Zubaydah, and he described to the court the spray of water and snot from the Saudi as they did a couple of 20-second pours and 40-second pours with time for a few breaths in between.
“Some people were tearful,” Mitchell said, himself included. “And their decision after seeing this was ‘we don’t need to be doing this’ — and they left.”
Zubaydah has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Netanyahu and opposition leader invited to White House to discuss Mideast peace plan

Israel ’ s embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz have been invited to the White House to discuss President Trump ’ s long-awaited peace plan for the Middle East .
Trump said Thursday he is looking forward to meeting with the Israeli leaders next week .
“ Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative , ” Trump , 73 , tweeted .
Vice President Mike Pence said Trump invited Netanyahu to Washington , D.C. , and that Netanyahu asked for Gantz also to be invited to the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan before Israel 's elections on March 2 .
The White House has already postponed the release of the plan twice , saying that it did not want to interfere in the Israeli elections .
Netanyahu , the longest-serving Israeli prime minister , is seeking a fourth term amid allegations of corruption .
Netanyahu , 70 , was indicted in November on charges of bribery , fraud , and breach of trust .
He has denied any wrongdoing .
The March election will be the country ’ s third election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in April and September , failed to give Netanyahu or Gantz a majority to form a viable government .

Israel’s embattled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposition leader Benny Gantz have been invited to the White House to discuss President Trump’s long-awaited peace plan for the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he is looking forward to meeting with the Israeli leaders next week.
“Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative,” Trump, 73, tweeted.
The United States looks forward to welcoming Prime Minister @Netanyahu & Blue & White Chairman @Gantzbe to the @WhiteHouse next week. Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 23, 2020
Vice President Mike Pence said Trump invited Netanyahu to Washington, D.C., and that Netanyahu asked for Gantz also to be invited to the White House.
The Trump administration has been considering releasing the Israeli-Palestinian peace plan before Israel's elections on March 2. The White House has already postponed the release of the plan twice, saying that it did not want to interfere in the Israeli elections.
Netanyahu, the longest-serving Israeli prime minister, is seeking a fourth term amid allegations of corruption. Netanyahu, 70, was indicted in November on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. He has denied any wrongdoing.
The March election will be the country’s third election in a year after the earlier elections, in April and September, failed to give Netanyahu or Gantz a majority to form a viable government.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Why President Trump's decision to address the March for Life is significant

On Friday , President Trump will directly address the March for Life , a pro-life event that draws thousands of people to Washington , D.C. , every year .
He will be the first president to do so .
This is significant , and it should tell us something about our current political situation and how the pro-life movement fits into it .
That this is a presidential first is remarkably telling .
The March for Life began in 1974 , a year after Roe v. Wade was decided , and since then , we ’ ve had five Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed to be pro-life , but the others did .
And yet , it took the election of Trump ( a man who , up until recently , was avidly pro-choice ) to see substantive progress politically .
Trump is lending the credibility and authority of his office to the pro-life movement .
And unlike many Republicans , he ’ s done more than just vocally support the movement .
He ’ s appointed two constitutional , conservative judges to the Supreme Court who could have the chance to relitigate Roe v. Wade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the groundwork for the legalization of abortion .
This year , the Supreme Court plans to hear a case that could allow them to reenter the abortion debate and , at the very least , secure the rights of states to pass pro-life legislation .
Trump ’ s Department of Health and Human Services recently tossed out an Obama-era rule that mandated a hidden surcharge for abortions in government-subsidized healthcare packages .
And the HHS partially defunded Planned Parenthood by forcing the abortion giant to choose between providing abortions or accepting federal Title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration has also expanded the U.S. policy denying federal funds to foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide or promote abortions , and it has significantly reduced the amount of federal funding given to research involving fetal tissue .
And just this week , the administration announced it would allocate Medicaid funds to Texas for a family-planning program that specifically excludes Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers .
So , even if the Supreme Court does not rule in favor of individual states ’ pro-life efforts this year , the Trump administration has made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway .
For a long time , it seemed that the pro-life movement ’ s impact would be limited to the culture — an impact that is by no means insignificant .
Indeed , public opinion overwhelmingly supports the traditional “ safe , legal , and rare ” standard , and just as many agree that there must be restrictions on the accessibility of abortion .
And almost half of the public said last year they ’ d support legislation to withhold taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood completely .
All of this has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many , many Republican legislators who campaign on the backs of the pro-life movement and then ignore abortion policy when they arrive in Washington , D.C .
But now , pro-lifers have the White House .
We should not make Trump the face of the pro-life movement given his past track record , but we should applaud his willingness to speak up for the unborn : “ When we look into the eyes of a newborn child , we see the beauty and the human soul and the majesty of God ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Life crowd via a prerecorded video last year .
“ We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting.
” Trump didn ’ t just say this ; he went and he did something about it .
That ’ s why his speech this Friday is so important .
His words won ’ t be meaningless because he ’ ll have the policies to back them up .
This is long overdue .
The pro-life movement is a just and noble cause that deserves more than empty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president who understands that .

On Friday, President Trump will directly address the March for Life, a pro-life event that draws thousands of people to Washington, D.C., every year. He will be the first president to do so. This is significant, and it should tell us something about our current political situation and how the pro-life movement fits into it.
That this is a presidential first is remarkably telling. The March for Life began in 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade was decided, and since then, we’ve had five Republican presidents. Former President Gerald Ford never claimed to be pro-life, but the others did. And yet, it took the election of Trump (a man who, up until recently, was avidly pro-choice) to see substantive progress politically.
Trump is lending the credibility and authority of his office to the pro-life movement. And unlike many Republicans, he’s done more than just vocally support the movement. He’s appointed two constitutional, conservative judges to the Supreme Court who could have the chance to relitigate Roe v. Wade, a fundamentally flawed case that provided the groundwork for the legalization of abortion. This year, the Supreme Court plans to hear a case that could allow them to reenter the abortion debate and, at the very least, secure the rights of states to pass pro-life legislation.
Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services recently tossed out an Obama-era rule that mandated a hidden surcharge for abortions in government-subsidized healthcare packages. And the HHS partially defunded Planned Parenthood by forcing the abortion giant to choose between providing abortions or accepting federal Title X family planning funds.
The Trump administration has also expanded the U.S. policy denying federal funds to foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide or promote abortions, and it has significantly reduced the amount of federal funding given to research involving fetal tissue. And just this week, the administration announced it would allocate Medicaid funds to Texas for a family-planning program that specifically excludes Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. So, even if the Supreme Court does not rule in favor of individual states’ pro-life efforts this year, the Trump administration has made it clear that it will support these states anyway.
For a long time, it seemed that the pro-life movement’s impact would be limited to the culture — an impact that is by no means insignificant. Indeed, public opinion overwhelmingly supports the traditional “safe, legal, and rare” standard, and just as many agree that there must be restrictions on the accessibility of abortion. And almost half of the public said last year they’d support legislation to withhold taxpayer funds from Planned Parenthood completely.
All of this has been accomplished without the help of the many, many Republican legislators who campaign on the backs of the pro-life movement and then ignore abortion policy when they arrive in Washington, D.C. But now, pro-lifers have the White House.
We should not make Trump the face of the pro-life movement given his past track record, but we should applaud his willingness to speak up for the unborn: “When we look into the eyes of a newborn child, we see the beauty and the human soul and the majesty of God’s creation,” Trump told the March for Life crowd via a prerecorded video last year. “We know that every life has meaning and that every life is worth protecting.”
Trump didn’t just say this; he went and he did something about it. That’s why his speech this Friday is so important. His words won’t be meaningless because he’ll have the policies to back them up. This is long overdue. The pro-life movement is a just and noble cause that deserves more than empty promises. Finally, we have a president who understands that.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--WATCH LIVE: House managers resume opening arguments in Trump impeachment trial

House impeachment managers are expected to take the Senate floor at 1 p.m. EST on Thursday to continue delivering their @ @ @ @ @ 's impeachment trial .
They began building their case against the president on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ of 24 hours in session .

House impeachment managers are expected to take the Senate floor at 1 p.m. EST on Thursday to continue delivering their opening arguments in President Trump's impeachment trial. They began building their case against the president on Wednesday, spending eight of a maximum of 24 hours in session.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Ex-spy Valerie Plame congressional campaign is suddenly in trouble

Former CIA agent Valerie Plame 's status as a shoo-in to win a congressional seat in northern New Mexico is now deeply imperiled amid charges she 's an outsider from Washington who knows too little about the district she seeks to represent .
Plame is running in the Democratic primary to replace Democrat Ben Ray Lujan , the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in the House , in the state 's 3rd Congressional District , home to 15 Pueblo tribes and the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache nations , with a 41 % Hispanic and 19 % Native American population .
Lujan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , announced a run for Senate in April last year , drawing prominent Hispanic candidates into the primary .
Plame 's strategy of drawing attention to her background in foreign policy and boasting that she knows her way around Washington is flawed , said local officials and pollsters interviewed by the New York Times .
Voters care about local issues and knowledge of the region , said Gabriel Sanchez , a Latino Decisions pollster and executive director of the University of New Mexico 's Center for Social Policy .
Where Plame might benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high number of Hispanic entrants into the race , splitting the Hispanic vote in an election where Anglo turnout is expected to be high .
In September , a campaign ad touted her experience as an undercover CIA operative in `` hot-spot '' countries , including Syria , Pakistan , Iraq , and others .
Foot on the pedal , Plame careens backward down a dusty New Mexico road , calling out Scooter Libby , who President Trump pardoned in 2017 , for outing her CIA cover .
That was a moment `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Plame says .
The ad shows a photograph of her Ukrainian Jewish family .
In 2017 , Plame drew criticism for sharing a link to an article , `` America 's Jews are driving America 's wars , '' with a picture of Bill Kristol .
`` Just FYI , I am of Jewish descent , '' Plame said on Twitter , amid the uproar .
Raised a Lutheran , Plame 's synagogue attendance began shortly after .
Plame rebutted accusations of anti-Semitism , telling the New York Times in an interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was `` right out of Fiddler on the Roof . ''
“ One ’ s spiritual journey is private , ” Plame said when pressed on the timeline of her relationship with Judaism .
Her spy background led to lucrative book and entertainment deals , including the 2010 film adaptation of Plame 's autobiography Fair Game , where she and her husband were portrayed by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn .
Plame 's husband , the late Joseph Wilson , a retired U.S. ambassador to Gabon , famously questioned the Bush White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the New York Times , Wilson , returning from a CIA `` fact-finding mission '' to Niger in 2003 to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had purchased yellowcake uranium from the country , said he found no evidence .
He believed that `` some of the intelligence related to Iraq 's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat , ” he said .
[ Opinion : Unfair blame : Valerie Plame tries to lie her way into Congress ]

Former CIA agent Valerie Plame's status as a shoo-in to win a congressional seat in northern New Mexico is now deeply imperiled amid charges she's an outsider from Washington who knows too little about the district she seeks to represent.
Plame is running in the Democratic primary to replace Democrat Ben Ray Lujan, the highest-ranking Hispanic lawmaker in the House, in the state's 3rd Congressional District, home to 15 Pueblo tribes and the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache nations, with a 41% Hispanic and 19% Native American population.
Lujan, who has held the seat since 2009, announced a run for Senate in April last year, drawing prominent Hispanic candidates into the primary.
Plame's strategy of drawing attention to her background in foreign policy and boasting that she knows her way around Washington is flawed, said local officials and pollsters interviewed by the New York Times. Voters care about local issues and knowledge of the region, said Gabriel Sanchez, a Latino Decisions pollster and executive director of the University of New Mexico's Center for Social Policy.
Where Plame might benefit, Sanchez said, is from the high number of Hispanic entrants into the race, splitting the Hispanic vote in an election where Anglo turnout is expected to be high.
In September, a campaign ad touted her experience as an undercover CIA operative in "hot-spot" countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, and others. Foot on the pedal, Plame careens backward down a dusty New Mexico road, calling out Scooter Libby, who President Trump pardoned in 2017, for outing her CIA cover.
That was a moment "when my own government betrayed me," Plame says. The ad shows a photograph of her Ukrainian Jewish family.
In 2017, Plame drew criticism for sharing a link to an article, "America's Jews are driving America's wars," with a picture of Bill Kristol.
"Just FYI, I am of Jewish descent," Plame said on Twitter, amid the uproar. Raised a Lutheran, Plame's synagogue attendance began shortly after.
Plame rebutted accusations of anti-Semitism, telling the New York Times in an interview that her grandfather's Ukrainian Jewish family was "right out of Fiddler on the Roof."
“One’s spiritual journey is private,” Plame said when pressed on the timeline of her relationship with Judaism.
Her spy background led to lucrative book and entertainment deals, including the 2010 film adaptation of Plame's autobiography Fair Game, where she and her husband were portrayed by Naomi Watts and Sean Penn.
Plame's husband, the late Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. ambassador to Gabon, famously questioned the Bush White House's justification for invading Iraq. Writing in the New York Times, Wilson, returning from a CIA "fact-finding mission" to Niger in 2003 to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had purchased yellowcake uranium from the country, said he found no evidence. He believed that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat,” he said.
[Opinion: Unfair blame: Valerie Plame tries to lie her way into Congress]


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Senators resorting to fidget spinners for entertainment during impeachment

Several senators have been caught playing with small toys , reading , or doing other activities while impeachment proceedings drag on .
GOP Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina passed out fidget spinners , small toys used to ease anxiety and boredom , to colleagues on the Senate floor Thursday before proceedings began , according to NBC News .
Burr spun a blue one while Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler , one of the House impeachment managers , argued in favor of convicting President Trump .
GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas had a purple spinner on his desk , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a white one on his .
GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky sketched on a notepad during arguments , and GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee read a book .
[ Read more : 'Resign tomorrow ' : Chris Hayes slams GOP senators for dozing off during impeachment trial ] '' First – I 'm reading Resistance ( At All Costs ) by Kim Strassel .
Read the chapter on obstruction .
It provides good insights into today ’ s proceedings , '' Blackburn tweeted in response .
`` Second – busy mamas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it . ''

Several senators have been caught playing with small toys, reading, or doing other activities while impeachment proceedings drag on.
GOP Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina passed out fidget spinners, small toys used to ease anxiety and boredom, to colleagues on the Senate floor Thursday before proceedings began, according to NBC News. Burr spun a blue one while Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, one of the House impeachment managers, argued in favor of convicting President Trump.
GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas had a purple spinner on his desk, and GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania had a white one on his. GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky sketched on a notepad during arguments, and GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee read a book.
[Read more: 'Resign tomorrow': Chris Hayes slams GOP senators for dozing off during impeachment trial]
Some other observations from the last half hour: @SenatorBurr has a fidget spinner, @RandPaul has quite the sketch of the Capitol going, and @MarshaBlackburn is reading a book. — Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) January 23, 2020
On Twitter, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin called Blackburn’s conduct "shameful."
"First – I'm reading Resistance (At All Costs) by Kim Strassel. Read the chapter on obstruction. It provides good insights into today’s proceedings," Blackburn tweeted in response. "Second – busy mamas are the best at multi-tasking. Try it."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--'Resign tomorrow': Chris Hayes slams GOP senators for dozing off during impeachment trial

MSNBC host Chris Hayes admonished Republican senators who have displayed disinterest in President Trump 's impeachment trial in the Senate .
`` These people ’ s jobs is to do this , '' Hayes said Wednesday on the network .
`` This is literally the job .
If you find it too annoying or frustrating or uncomfortable to sit for eight hours and listen , you can resign tomorrow and go get another job .
But this is your job.
” For more than eight hours on Wednesday , the managers presented video clips and slide decks , gave impassioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abused the office of the presidency , and pleaded with their Republican counterparts to hear them out .
Most Republicans have rallied behind the president , who is accused of pressuring Ukraine to conduct political investigations for him and then attempting to cover up the effort .
Several reporters in the Senate Press Gallery have reported seeing some Republican senators not paying attention , dozing off , or taking frequent breaks by leaving the room altogether .
Senate rules are strict for an impeachment trial .
Senators are required to sit still , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bring any electronics onto the Senate floor .
Rachel Maddow , another MSNBC host on the network 's post-trial panel , suggested Republican senators who leave the room to go on cable news to defend the president might be violating Senate rules .
`` I mean the Senate sergeant-at-arms starts every day by saying 'upon pain of imprisonment , ’ you know , you must sit there silently , it ’ s effectively what he says , and then people get up and they go and do Fox News interviews in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are not keeping silent , '' Maddow said .
`` But everybody knows there isn ’ t a Senate jail — or if there is , they ’ re not going to use it .
And it doesn ’ t appear that Chief Justice Roberts is planning on intervening in the trial , even on structural matters like this.
” Roberts did offer a rare warning late Tuesday night after an especially terse exchange between Rep. Jerry Nadler and White House defense lawyers .
“ I think it is appropriate at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House managers and president ’ s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world ’ s greatest deliberative body , ” Roberts said .
`` Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are . ''

MSNBC host Chris Hayes admonished Republican senators who have displayed disinterest in President Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate.
"These people’s jobs is to do this," Hayes said Wednesday on the network. "This is literally the job. If you find it too annoying or frustrating or uncomfortable to sit for eight hours and listen, you can resign tomorrow and go get another job. But this is your job.”
For more than eight hours on Wednesday, the managers presented video clips and slide decks, gave impassioned speeches about how they say Trump has abused the office of the presidency, and pleaded with their Republican counterparts to hear them out.
Most Republicans have rallied behind the president, who is accused of pressuring Ukraine to conduct political investigations for him and then attempting to cover up the effort.
Several reporters in the Senate Press Gallery have reported seeing some Republican senators not paying attention, dozing off, or taking frequent breaks by leaving the room altogether.
Senate rules are strict for an impeachment trial. Senators are required to sit still, remain silent, and are not allowed to bring any electronics onto the Senate floor.
Lindsey Graham walked out of the chamber moments before Nadler played a clip of him just now — Igor Bobic (@igorbobic) January 23, 2020
NYT has a sketch artist covering impeachment, catching moments like Sen. Risch sleeping https://t.co/kXf9Voi0Og pic.twitter.com/fH5fee7In4 — Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) January 22, 2020
Rachel Maddow, another MSNBC host on the network's post-trial panel, suggested Republican senators who leave the room to go on cable news to defend the president might be violating Senate rules.
"I mean the Senate sergeant-at-arms starts every day by saying 'upon pain of imprisonment,’ you know, you must sit there silently, it’s effectively what he says, and then people get up and they go and do Fox News interviews in the middle of the trial, which means they are not keeping silent," Maddow said. "But everybody knows there isn’t a Senate jail — or if there is, they’re not going to use it. And it doesn’t appear that Chief Justice Roberts is planning on intervening in the trial, even on structural matters like this.”
Roberts did offer a rare warning late Tuesday night after an especially terse exchange between Rep. Jerry Nadler and White House defense lawyers.
“I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said. "Those addressing the Senate should remember where they are."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Ex-senator says Democrat likely to risk revealing classified impeachment document from Pence aide

A former lawmaker expects one of the Senate Democrats to speak out about a classified letter from an aide to Vice President Mike Pence that has become part of the impeachment fight .
Claire McCaskill , who was a Democratic senator from Missouri from 2007 to 2019 , told an MSNBC panel that her former colleagues are frustrated by the concealment of the document , which was admitted as impeachment evidence on Wednesday .
McCaskill said their frustration could lead to a “ risky ” disclosure because they believe it was improperly classified .
`` Senators , if they go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a classified document and they are confident that it is not , it should not be classified , they can speak out and tell people about it , '' McCaskill said .
After host Rachel Maddow suggested that a senator could risk this and talk about what is in the letter on TV , McCaskill said , `` Their staff will probably go crazy and go , 'Do n't you dare .
This is way too risky . '
But I 'm willing to bet with the stakes involved here that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it 's not legitimately classified , somebody will in fact speak about it . ''
Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg , a critic of President Trump who was also on the panel , described such a move as `` quite risky , '' noting there is a potential national security `` danger '' if the senator does not fully understand how such information was collected .
The document was submitted as supplemental testimony from Pence aide Jennifer Williams and relates to a phone call the vice president had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators , Williams described Trump 's July call with Zelenksy , which sparked impeachment proceedings , as `` unusual '' and `` inappropriate . ''
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts , who is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial , announced late Wednesday that “ a single , one-page classified document identified by the House managers '' would not be made part of the public record or printed .
Some Democratic senators who saw the document in a classified room on Thursday claimed they did not see any information warranting its classification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , said he would like to have somebody from the Trump administration under oath explain the situation `` because I don ’ t think it ’ s defensible . ''
While making an announcement on TV is one thing , senators have put the protections of the `` Speech or Debate '' Clause of the Constitution to the test in the past , such as the effort to enter the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record in the early 1970s .
Rosenberg advised against McCaskill 's suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts could be a saving grace as the Trump administration would have to prove the document deserved to be classified .
`` If they do do it , then it goes to the court because the only risk to them is that they are charged with disclosing information .
And then it goes in front of a judge , and a judge looks at it and goes , 'Well , there 's nothing here classified .
This is just Donald Trump trying to hide stuff . '
''

A former lawmaker expects one of the Senate Democrats to speak out about a classified letter from an aide to Vice President Mike Pence that has become part of the impeachment fight.
Claire McCaskill, who was a Democratic senator from Missouri from 2007 to 2019, told an MSNBC panel that her former colleagues are frustrated by the concealment of the document, which was admitted as impeachment evidence on Wednesday. McCaskill said their frustration could lead to a “risky” disclosure because they believe it was improperly classified.
"Senators, if they go to a classified briefing or they look at a classified document and they are confident that it is not, it should not be classified, they can speak out and tell people about it," McCaskill said.
After host Rachel Maddow suggested that a senator could risk this and talk about what is in the letter on TV, McCaskill said, "Their staff will probably go crazy and go, 'Don't you dare. This is way too risky.' But I'm willing to bet with the stakes involved here that if there's something important in that document and it's not legitimately classified, somebody will in fact speak about it."
Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, a critic of President Trump who was also on the panel, described such a move as "quite risky," noting there is a potential national security "danger" if the senator does not fully understand how such information was collected.
The document was submitted as supplemental testimony from Pence aide Jennifer Williams and relates to a phone call the vice president had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in September. Appearing before House investigators, Williams described Trump's July call with Zelenksy, which sparked impeachment proceedings, as "unusual" and "inappropriate."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial, announced late Wednesday that “a single, one-page classified document identified by the House managers" would not be made part of the public record or printed.
Some Democratic senators who saw the document in a classified room on Thursday claimed they did not see any information warranting its classification, and House impeachment managers, including House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, said he would like to have somebody from the Trump administration under oath explain the situation "because I don’t think it’s defensible."
While making an announcement on TV is one thing, senators have put the protections of the "Speech or Debate" Clause of the Constitution to the test in the past, such as the effort to enter the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record in the early 1970s.
Rosenberg advised against McCaskill's suggested gambit, but the former senator argued the courts could be a saving grace as the Trump administration would have to prove the document deserved to be classified.
"If they do do it, then it goes to the court because the only risk to them is that they are charged with disclosing information. And then it goes in front of a judge, and a judge looks at it and goes, 'Well, there's nothing here classified. This is just Donald Trump trying to hide stuff.'"


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Public pays steep price for Congress's failure to reclaim war powers

The airstrike that killed Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and the subsequent tensions between the United States and Iran have sparked a new debate in Congress over the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force , or AUMFs , against al Qaeda and Iraq .
These nearly 20-year-old authorizations for war have been interpreted far too broadly by Republican and Democratic presidents alike .
The AUMFs have been used as the justification for conducting military actions in several countries beyond what was originally intended , and it 's time for Congress to repeal them .
The debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit President Trump ’ s ability to engage in hostilities in Iran is certainly needed .
But as necessary as this debate is , it overlooks the deeper , recent pathology that has rendered moot Congress ’ s Article I responsibility for deciding the question of war or peace .
Authorized in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks , the 2001 AUMF essentially launched the global war on terrorism .
As the joint resolution explained , the 2001 AUMF authorized the president “ to use all necessary and appropriate force against those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determines planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons , in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations , organizations or persons.
” But the 2001 AUMF has been interpreted broadly and used to justify military action against terrorist groups that had no connection to al Qaeda or the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
As Republican Rep. Warren Davidson , a former Army Ranger , , “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for today ’ s War on Terror , and stretched to the point of absurdity .
It ’ s been used to support ongoing missions from Afghanistan , to Yemen , to ISIS , to Africa and against enemies , organizations , and nations with little or no connection to 9/11.
” Meanwhile , the 2002 AUMF applied only to Iraq and the “ threat ” the nation posed .
That “ threat ” was the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and the development of nuclear weapons .
As we now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it charitably , overstated .
In hindsight , the Iraq War was clearly a mistake .
And after more than 18 years at war , the cost has been too great for this to continue .
The Watson Institute at Brown University that the total budgetary impact of the war on terror through fiscal year 2020 is a whopping $ 6.4 trillion .
We already faces serious long-term fiscal problems because of domestic entitlement spending , which is expected to continue to grow and produce larger budget deficits in the coming years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addressing the financial burden this AUMF has imposed on the public .
Now , there are many who argue that our constant state of combat and overseas engagement is necessary to prevent foreign terrorists from bringing violence to U.S. soil .
The response is very simple : If the threat is indeed so dire , it should be easy to make that case on the floor of Congress to obtain a proper AUMF for the specific threat at hand .
There is no need to hide behind a resolution that is almost two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might do so is if the threat is not actually as dire or the evidence is not actually as clear as they suggest .
This is the reason the framers of the Constitution gave Congress , not the president , the power to declare war .
They wanted to avoid rash decisions that would embroil the nation in conflict .
As James Madison wrote , “ The constitution supposes , what the History of all Governments demonstrates , that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war , and most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.
” Under no circumstances could this have possibly meant that the Congress is to authorize military force once and that said authorization will suffice for decades of intervention on end .
The goal was to force a reasoned congressional debate on the merits .
Sadly , Congress has time and again eschewed that goal in favor of political expediency .
This doctrine of perpetual war endorsed by both party establishments has serious side effects .
For one thing , every time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government expands .
That comes through emergency powers to limit speech , to spy on the citizenry , to spend absurd amounts on munitions , and to vest almost unquestioned power in the executive branch .
Given the costs and the consequences here and abroad , voters should demand that the issue of war and peace be publicly debated in Congress every single time a new conflict arises .
Jason Pye is the vice president of legislative affairs for FreedomWorks .

The airstrike that killed Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and the subsequent tensions between the United States and Iran have sparked a new debate in Congress over the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force, or AUMFs, against al Qaeda and Iraq. These nearly 20-year-old authorizations for war have been interpreted far too broadly by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. The AUMFs have been used as the justification for conducting military actions in several countries beyond what was originally intended, and it's time for Congress to repeal them.
The debate over using the War Powers Resolution to limit President Trump’s ability to engage in hostilities in Iran is certainly needed. But as necessary as this debate is, it overlooks the deeper, recent pathology that has rendered moot Congress’s Article I responsibility for deciding the question of war or peace.
Authorized in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the 2001 AUMF essentially launched the global war on terrorism. As the joint resolution explained, the 2001 AUMF authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
But the 2001 AUMF has been interpreted broadly and used to justify military action against terrorist groups that had no connection to al Qaeda or the 9/11 terrorist attacks. As Republican Rep. Warren Davidson, a former Army Ranger, recently wrote , “The 2001 AUMF is horribly outdated, inadequate for today’s War on Terror, and stretched to the point of absurdity. It’s been used to support ongoing missions from Afghanistan, to Yemen, to ISIS, to Africa and against enemies, organizations, and nations with little or no connection to 9/11.”
Meanwhile, the 2002 AUMF applied only to Iraq and the “threat” the nation posed. That “threat” was the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and the development of nuclear weapons. As we now know, the claims were, to put it charitably, overstated. In hindsight, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake.
And after more than 18 years at war, the cost has been too great for this to continue.
The Watson Institute at Brown University recently estimated that the total budgetary impact of the war on terror through fiscal year 2020 is a whopping $6.4 trillion. We already faces serious long-term fiscal problems because of domestic entitlement spending, which is expected to continue to grow and produce larger budget deficits in the coming years. Congress must take a step toward addressing the financial burden this AUMF has imposed on the public.
Now, there are many who argue that our constant state of combat and overseas engagement is necessary to prevent foreign terrorists from bringing violence to U.S. soil. The response is very simple: If the threat is indeed so dire, it should be easy to make that case on the floor of Congress to obtain a proper AUMF for the specific threat at hand.
There is no need to hide behind a resolution that is almost two decades old. The only reason proponents might do so is if the threat is not actually as dire or the evidence is not actually as clear as they suggest.
This is the reason the framers of the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. They wanted to avoid rash decisions that would embroil the nation in conflict. As James Madison wrote, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to the Legislature.”
Under no circumstances could this have possibly meant that the Congress is to authorize military force once and that said authorization will suffice for decades of intervention on end. The goal was to force a reasoned congressional debate on the merits. Sadly, Congress has time and again eschewed that goal in favor of political expediency.
This doctrine of perpetual war endorsed by both party establishments has serious side effects. For one thing, every time the nation enters wartime, the power of the government expands. That comes through emergency powers to limit speech, to spy on the citizenry, to spend absurd amounts on munitions, and to vest almost unquestioned power in the executive branch. Given the costs and the consequences here and abroad, voters should demand that the issue of war and peace be publicly debated in Congress every single time a new conflict arises.
Jason Pye is the vice president of legislative affairs for FreedomWorks.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-23--Impeachment managers warn senators of 'repetition' in third day of trial

House impeachment managers began presenting the “ constitutional underpinnings ” of an abuse of power impeachment article against President Trump after warning restless senators their presentation repeats some of the evidence they presented on Wednesday .
On Thursday , House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff , the head House impeachment manager , asked “ for some forbearance ” from the 100 senators required to sit in the chamber for the entirety of the presentation , explaining the House case will include information they already heard at Wednesday 's extended proceeding .
“ Of necessity , there will be some repetition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I want to explain the reason for it , ” Schiff told the Senate at the opening of the third day of the Senate impeachment trial .
Schiff said that even though Democratic impeachment managers presented the same information on Wednesday , senators “ will see some of these facts in videos , therefore in a new context , in a new light of what else we know and why it compels a finding of guilt and conviction . ''
Schiff added , “ So , there is some method to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing patience .
Democrats presented their case against an increasingly weary and restless Senate GOP , some who told the Washington Examiner they have learned nothing new in the past two days about the already well-publicized case against the president .
Democrats and many pundits have praised Schiff for his arguments in the case so far .
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , a South Carolina Republican , said Schiff `` did a good job creating a tapestry of bits and pieces of evidence '' that were sometimes effective in making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Republicans did not agree .
Sen. Mike Braun said Schiff ’ s presentation of the case would be suitable `` if you want to bore somebody to death.
” Senators took their seats in the chamber at 1 p.m. , the appointed time for the start of the trial .
Some Democrats flipped pages of a document that followed along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler , the impeachment manager who presented the case Wednesday after Schiff opened the trial .
Some Republicans watched Nadler while senators in both parties wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , a Kentucky Republican who has been critical of the House impeachment charges , sat in the front of the chamber at his empty desk , expressionless , with his eyes glued on Schiff , Nadler , and the string of other impeachment managers who delivered arguments .
Democrats have until tomorrow to complete the presentation of their case .
The trial continues on Saturday , when Trump ’ s defense team will begin up to three days of arguments against the two articles of impeachment that accuse Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
Nadler opened the case for the House abuse of power charge Thursday with a statement he ’ s made since the start of the House impeachment investigation against the president .
“ President Trump used the powers of his office to solicit a foreign national to interfere in our elections for his own benefit , ” Nadler said .
About half of the Senators were not even looking at him .
Wednesday ’ s presentation lasted more than nine hours , with some breaks in between .
Thursday ’ s presentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aides said .
Nadler said the managers would use both Thursday and Friday to present the evidence for the abuse of power charge .
The managers will complete on Friday the obstruction of Congress charge .
Democrats are hoping by the time both managers and defense lawyers have presented their cases , Republicans will be convinced they need to hear new evidence and will side with Democrats in a vote to call new witnesses , which would extend the trial by weeks .
Republicans headed into the Senate chamber for another marathon session @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer trial , especially one run by Schiff .
“ I don ’ t think many people are going to want to listen to it in its entirety the way he ’ s been laying it out , ” Braun said .

House impeachment managers began presenting the “constitutional underpinnings” of an abuse of power impeachment article against President Trump after warning restless senators their presentation repeats some of the evidence they presented on Wednesday.
On Thursday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the head House impeachment manager, asked “for some forbearance” from the 100 senators required to sit in the chamber for the entirety of the presentation, explaining the House case will include information they already heard at Wednesday's extended proceeding.
“Of necessity, there will be some repetition of information from yesterday’s chronology, and I want to explain the reason for it,” Schiff told the Senate at the opening of the third day of the Senate impeachment trial.
Schiff said that even though Democratic impeachment managers presented the same information on Wednesday, senators “will see some of these facts in videos, therefore in a new context, in a new light of what else we know and why it compels a finding of guilt and conviction."
Schiff added, “So, there is some method to our madness.”
Republicans said they are losing patience.
Democrats presented their case against an increasingly weary and restless Senate GOP, some who told the Washington Examiner they have learned nothing new in the past two days about the already well-publicized case against the president.
Democrats and many pundits have praised Schiff for his arguments in the case so far. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Schiff "did a good job creating a tapestry of bits and pieces of evidence" that were sometimes effective in making the House case against the president.
Many other Republicans did not agree.
Sen. Mike Braun said Schiff’s presentation of the case would be suitable "if you want to bore somebody to death.”
Senators took their seats in the chamber at 1 p.m., the appointed time for the start of the trial. Some Democrats flipped pages of a document that followed along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, the impeachment manager who presented the case Wednesday after Schiff opened the trial.
Some Republicans watched Nadler while senators in both parties wrote on notepads or looked through documents.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who has been critical of the House impeachment charges, sat in the front of the chamber at his empty desk, expressionless, with his eyes glued on Schiff, Nadler, and the string of other impeachment managers who delivered arguments.
Democrats have until tomorrow to complete the presentation of their case.
The trial continues on Saturday, when Trump’s defense team will begin up to three days of arguments against the two articles of impeachment that accuse Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Nadler opened the case for the House abuse of power charge Thursday with a statement he’s made since the start of the House impeachment investigation against the president.
“President Trump used the powers of his office to solicit a foreign national to interfere in our elections for his own benefit,” Nadler said.
About half of the Senators were not even looking at him.
Wednesday’s presentation lasted more than nine hours, with some breaks in between. Thursday’s presentation will take just as long, Democratic aides said.
Nadler said the managers would use both Thursday and Friday to present the evidence for the abuse of power charge. The managers will complete on Friday the obstruction of Congress charge.
Democrats are hoping by the time both managers and defense lawyers have presented their cases, Republicans will be convinced they need to hear new evidence and will side with Democrats in a vote to call new witnesses, which would extend the trial by weeks.
Republicans headed into the Senate chamber for another marathon session on Thursday were not enthusiastic about a longer trial, especially one run by Schiff.
“I don’t think many people are going to want to listen to it in its entirety the way he’s been laying it out,” Braun said.