thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--White House Weekly: Feb. 7, 2020

White House Weekly: Feb. 7, 2020

The Senate acquitted President Trump , the president delivered his third State of the Union , and Trump took a victory lap .
Here 's everything you missed this past week .
On Wednesday , the Senate voted to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment .
It voted against the first article , abuse of power , 52-48 , and the second article , obstruction of Congress , 53-47 , falling well short of the 67-vote threshold needed to convict and remove the president from office .
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney voted to convict Trump on the first article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust , '' Romney said .
`` What he did was not perfect .
No , it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights , our national security , and our fundamental values .
Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one 's oath of office that I can imagine.
” The night prior to Trump ’ s acquittal , the president delivered his third State of the Union address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which he touted the success of the economy and the fight against terrorism .
But he also gave it that reality TV show feel .
A U.S. service member deployed to Afghanistan was reunited with his family , and Rush Limbaugh , the conservative talk show host who was recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer , was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom .
While there were many highs for Trump ’ s address , it wasn ’ t without drama .
In the beginning of the speech , Trump appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handshake .
And at the end of his address , Pelosi tore up the president ’ s speech .
Finally , in light of his State of the Union address and acquittal , Trump took a victory lap .
At the annual National Prayer Breakfast , Trump criticized both Romney and Pelosi , the latter of whom was sitting on the dais .
`` I do n't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong , '' Trump said .
`` Nor do I like people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you , ' when they know that that 's not so.
” He later celebrated at the White House with Republican lawmakers , sharing a copy of the Washington Post with the front-page headline reading : “ Trump Acquitted .
”

The Senate acquitted President Trump, the president delivered his third State of the Union, and Trump took a victory lap. Here's everything you missed this past week.
On Wednesday, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on both articles of impeachment.
It voted against the first article, abuse of power, 52-48, and the second article, obstruction of Congress, 53-47, falling well short of the 67-vote threshold needed to convict and remove the president from office. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney voted to convict Trump on the first article, invoking his faith as a reason.
"The president is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust," Romney said. "What he did was not perfect. No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine.”
The night prior to Trump’s acquittal, the president delivered his third State of the Union address.
Tensions ran high during a speech in which he touted the success of the economy and the fight against terrorism. But he also gave it that reality TV show feel. A U.S. service member deployed to Afghanistan was reunited with his family, and Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk show host who was recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
While there were many highs for Trump’s address, it wasn’t without drama.
In the beginning of the speech, Trump appeared to snub Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s attempted handshake. And at the end of his address, Pelosi tore up the president’s speech.
Finally, in light of his State of the Union address and acquittal, Trump took a victory lap.
At the annual National Prayer Breakfast, Trump criticized both Romney and Pelosi, the latter of whom was sitting on the dais.
"I don't like people who use their faith as justification for doing what they know is wrong," Trump said. "Nor do I like people who say, 'I pray for you,' when they know that that's not so.”
He later celebrated at the White House with Republican lawmakers, sharing a copy of the Washington Post with the front-page headline reading: “Trump Acquitted.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Trump’s bovine expletive really isn’t acceptable

I ’ ve avoided writing this , for fear of appearing hopelessly old-fashioned or being mocked as having a case of the “ vapors.
” But I can ’ t let it go without comment : President Trump was appallingly out of line in deliberately saying the word “ bulls -- - ” in his rambling East Room soliloquy on Thursday .
Yeah , yeah , I know — it ’ s a word any TV viewer can hear chanted loudly at almost every college basketball game played today .
I know some daily newspapers now fully spell out words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , I anticipate the ridiculous “ what about ” argument from Trump fans that I shouldn ’ t criticize the president ’ s language if I haven ’ t devoted a whole column to being verklempt about Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump ’ s speech .
( Yeah , whatever . )
Still , it must be said .
Decorum is important .
Standards are important .
Civility is important .
Much more than formal law , social mores are the ligaments of communal cohesiveness and , more broadly , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposition here : Wise thinkers have written volumes on the subject .
What ’ s worth noting is how far we ’ ve fallen in just three decades , though .
As it happens , right now , I am reading the unabridged presidential journals of Ronald Reagan — which , by the way , are fascinating , and inspirational .
One rather charming aspect of them is Reagan ’ s self-censorship on even mild profanity , even in private .
About once a month , his brief , longhand notes express enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerges .
In those instances , the Gipper writes that some congressman or other made him “ d—n ” angry , or that the media “ tried to give me h—l.
” Yes , that ’ s how he wrote it .
Even in private notes , even for words barely considered expletives at all , Reagan would not spell the words out .
He always put hyphens for the middle letters .
Every single time .
Now , that ’ s the sort of classiness the political world could use .
And @ @ @ @ @ @

I’ve avoided writing this, for fear of appearing hopelessly old-fashioned or being mocked as having a case of the “vapors.” But I can’t let it go without comment: President Trump was appallingly out of line in deliberately saying the word “bulls---” in his rambling East Room soliloquy on Thursday.
Yeah, yeah, I know — it’s a word any TV viewer can hear chanted loudly at almost every college basketball game played today. I know some daily newspapers now fully spell out words considered even more vulgar. And of course, I anticipate the ridiculous “what about” argument from Trump fans that I shouldn’t criticize the president’s language if I haven’t devoted a whole column to being verklempt about Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump’s speech. (Yeah, whatever.)
Still, it must be said. Decorum is important. Standards are important. Civility is important. Much more than formal law, social mores are the ligaments of communal cohesiveness and, more broadly, of civilization. The point needs no grand exposition here: Wise thinkers have written volumes on the subject.
What’s worth noting is how far we’ve fallen in just three decades, though. As it happens, right now, I am reading the unabridged presidential journals of Ronald Reagan — which, by the way, are fascinating, and inspirational. One rather charming aspect of them is Reagan’s self-censorship on even mild profanity, even in private. About once a month, his brief, longhand notes express enough frustration that at least some extra vehemence emerges. In those instances, the Gipper writes that some congressman or other made him “d—n” angry, or that the media “tried to give me h—l.”
Yes, that’s how he wrote it. Even in private notes, even for words barely considered expletives at all, Reagan would not spell the words out. He always put hyphens for the middle letters. Every single time.
Now, that’s the sort of classiness the political world could use. And that’s no bull.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Trump fails in his responsibility with petulant firing of Alexander Vindman

A president has the right to a national security team he trusts .
A president also has the responsibility to put the best interests of the nation before his own .
Firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Friday , Trump acted as is his right but abandoned his responsibility .
To be sure , Vindman has become an inherently partisan figure .
The moment the Army officer raised concerns about the propriety of a July White House meeting on Ukraine and later a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , he risked entering an inherently political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic-controlled House of Representatives launched impeachment proceedings .
Still , there is little evidence that Vindman acted outside the established reporting procedures in raising his concerns , and Vindman 's service record as an Army officer suggests that he is first and foremost a patriot .
We pay our military officers to make very tough calls in the nation 's best interest .
Vindman believed , credibly , that he was doing so .
For that reason , he was due more respect from his commander in chief than that which he received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differently , of course , but Trump 's supporters should remember that the president is not a king .
A president has a responsibility to ensure that the system of government works in the best interests of the people rather than his own person .
Toward that end , uniformed military officers , noncommissioned officers , and civilians on the National Security Council must feel comfortable to act within established protocols to serve the best interests of the nation .
To do otherwise is to risk subjugating their oaths to the Constitution to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president or his staff in any one moment , and that is not the American system of government .
Moreover , it 's not as if Trump lacked an alternative .
Now acquitted on both charges of impeachment , the president could have taken solace in his vindication .
He could then have waited a few months to see if Vindman requested reassignment back to the Pentagon or to another command .
If Vindman had not done so , Trump could then have directed his reassignment , but waiting would have achieved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not being vindictive for vindictiveness 's sake and evidencing Trump 's willingness to put the nation 's interest in a professional military before the demands of his own ego .
As with Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher , it is regrettable that Trump could not find it within himself to do so .

A president has the right to a national security team he trusts. A president also has the responsibility to put the best interests of the nation before his own.
Firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman on Friday, Trump acted as is his right but abandoned his responsibility.
To be sure, Vindman has become an inherently partisan figure. The moment the Army officer raised concerns about the propriety of a July White House meeting on Ukraine and later a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he risked entering an inherently political space. That became inevitable once the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives launched impeachment proceedings.
Still, there is little evidence that Vindman acted outside the established reporting procedures in raising his concerns, and Vindman's service record as an Army officer suggests that he is first and foremost a patriot. We pay our military officers to make very tough calls in the nation's best interest. Vindman believed, credibly, that he was doing so.
For that reason, he was due more respect from his commander in chief than that which he received on Friday.
Team Trump sees things differently, of course, but Trump's supporters should remember that the president is not a king. A president has a responsibility to ensure that the system of government works in the best interests of the people rather than his own person. Toward that end, uniformed military officers, noncommissioned officers, and civilians on the National Security Council must feel comfortable to act within established protocols to serve the best interests of the nation. To do otherwise is to risk subjugating their oaths to the Constitution to what they believe are the whims of a president or his staff in any one moment, and that is not the American system of government.
Moreover, it's not as if Trump lacked an alternative.
Now acquitted on both charges of impeachment, the president could have taken solace in his vindication. He could then have waited a few months to see if Vindman requested reassignment back to the Pentagon or to another command. If Vindman had not done so, Trump could then have directed his reassignment, but waiting would have achieved two objectives: showing the president was not being vindictive for vindictiveness's sake and evidencing Trump's willingness to put the nation's interest in a professional military before the demands of his own ego.
As with Chief Petty Officer Eddie Gallagher, it is regrettable that Trump could not find it within himself to do so.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--‘Appalling’: Hillary Clinton rips Trump over likely ouster of Alexander Vindman

Hillary Clinton used Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman ’ s own words to condemn President Trump for reportedly planning to remove the Army lieutenant colonel who testified during impeachment from the National Security Council .
Vindman , 44 , could be as a Ukrainian expert who leads European affairs at the National Security Council as early as Friday .
Although the reassignment has not been finalized , several people have criticized Trump for planning to remove Vindman .
Clinton , 72 , used Vindman ’ s opening remarks from his impeachment testimony to blast Trump .
“ During his testimony about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vindman had a message for his father : 'You made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union .
Do not worry , I will be fine for telling the truth . '
It ’ s appalling that this administration may prove him wrong , ” Clinton wrote .
Vindman , whose family immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union , was asked to testify in the House impeachment hearings because he had reported Trump ’ s July 25 phone call to his superiors in the National Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House had about the phone call , which he felt was “ improper.
” In his public House testimony , Vindman described the fear his father had when he explained that he would be speaking out against Trump .
He said , `` In Russia , my act of expressing concern to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions , and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life . ''
He continued , “ I ’ m grateful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant where I can live free of fear for mine and my family ’ s safety .
Dad , I ’ m sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals .
Talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision to leave the Soviet Union.
” Vindman ’ s words to his father endeared some , but not everyone appreciated how he presented his testimony .
Several military members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Others were upset when he corrected Rep. Devin Nunes and demanded that he be called “ Lt .
Col. Vindman ” rather than “ Mr .
Vindman.
” The latest reports of Vindman ’ s ouster are not the first time that the White House has been accused of seeking revenge on the lieutenant .
In November , the White House that Vindman had been fired .

Hillary Clinton used Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s own words to condemn President Trump for reportedly planning to remove the Army lieutenant colonel who testified during impeachment from the National Security Council.
Vindman, 44, could be removed from his position as a Ukrainian expert who leads European affairs at the National Security Council as early as Friday. Although the reassignment has not been finalized, several people have criticized Trump for planning to remove Vindman. Clinton, 72, used Vindman’s opening remarks from his impeachment testimony to blast Trump.
“During his testimony about Trump’s crimes, Lt. Col. Vindman had a message for his father: 'You made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.' It’s appalling that this administration may prove him wrong,” Clinton wrote.
Vindman, whose family immigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union, was asked to testify in the House impeachment hearings because he had reported Trump’s July 25 phone call to his superiors in the National Security Council. He testified that the White House had pressured him to stay quiet about the phone call, which he felt was “improper.”
In his public House testimony, Vindman described the fear his father had when he explained that he would be speaking out against Trump. He said, "In Russia, my act of expressing concern to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions, and offering public testimony involving the president would surely cost me my life."
He continued, “I’m grateful to my father for his brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety. Dad, I’m sitting here today in the U.S. Capitol talking to our elected professionals. Talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision to leave the Soviet Union.”
Vindman’s words to his father endeared some, but not everyone appreciated how he presented his testimony. Several military members chided Vindman for showing up to testify in his Army uniform . Others were upset when he corrected Rep. Devin Nunes and demanded that he be called “Lt. Col. Vindman” rather than “Mr. Vindman.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--WATCH LIVE: Trump speaks at economic opportunity summit in North Carolina

President Trump delivers remarks at the Opportunity Now Summit in Charlotte , North Carolina .
His speech , taking place @ @ @ @ @ two articles of impeachment , is expected to begin at 1:20 p.m .
ET .

President Trump delivers remarks at the Opportunity Now Summit in Charlotte, North Carolina.
His speech, taking place days after being acquitted on two articles of impeachment, is expected to begin at 1:20 p.m. ET.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Alexander Vindman to be ousted from National Security Council as early as Friday

The White House is preparing to reassign a key witness from President Trump 's impeachment trial : the National Security Council director and Army lieutenant colonel who reported the president 's July 25 phone call to Ukraine 's new leader .
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , a Ukraine expert who leads European affairs at the NSC , is expected to be rotated out of his current post as early as Friday .
Vindman 's report to the White House counsel of Trump 's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , during which the president pressed for an investigation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son Hunter Biden , is one of two accounts that led to the president 's impeachment in the House .
The second alarm was raised by a whistleblower , believed to be Eric Ciaramella , a CIA analyst who oversaw the NSC 's Ukraine portfolio under President Barack Obama and briefly under Trump .
A partial transcript of the phone call was later shared by the White House .
Testifying in November , Vindman said the president used `` inappropriate '' pressure on Zelensky .
The move to oust Vindman is said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least last week , '' Bloomberg reports .
Lower-level officials in nonpolitical positions have typically been safe from retaliatory firings , and doing so is likely to draw criticism from Congress .
According to two people familiar with the plan who spoke to Bloomberg , `` The White House intends to portray any house-cleaning as part of a downsizing of the NSC staff , not retaliation . ''
Vindman told senior NSC colleagues that he expected to leave his post as early as the end of the month , according to people familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post .
But Trump is eager to draw attention to Vindman and what Trump perceives as his perfidy .
Vindman 's next position is likely to be at the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Mark Esper , who said this summer Vindman would not face retribution for his actions .

The White House is preparing to reassign a key witness from President Trump's impeachment trial: the National Security Council director and Army lieutenant colonel who reported the president's July 25 phone call to Ukraine's new leader.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert who leads European affairs at the NSC, is expected to be rotated out of his current post as early as Friday.
Vindman's report to the White House counsel of Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which the president pressed for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, is one of two accounts that led to the president's impeachment in the House. The second alarm was raised by a whistleblower, believed to be Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst who oversaw the NSC's Ukraine portfolio under President Barack Obama and briefly under Trump. A partial transcript of the phone call was later shared by the White House.
Testifying in November, Vindman said the president used "inappropriate" pressure on Zelensky. The move to oust Vindman is said to have been under consideration since "at least last week," Bloomberg reports.
Lower-level officials in nonpolitical positions have typically been safe from retaliatory firings, and doing so is likely to draw criticism from Congress. According to two people familiar with the plan who spoke to Bloomberg, "The White House intends to portray any house-cleaning as part of a downsizing of the NSC staff, not retaliation."
Vindman told senior NSC colleagues that he expected to leave his post as early as the end of the month, according to people familiar with his decision who spoke to the Washington Post. But Trump is eager to draw attention to Vindman and what Trump perceives as his perfidy.
Vindman's next position is likely to be at the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who said this summer Vindman would not face retribution for his actions.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--'They should blame RUSSIA': Trump mocks Democrats after AP is unable to declare winner in Iowa

President Trump ridiculed the Democratic Party for its botched Iowa caucuses after the Associated Press announced that it declare a winner .
On Friday morning , President Trump mocked Iowa for the caucus debacle .
He tweeted , “ I think they should blame RUSSIA , RUSSIA , RUSSIA again !
If they can ’ t count votes properly , how are they going to run U.S. HealthCare ?
” Trump referenced the cloud of accusations that muddied his victory in 2016 after it was revealed the FBI was investigating whether his campaign had coordinated with Russia to defeat Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was taken up by special counsel Robert Mueller , found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in its efforts to sow discord in the election .
Earlier in the week , Trump was acquitted of two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment levied against him by House Democrats .
Nearly three whole days after the first-in-the-nation contest , the Iowa Democratic Party claimed that Pete Buttigieg had over Bernie Sanders with 100 % of the precincts reporting on Thursday .
But the Associated Press reported that their analysis of the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported final results and presented evidence that the final numbers were incorrectly tabulated .
The news organization also noted that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez had , which is a review process to ensure votes are correctly tabulated , which could alter the final results if the Iowa Democrats agree to comply .
“ The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner .
Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine a winner at this point , ” said its senior vice president and executive editor , Sally Buzbee .

President Trump ridiculed the Democratic Party for its botched Iowa caucuses after the Associated Press announced that it could not declare a winner.
On Friday morning, President Trump mocked Iowa for the caucus debacle. He tweeted, “I think they should blame RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA again! If they can’t count votes properly, how are they going to run U.S. HealthCare?”
I think they should blame RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA again! If they can’t count votes properly, how are they going to run U.S. HealthCare? https://t.co/JsNB8jvKoo — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2020
Trump referenced the cloud of accusations that muddied his victory in 2016 after it was revealed the FBI was investigating whether his campaign had coordinated with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. The investigation, which was taken up by special counsel Robert Mueller, found no criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in its efforts to sow discord in the election. Earlier in the week, Trump was acquitted of two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment levied against him by House Democrats.
Nearly three whole days after the first-in-the-nation contest, the Iowa Democratic Party claimed that Pete Buttigieg had a thin lead over Bernie Sanders with 100% of the precincts reporting on Thursday. But the Associated Press reported that their analysis of the results found at least one precinct had not reported final results and presented evidence that the final numbers were incorrectly tabulated.
The news organization also noted that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez had requested a recanvass , which is a review process to ensure votes are correctly tabulated, which could alter the final results if the Iowa Democrats agree to comply.
“The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner. Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year’s caucus process, it is not possible to determine a winner at this point,” said its senior vice president and executive editor, Sally Buzbee.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Republican governor says Trump should have been removed from office

Vermont Gov .
Phil Scott joined Sen. Mitt Romney in being one of the few Republicans to endorse President Trump ’ s removal from office .
Scott , 61 , announced on Thursday that he believed Trump should have been convicted on at least one of the articles of impeachment he faced .
The governor said Trump had abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and deserved to be removed from office .
“ I believe that the president abused his powers .
It ’ s hard , in some respects for me , because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t vote for the president , and I don ’ t believe that he should be in office , ” Scott said .
`` I think it ’ s for the voters to decide in November whether he should continue in that role.
” He also argued that additional witnesses should have been allowed to testify , adding , “ If they 'd taken more testimony , maybe they 'd have had more information , and maybe other senators would have acted appropriately.
” Romney , the junior senator from Utah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump during the impeachment trial , and he has since taken a lot of criticism from fellow Republicans , including barbs from the president .
Scott lauded Romney ’ s decision to vote against the president despite the backlash that was sure to follow .
“ I believe , as Sen. Romney did , that he shouldn ’ t be in office , ” Scott explained , later adding , “ It shows a lot about his character and integrity .
We can only hope that if we are in that same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the same.
” Scott , who was elected in 2017 , has routinely criticized Trump .
He was the to announce support for the impeachment investigation in September and has supported several liberal policies , including and .
Scott is one of few Republicans elected to major offices in Vermont .
Both senators , Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy , caucus with Democrats in the Senate .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton defeated Trump by more than 25 percentage points in Vermont .

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott joined Sen. Mitt Romney in being one of the few Republicans to endorse President Trump’s removal from office.
Scott, 61, announced on Thursday that he believed Trump should have been convicted on at least one of the articles of impeachment he faced. The governor said Trump had abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rivals and deserved to be removed from office.
“I believe that the president abused his powers. It’s hard, in some respects for me, because I’m not a supporter. I didn’t vote for the president, and I don’t believe that he should be in office,” Scott said. "I think it’s for the voters to decide in November whether he should continue in that role.”
He also argued that additional witnesses should have been allowed to testify, adding, “If they'd taken more testimony, maybe they'd have had more information, and maybe other senators would have acted appropriately.”
Romney, the junior senator from Utah, was the Republican to vote against President Trump during the impeachment trial, and he has since taken a lot of criticism from fellow Republicans, including barbs from the president. Scott lauded Romney’s decision to vote against the president despite the backlash that was sure to follow.
“I believe, as Sen. Romney did, that he shouldn’t be in office,” Scott explained, later adding, “It shows a lot about his character and integrity. We can only hope that if we are in that same, similar situation that we’d do the same.”
Scott, who was elected in 2017, has routinely criticized Trump. He was the first Republican governor to announce support for the impeachment investigation in September and has supported several liberal policies, including strengthened gun control laws and support for abortion access .
Scott is one of few Republicans elected to major offices in Vermont. Both senators, Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, caucus with Democrats in the Senate. In 2016, Hillary Clinton defeated Trump by more than 25 percentage points in Vermont.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Peter Strzok warns Trump: 'A great deal more to say about the president’s attacks'

Peter Strzok says he is ready to respond to President Trump 's `` attacks . ''
The former FBI agent reviled by Trump and his allies tweeted Thursday evening , something he rarely does , to respond to the president who mocked him and fellow FBI alumna Lisa Page hours earlier at the White House .
He shared a message from his lawyer , Aitan Goelman , who said : `` Angered by the disclosures of yet more instances of his betrayal of our national security in the service of his own political advantage , President Trump raged and threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testifying about his serial misconduct . ''
Goelman added , `` Peter Strzok , a patriotic career counterintelligence agent whose conduct in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has been vindicated by two independent IG investigations , today found himself targeted by his President in yet another unhinged attack ... .
`` '' I will have a great deal more to say about the president ’ s attacks on those with responsibility for holding him accountable .
America deserves better , '' Strzok said .
At an impeachment victory celebration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his defenders who helped him dodge being convicted on two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment .
He also lashed out at his political rivals and took several shots at former FBI officials who investigated him and his campaign for possible criminal conspiracy with Russia and obstruction of justice , including former FBI Director James Comey .
Calling Strzok and Page `` the FBI lovers '' and `` lowlifes , '' Trump mocked text messages between the two ex-FBI officials , which came to light during a Justice Department inspector general investigation , in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days before and after Trump won the presidency .
`` I can tell you , in my opinion , these are the crookedest , most dishonest , dirtiest people I 've ever seen .
They said , this is Strzok : 'God , Hillary should win 100 million to one . '
This is about me .
This is an agent from the FBI .
Look how they let her off .
Thirty-three thousand emails deleted .
Nothing happens to her .
Nothing happens .
It 's unbelievable , '' Trump said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton email and Russia investigations , and upon the disclosure of their text messages , Republicans accused them of being part of a plot to undermine Trump .
Although Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized both investigations , the DOJ watchdog has not determined that bias tainted either .
After being fired , Strzok filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in August .
Page sued the Justice Department and the FBI for violating her privacy by releasing her personal information to the public .
Page has yet to respond directly to Trump 's latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning in reaction to hearing Attorney General William Barr sent a memo to the FBI ordering the organization to clear any investigations into 2020 candidates with him .
`` Imagine if Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch had implemented this policy during or after the Clinton email investigation , '' she said , referring to the Obama-era attorneys general .
`` I ’ m not saying that the Department isn ’ t well-intended , but I don ’ t think this is the solution they think it is . ''

Peter Strzok says he is ready to respond to President Trump's "attacks."
The former FBI agent reviled by Trump and his allies tweeted Thursday evening, something he rarely does, to respond to the president who mocked him and fellow FBI alumna Lisa Page hours earlier at the White House.
He shared a message from his lawyer, Aitan Goelman, who said: "Angered by the disclosures of yet more instances of his betrayal of our national security in the service of his own political advantage, President Trump raged and threatened those public servants tasked with investigating or testifying about his serial misconduct."
Goelman added, "Peter Strzok, a patriotic career counterintelligence agent whose conduct in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has been vindicated by two independent IG investigations, today found himself targeted by his President in yet another unhinged attack .... "
Strzok himself teased a further response.
"I will have a great deal more to say about the president’s attacks on those with responsibility for holding him accountable. America deserves better," Strzok said.
2/2 I will have a great deal more to say about the president’s attacks on those with responsibility for holding him accountable.
America deserves better. https://t.co/ywx5R07fOi — Peter Strzok (@petestrzok) February 7, 2020
At an impeachment victory celebration earlier in the day, Trump lauded his defenders who helped him dodge being convicted on two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment. He also lashed out at his political rivals and took several shots at former FBI officials who investigated him and his campaign for possible criminal conspiracy with Russia and obstruction of justice, including former FBI Director James Comey.
Calling Strzok and Page "the FBI lovers" and "lowlifes," Trump mocked text messages between the two ex-FBI officials, which came to light during a Justice Department inspector general investigation, in which they expressed disbelief and disgust in the days before and after Trump won the presidency.
"I can tell you, in my opinion, these are the crookedest, most dishonest, dirtiest people I've ever seen. They said, this is Strzok: 'God, Hillary should win 100 million to one.' This is about me. This is an agent from the FBI. Look how they let her off. Thirty-three thousand emails deleted. Nothing happens to her. Nothing happens. It's unbelievable," Trump said.
Strzok and Page took part in the Hillary Clinton email and Russia investigations, and upon the disclosure of their text messages, Republicans accused them of being part of a plot to undermine Trump. Although Inspector General Michael Horowitz criticized both investigations, the DOJ watchdog has not determined that bias tainted either.
After being fired, Strzok filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in August. Page sued the Justice Department and the FBI for violating her privacy by releasing her personal information to the public.
Page has yet to respond directly to Trump's latest comments, but she did tweet Thursday morning in reaction to hearing Attorney General William Barr sent a memo to the FBI ordering the organization to clear any investigations into 2020 candidates with him.
"Imagine if Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch had implemented this policy during or after the Clinton email investigation," she said, referring to the Obama-era attorneys general. "I’m not saying that the Department isn’t well-intended, but I don’t think this is the solution they think it is."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--House committee offers up crony, price-setting ‘solution’ to surprise medical billing

One solution benefits patients and doctors , and one solution benefits insurers , lobbyists , and donors .
Guess which one the House Ways and Means Committee just chose ?
Friday morning , the committee its newest to address the issue of surprise medical billing .
And , while the committee has attempted to hide its intentions throughout this process , its goal is still clear : siding with insurance companies and their lobbyists .
The committee is supporting informal price-setting policies , policies that are likely to break our healthcare system further .
Of course , surprise medical bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real problem .
They happen when an insured patient is at a hospital that their insurance company claims is in-network , but then the patient receives a separate bill from an out-of-network doctor that provided them with care .
While these bills are infrequent when looking at the whole of emergency care , they do happen , and they are a symptom of a broken healthcare market for sure .
However , there is also agreement from just about everyone involved that patients shouldn ’ t have to pay surprise bills out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this way for several reasons , and surprise bills are avoidable if Congress would take action to fix the market .
Instead , the House Ways and Means Committee is pursuing a Band-Aid approach that hands over most of the negotiation leverage over to insurance companies .
In previous drafts , the committee 's abdication of power was even more overt : it just gave the insurance companies the ability to pay doctors at the median in-network rate .
In this draft , the committee removes itself one step further from the dirty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to decide .
But , of course , Congress , with some help from the insurance industry , has set up the rules of the arbitration to favor the median in-network rate .
In other words , this is merely dressed up price-setting .
Interestingly , insurers don ’ t come out of this power grab happy either .
The draft bill also includes some woeful transparency language that won ’ t change healthcare much , but will allow members of Congress to claim that they support transparency .
The real issue with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unnecessary .
There is a growing market in healthcare where there are no surprise bills , prices are fully transparent , and , most of the time , procedures are done with zero copay from the patient .
In the last nine years , one company involved with this movement has gone from its first patient taking advantage of the new program to now more than 800 patients per month .
And that is just one small example .
Bundled cash prices are catching on around the country , and providers and self-insured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way they do business .
The Ways and Means draft legislation will further slow down this movement and create more chaos in the already chaotic healthcare market .
The simplest healthcare market is one where the patient pays the doctor directly .
However , over time more and more people have pushed their way into this transaction , creating a labyrinth of layers and regulations between patients and doctors that make healthcare one of the most inefficient markets that can be conceived .
The right public policy approach would address the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these layers attractive and sometimes necessary .
Only then can we restore more efficiency to the market .
In an efficient market , such as , say , the market for candy bars , prices are transparent and there are no surprise bills .
That ’ s why it isn ’ t necessary for us to regulate the Snickers market .
Healthcare should be the same — but this supposed “ solution ” would only make matters worse .
Charles Sauer ( @ CharlesSauer ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Market Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill , for a governor , and for an academic think tank .

One solution benefits patients and doctors, and one solution benefits insurers, lobbyists, and donors. Guess which one the House Ways and Means Committee just chose?
Friday morning, the committee produced its newest draft legislation to address the issue of surprise medical billing. And, while the committee has attempted to hide its intentions throughout this process, its goal is still clear: siding with insurance companies and their lobbyists. The committee is supporting informal price-setting policies, policies that are likely to break our healthcare system further.
Of course, surprise medical bills are indeed a real thing and a real problem.
They happen when an insured patient is at a hospital that their insurance company claims is in-network, but then the patient receives a separate bill from an out-of-network doctor that provided them with care. While these bills are infrequent when looking at the whole of emergency care, they do happen, and they are a symptom of a broken healthcare market for sure. However, there is also agreement from just about everyone involved that patients shouldn’t have to pay surprise bills out of pocket.
The healthcare market has developed this way for several reasons, and surprise bills are avoidable if Congress would take action to fix the market.
Instead, the House Ways and Means Committee is pursuing a Band-Aid approach that hands over most of the negotiation leverage over to insurance companies. In previous drafts, the committee's abdication of power was even more overt: it just gave the insurance companies the ability to pay doctors at the median in-network rate. In this draft, the committee removes itself one step further from the dirty work by allowing for a third-party arbitrator to decide. But, of course, Congress, with some help from the insurance industry, has set up the rules of the arbitration to favor the median in-network rate.
In other words, this is merely dressed up price-setting.
Interestingly, insurers don’t come out of this power grab happy either. The draft bill also includes some woeful transparency language that won’t change healthcare much, but will allow members of Congress to claim that they support transparency.
The real issue with these provisions is that they are completely unnecessary.
There is a growing market in healthcare where there are no surprise bills, prices are fully transparent, and, most of the time, procedures are done with zero copay from the patient. In the last nine years, one company involved with this movement has gone from its first patient taking advantage of the new program to now more than 800 patients per month. And that is just one small example. Bundled cash prices are catching on around the country, and providers and self-insured companies are starting to make changes to the way they do business.
The Ways and Means draft legislation will further slow down this movement and create more chaos in the already chaotic healthcare market.
The simplest healthcare market is one where the patient pays the doctor directly. However, over time more and more people have pushed their way into this transaction, creating a labyrinth of layers and regulations between patients and doctors that make healthcare one of the most inefficient markets that can be conceived. The right public policy approach would address the market incentives that Congress has created that makes these layers attractive and sometimes necessary. Only then can we restore more efficiency to the market.
In an efficient market, such as, say, the market for candy bars, prices are transparent and there are no surprise bills. That’s why it isn’t necessary for us to regulate the Snickers market. Healthcare should be the same — but this supposed “solution” would only make matters worse.
Charles Sauer (@CharlesSauer) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Market Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill, for a governor, and for an academic think tank.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar held hands at State of the Union through 'moments of triggering'

Rep. Rashida Tlaib said she and Rep. Ilhan Omar had to hold hands at points during President Trump 's State of the Union address to comfort each other .
`` It think was a huge struggle for me because I do n't think people realize its worse in — when you 're actually there , '' the Michigan Democrat said at an event with Rep. Ilhan Omar about listening to the address .
`` No , it really is , it actually — there was moments of triggering , and I kept holding your hand , '' Tlaib said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentionally sat next to each other to support each other . ''
Tlaib , 43 , said earlier this week that she walked out of the speech because it was full of `` bigotry . ''
The freshman congresswoman pointed to Trump mentioning Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as the moment she could not take it anymore .
During the speech , Tlaib and Omar refused to stand up when the president honored Charles McGee , one of the last Tuskegee Airmen .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shredded Trump 's address @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Both Tlaib and Omar praised the move on Twitter along with their colleague Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who boycotted the speech .

Rep. Rashida Tlaib said she and Rep. Ilhan Omar had to hold hands at points during President Trump's State of the Union address to comfort each other.
"It think was a huge struggle for me because I don't think people realize its worse in — when you're actually there," the Michigan Democrat said at an event with Rep. Ilhan Omar about listening to the address.
"No, it really is, it actually — there was moments of triggering, and I kept holding your hand," Tlaib said, looking at Omar. "And we intentionally sat next to each other to support each other."
Tlaib, 43, said earlier this week that she walked out of the speech because it was full of "bigotry." The freshman congresswoman pointed to Trump mentioning Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as the moment she could not take it anymore.
During the speech, Tlaib and Omar refused to stand up when the president honored Charles McGee, one of the last Tuskegee Airmen.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shredded Trump's address at the conclusion of the speech. Both Tlaib and Omar praised the move on Twitter along with their colleague Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who boycotted the speech.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Devin Nunes: 'We were ready' to bring in witnesses to show Marie Yovanovitch was anti-Trump

Marie Yovanovitch was fortunate that House Republicans could not bring in additional witnesses to prove her hatred for President Trump , according to Rep. Devin Nunes .
The House Intelligence Committee ranking member remarked on the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during an interview on Fox News one day after Trump was acquitted on two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment .
“ There 's a reason why she got fired , ” the California Republican said Thursday evening .
“ This is one of the things we could never really get out because we could n't bring in witnesses , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we were ready to bring in that said that she was anti-Trump , espousing anti-Trump administration views while she was ambassador to Ukraine .
That ’ s her boss.
” Nunes added , “ She 's lucky we could n't bring any actual witnesses in , because there are people that wanted to testify against her.
” Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine before Trump had her recalled from the post in May 2019 , and she has since retired from the foreign service .
She had become the target of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused her of being a political enemy of the White House .
During impeachment proceedings in the House , Yovanovitch testified that a superior told her that she had done nothing wrong but that Trump had lost faith in her .
She also condemned the “ smear campaign ” against her , saying allegations that she put together a “ do not prosecute ” list were a “ fabrication ” and denying claims that she had told anyone at the embassy or in Ukraine that Trump ’ s orders should be ignored .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ turbulent times ” she faced at the end of her career in the State Department .
She referred to Trump as an “ individual transgressor ” from whom America ’ s diplomatic institutions need protection , adding that “ we must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act.
” As Nunes mentioned , Republicans did not have the votes to bring forward witnesses who could contradict her impeachment testimony because they are not in the majority in the House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
So if they don ’ t give us witnesses , that ’ s the whole — I mean we talked about this last time , ” Nunes said , adding , “ We ’ ve got to win back the majority.
” Senate Democrats felt similarly disenfranchised by being in the minority .
They tried to force the Senate to hear from additional impeachment witnesses during the trial but from Republicans to make that happen .
Trump was acquitted on the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on @ @

Marie Yovanovitch was fortunate that House Republicans could not bring in additional witnesses to prove her hatred for President Trump, according to Rep. Devin Nunes.
The House Intelligence Committee ranking member remarked on the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during an interview on Fox News one day after Trump was acquitted on two Ukraine-related articles of impeachment.
“There's a reason why she got fired,” the California Republican said Thursday evening. “This is one of the things we could never really get out because we couldn't bring in witnesses, but you know, we had people that we were ready to bring in that said that she was anti-Trump, espousing anti-Trump administration views while she was ambassador to Ukraine. That’s her boss.”
Nunes added, “She's lucky we couldn't bring any actual witnesses in, because there are people that wanted to testify against her.”
Yovanovitch was the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine before Trump had her recalled from the post in May 2019, and she has since retired from the foreign service. She had become the target of Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani and others who accused her of being a political enemy of the White House.
During impeachment proceedings in the House, Yovanovitch testified that a superior told her that she had done nothing wrong but that Trump had lost faith in her. She also condemned the “smear campaign” against her, saying allegations that she put together a “do not prosecute” list were a “fabrication” and denying claims that she had told anyone at the embassy or in Ukraine that Trump’s orders should be ignored.
On Thursday, Yovanovitch had an opinion piece published describing the “turbulent times” she faced at the end of her career in the State Department. She referred to Trump as an “individual transgressor” from whom America’s diplomatic institutions need protection, adding that “we must not allow the United States to become a country where standing up to our government is a dangerous act.”
As Nunes mentioned, Republicans did not have the votes to bring forward witnesses who could contradict her impeachment testimony because they are not in the majority in the House.
“We don’t have subpoena power. So if they don’t give us witnesses, that’s the whole — I mean we talked about this last time,” Nunes said, adding, “We’ve got to win back the majority.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Mitt Romney's 'profile in courage'

Mitt Romney's 'profile in courage'

For years , Mitt Romney had a reputation as a flip-flopper , an opportunist , a politician who would tailor his beliefs to fit whichever group he was trying to please .
Running for office in deep-blue Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002 , he pronounced himself strongly pro-choice .
Running for the Republican presidential nomination in pro-life Iowa and South Carolina , he became just as strongly pro-life .
As governor of Massachusetts , he produced a universal healthcare program that prefigured Obamacare .
Appealing to GOP voters deeply opposed to Obama , Romney renounced his signature accomplishment .
Running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from the legacy of Ronald Reagan .
Running in the Republican primaries , he embraced the GOP 's favorite president .
Running for office in Massachusetts , Romney eschewed the label of conservative Republican .
`` My views are progressive , '' he said in 2002 , pronouncing himself a `` moderate . ''
Ten years later , running in the GOP primaries , he famously declared himself `` severely conservative . ''
And so on .
Romney could never escape the opportunist label , mostly because it fit .
Until now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on Wednesday , Romney voted to convict and remove President Trump from office , becoming the first senator in U.S. history to vote to remove a president of his own party .
To hear some mainstream journalists tell the story , Romney 's years of opportunism just melted away , replaced by a profile in courage .
Romney meticulously prepared the media rollout of his new profile in courage .
Before he announced his intention to vote against Trump , he arranged for interviews with the New York Times , Washington Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all embargoed until he made his decision public on the Senate floor .
`` Romney 's media plan around this is really a wonder to behold , '' noted BuzzFeed 's Ben Smith .
One of those pre-interviews was with the New York Times 's podcast The Daily .
Romney conceded the charge of political opportunism in the past .
`` My guess is that I was influenced in some cases by political benefit , '' he said , `` and I regret that . ''
But what about now ?
The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the anti-Trump vote , Romney might be trying to make up for times past .
`` He has always been very aware of his own political narrative , '' Leibovich said .
`` He has been aware of how he was viewed , maybe as a political opportunist , him maybe doing things out of expediency rather than principle .
And I think ultimately one of the things that this Senate chapter has done for him in his career is that it has enabled him to maybe rewrite the ending , maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as if he was doing the right thing at the expense of whatever the expedient decision at the moment would have been . ''
And so , the Old Romney became the New Romney .
`` His career ... is littered with examples of moments where it seems like he wanted to be on both sides of an issue , or he 'evolved ' in ways that felt opportunistic , '' the New York Times 's Michael Barbaro said .
`` Yet at this moment , he becomes a senator of conscience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's 2012 presidential run , wondered whether it might not be that simple , whether all might not be exactly as it seems , whether there might still be a bit of Old Romney at work .
`` But it 's a moment where his vote to convict the president on one of two counts has no impact whatsoever on the process , '' Barbaro said .
`` Romney is the lone dissenting voice in a case that he can have no influence over . ''
Barbaro compared Romney 's anti-Trump vote to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCain cast to kill the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare .
That was a consequential vote , one where the fate of a major political issue rested entirely on McCain 's shoulders .
Romney 's vote , even though it earned him the scorn of Trump supporters , was nevertheless not terribly consequential .
Trump would remain in office whether he cast it or not .
On the plus side , the vote would win Romney widespread praise across much of the media .
How often can one become a profile in courage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially for a man who was excoriated by some of those same media voices when he ran against Barack Obama eight years ago .
Now , Romney will take plenty of hits from the Trump side — and from the president himself .
But there are clearly benefits as well .
So , just as it was in the old days , the question is : Who is Romney trying to please ?
It is often remarked that Trump , at 73 years of age , is not going to change .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what about the 72-year-old Mitt Romney ?
A career in politics led to his vote Wednesday .
Although he is a man with some undeniably good qualities , those who have watched him over the years will wonder whether the vote was truly something new or the Romney they have known for a long time .

For years, Mitt Romney had a reputation as a flip-flopper, an opportunist, a politician who would tailor his beliefs to fit whichever group he was trying to please.
Running for office in deep-blue Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002, he pronounced himself strongly pro-choice. Running for the Republican presidential nomination in pro-life Iowa and South Carolina, he became just as strongly pro-life.
As governor of Massachusetts, he produced a universal healthcare program that prefigured Obamacare. Appealing to GOP voters deeply opposed to Obama, Romney renounced his signature accomplishment.
Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney backed away from the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Running in the Republican primaries, he embraced the GOP's favorite president.
Running for office in Massachusetts, Romney eschewed the label of conservative Republican. "My views are progressive," he said in 2002, pronouncing himself a "moderate." Ten years later, running in the GOP primaries, he famously declared himself "severely conservative."
And so on. Romney could never escape the opportunist label, mostly because it fit.
Until now. As the junior senator from Utah, on Wednesday, Romney voted to convict and remove President Trump from office, becoming the first senator in U.S. history to vote to remove a president of his own party. To hear some mainstream journalists tell the story, Romney's years of opportunism just melted away, replaced by a profile in courage.
"A profile in courage," declared the Washington Post.
"A profile in courage," declared the Atlantic.
"A profile in courage," declared CNN.
Romney meticulously prepared the media rollout of his new profile in courage. Before he announced his intention to vote against Trump, he arranged for interviews with the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, and Fox News — all embargoed until he made his decision public on the Senate floor.
"Romney's media plan around this is really a wonder to behold," noted BuzzFeed's Ben Smith.
One of those pre-interviews was with the New York Times's podcast The Daily. Romney conceded the charge of political opportunism in the past. "My guess is that I was influenced in some cases by political benefit," he said, "and I regret that."
But what about now? The New York Times's Mark Leibovich suggested that with the anti-Trump vote, Romney might be trying to make up for times past. "He has always been very aware of his own political narrative," Leibovich said. "He has been aware of how he was viewed, maybe as a political opportunist, him maybe doing things out of expediency rather than principle. And I think ultimately one of the things that this Senate chapter has done for him in his career is that it has enabled him to maybe rewrite the ending, maybe recast himself as someone who did feel as if he was doing the right thing at the expense of whatever the expedient decision at the moment would have been."
And so, the Old Romney became the New Romney. "His career ... is littered with examples of moments where it seems like he wanted to be on both sides of an issue, or he 'evolved' in ways that felt opportunistic," the New York Times's Michael Barbaro said. "Yet at this moment, he becomes a senator of conscience."
But Barbaro, who covered Romney's 2012 presidential run, wondered whether it might not be that simple, whether all might not be exactly as it seems, whether there might still be a bit of Old Romney at work. "But it's a moment where his vote to convict the president on one of two counts has no impact whatsoever on the process," Barbaro said. "Romney is the lone dissenting voice in a case that he can have no influence over."
Barbaro compared Romney's anti-Trump vote to the deciding vote the late Sen. John McCain cast to kill the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare. That was a consequential vote, one where the fate of a major political issue rested entirely on McCain's shoulders. Romney's vote, even though it earned him the scorn of Trump supporters, was nevertheless not terribly consequential. Trump would remain in office whether he cast it or not.
On the plus side, the vote would win Romney widespread praise across much of the media. How often can one become a profile in courage? That would certainly feel good, especially for a man who was excoriated by some of those same media voices when he ran against Barack Obama eight years ago.
Now, Romney will take plenty of hits from the Trump side — and from the president himself. But there are clearly benefits as well. So, just as it was in the old days, the question is: Who is Romney trying to please?
It is often remarked that Trump, at 73 years of age, is not going to change. That certainly appears to be true. And what about the 72-year-old Mitt Romney? A career in politics led to his vote Wednesday. Although he is a man with some undeniably good qualities, those who have watched him over the years will wonder whether the vote was truly something new or the Romney they have known for a long time.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Senate Democrat presses government watchdog to review classified impeachment document from Pence aid

Senate Democrat presses government watchdog to review classified impeachment document from Pence aide

Sen. Chris Murphy asked the Government Accountability Office to review President Trump ’ s use of his authority to classify documents , alleging the commander in chief abused his power for political means .
The Connecticut Democrat sent the GAO his request on Thursday , according to Politico , citing a letter from Vice President Mike Pence ’ s aide , Jennifer Williams , which Pence ’ s office classified during the House ’ s impeachment investigation .
`` There was absolutely nothing in that document that should have been classified , '' Murphy said .
`` It was only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president in the middle of an impeachment proceeding , and you are not allowed , as president of the United States , to keep information from the public simply because it ’ s going to hurt you politically . ''
Murphy is also seeking information on whether members of Congress can challenge whether a document should be classified or not .
`` Right now , the only thing we can do is declassify it ourselves , which I do not think is a solution , '' he said , `` but , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then I do think we need to think about processes by which a third party can weigh in and decide to unclassify something that ’ s just a political embarrassment . ''
Williams gave her letter to the House Intelligence Committee as part of her testimony .
The letter related to a July 25 phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Williams described as `` unusual '' and `` inappropriate . ''
A whistleblower complaint about that conversation , in which Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate his political rivals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The letter was turned over to the Senate as part of the upper chamber 's trial over Trump 's impeachment .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts denied admitting the letter into the trial as evidence .
House Democrats complained openly during the Senate trial over Trump ’ s impeachment that the letter did not contain any sensitive information and did not need to be classified .
Democrats accused the White House of attempting to hide politically damaging information .
Trump was acquitted on two charges on Wednesday , one week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her role at the White House two months ahead of her planned departure .

Sen. Chris Murphy asked the Government Accountability Office to review President Trump’s use of his authority to classify documents, alleging the commander in chief abused his power for political means.
The Connecticut Democrat sent the GAO his request on Thursday, according to Politico, citing a letter from Vice President Mike Pence’s aide, Jennifer Williams, which Pence’s office classified during the House’s impeachment investigation.
"There was absolutely nothing in that document that should have been classified," Murphy said. "It was only classified because it was politically hurtful to the president in the middle of an impeachment proceeding, and you are not allowed, as president of the United States, to keep information from the public simply because it’s going to hurt you politically."
Murphy is also seeking information on whether members of Congress can challenge whether a document should be classified or not.
"Right now, the only thing we can do is declassify it ourselves, which I do not think is a solution," he said, "but, if this doesn’t get better, then I do think we need to think about processes by which a third party can weigh in and decide to unclassify something that’s just a political embarrassment."
Williams gave her letter to the House Intelligence Committee as part of her testimony. The letter related to a July 25 phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that Williams described as "unusual" and "inappropriate." A whistleblower complaint about that conversation, in which Trump pressed Zelensky to investigate his political rivals, was the impetus for impeachment proceedings.
The letter was turned over to the Senate as part of the upper chamber's trial over Trump's impeachment. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts denied admitting the letter into the trial as evidence.
House Democrats complained openly during the Senate trial over Trump’s impeachment that the letter did not contain any sensitive information and did not need to be classified. Democrats accused the White House of attempting to hide politically damaging information. Trump was acquitted on two charges on Wednesday, one week after it was reported that Williams was leaving her role at the White House two months ahead of her planned departure.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Virginia takes first step on gun ban

Virginia takes first step on gun ban

Despite a continued explosion of “ gun sanctuaries ” in nearly every corner of Virginia , the new Democratic-controlled legislature on Friday took the first step to ban sporting rifles , large-capacity magazines , and suppressors .
In a 12-9 vote , the House Public Safety Committee voted to ban “ assault weapons ” such as the popular AR-15 and AK-47 , magazines that hold more than 12 rounds , and sound suppressors , effective July 1 .
The bill is expected to win passage in the full House of Delegates but faces some difficulty in the Senate , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A similar bill in the Senate was previously withdrawn .
Gun advocates flooded the committee hearing room and were cleared out after the vote when there were some angry reactions .
The legislation was amended so that those who own the banned weapons would not have to give them up or register them , but the ban on big magazines and suppressors would stand .
Phil Van Cleave , who runs the influential Virginia Citizens Defense League , the group that recently sponsored a peaceful gun rally in Richmond that drew 22,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect our right to defend ourselves.
” He added that VCDL lawyers were already drawing up a lawsuit for if it clears the Senate and is signed by Gov .
Ralph Northam , a gun control advocate .
Catherine Mortensen , the spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association , said : “ This gun ban will make millions of law-abiding Virginians felons overnight while doing nothing to decrease crime .
That ’ s why a majority of Virginians oppose it .
The fact is lawmakers delayed bringing up this bill so they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefactor who will be in Richmond next week to headline a Democratic fundraiser to further enrich themselves .
It is clear that House leaders would rather bow to out-of-state interests than listen to their constituents and fellow lawmakers.
” Next week , Democratic presidential candidate Bloomberg is visiting Virginia .
He and his anti-gun groups funded several Democrats who won their elections last year and helped to give the party control of the legislature .
Democrats have wanted a gun ban ever since last year ’ s mass shooting in Virginia Beach that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed back , establishing “ gun sanctuaries ” in 141 counties and cities .

Despite a continued explosion of “gun sanctuaries” in nearly every corner of Virginia, the new Democratic-controlled legislature on Friday took the first step to ban sporting rifles, large-capacity magazines, and suppressors.
In a 12-9 vote, the House Public Safety Committee voted to ban “assault weapons” such as the popular AR-15 and AK-47, magazines that hold more than 12 rounds, and sound suppressors, effective July 1.
🚨HB961 passes committee & on to a full vote 🚨
Wake up Virginia! This is a near total gun ban with mandatory government registration of any of the guns you own.
This also includes a full ban on suppressors and magazines holding 10+ rounds. No Grandfathering those in. — VA Gun Facts (@GunFactsVA) February 7, 2020
The bill is expected to win passage in the full House of Delegates but faces some difficulty in the Senate, where a handful of Democrats are unsupportive. A similar bill in the Senate was previously withdrawn.
Gun advocates flooded the committee hearing room and were cleared out after the vote when there were some angry reactions.
The legislation was amended so that those who own the banned weapons would not have to give them up or register them, but the ban on big magazines and suppressors would stand.
Phil Van Cleave, who runs the influential Virginia Citizens Defense League, the group that recently sponsored a peaceful gun rally in Richmond that drew 22,000 people, said, “This bill would affect our right to defend ourselves.”
He added that VCDL lawyers were already drawing up a lawsuit for if it clears the Senate and is signed by Gov. Ralph Northam, a gun control advocate.
The @NRA enters 2020 campaign early, Virginia gun ban push the 'biggest wake-up call.’ Industry bigs at @NRA_GAOS see political concerns driving sales. https://t.co/2rm8izYwUn pic.twitter.com/KxuS6LqXfm — Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) February 7, 2020
Catherine Mortensen, the spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said: “This gun ban will make millions of law-abiding Virginians felons overnight while doing nothing to decrease crime. That’s why a majority of Virginians oppose it. The fact is lawmakers delayed bringing up this bill so they could pander to Mike Bloomberg, their billionaire benefactor who will be in Richmond next week to headline a Democratic fundraiser to further enrich themselves. It is clear that House leaders would rather bow to out-of-state interests than listen to their constituents and fellow lawmakers.”
Next week, Democratic presidential candidate Bloomberg is visiting Virginia. He and his anti-gun groups funded several Democrats who won their elections last year and helped to give the party control of the legislature.
Democrats have wanted a gun ban ever since last year’s mass shooting in Virginia Beach that killed 12.
But gun owners have pushed back, establishing “gun sanctuaries” in 141 counties and cities.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Ivanka Trump credited with boosting jobs ‘like no one has ever done’

Ivanka Trump , the president ’ s jobs czar , is being credited with boosting the creation of permanent and well-paying positions by the nation ’ s leading manufacturing group .
On a day when the administration recorded another good jobs report , the National Association of Manufacturers said that President Trump ’ s daughter has led the way in expanding unemployment “ like no one in government has ever done.
” Both nationally and internationally , Ivanka Trump has led campaigns to increase employment , empower women business owners , and win promises from companies to expand jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Friday that it will give her their inaugural Alexander Hamilton Award at its Creators Wanted meeting next week .
“ Ivanka Trump embodies the collaborative spirit and relentless drive needed to solve manufacturers ’ most pressing challenge — the workforce crisis .
Like no one in government has ever done , she has provided singular leadership and shown an unwavering commitment to modern manufacturing in America .
The Alexander Hamilton Award honors leaders who have made exceptional contributions to growing manufacturing in the United States and to empowering more Americans with high-tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons .
In a statement , he added , “ For her work bringing together leaders of industry , government , and academia to put in-demand careers within reach for all Americans , Ivanka stands out as the perfect choice for this award.
” Ivanka Trump , a special White House adviser who works for no pay , told the group , “ America is home to the best workforce in the world , but the skills of today do not mirror those of tomorrow .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipped with the skills they need to seize the vast opportunities that lie ahead .
”

Ivanka Trump, the president’s jobs czar, is being credited with boosting the creation of permanent and well-paying positions by the nation’s leading manufacturing group.
On a day when the administration recorded another good jobs report, the National Association of Manufacturers said that President Trump’s daughter has led the way in expanding unemployment “like no one in government has ever done.”
Both nationally and internationally, Ivanka Trump has led campaigns to increase employment, empower women business owners, and win promises from companies to expand jobs.
.@ivankatrump has been a steadfast partner to manufacturers as we work to solve the workforce crisis and to strengthen manufacturing for the future. #sotu #creatorswanted Read about our pledge here - https://t.co/M6oqc64PXX — Jay Timmons (@JayTimmonsNAM) February 5, 2020
As a result, the trade group said Friday that it will give her their inaugural Alexander Hamilton Award at its Creators Wanted meeting next week.
“Ivanka Trump embodies the collaborative spirit and relentless drive needed to solve manufacturers’ most pressing challenge — the workforce crisis. Like no one in government has ever done, she has provided singular leadership and shown an unwavering commitment to modern manufacturing in America. The Alexander Hamilton Award honors leaders who have made exceptional contributions to growing manufacturing in the United States and to empowering more Americans with high-tech, high-paying modern manufacturing jobs,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.
In a statement, he added, “For her work bringing together leaders of industry, government, and academia to put in-demand careers within reach for all Americans, Ivanka stands out as the perfect choice for this award.”
Ivanka Trump, a special White House adviser who works for no pay, told the group, “America is home to the best workforce in the world, but the skills of today do not mirror those of tomorrow. I am committed to ensuring our workforce is equipped with the skills they need to seize the vast opportunities that lie ahead.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Seventy-five percent of illegal immigrants skip deportation hearings, hiding out in US

More than 7 out of 10 illegal immigrant families ordered to be deported have skipped their court dates and remain in the United States , according to federal statistics .
In just 10 courts , some 36,115 illegal immigrant families ordered out from September 2018 to January 2020 never complied with a requirement to attend their hearings and instead are hiding out in the country , according to a Justice Department report from the Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics .
The report , according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies , found that during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ordered deported , but 75 % didn ’ t attend their court hearings to get the order .
The statistics are the latest in a long string of reports that have detailed how illegal immigrants disappear into the U.S. once they enter .
“ Their failure to appear suggests that they simply gamed loopholes in our immigration laws to gain entry into this country , to live and work indefinitely , ” said former Immigration Judge Andrew R. Arthur , writing for CIS .
“ There is nothing wrong with people looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course , but the problem in these cases are that ( 1 ) they put themselves and their children in danger by entering illegally to begin with , ( 2 ) they gave money to criminals and cartels to be smuggled into the U.S. , ( 3 ) they are swelling immigration court dockets with hearing dates they never attended and likely never planned to attend , and ( 4 ) they make it harder for legitimate asylum seekers to get protection in a timely manner , which would allow those aliens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and protect their family members still abroad .
Oh , and illegal entry is a crime , ” he added .
The report said that as in the past , some 9 out of 10 immigrants seeking asylum into the U.S. were denied .
Over the 15-month period and 10 courts studied in the report , judges completed 52,646 cases resulting in deportations of 47,925 — a 91 % removal rate .

More than 7 out of 10 illegal immigrant families ordered to be deported have skipped their court dates and remain in the United States, according to federal statistics.
In just 10 courts, some 36,115 illegal immigrant families ordered out from September 2018 to January 2020 never complied with a requirement to attend their hearings and instead are hiding out in the country, according to a Justice Department report from the Executive Office for Immigration Review Adjudication Statistics.
The report, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies, found that during the period, 47,925 families were denied asylum and ordered deported, but 75% didn’t attend their court hearings to get the order.
The statistics are the latest in a long string of reports that have detailed how illegal immigrants disappear into the U.S. once they enter.
“Their failure to appear suggests that they simply gamed loopholes in our immigration laws to gain entry into this country, to live and work indefinitely,” said former Immigration Judge Andrew R. Arthur, writing for CIS.
“There is nothing wrong with people looking for a better life generally, of course, but the problem in these cases are that (1) they put themselves and their children in danger by entering illegally to begin with, (2) they gave money to criminals and cartels to be smuggled into the U.S., (3) they are swelling immigration court dockets with hearing dates they never attended and likely never planned to attend, and (4) they make it harder for legitimate asylum seekers to get protection in a timely manner, which would allow those aliens to start a new life free from fear and protect their family members still abroad. Oh, and illegal entry is a crime,” he added.
The report said that as in the past, some 9 out of 10 immigrants seeking asylum into the U.S. were denied.
Over the 15-month period and 10 courts studied in the report, judges completed 52,646 cases resulting in deportations of 47,925 — a 91% removal rate.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--NRA enters 2020 campaign early, Virginia gun ban push the 'biggest wake-up call’

The 2020 general election is still months off , but at every Friends of the NRA event that First Vice President Charles Cotton attends around the country , members are rushing up to him to urge that the National Rifle Association get involved early .
“ We ’ re hearing it now , ” he told me at the NRA-sponsored Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg , Pennsylvania .
Cotton said members are “ always ” coming up to him to ask , “ Are you guys on top of this ?
We want to help . ''
`` That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing , ” he said .
With liberal , anti-gun Democrats taking the top spots in presidential polls , fans of the Second Amendment are getting the jitters early .
They recognize that President Trump won by a hair over Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she advocated a new “ assault weapons ban.
” And they are fearful that if the NRA doesn ’ t wake up gun owners , complacency will take over as it did in the 2019 Virginia state elections that delivered the General Assembly to Democrats who immediately OK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Every time we have a pro-gun president , it ’ s easy to think , OK , there ’ s nothing to worry about , ” said Cotton .
But the Virginia vote “ has been the biggest wake-up call for the whole country that I ’ ve ever seen , ” he added , laying out the NRA 's 2020 agenda .
Not only have state liberals pushed through several gun control efforts , but on Friday , they are taking up a ban on “ assault weapons ” and large magazines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban 's sponsor , Democratic Virginia Del .
Mark Levine , has been criticized for being ignorant on guns and how they work , claiming the difference between hunting and sporting guns is how `` you hold them . ''
The video is above .
Back in 2016 , the NRA endorsed Trump and will again this year .
“ Trump is in the White House because of what we did in 2016 , ” said Cotton , who promised to roll out a large “ ground game ” to help the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vowing to ban or control guns , Cotton said that the political gulf in the United States has never been greater .
“ If Bernie [ Sanders ] is the candidate , if any of his ilk are the candidate , for the first time in my life , there will be the biggest gulf on the future of the country based upon a single presidential election , ” he said .
Ditto for Michael Bloomberg , who funds anti-gun groups .
At the outdoors show just two hours from Washington , several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white-hot on the gun issue .
“ This will be more politicized than before , ” said John Hollister of Sig Sauer , the maker of high-end weapons .
“ A lot of people stock up ” in contentious elections , he said , adding , “ There is a political motivation.
” Keri McDonald , of the Virginia-based Taylor ’ s & Company , said , “ Election years are always busier.
” But she added that the humming economy under Trump has also helped sales .
“ Our president has improved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people can buy.
” And Justin Anderson , the marketing director for one of the nation ’ s largest gun stores , Hyatt Guns of Charlotte , North Carolina , said that 2020 will push lots of people into buying guns .
So much so that he has ordered a record shipment of AR-style rifles .
“ We ’ ll be ready to help those good people who wish to demonstrate their Second Amendment rights , ” he said , adding , “ Any of the current Democrats vying to run will be @ @ @ @ @

The 2020 general election is still months off, but at every Friends of the NRA event that First Vice President Charles Cotton attends around the country, members are rushing up to him to urge that the National Rifle Association get involved early.
“We’re hearing it now,” he told me at the NRA-sponsored Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Cotton said members are “always” coming up to him to ask, “Are you guys on top of this? We want to help."
"That’s what we’re constantly hearing,” he said.
With liberal, anti-gun Democrats taking the top spots in presidential polls, fans of the Second Amendment are getting the jitters early.
Last night during #SOTU, @realDonaldTrump promised always to protect the 2nd Amendment. He also honored many exceptional Americans!
At the end, Pelosi tore up his speech.
Make no mistake: That is exactly what she and her anti-gun colleagues want to do to the Constitution too! pic.twitter.com/fvoaqSQRtl — NRA (@NRA) February 6, 2020
They recognize that President Trump won by a hair over Hillary Clinton in 2016 when she advocated a new “assault weapons ban.” And they are fearful that if the NRA doesn’t wake up gun owners, complacency will take over as it did in the 2019 Virginia state elections that delivered the General Assembly to Democrats who immediately OK’d gun control laws.
“Every time we have a pro-gun president, it’s easy to think, OK, there’s nothing to worry about,” said Cotton.
But the Virginia vote “has been the biggest wake-up call for the whole country that I’ve ever seen,” he added, laying out the NRA's 2020 agenda.
Not only have state liberals pushed through several gun control efforts, but on Friday, they are taking up a ban on “assault weapons” and large magazines that even some Democrats oppose. The ban's sponsor, Democratic Virginia Del. Mark Levine, has been criticized for being ignorant on guns and how they work, claiming the difference between hunting and sporting guns is how "you hold them." The video is above.
Back in 2016, the NRA endorsed Trump and will again this year. “Trump is in the White House because of what we did in 2016,” said Cotton, who promised to roll out a large “ground game” to help the president this year.
With all 2020 Democrats vowing to ban or control guns, Cotton said that the political gulf in the United States has never been greater.
“If Bernie [Sanders] is the candidate, if any of his ilk are the candidate, for the first time in my life, there will be the biggest gulf on the future of the country based upon a single presidential election,” he said. Ditto for Michael Bloomberg, who funds anti-gun groups.
At the outdoors show just two hours from Washington, several gun-makers agreed that the election will turn white-hot on the gun issue.
“This will be more politicized than before,” said John Hollister of Sig Sauer, the maker of high-end weapons. “A lot of people stock up” in contentious elections, he said, adding, “There is a political motivation.”
Keri McDonald, of the Virginia-based Taylor’s & Company, said, “Election years are always busier.” But she added that the humming economy under Trump has also helped sales. “Our president has improved the economy, and a lot of people can buy.”
And Justin Anderson, the marketing director for one of the nation’s largest gun stores, Hyatt Guns of Charlotte, North Carolina, said that 2020 will push lots of people into buying guns. So much so that he has ordered a record shipment of AR-style rifles.
“We’ll be ready to help those good people who wish to demonstrate their Second Amendment rights,” he said, adding, “Any of the current Democrats vying to run will be good for business!”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--After poor Iowa showing, Biden shakes up top campaign staff

Joe Biden is dramatically changing his campaign staff after a disappointing performance in the Iowa caucuses .
Anita Dunn , a longtime Democratic operative who worked for years in the Obama administration , has been elevated to a senior position in the campaign .
Previously , she was only an adviser in the former vice president 's campaign .
“ She will be working closely with us on campaign strategy and overall coordination on budget and personnel as we build a bigger campaign for the next phase , ” a leaked campaign email to the New York Times said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ managing director of SKDKnickerbocker , a liberal communications firm in Washington .
She worked for then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2006 before being his director of communications in his 2008 White House run .
She served as the White House communications director from April to November 2009 before leaving for the private sector .
Dunn helped advise Obama 's campaign during his 2012 reelection bid as president .
The news of Dunn 's role comes after the results of Monday 's Iowa caucuses left Biden in a weakened political position .
Though his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance was necessary in Iowa , its distant fourth-place finish behind Pete Buttigieg , Bernie Sanders , and Elizabeth Warren has come with dramatic reevaluations on the campaign 's future strategy .
On Wednesday , reports came out that the Biden campaign fired its Iowa field director , Adrienne Bogen .
Other senior members of the state 's operation moved on to positions in Super Tuesday states ahead of the March 3 contests .

Joe Biden is dramatically changing his campaign staff after a disappointing performance in the Iowa caucuses.
Anita Dunn, a longtime Democratic operative who worked for years in the Obama administration, has been elevated to a senior position in the campaign. Previously, she was only an adviser in the former vice president's campaign.
“She will be working closely with us on campaign strategy and overall coordination on budget and personnel as we build a bigger campaign for the next phase,” a leaked campaign email to the New York Times said.
Dunn, 62, is currently the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a liberal communications firm in Washington. She worked for then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2006 before being his director of communications in his 2008 White House run.
She served as the White House communications director from April to November 2009 before leaving for the private sector. Dunn helped advise Obama's campaign during his 2012 reelection bid as president.
The news of Dunn's role comes after the results of Monday's Iowa caucuses left Biden in a weakened political position. Though his campaign wavered on whether it believed a strong performance was necessary in Iowa, its distant fourth-place finish behind Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren has come with dramatic reevaluations on the campaign's future strategy.
On Wednesday, reports came out that the Biden campaign fired its Iowa field director, Adrienne Bogen. Other senior members of the state's operation moved on to positions in Super Tuesday states ahead of the March 3 contests.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-07--Steyer first 2020 Democrat to push negative ad

MANCHESTER , New Hampshire — Tom Steyer is the first candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to go negative in an ad about rivals from his own party .
Steyer , 62 , a hedge fund manager , environmentalist , and Democratic megadonor who pushed for impeachment , ripped Joe Biden , Pete Buttigieg , and Bernie Sanders in a new 60-second advertisement rolled out this week .
`` We simply ca n't afford to nominate another insider , or an untested newcomer who does n't have the experience to beat Trump on the economy , '' the narrator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clip of Steyer at a campaign event , warning the crowd about how President Trump and Republicans will run in the general election if Democrats select Sanders as its standard-bearer .
“ He ’ s running on the economy .
He ’ s running on the idea that Democrats can ’ t grow an economy , are a bunch of socialists , you can ’ t afford to vote for them , ” he says .
“ My job is to take on Mr. Trump and kick his ass on the economy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'struggling ' Pete Buttigieg over minority outreach and experience weaknesses ] The ad will feature in a flight of airtime Steyer bought this week , including roughly $ 5.3 million in California , $ 1.2 million in New Hampshire , $ 880,000 in South Carolina , and $ 670,00 in Nevada .
His investments in Nevada and South Carolina are being used to explain his surprisingly strong polling in those two early voting states .
According to RealClearPolitics averages , Steyer is ranked fourth in Nevada with 10 % of the vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second in South Carolina with an average of 18.5 % support , following only Biden .
The tenor of the ad contradicts the happy-go-lucky persona Steyer projects on the campaign trail .
Aside from impeachment , many voters recognize him based solely on his penchant for wearing red and black plaid ties .
When asked about it late Friday during a CNN town hall , he told the crowd he likes `` to wear bright colors because it 's a lot more fun . ''
`` You get up in the morning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God 's sake , '' he said .
Steyer and fellow Democratic billionaire White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg , 77 , have spent approximately $ 400 million on ads since announcing their respective candidacies .
The media mogul and former New York City mayor 's spending , in particular , has increased the cost for his competitors to buy airtime in already expensive media markets , changing the dynamics of the race .

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Tom Steyer is the first candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to go negative in an ad about rivals from his own party.
Steyer, 62, a hedge fund manager, environmentalist, and Democratic megadonor who pushed for impeachment, ripped Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Bernie Sanders in a new 60-second advertisement rolled out this week.
"We simply can't afford to nominate another insider, or an untested newcomer who doesn't have the experience to beat Trump on the economy," the narrator says.
The ad also includes a clip of Steyer at a campaign event, warning the crowd about how President Trump and Republicans will run in the general election if Democrats select Sanders as its standard-bearer.
“He’s running on the economy. He’s running on the idea that Democrats can’t grow an economy, are a bunch of socialists, you can’t afford to vote for them,” he says. “My job is to take on Mr. Trump and kick his ass on the economy.”
[Read more: Tom Steyer targets 'struggling' Pete Buttigieg over minority outreach and experience weaknesses]
Tom Steyer going negative in new 60-second spot up today -- w/ shots at Biden, Buttigieg and "socialists" in field. Steyer has over $8 million of airtime booked for this week: $5.3 million in California, $1.2 million in New Hampshire, $880k in South Carolina, and $670k in Nevada pic.twitter.com/uxdg65SQYf — David Wright (@DavidWright_7) February 6, 2020
The ad will feature in a flight of airtime Steyer bought this week, including roughly $5.3 million in California, $1.2 million in New Hampshire, $880,000 in South Carolina, and $670,00 in Nevada. His investments in Nevada and South Carolina are being used to explain his surprisingly strong polling in those two early voting states. According to RealClearPolitics averages, Steyer is ranked fourth in Nevada with 10% of the vote, ahead of Buttigieg. He's also second in South Carolina with an average of 18.5% support, following only Biden.
The tenor of the ad contradicts the happy-go-lucky persona Steyer projects on the campaign trail. Aside from impeachment, many voters recognize him based solely on his penchant for wearing red and black plaid ties. When asked about it late Friday during a CNN town hall, he told the crowd he likes "to wear bright colors because it's a lot more fun."
"You get up in the morning, let's have some darn fun for God's sake," he said.
Steyer and fellow Democratic billionaire White House hopeful Michael Bloomberg, 77, have spent approximately $400 million on ads since announcing their respective candidacies. The media mogul and former New York City mayor's spending, in particular, has increased the cost for his competitors to buy airtime in already expensive media markets, changing the dynamics of the race.