thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--The case for repealing FISA and reforming the FBI and CIA

Like most of what ails us today , the seeds of the current crisis in republican governance — the severance of Washington ’ s omnipotent law enforcement and intelligence apparatus from democratic accountability — were sown in the 1960s and ’ 70s .
That was when we began to erase the salient distinction between law and politics .
Under the guise of “ national security , ” we insulated governmental actions and policies from the reckoning of our citizens , whose safety and self-determination hang in the balance .
Fast forward to 2020 .
The FBI , in its bungling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election away from its preferred candidate , Hillary Clinton .
The sprawling “ community ” of intelligence agencies ( led by the FBI and CIA ) covertly used dubious foreign sources to justify monitoring an American political campaign and , later , a U.S. presidential administration .
To do so , it invoked daunting foreign-counterintelligence surveillance powers , based on a fever dream that its bête noire , Donald Trump , was an agent of the Kremlin .
And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently chastised the FBI for feeding it false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently calculating that this extraordinary public expression of wrath will divert attention from its own shoddy performance in approving highly intrusive spy warrants based on sensational , blatantly uncorroborated rumor and innuendo .
As usual , Washington is reacting with high-decibel inertia .
In an era of hyperpartisanship , Democrats defend the politicization of the law enforcement and intelligence that resulted in the Trump-Russia investigation .
Republicans , meanwhile , wail about being victimized — even as the victim-in-chief ham-handedly dabbles in his own mini-version of the abuse : the Ukraine kerfuffle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futilely , to leverage the investigative and foreign affairs powers of the executive branch for domestic political advantage .
Few are willing to confront the crisis .
Even acknowledging it seems politically impossible .
Not only are Democrats invested in defending the Russia investigation and its excesses , but their post-Watergate surveillance reforms forged the modern law enforcement and intelligence apparatus , which tends to be politically like-minded , at least in the supervisory ranks .
For their part , Republicans pay lip service to limited government and political accountability while continuing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key to political success .
Any questioning of the status quo , as opposed to criticism of the individual abuses that the status quo reliably produces , is framed as a green light to foreign sabotage and domestic lawlessness .
Yet there are indications we ’ ve reached an inflection point : The public is growing weary and not a little bit angry .
The politicization of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering threatens everyone , regardless of political persuasion .
And officials seem always to escape accountability .
Consider the center-right , the part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aggressive spy powers have traditionally found their staunchest defenders , myself very much among them .
We see several Trump operatives ( Carter Page , Michael Flynn , George Papadopoulos , Roger Stone , and Paul Manafort ) subjected to groundless surveillance or prosecuted with unseemly zeal for process crimes ( usually , misleading investigators ) , or for offenses unrelated to the fictional Trump-Kremlin conspiracy .
In stark contrast , government officials who misled investigators , judges , and lawmakers evade prosecution .
The latest example : the Justice Department ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s former deputy director , Andrew McCabe , will not be indicted despite serially misleading agents who were probing a media leak that he orchestrated .
Here is the problem : The immense powers wielded by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus are essential to protecting the United States .
The agencies that wield them , as currently constructed , are not .
The intelligence community ’ s performance is often subpar .
While officials have played an admirable part in preventing a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities , they have also promoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ techniques are fit tools for the tasks at hand .
For example , the notion that international terrorism is primarily a law enforcement matter led for years to a focus on post-attack prosecutions rather than the prevention of attacks from happening .
Indeed , the specter of jihadist strikes ebbed only after domestic law enforcement was subordinated to military operations against overseas terrorist sanctuaries .
And let ’ s not forget the bulk collection of communications and metadata involving tens of millions of innocent Americans , supposedly necessary for intelligence agencies to target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which amounted to the risible suggestion that heaping ever more hay in the stack somehow makes the needles easier to find .
Yes , we need aggressive intelligence collection , mission-focused rather than warehoused without much discrimination , to protect the nation from very real foreign threats .
But this is a political responsibility , and government officials who carry it out must be accountable .
When officials are permitted to shroud their work in complete secrecy , making themselves unaccountable , an outraged public will eventually react to abuses of power by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back or repealed .
Our nation would be imperiled from without by foreign aggressors , even as we remained threatened from within by a politicized bureaucracy .
Some history is in order .
In its 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States , the Supreme Court completed its transformation of the Fourth Amendment .
Originally , it had been rooted in principles of trespass , a venerable criminal-law doctrine whose application is straightforward : The government must respect property rights .
The new rule of the road was expectation of privacy .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do technology ( which enables government monitoring without physical trespass ) and the public ’ s expanding conception of zones of personal activity and intercourse that should be shielded from prying , investigative eyes .
Brokering the eternal tension between security and privacy is a political task .
It should be governed by legislated rules that police can easily carry out .
Instead , we ’ ve put our police in the position of intuiting what privacy invasions the courts might indulge .
That is asking them to do policy , not policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy matter , categorically different from law enforcement .
In requiring judicial warrants for wiretaps in ordinary criminal investigations in Katz , the court recognized that distinction , stressing that its ruling did not encompass government actions to protect national security .
In 1968 , Congress recognized the same distinction when it enacted the federal wiretapping statute .
Lawmakers took pains to note that they were not encroaching on the president ’ s constitutional authority to protect national security and guard against espionage by obtaining foreign intelligence , including by electronic surveillance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and law enforcement intersect ?
In the 1972 Keith case , the Supreme Court was forced to confront it , in that instance regarding insurrection and its related crimes by domestic terrorists .
The intelligence agencies sought to treat the matter as a security threat , suitable for such national defense tactics as warrantless surveillance , not a policing challenge calling for the due process and substantive safeguards attendant to court prosecutions in peacetime .
Reasoning that politically motivated violence was bound up with constitutionally protected political dissent , the court ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression had to be respected , even if a judicial warrant requirement was certain to make monitoring them more difficult ( and preventing their attacks more challenging ) .
Again , however , the justices caveated that the “ scope of our decision … involves only the domestic aspects of national security ” ( emphasis added ) .
The court was not saying that foreign powers and their agents were entitled to the due process protection .
Such caution was well-founded .
In 1948 , in the Chicago & Southern Air Lines decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ iconic figure in politics , national security , and jurisprudence , the Supreme Court explained why judges were not institutionally competent to regulate foreign intelligence matters or be taken into “ executive confidences ” regarding them .
“ The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political , not judicial.
” In our system , Jackson observed , such decisions are “ wholly confided ” to the executive and legislative branches .
Because the most significant decisions a free society makes are those about its security , they must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil , ” not to the unaccountable judiciary .
But Washington threw caution to the wind .
The FBI and judges were already making policy decisions about where constitutional protections should yield to law enforcement demands .
In 1978 , in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act , Congress extended this delegation to intelligence policy .
Enacted in the wake of Watergate and domestic spying scandals that led to Congress ’ s Pike and Church Committee inquiries , FISA empowered federal judges to oversee the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Originally , this power was limited to the FBI ’ s surveillance of clandestine foreign agents in the United States ; later , it was dramatically expanded to cover intelligence collection targeting foreigners outside the U.S .
Plainly , lawmakers calculated that the creation of a separate court to handle all applications for foreign-intelligence surveillance would grow judicial expertise , addressing the institutional incompetence problem to which Jackson had alluded .
FISA is heedless , though , of the more serious constitutional problem : the transfer of responsibility for innately political national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , away from democratic accountability .
It is the culture of law enforcement to expect independence from politics .
Such independence is imperative for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system , on which depend the rule of law and thus domestic peace and prosperity .
The framers understood that nothing lends itself to tyranny more than police powers unmoored from political accountability .
The FBI and the Justice Department ( of which the bureau is a component ) are part of the executive branch , answerable to the president , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the executive branch ’ s political leadership does not involve itself in day-to-day policing , content to set programmatic enforcement priorities ( e.g.
, deciding whether to allocate more resources to violent crime or healthcare fraud ) .
There is no political interference in decisions about what cases to bring and which defendants to charge .
Those are left to police professionals , who apply Congress ’ s penal statutes in proceedings overseen by courts .
National security , on the other hand , is an innately political responsibility .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solely to support the president ’ s national defense duties , not to develop prosecutable court cases .
If the FBI and the courts are doing national security , they are necessarily practicing politics .
Arms of government that make political determinations can not properly be independent of political oversight and accountability .
I ’ ve always believed the FBI could handle these related but different responsibilities .
History proved me wrong .
The bureau arrogantly insists on independence from political oversight not just in criminal cases but even when it is carrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a free hand to act and even make policy judgments in the political realm , but it demands insulation from political accountability .
The courts , analogously , have shed their healthy reluctance to become embroiled in national security policy disputes , as well as their formerly laudable line-drawing between political questions and controversies fit for judicial resolution .
FISA was a well-meaning effort to give a modicum of due process to Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents .
In point of fact , it does not provide meaningful due process because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for truth that is the hallmark of judicial proceedings .
The FBI and Justice Department appear ex parte before the court ; the surveillance subject can not be effectively represented , and the proceedings are classified , so the expectation is that no one will ever check the executive ’ s representations .
This is unlike criminal cases , which lead to prosecution , discovery , and significant legal consequences if government agents duped the judge into granting warrants .
More important , the FISA framework intended to provide more oversight of executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because the judges are not constitutionally responsible for national security , they are loath to second-guess the officials who are .
The system perversely incentivizes those officials to seek warrants on questionable premises .
They know that the judge will probably approve the warrants .
Once that ’ s done , the agents can brandish these judicial imprimaturs as proof that their actions are unimpeachable — and thus to claim there is no legitimate reason for Congress , much less the public , to pierce the veil of secrecy .
And now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve witnessed the abuse of power many FISA critics predicted for decades : the pretextual invocation of FISA surveillance powers to conduct a criminal investigation for which the investigators lack a criminal predicate — in this instance , the hunt for some crime that might render Donald Trump unelectable or removable .
Worse , and quite naturally , the abuse has happened in a political context : the incumbent Democratic administration using the threat posed by a hostile power , Russia , to rationalize foreign counterintelligence surveillance of the opposition party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for two years and impeded the Trump administration ’ s capacity to govern .
This was all predictable .
It may even have become inevitable , as law enforcement was increasingly intertwined with political policymaking in the areas of privacy and national security , and as intelligence-gathering and criminal investigations were increasingly intermingled .
A fix is not that hard to grasp .
It is doubtful , though , that our political culture could muster the consensus and will it would take for implementation .
The FBI should be relegated to the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excels in executing its law enforcement duties and can be trusted to operate with minimal political supervision because the criminal justice system features transparent judicial oversight .
The foreign counterintelligence mission should be transferred to other intelligence community components and subjected to beefed-up congressional regulation and oversight .
FISA should be repealed , with the courts returned to their judicial role of providing a forum for those injured by governmental overreach , rather than aiding and abetting in the overreach .
Much more rethinking of the intelligence community needs to be done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an insightful and provocative intelligence expert , argues the CIA is obsolete , politicized , and counterproductive .
He would assign foreign intelligence responsibilities to the departments that carry out national defense and foreign relations missions — mainly , the Defense and State Departments — tailoring the gathering of intelligence to the practical needs of these missions .
This would strip down the so-called “ deep state , ” a leviathan that warehouses mountains of intelligence to the detriment of our liberties and with dubious benefits to our security .
Codevilla would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth exploring .
What is already clear , however , is that national security against foreign powers is not a fit responsibility for police agencies and courts .
Assigning it to them is a failed experiment : a temptation to intrusive surveillance of innocent citizens and politicized law enforcement .
We should end the experiment before the public , in its frustration over the lack of accountability , clips the powers vital to our national defense .
Andrew C. McCarthy , a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a contributing editor at National Review , and a Fox News contributor .

Like most of what ails us today, the seeds of the current crisis in republican governance, the severance of Washington’s omnipotent law enforcement and intelligence apparatus from democratic accountability, were sown in the 1960s and ’70s. That was when we began to erase the salient distinction between law and politics. Under the guise of “national security,” we insulated governmental actions and policies from the reckoning of our citizens, whose safety and self-determination hang in the balance.
Fast forward to 2020. The FBI, in its bungling partisanship, very likely swung the 2016 presidential election away from its preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton. The sprawling “community” of intelligence agencies (led by the FBI and CIA) covertly used dubious foreign sources to justify monitoring an American political campaign and, later, a U.S. presidential administration. To do so, it invoked daunting foreign-counterintelligence surveillance powers, based on a fever dream that its bête noire, Donald Trump, was an agent of the Kremlin. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court recently chastised the FBI for feeding it false and unverified information — the secret court apparently calculating that this extraordinary public expression of wrath will divert attention from its own shoddy performance in approving highly intrusive spy warrants based on sensational, blatantly uncorroborated rumor and innuendo.
As usual, Washington is reacting with high-decibel inertia. In an era of hyperpartisanship, Democrats defend the politicization of the law enforcement and intelligence that resulted in the Trump-Russia investigation. Republicans, meanwhile, wail about being victimized — even as the victim-in-chief ham-handedly dabbles in his own mini-version of the abuse: the Ukraine kerfuffle, in which the president sought, however futilely, to leverage the investigative and foreign affairs powers of the executive branch for domestic political advantage.
Few are willing to confront the crisis. Even acknowledging it seems politically impossible. Not only are Democrats invested in defending the Russia investigation and its excesses, but their post-Watergate surveillance reforms forged the modern law enforcement and intelligence apparatus, which tends to be politically like-minded, at least in the supervisory ranks. For their part, Republicans pay lip service to limited government and political accountability while continuing to see national security and law-and-order hawkishness as key to political success. Any questioning of the status quo, as opposed to criticism of the individual abuses that the status quo reliably produces, is framed as a green light to foreign sabotage and domestic lawlessness.
Yet there are indications we’ve reached an inflection point: The public is growing weary and not a little bit angry. The politicization of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering threatens everyone, regardless of political persuasion. And officials seem always to escape accountability.
Consider the center-right, the part of the political spectrum where the FBI and aggressive spy powers have traditionally found their staunchest defenders, myself very much among them. We see several Trump operatives (Carter Page, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort) subjected to groundless surveillance or prosecuted with unseemly zeal for process crimes (usually, misleading investigators), or for offenses unrelated to the fictional Trump-Kremlin conspiracy. In stark contrast, government officials who misled investigators, judges, and lawmakers evade prosecution. The latest example: the Justice Department’s mid-February announcement that the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, will not be indicted despite serially misleading agents who were probing a media leak that he orchestrated.
Here is the problem: The immense powers wielded by our law enforcement and intelligence apparatus are essential to protecting the United States. The agencies that wield them, as currently constructed, are not.
The intelligence community’s performance is often subpar. While officials have played an admirable part in preventing a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities, they have also promoted misconceptions that they and their intrusive information-collection techniques are fit tools for the tasks at hand. For example, the notion that international terrorism is primarily a law enforcement matter led for years to a focus on post-attack prosecutions rather than the prevention of attacks from happening. Indeed, the specter of jihadist strikes ebbed only after domestic law enforcement was subordinated to military operations against overseas terrorist sanctuaries. And let’s not forget the bulk collection of communications and metadata involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, supposedly necessary for intelligence agencies to target a relative handful of bad actors — which amounted to the risible suggestion that heaping ever more hay in the stack somehow makes the needles easier to find.
Yes, we need aggressive intelligence collection, mission-focused rather than warehoused without much discrimination, to protect the nation from very real foreign threats. But this is a political responsibility, and government officials who carry it out must be accountable. When officials are permitted to shroud their work in complete secrecy, making themselves unaccountable, an outraged public will eventually react to abuses of power by demanding that the powers themselves be pared back or repealed. Our nation would be imperiled from without by foreign aggressors, even as we remained threatened from within by a politicized bureaucracy.
Some history is in order. In its 1967 ruling in Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court completed its transformation of the Fourth Amendment. Originally, it had been rooted in principles of trespass, a venerable criminal-law doctrine whose application is straightforward: The government must respect property rights. The new rule of the road was expectation of privacy. That is a fluid standard, evolving as do technology (which enables government monitoring without physical trespass) and the public’s expanding conception of zones of personal activity and intercourse that should be shielded from prying, investigative eyes.
Brokering the eternal tension between security and privacy is a political task. It should be governed by legislated rules that police can easily carry out. Instead, we’ve put our police in the position of intuiting what privacy invasions the courts might indulge. That is asking them to do policy, not policing.
National security is also a political policy matter, categorically different from law enforcement. In requiring judicial warrants for wiretaps in ordinary criminal investigations in Katz, the court recognized that distinction, stressing that its ruling did not encompass government actions to protect national security. In 1968, Congress recognized the same distinction when it enacted the federal wiretapping statute. Lawmakers took pains to note that they were not encroaching on the president’s constitutional authority to protect national security and guard against espionage by obtaining foreign intelligence, including by electronic surveillance.
What about the crossroads where national security and law enforcement intersect? In the 1972 Keith case, the Supreme Court was forced to confront it, in that instance regarding insurrection and its related crimes by domestic terrorists. The intelligence agencies sought to treat the matter as a security threat, suitable for such national defense tactics as warrantless surveillance, not a policing challenge calling for the due process and substantive safeguards attendant to court prosecutions in peacetime. Reasoning that politically motivated violence was bound up with constitutionally protected political dissent, the court ruled that the rabble-rousers’ rights to privacy and expression had to be respected, even if a judicial warrant requirement was certain to make monitoring them more difficult (and preventing their attacks more challenging). Again, however, the justices caveated that the “scope of our decision … involves only the domestic aspects of national security” (emphasis added). The court was not saying that foreign powers and their agents were entitled to the due process protection.
Such caution was well-founded. In 1948, in the Chicago & Southern Air Lines decision written by Justice Robert Jackson, an iconic figure in politics, national security, and jurisprudence, the Supreme Court explained why judges were not institutionally competent to regulate foreign intelligence matters or be taken into “executive confidences” regarding them. “The very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial.” In our system, Jackson observed, such decisions are “wholly confided” to the executive and legislative branches. Because the most significant decisions a free society makes are those about its security, they must be left to the political actors “directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil,” not to the unaccountable judiciary.
But Washington threw caution to the wind. The FBI and judges were already making policy decisions about where constitutional protections should yield to law enforcement demands. In 1978, in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress extended this delegation to intelligence policy.
Enacted in the wake of Watergate and domestic spying scandals that led to Congress’s Pike and Church Committee inquiries, FISA empowered federal judges to oversee the executive’s foreign intelligence collection. Originally, this power was limited to the FBI’s surveillance of clandestine foreign agents in the United States; later, it was dramatically expanded to cover intelligence collection targeting foreigners outside the U.S. Plainly, lawmakers calculated that the creation of a separate court to handle all applications for foreign-intelligence surveillance would grow judicial expertise, addressing the institutional incompetence problem to which Jackson had alluded. FISA is heedless, though, of the more serious constitutional problem: the transfer of responsibility for innately political national security decisions to nonpolitical unelected officials — i.e., away from democratic accountability.
It is the culture of law enforcement to expect independence from politics. Such independence is imperative for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, on which depend the rule of law and thus domestic peace and prosperity. The framers understood that nothing lends itself to tyranny more than police powers unmoored from political accountability. The FBI and the Justice Department (of which the bureau is a component) are part of the executive branch, answerable to the president, who is accountable to the public. Prudently, however, the executive branch’s political leadership does not involve itself in day-to-day policing, content to set programmatic enforcement priorities (e.g., deciding whether to allocate more resources to violent crime or healthcare fraud). There is no political interference in decisions about what cases to bring and which defendants to charge. Those are left to police professionals, who apply Congress’s penal statutes in proceedings overseen by courts.
National security, on the other hand, is an innately political responsibility. Indeed, the foreign counterintelligence mission is conducted solely to support the president’s national defense duties, not to develop prosecutable court cases. If the FBI and the courts are doing national security, they are necessarily practicing politics. Arms of government that make political determinations cannot properly be independent of political oversight and accountability.
I’ve always believed the FBI could handle these related but different responsibilities. History proved me wrong. The bureau arrogantly insists on independence from political oversight not just in criminal cases but even when it is carrying out national security functions. It wants a free hand to act and even make policy judgments in the political realm, but it demands insulation from political accountability. The courts, analogously, have shed their healthy reluctance to become embroiled in national security policy disputes, as well as their formerly laudable line-drawing between political questions and controversies fit for judicial resolution.
FISA was a well-meaning effort to give a modicum of due process to Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents. In point of fact, it does not provide meaningful due process because it cannot replicate the adversarial search for truth that is the hallmark of judicial proceedings. The FBI and Justice Department appear ex parte before the court; the surveillance subject cannot be effectively represented, and the proceedings are classified, so the expectation is that no one will ever check the executive’s representations. This is unlike criminal cases, which lead to prosecution, discovery, and significant legal consequences if government agents duped the judge into granting warrants.
More important, the FISA framework intended to provide more oversight of executive surveillance has had the opposite effect. Because the judges are not constitutionally responsible for national security, they are loath to second-guess the officials who are. The system perversely incentivizes those officials to seek warrants on questionable premises. They know that the judge will probably approve the warrants. Once that’s done, the agents can brandish these judicial imprimaturs as proof that their actions are unimpeachable — and thus to claim there is no legitimate reason for Congress, much less the public, to pierce the veil of secrecy.
And now, with the Trump-Russia investigation, we’ve witnessed the abuse of power many FISA critics predicted for decades: the pretextual invocation of FISA surveillance powers to conduct a criminal investigation for which the investigators lack a criminal predicate — in this instance, the hunt for some crime that might render Donald Trump unelectable or removable. Worse, and quite naturally, the abuse has happened in a political context: the incumbent Democratic administration using the threat posed by a hostile power, Russia, to rationalize foreign counterintelligence surveillance of the opposition party’s political campaign, an abuse that continued for two years and impeded the Trump administration’s capacity to govern.
This was all predictable. It may even have become inevitable, as law enforcement was increasingly intertwined with political policymaking in the areas of privacy and national security, and as intelligence-gathering and criminal investigations were increasingly intermingled.
A fix is not that hard to grasp. It is doubtful, though, that our political culture could muster the consensus and will it would take for implementation.
The FBI should be relegated to the investigation and prosecution of crime. The bureau excels in executing its law enforcement duties and can be trusted to operate with minimal political supervision because the criminal justice system features transparent judicial oversight. The foreign counterintelligence mission should be transferred to other intelligence community components and subjected to beefed-up congressional regulation and oversight. FISA should be repealed, with the courts returned to their judicial role of providing a forum for those injured by governmental overreach, rather than aiding and abetting in the overreach.
Much more rethinking of the intelligence community needs to be done. The Claremont Institute’s Angelo Codevilla, an insightful and provocative intelligence expert, argues the CIA is obsolete, politicized, and counterproductive. He would assign foreign intelligence responsibilities to the departments that carry out national defense and foreign relations missions — mainly, the Defense and State Departments — tailoring the gathering of intelligence to the practical needs of these missions. This would strip down the so-called “deep state,” a leviathan that warehouses mountains of intelligence to the detriment of our liberties and with dubious benefits to our security. Codevilla would also repeal FISA.
His ideas are worth exploring. What is already clear, however, is that national security against foreign powers is not a fit responsibility for police agencies and courts. Assigning it to them is a failed experiment: a temptation to intrusive surveillance of innocent citizens and politicized law enforcement. We should end the experiment before the public, in its frustration over the lack of accountability, clips the powers vital to our national defense.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney in New York, is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Trump: Jared Kushner is the ‘father of criminal justice reform’

President Trump is using his administration ’ s successful campaign for criminal justice reform as a key to wooing blacks and poor Americans to his reelection campaign , but in a rare move this week , took a step back to give credit for the effort to his son-in-law and senior adviser , Jared Kushner .
In Las Vegas Thursday to address ex-prison inmates making the shift to freedom , Trump praised Kushner repeatedly .
“ Is Jared around ?
” he said .
“ Jared Kushner ... the father of criminal justice reform .
He really is .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump said at the commencement address at the Hope for Prisoners graduation ceremony .
[ Read more : Jared Kushner : 'More opportunity today than ever before ' ] Speaking to some 29 graduates of the program , the president added : “ Thank you , Jared .
...
He never wants any credit .
He does a lot .
He works hard .
But that 's working out very well.
” Kushner , who like his wife , Ivanka Trump , and the president , takes no salary , has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief and jack-of-all-trades , handling issues from Middle East peace , to immigration , to the Olympics to the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal .
It was Kushner and his wife who helped to orchestrate passage of the First Step Act , bringing together libertarians , conservatives , liberals , Hollywood , and sleepy think tanks .
“ We had liberal support , we had conservative support , '' said Trump while at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department .
`` And they came to me , and they needed some help , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places .
Votes .
We needed votes .
And we got some great people — Republicans in all cases , in this case .
But we got some great people to vote for criminal justice reform . ''
“ In fact , very conservative Republicans .
So that was a good sign .
Very bipartisan .
And it was a terrific thing , and we really — we did something that they 've been trying to do for a long time , and we got it done .
We get a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of things done , ” Trump said .
Trump has in the past noted Kushner ’ s role , but on Thursday , his comments had outsize meaning since it was at the jail-to-freedom graduation and came amid reports that the White House and Kushner were playing a bigger role in granting presidential pardons .
Some reports have suggested that Kushner ’ s team was taking over the pardon process from the Justice Department , but officials told Secrets that those stories were wrong and that Kushner was being given a role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act as a channel for outside groups seeking pardons .
Trump 's focus Thursday also pushed back on earlier reports that the president wasn ’ t happy that he OK ’ d prison reform .
In fact , the president ’ s team featured the issue in a Super Bowl ad .
In his address , Trump again promised that the criminal justice program Kushner helped develop would make sure that exiting prisoners would get support .
“ By enacting criminal justice reform , we 're sending a powerful message to prisoners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you return to society , we are not going to leave you behind , ” Trump said .
“ Everyone in this room is here to make sure that you have the support that you need to succeed , thrive , and to never , ever look back .
You 're not going to look back .
We 're not going to look back . ''

President Trump is using his administration’s successful campaign for criminal justice reform as a key to wooing blacks and poor Americans to his reelection campaign, but in a rare move this week, took a step back to give credit for the effort to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.
In Las Vegas Thursday to address ex-prison inmates making the shift to freedom, Trump praised Kushner repeatedly.
“Is Jared around?” he said. “Jared Kushner ... the father of criminal justice reform. He really is. I mean, he works so hard,” Trump said at the commencement address at the Hope for Prisoners graduation ceremony.
[Read more: Jared Kushner: 'More opportunity today than ever before']
Speaking to some 29 graduates of the program, the president added: “Thank you, Jared. ... He never wants any credit. He does a lot. He works hard. But that's working out very well.”
Kushner, who like his wife, Ivanka Trump, and the president, takes no salary, has become both the president’s crisis policy chief and jack-of-all-trades, handling issues from Middle East peace, to immigration, to the Olympics to the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal.
It was Kushner and his wife who helped to orchestrate passage of the First Step Act, bringing together libertarians, conservatives, liberals, Hollywood, and sleepy think tanks.
“We had liberal support, we had conservative support," said Trump while at the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. "And they came to me, and they needed some help, and we got help from some very unexpected places. Votes. We needed votes. And we got some great people — Republicans in all cases, in this case. But we got some great people to vote for criminal justice reform."
“In fact, very conservative Republicans. So that was a good sign. Very bipartisan. And it was a terrific thing, and we really — we did something that they've been trying to do for a long time, and we got it done. We get a lot of things done. We get a lot of things done,” Trump said.
Trump has in the past noted Kushner’s role, but on Thursday, his comments had outsize meaning since it was at the jail-to-freedom graduation and came amid reports that the White House and Kushner were playing a bigger role in granting presidential pardons.
Some reports have suggested that Kushner’s team was taking over the pardon process from the Justice Department, but officials told Secrets that those stories were wrong and that Kushner was being given a role in the process. Officials said he planned to act as a channel for outside groups seeking pardons.
Trump's focus Thursday also pushed back on earlier reports that the president wasn’t happy that he OK’d prison reform. In fact, the president’s team featured the issue in a Super Bowl ad.
In his address, Trump again promised that the criminal justice program Kushner helped develop would make sure that exiting prisoners would get support.
“By enacting criminal justice reform, we're sending a powerful message to prisoners who have reformed their lives: When you return to society, we are not going to leave you behind,” Trump said. “Everyone in this room is here to make sure that you have the support that you need to succeed, thrive, and to never, ever look back. You're not going to look back. We're not going to look back."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--AI picks Sanders to win big in Nevada, Biden voters shifting to Buttigieg

An artificial intelligence analysis of Saturday ’ s Nevada Democratic Caucus has picked Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the clear leader who is expected to win with twice the support of his nearest challenger .
The AI model Polly , a market research and predictive tool from Advanced Symbolics Inc. , is predicting that Sanders will take over 30 % .
Pete Buttigieg is slated to come in second , followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Sen. Amy Klobuchar , and Joe Biden .
Polly said that Buttigieg is pulling votes away from Biden , but that the former Delaware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of winning votes held by environmentalist Tom Steyer .
`` Polly is seeing this Democratic primary as those who support Sanders and those who want anyone-but-Sanders , ” said ASI Chief Scientist Kenton White .
“ The anyone-but-Sanders vote has decidedly moved from Biden to Buttigieg .
While polls have Buttigieg at 10 % support in Nevada , Polly sees him pulling in over 16 % of the electorate — most of this is coming from people who were previously supporting Biden .
Polly sees Biden eking out 12 % , and finishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Carolina , ” he added .
Warren ’ s recent debate performance , where she pummeled Michael Bloomberg , is not resulting in a big upward swing , said White .
“ Warren and Klobuchar continue swapping voters .
At the moment , Warren is up with 15 % , compared to Klobuchar ’ s 13 % .
Polly sees the swing vote between these two candidates as largely female .
In Nevada , Polly sees that Warren is more successful among women voters than she has been previously in Iowa and @ @ @ @ @ @ @

An artificial intelligence analysis of Saturday’s Nevada Democratic Caucus has picked Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the clear leader who is expected to win with twice the support of his nearest challenger.
The AI model Polly, a market research and predictive tool from Advanced Symbolics Inc., is predicting that Sanders will take over 30%. Pete Buttigieg is slated to come in second, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Joe Biden.
Polly said that Buttigieg is pulling votes away from Biden, but that the former Delaware senator and vice president has a chance of winning votes held by environmentalist Tom Steyer.
The artificial intelligence system known as Polly is predicting Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner of the Nevada Caucuses tomorrow.
"Polly is seeing this Democratic primary as those who support Sanders and those who want anyone-but-Sanders,” said ASI Chief Scientist Kenton White.
“The anyone-but-Sanders vote has decidedly moved from Biden to Buttigieg. While polls have Buttigieg at 10% support in Nevada, Polly sees him pulling in over 16% of the electorate — most of this is coming from people who were previously supporting Biden. Polly sees Biden eking out 12%, and finishing in fifth place, before heading into South Carolina,” he added.
Warren’s recent debate performance, where she pummeled Michael Bloomberg, is not resulting in a big upward swing, said White.
“Warren and Klobuchar continue swapping voters. At the moment, Warren is up with 15%, compared to Klobuchar’s 13%. Polly sees the swing vote between these two candidates as largely female. In Nevada, Polly sees that Warren is more successful among women voters than she has been previously in Iowa and New Hampshire,” he added.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Melania’s class boosts female support for Trump: Survey

First lady Melania Trump ’ s classy ability to handle attacks on her while keeping the focus on her and the president ’ s agenda steady is a top reason Republican women are flocking to support President Trump , according to a new survey .
In a deep dive into the reasons women back the president , the survey put Trump ’ s accomplishments and his wife at the top and said that she is a sign that the president has good “ judgment.
” The survey from the Frontier Center , provided Friday to Secrets , said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as one of Trump ’ s greatest assets as she , too , provides leadership for how to act in a hostile culture.
” It added , “ In 2016 we saw they looked to his children to extrapolate that he likely has good character given how well they turned out .
In 2020 we do not see mention of his children ; instead we see mention of Melania as an example of a good role model who confirms Trump ’ s wise judgment in a partner rather than helping them to predict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-author of the survey , told us that women who support the president “ look for Trump to provide leadership for how to handle a culture that they are not accepted in .
Trump gives them courage and fight ; Melania shows them grace can be a part of their demeanor .
These women want to know , how do we act in this culture ?
There is no leader showing them except Trump.
” The survey gives support to the decision to put Melania Trump on the campaign trail to help in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results came from a study of “ high-intensity ” support at the president ’ s recent rally in Manchester , New Hampshire .
The survey compared findings to a similar one conducted during the 2016 campaign .
While the values were similar to 2016 , the women cited “ different reasons that President Trump fulfilled them , ” such as swapping out Melania Trump for his children .
Along with the first lady , the list of accomplishments , which the White House said totals 319 , has given supporters the proof they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right decision .
“ Rather than requiring optimism , identified in 2016 along with the other four values to explain support , in 2020 women said their hopes had been confirmed .
In fact , women said they are being proven right together with President Trump , solidifying a sense of team , ” said the survey titled , “ Outsiders , Together : 2020 Motivating Values of High-Intensity Female Supporters of President Trump.
” And it found that in a political climate where Trump supporters can feel discriminated against , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a model to respond .
“ The president provides a model for them and for future generations in engaging detractors : they noted his toughness , transparency , loyalty , unabashed conservatism , and the courage not to retreat .
They do not turn from his brashness but appreciate the example for how to live their lives in this culture .
They are outsiders to the ‘ swamp , ’ together , ” it said .

First lady Melania Trump’s classy ability to handle attacks on her while keeping the focus on her and the president’s agenda steady is a top reason Republican women are flocking to support President Trump, according to a new survey.
In a deep dive into the reasons women back the president, the survey put Trump’s accomplishments and his wife at the top and said that she is a sign that the president has good “judgment.”
The survey from the Frontier Center, provided Friday to Secrets, said, “Female supporters included First Lady Melania Trump as one of Trump’s greatest assets as she, too, provides leadership for how to act in a hostile culture.”
Survey findings of reasons GOP women support the president. Frontier Center
It added, “In 2016 we saw they looked to his children to extrapolate that he likely has good character given how well they turned out. In 2020 we do not see mention of his children; instead we see mention of Melania as an example of a good role model who confirms Trump’s wise judgment in a partner rather than helping them to predict his character.”
President Trump walks with first lady Melania Trump and Barron Trump to board Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on Jan. 17, 2020, in Washington. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Anne Sorock Segal, co-author of the survey, told us that women who support the president “look for Trump to provide leadership for how to handle a culture that they are not accepted in. Trump gives them courage and fight; Melania shows them grace can be a part of their demeanor. These women want to know, how do we act in this culture? There is no leader showing them except Trump.”
The survey gives support to the decision to put Melania Trump on the campaign trail to help in the president's reelection bid.
The results came from a study of “high-intensity” support at the president’s recent rally in Manchester, New Hampshire. The survey compared findings to a similar one conducted during the 2016 campaign.
While the values were similar to 2016, the women cited “different reasons that President Trump fulfilled them,” such as swapping out Melania Trump for his children.
Along with the first lady, the list of accomplishments, which the White House said totals 319, has given supporters the proof they hoped for that their 2016 support was the right decision.
A great first day in #WY. Met w/ Jackson District @boyscouts at the elk antler arches in town square learning about their conservation efforts w/ Nat’l Elk Refuge. Explored Snake River w/ 4th graders seeing lots of natural beauty. @NatlParkService #EveryKidOutdoors #BeBest pic.twitter.com/c86bwKzDUx — Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) October 4, 2019
“Rather than requiring optimism, identified in 2016 along with the other four values to explain support, in 2020 women said their hopes had been confirmed. In fact, women said they are being proven right together with President Trump, solidifying a sense of team,” said the survey titled, “Outsiders, Together: 2020 Motivating Values of High-Intensity Female Supporters of President Trump.”
And it found that in a political climate where Trump supporters can feel discriminated against, even hated, the president and first lady provide a model to respond.
“The president provides a model for them and for future generations in engaging detractors: they noted his toughness, transparency, loyalty, unabashed conservatism, and the courage not to retreat. They do not turn from his brashness but appreciate the example for how to live their lives in this culture. They are outsiders to the ‘swamp,’ together,” it said.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Matchmaker: Trump wants more White House weddings

Two days after Valentine ’ s Day , love was still in the air when President Trump motorcaded five blocks to attend the wedding of two senior aides , policy adviser Stephen Miller and vice presidential spokeswoman Katie Waldman .
Looking at the newlyweds who got hitched at the Trump International Hotel , the president gave a full-throated endorsement — and said he wants more like it .
“ I think it ’ s great to fall in love in the White House , ” he said , pointedly shrugging off corporate rules against employee dating .
“ Look , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House , and I think it ’ s great .
Fall in love in the White House .
It ’ s a great thing , ” he said to the high-powered crowd at the Sunday night wedding , according to a guest .
The Miller wedding was the latest in a handful of marriages in the Trump administration .
But while the president ’ s critics , notably the New York Times , have sneered that Trump aides have to marry each other because the “ dating pool is small ” in liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long pattern in the White House .
“ Where else are you going to meet somebody when we work so many hours , ” said a Trump aide .
The aide cited to a second driver : “ We have shared values.
” Another top Trump aide close to the couple told us , “ The president creates such an atmosphere of joy in the White House that we love working there , and we get deep and meaningful bonds , whether it be friendship or something more .
We genuinely have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mercedes Schlapp met her husband , American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp , in the George W. Bush White House and attributed the insider environment to the marriages that result .
“ What happens is that you are kind of in the trenches , so you are making these lifetime friendships because you have experienced so much together , ” said Schlapp , who has been married for 18 years .
“ In some cases , it is making friendships , in others , it ’ s finding your future spouse , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the battlefields with your colleagues , and from it comes long-lasting friendships , ” she added , pointing to their relationships with several former Bush aides , notably Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley , who also met in the Bush White House .
And that ’ s the story of Stephen and Katie Miller .
They were phone associates during the early days when he was developing immigration policy and she was a key Homeland Security spokeswoman .
They were introduced by friends in early 2018 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House to work for Vice President Mike Pence , the relationship grew because they shared similar values , said a friend .
At the ceremony , guests including Schlapp , Pence and his wife Karen , Sen. Steve Daines and his wife , acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , top Trump aide Jared Kushner , former Republican Party chief Reince Priebus , and national security adviser Robert O ’ Brien did n't know what to expect .
Rabbi Aryeh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the ceremony , helped to break the ice when he said , “ Welcome to Stephen Miller ’ s wedding .
Katie and I are happy to be here.
” Schlapp said Miller in his vows showed a side few have seen from the fierce defender of the president .
“ We got to see Stephen in a whole different light , opening up his heart and sharing his admiration and love of Katie .
There were so many of us who were crying.
” Schlapp said she ribbed her husband , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conservative Political Action Conference , and asked , “ When are you going to write me some beautiful vows like that ?
”

Two days after Valentine’s Day, love was still in the air when President Trump motorcaded five blocks to attend the wedding of two senior aides, policy adviser Stephen Miller and vice presidential spokeswoman Katie Waldman.
Looking at the newlyweds who got hitched at the Trump International Hotel, the president gave a full-throated endorsement — and said he wants more like it.
“I think it’s great to fall in love in the White House,” he said, pointedly shrugging off corporate rules against employee dating.
“Look, they fell in love in the White House, and I think it’s great. Fall in love in the White House. It’s a great thing,” he said to the high-powered crowd at the Sunday night wedding, according to a guest.
The most perfect day, the most perfect man surrounded with more love than we both could have ever dreamed.
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Miller
2.16.20 pic.twitter.com/hMu6joPbN3 — Katie Rose Miller (@katiewaldman) February 17, 2020
The Miller wedding was the latest in a handful of marriages in the Trump administration. But while the president’s critics, notably the New York Times, have sneered that Trump aides have to marry each other because the “dating pool is small” in liberal Washington, their marriage actually follows a long pattern in the White House.
“Where else are you going to meet somebody when we work so many hours,” said a Trump aide. The aide cited to a second driver: “We have shared values.”
Another top Trump aide close to the couple told us, “The president creates such an atmosphere of joy in the White House that we love working there, and we get deep and meaningful bonds, whether it be friendship or something more. We genuinely have a great time.”
Former Trump communications aide Mercedes Schlapp met her husband, American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, in the George W. Bush White House and attributed the insider environment to the marriages that result.
Spectacular and very special wedding tonight with new bride and groom Stephen and Katie Miller! So much fun and still going with @realDonaldTrump having fun and the band is going strong! pic.twitter.com/1LreZhe2pd — Reince Priebus (@Reince) February 17, 2020
“What happens is that you are kind of in the trenches, so you are making these lifetime friendships because you have experienced so much together,” said Schlapp, who has been married for 18 years.
“In some cases, it is making friendships, in others, it’s finding your future spouse,” she said. “You are in the battlefields with your colleagues, and from it comes long-lasting friendships,” she added, pointing to their relationships with several former Bush aides, notably Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley, who also met in the Bush White House.
Another photo of Trump speaking at Stephen Miller and Katie Waldman wedding via Instagram https://t.co/zI6GqDd2OJ pic.twitter.com/YP5hrCMRFo — Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) February 17, 2020
And that’s the story of Stephen and Katie Miller. They were phone associates during the early days when he was developing immigration policy and she was a key Homeland Security spokeswoman.
They were introduced by friends in early 2018, and when she shifted over to the White House to work for Vice President Mike Pence, the relationship grew because they shared similar values, said a friend.
At the ceremony, guests including Schlapp, Pence and his wife Karen, Sen. Steve Daines and his wife, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, top Trump aide Jared Kushner, former Republican Party chief Reince Priebus, and national security adviser Robert O’Brien didn't know what to expect.
Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone, who flew in from Israel for the ceremony, helped to break the ice when he said, “Welcome to Stephen Miller’s wedding. Katie and I are happy to be here.”
Schlapp said Miller in his vows showed a side few have seen from the fierce defender of the president. “We got to see Stephen in a whole different light, opening up his heart and sharing his admiration and love of Katie. There were so many of us who were crying.”
Schlapp said she ribbed her husband, who is organizing this month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, and asked, “When are you going to write me some beautiful vows like that?”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--WATCH: Trump honors ‘Miracle on Ice’ hockey players on 40-year anniversary of historic Olympic win

Flanked by members of the famed `` Miracle on Ice '' U.S. Olympic hockey team , President Trump celebrated the @ @ @ @ @ at a campaign rally on Friday .
Forty years removed from defeating the Russian hockey @ @ @ @ @ the 1980 Olympic Games , Trump honored the U.S. team 's historic victory by bringing @ @ @ @ @ Herb Brooks 's daughter onstage during a campaign stop in Las Vegas .
The team @ @ @ @ @ president ran through his stump speech and lashed out at the fake news media .
@ @ @ @ @ America Great Again hats and told the president they want him to be reelected .
@ @ @ @ @ team , which featured a group of amateur players , beat the Russian favorites by @ @ @ @ @ what is considered one of the greatest upsets in sports history .

Flanked by members of the famed "Miracle on Ice" U.S. Olympic hockey team, President Trump celebrated the team's captivating 1980 performance at a campaign rally on Friday.
Forty years after the team defeated the Russian hockey team in the semifinals of the 1980 Olympic Games, Trump honored the historic victory by bringing captain Mike Eruzione and coach Herb Brooks's daughter onstage during a campaign stop in Las Vegas.
The team stood behind Trump as the president ran through his stump speech and lashed out at the "fake news media." The players wore red Make America Great Again hats and told the president they want him to be reelected.
The 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team, which featured a group of amateur players, beat the Russian favorites by a score of 4-3 in what is considered one of the greatest upsets in sports history.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--The problem with Bloomberg's troll-y anti-Trump billboards

Michael Bloomberg is n't likely to win over any Trump voters .
Bloomberg 's campaign continued its $ 4 million advertising spree with a series of billboards in Phoenix , where President Trump held a rally this week .
They read like insults from the playground : `` Donald Trump eats burnt steak , '' one declares .
`` Mike Bloomberg likes his medium rare . ''
Comparing billionaires ' taste in steak seems like an odd tactic , but Bloomberg is just trying to beat Trump at his own trollish game .
The problem is that Trump supporters do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and loves fast food and helps himself to two scoops of ice cream .
Trump 's manners , or lack thereof , have proven to be the least of anyone 's worries .
Other Bloomberg billboards continue to poke fun at Trump , with one reading : `` Donald Trump 's wall fell over . ''
Trump 's critics had a field day last month when portions of a newly constructed border wall were pushed over by the wind .
But it was n't the instance of sweet irony that they wanted ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually been anchored yet .
So far , Bloomberg is 0 for 2 .
Another billboard reads , `` Donald Trump cheats at golf .
Mike Bloomberg does n't . ''
Again , Trump 's personal failings have n't been a turnoff for voters before , as sad as that is .
And the fact that Bloomberg and Trump have gone golfing together at the Trump National Golf Club is more of an indictment of Bloomberg , who is trying desperately to separate himself from his Republican and cozy-with-Trump past .
That being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the backstories behind these billboards , and those who have never been Trump supporters will likely appreciate the troll move .
Bloomberg just is n't likely to win anyone over with this campaign , which is fine because he 's losing to Bernie Sanders anyway .

Michael Bloomberg isn't likely to win over any Trump voters.
Bloomberg's campaign continued its $4 million advertising spree with a series of billboards in Phoenix, where President Trump held a rally this week. They read like insults from the playground: "Donald Trump eats burnt steak," one declares. "Mike Bloomberg likes his medium rare."
A true man of the people.
Comparing billionaires' taste in steak seems like an odd tactic, but Bloomberg is just trying to beat Trump at his own trollish game. The problem is that Trump supporters don't care if he eats burnt steak and loves fast food and helps himself to two scoops of ice cream. Trump's manners, or lack thereof, have proven to be the least of anyone's worries.
Other Bloomberg billboards continue to poke fun at Trump, with one reading: "Donald Trump's wall fell over." Trump's critics had a field day last month when portions of a newly constructed border wall were pushed over by the wind. But it wasn't the instance of sweet irony that they wanted; the sections that fell over hadn't actually been anchored yet.
So far, Bloomberg is 0 for 2.
Another billboard reads, "Donald Trump cheats at golf. Mike Bloomberg doesn't." Again, Trump's personal failings haven't been a turnoff for voters before, as sad as that is. And the fact that Bloomberg and Trump have gone golfing together at the Trump National Golf Club is more of an indictment of Bloomberg, who is trying desperately to separate himself from his Republican and cozy-with-Trump past.
Bloomberg: 0. Trump: 3.
That being said, the casual observer won't know the backstories behind these billboards, and those who have never been Trump supporters will likely appreciate the troll move. Bloomberg just isn't likely to win anyone over with this campaign, which is fine because he's losing to Bernie Sanders anyway.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--WATCH: Trump holds rally in Las Vegas one day before Nevada caucuses

President Trump rallies supporters in Las Vegas on Friday , a day before the Nevada caucuses .
The event is @ @ @ @ @ p.m. EST .

President Trump rallies supporters in Las Vegas on Friday, a day before the Nevada caucuses.
The event is scheduled to begin around 3 p.m. EST.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Nonbillionaire candidates blow through war chests and scramble for cash

All of the nonbillionaire Democratic presidential candidates except Bernie Sanders are facing a cash crunch after blowing through their war chests in the month of January .
Businessman Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are bankrolling their own bids , and the Vermont senator ’ s massive small-donor base is keeping him with far more cash than his rivals — $ 16.8 million at the end of the month despite spending slightly more than the $ 25.1 million he raised .
Meanwhile , some campaigns are scrambling to avoid suffocating like fish in shallow water at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primaries on March 3 .
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg each spent more than twice as much as they raised during the month of January .
Warren gained $ 10.4 million in donations and took out a $ 400,000 loan while blowing through $ 22.4 million .
Buttigieg brought in $ 6.2 million and spent $ 14 million .
At the end of the month , Buttigieg was left with $ 6.6 million , and Warren had just $ 2.3 million .
Former Vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he brought in during January , receiving $ 8.9 million in donations and spending $ 10.6 million , leaving him with $ 7.1 million in his war chest .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota runs a scrappy campaign but saw an influx of cash as she gained momentum earlier this year after a surprising third-place finish in New Hampshire .
She raised $ 5.5 million in January , outpacing her $ 11.4 million fourth-quarter 2019 haul , but spent $ 7.6 million , leaving her with $ 2.9 million on Jan. 31 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire are compounding his fundraising struggles , with many donors .
Buttigieg essentially tied Sanders in Iowa and placed second in New Hampshire , but he didn ’ t receive a traditional boost in momentum following the contests — partially due to muddled Iowa caucus results and delays .
His campaign said on Thursday that it raised $ 11 million so far in February and set a $ 13 million fundraising goal by Super Tuesday — the equivalent of more than $ 1 million per day .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ throwing colossal sums of money on television instead of doing the work of campaigning , ” and that $ 13 million is needed “ in order to stay competitive.
” While Warren had disappointing showings in Iowa and New Hampshire , she saw a surge in donations following Wednesday ’ s Democratic presidential debate , where she ripped into Bloomberg for refusing to release women who accused him or his company of sexual harassment or gender discrimination from nondisclosure agreements .
The campaign said that it brought in over in one day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dire enough that she reversed her long anti-super PAC stance to accept help from a newly formed that is running ads in support of her candidacy .
A pro-Klobuchar super PAC also formed earlier this month .
Campaigns can not legally accept money from or coordinate with super PACs , but their failure to disavow super PAC support represents a stark change in attitudes as they face an expensive Super Tuesday sprint .

All of the nonbillionaire Democratic presidential candidates except Bernie Sanders are facing a cash crunch after blowing through their war chests in the month of January.
Businessman Tom Steyer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are bankrolling their own bids, and the Vermont senator’s massive small-donor base is keeping him with far more cash than his rivals — $16.8 million at the end of the month despite spending slightly more than the $25.1 million he raised.
Meanwhile, some campaigns are scrambling to avoid suffocating like fish in shallow water at a critical time before the Super Tuesday primaries on March 3.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg each spent more than twice as much as they raised during the month of January. Warren gained $10.4 million in donations and took out a $400,000 loan while blowing through $22.4 million. Buttigieg brought in $6.2 million and spent $14 million.
At the end of the month, Buttigieg was left with $6.6 million, and Warren had just $2.3 million.
Former Vice President Joe Biden spent slightly more than he brought in during January, receiving $8.9 million in donations and spending $10.6 million, leaving him with $7.1 million in his war chest.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota runs a scrappy campaign but saw an influx of cash as she gained momentum earlier this year after a surprising third-place finish in New Hampshire. She raised $5.5 million in January, outpacing her $11.4 million fourth-quarter 2019 haul, but spent $7.6 million, leaving her with $2.9 million on Jan. 31.
Biden’s disastrous fourth- and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire are compounding his fundraising struggles, with many donors jumping ship .
Buttigieg essentially tied Sanders in Iowa and placed second in New Hampshire, but he didn’t receive a traditional boost in momentum following the contests — partially due to muddled Iowa caucus results and delays.
His campaign said on Thursday that it raised $11 million so far in February and set a $13 million fundraising goal by Super Tuesday — the equivalent of more than $1 million per day. A fundraising email warned supporters that Bloomberg is “throwing colossal sums of money on television instead of doing the work of campaigning,” and that $13 million is needed “in order to stay competitive.”
While Warren had disappointing showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, she saw a surge in donations following Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, where she ripped into Bloomberg for refusing to release women who accused him or his company of sexual harassment or gender discrimination from nondisclosure agreements. The campaign said that it brought in over $5 million in one day.
But Warren’s situation is dire enough that she reversed her long anti-super PAC stance to accept help from a newly formed super PAC that is running ads in support of her candidacy.
A pro-Klobuchar super PAC also formed earlier this month. Campaigns cannot legally accept money from or coordinate with super PACs, but their failure to disavow super PAC support represents a stark change in attitudes as they face an expensive Super Tuesday sprint.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Ex-Goldman Sachs CEO: 'I might find it harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump’

Former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein , a lifelong Democrat , said he could see himself voting for President Trump over Bernie Sanders if the Vermont senator becomes the Democratic nominee .
“ I think I might find it harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump , ” he told the Financial Times .
“ There ’ s a long time between now and then .
The Democrats would be working very hard to find someone who is as divisive as Trump .
But with Bernie , they would have succeeded.
” Blankfein , a billionaire , said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealth tax on the richest Americans .
The proposed tax would cut in half the wealth of a typical billionaire after 15 years , according to two economists who worked with the Vermont senator ’ s campaign on the plan .
Sanders has also said billionaires should not be allowed to exist .
“ I don ’ t like assassination by categorization .
I think it ’ s un-American .
I find that destructive and intemperate .
I find that just as subversive of the American character as someone like Trump who denigrates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met .
At least Trump cares about the economy , ” Blankfein said .
Blankfein and Sanders have a history of being critical of each other .
Sanders included the former Goldman Sachs executive on a list of “ anti-endorsements ” he released last summer .
After Sanders won the New Hampshire primary , Blankfein said the Russians might consider helping Sanders in the general election , if he wins the nomination .
“ If Dems go on to nominate Sanders , the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just as polarizing as Trump AND he ’ ll ruin our economy and doesn ’ t care about our military .
If I ’ m Russian , I go with Sanders this time around , ” he tweeted .

Former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, a lifelong Democrat, said he could see himself voting for President Trump over Bernie Sanders if the Vermont senator becomes the Democratic nominee.
“I think I might find it harder to vote for Bernie than for Trump,” he told the Financial Times. “There’s a long time between now and then. The Democrats would be working very hard to find someone who is as divisive as Trump. But with Bernie, they would have succeeded.”
Blankfein, a billionaire, said he did not support Sanders’s proposed wealth tax on the richest Americans. The proposed tax would cut in half the wealth of a typical billionaire after 15 years, according to two economists who worked with the Vermont senator’s campaign on the plan.
Sanders has also said billionaires should not be allowed to exist.
“I don’t like assassination by categorization. I think it’s un-American. I find that destructive and intemperate. I find that just as subversive of the American character as someone like Trump who denigrates groups of people who he has never met. At least Trump cares about the economy,” Blankfein said.
Blankfein and Sanders have a history of being critical of each other. Sanders included the former Goldman Sachs executive on a list of “anti-endorsements” he released last summer.
After Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, Blankfein said the Russians might consider helping Sanders in the general election, if he wins the nomination.
“If Dems go on to nominate Sanders, the Russians will have to reconsider who to work for to best screw up the US. Sanders is just as polarizing as Trump AND he’ll ruin our economy and doesn’t care about our military. If I’m Russian, I go with Sanders this time around,” he tweeted.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--'You can't buy personality': Don Trump Jr. mocks Bloomberg for spending 'half a billion dollars to l

'You can't buy personality': Don Trump Jr. mocks Bloomberg for spending 'half a billion dollars to look like a jerk’

Adding to the heap of criticism of Michael Bloomberg got for his first presidential debate performance , President Trump 's eldest son said the contest was `` brutal '' for the billionaire .
Donald Trump Jr. critiqued Bloomberg after the former New York City mayor was repeatedly attacked by rivals at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday night .
The president 's son went further on Twitter Friday morning , questioning whether Bloomberg was paying for endorsements .
`` Mike Bloomberg can buy a lot , but you ca n't buy personality , Sean , you ca n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday .
`` It 's not that he did n't know these questions were coming , it 's that he still does n't know how to answer them . ''
Sen. Elizabeth Warren led the verbal assault on Bloomberg , attacking the former Republican for nondisclosure agreements he signed with women he allegedly sexually harassed .
Warren also targeted Bloomberg over past comments attributed to the former mayor , calling women `` fat broads and horse-faced lesbians . ''
`` Mike Bloomberg does n't have that personality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's why he ca n't relate to anyone .
It 's why he makes comments about the minorities that he made that were just so vicious and farmers that was just so disrespectful . ''
Trump Jr. backed his `` blue-collar billionaire '' father 's ability to connect with everyday people and criticized a video circulating this week that showed Bloomberg mocking farmers .
`` He does n't have that ability to interact with real people , and the entire world saw it yesterday , '' Trump Jr. added .
`` He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was yesterday than we did to win the presidency , and he 's going to have to spend a lot more to remain relevant in this .
Right now , he spent half a billion dollars to look like a jerk . ''

Adding to the heap of criticism of Michael Bloomberg got for his first presidential debate performance, President Trump's eldest son said the contest was "brutal" for the billionaire.
Donald Trump Jr. critiqued Bloomberg after the former New York City mayor was repeatedly attacked by rivals at the Democratic debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday night. The president's son went further on Twitter Friday morning, questioning whether Bloomberg was paying for endorsements.
"Mike Bloomberg can buy a lot, but you can't buy personality, Sean, you can't buy wit," Trump Jr. told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday. "It's not that he didn't know these questions were coming, it's that he still doesn't know how to answer them."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren led the verbal assault on Bloomberg, attacking the former Republican for nondisclosure agreements he signed with women he allegedly sexually harassed. Warren also targeted Bloomberg over past comments attributed to the former mayor, calling women "fat broads and horse-faced lesbians."
"Mike Bloomberg doesn't have that personality," Trump Jr. said. "It's why he can't relate to anyone. It's why he makes comments about the minorities that he made that were just so vicious and farmers that was just so disrespectful."
Trump Jr. backed his "blue-collar billionaire" father's ability to connect with everyday people and criticized a video circulating this week that showed Bloomberg mocking farmers.
"He doesn't have that ability to interact with real people, and the entire world saw it yesterday," Trump Jr. added. "He spent more money to get to where he was yesterday than we did to win the presidency, and he's going to have to spend a lot more to remain relevant in this. Right now, he spent half a billion dollars to look like a jerk."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--Bloomberg is the Milli Vanilli of 2020

Bloomberg is the Milli Vanilli of 2020

Michael Bloomberg can spend unprecedented amounts of money to package himself as a product designed to please — that much we know .
But Wednesday ’ s debate showed what he can not do .
Mass marketing is one thing .
Interacting with the masses is another .
It looks suspiciously like when it comes to the former New York City mayor there may be no “ there ” there .
To me , he brings to mind the music industry ’ s biggest hoax of the late 1980s .
Milli Vanilli was a German pop duo that seemingly came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And not just hits , they had three No .
1 's and a multiplatinum album , all of which led to a Grammy Award for best new artist in 1990 .
The flaw behind their flawless production is that they did not actually do the singing .
In the studio , it made no difference if they were not on the track , as long as they were on the cover .
In public , they lip-synced .
It worked well for a while , but eventually the truth became unavoidable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skipping soundtrack betrayed them during a live concert .
As fast as they had appeared , they were gone .
Likewise , Bloomberg has come out of nowhere to the Democrats ’ top tier in just 10 weeks or so .
So far , he has not been on a ballot , and he is not a candidate in Nevada this weekend , either .
What Bloomberg has shown he can do is spend money — lots and lots and lots of it .
According to estimates , it is breaking records and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fourth quarter of last year , despite having only announced his candidacy on Nov. 24 , he spent $ 188 million — more than Bernie Sanders , Joe Biden , Elizabeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg , and Amy Klobuchar combined .
He has hired an enormous staff .
More visibly , he has run commercials nationally — even in states on whose ballot he will not appear .
Fox reported he had spent $ 350 million on ads so far ; for comparison , Obama held the previous record of $ 340 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycle .
Bloomberg emerged because he may be the Democratic establishment ’ s only hope to salvage a race spinning out of control as it spirals leftward .
With Biden failing in the first two contests and sinking nationally , the establishment has nowhere else to turn .
Bloomberg ’ s dismal debate performance must have turned their desperation to exasperation .
He appeared unprepared for both the questions and other candidates ’ relentless attacks .
Both were entirely predictable , yet even on obvious topics , such as stop and frisk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he offered unsatisfactory , bland , and technical responses to visceral questions .
Bloomberg has used his unmatchable resources to wall himself off from his rivals ; it is also clear that he has walled himself off from the public .
Wednesday night ’ s performance demonstrates why .
Retail politics is still important .
It reveals who candidates really are under pressure and unscripted .
It gives people a chance to connect with those seeking their nation ’ s highest office .
As with singers , it shows whether they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment .
During this campaign , the candidates ' biggest mistakes have come from direct encounters — with voters , press , or opponents .
So have Bloomberg ’ s : You will not find his remarks on stop and frisk , redlining , or farming in his slick commercials .
But most would say that it was important that these were heard .
Bloomberg is the newest entrant to the race .
Perhaps he should be expected to lack his opponents ’ eight months ' preparation .
Yet on Wednesday , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that .
Bloomberg is not just unprepared .
He has been purposely living in a bubble .
His message is a soundtrack , and he is only adept at transmitting , not receiving .
When Milli Vanilli were finally unmasked , their Grammy was taken away .
Democrats should be careful — they will not be able to take back their nomination once they 've given it .
J.T .
Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and budget at the Treasury Department .

Michael Bloomberg can spend unprecedented amounts of money to package himself as a product designed to please — that much we know. But Wednesday’s debate showed what he cannot do.
Mass marketing is one thing. Interacting with the masses is another. It looks suspiciously like when it comes to the former New York City mayor there may be no “there” there.
To me, he brings to mind the music industry’s biggest hoax of the late 1980s. Milli Vanilli was a German pop duo that seemingly came from nowhere to record hit after hit. And not just hits, they had three No. 1's and a multiplatinum album, all of which led to a Grammy Award for best new artist in 1990. The flaw behind their flawless production is that they did not actually do the singing.
In the studio, it made no difference if they were not on the track, as long as they were on the cover. In public, they lip-synced. It worked well for a while, but eventually the truth became unavoidable. Little clues indicted them until a skipping soundtrack betrayed them during a live concert. As fast as they had appeared, they were gone.
Likewise, Bloomberg has come out of nowhere to the Democrats’ top tier in just 10 weeks or so. So far, he has not been on a ballot, and he is not a candidate in Nevada this weekend, either.
What Bloomberg has shown he can do is spend money — lots and lots and lots of it. According to estimates, it is breaking records and easily outpacing his rivals. In just the fourth quarter of last year, despite having only announced his candidacy on Nov. 24, he spent $188 million — more than Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar combined.
He has hired an enormous staff. More visibly, he has run commercials nationally — even in states on whose ballot he will not appear. Fox reported he had spent $350 million on ads so far; for comparison, Obama held the previous record of $340 million — amassed over the entire 2012 election cycle.
Bloomberg emerged because he may be the Democratic establishment’s only hope to salvage a race spinning out of control as it spirals leftward. With Biden failing in the first two contests and sinking nationally, the establishment has nowhere else to turn.
Bloomberg’s dismal debate performance must have turned their desperation to exasperation. He appeared unprepared for both the questions and other candidates’ relentless attacks. Both were entirely predictable, yet even on obvious topics, such as stop and frisk and sexual harassment allegations against his company, he offered unsatisfactory, bland, and technical responses to visceral questions.
Bloomberg has used his unmatchable resources to wall himself off from his rivals; it is also clear that he has walled himself off from the public. Wednesday night’s performance demonstrates why.
Retail politics is still important. It reveals who candidates really are under pressure and unscripted. It gives people a chance to connect with those seeking their nation’s highest office. As with singers, it shows whether they can actually perform outside of the controlled studio environment.
During this campaign, the candidates' biggest mistakes have come from direct encounters — with voters, press, or opponents. So have Bloomberg’s: You will not find his remarks on stop and frisk, redlining, or farming in his slick commercials. But most would say that it was important that these were heard.
Bloomberg is the newest entrant to the race. Perhaps he should be expected to lack his opponents’ eight months' preparation. Yet on Wednesday, it seemed maybe there was more to it than that. Bloomberg is not just unprepared. He has been purposely living in a bubble. His message is a soundtrack, and he is only adept at transmitting, not receiving.
When Milli Vanilli were finally unmasked, their Grammy was taken away. Democrats should be careful — they will not be able to take back their nomination once they've given it.
J.T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-22--Roger Stone moves to have judge recuse herself for praising 'integrity' of jurors

As former Trump aide Roger Stone seeks a new trial , his attorneys now argue the presiding judge in his case must recuse herself while raising concerns about her partiality .
Judge Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointee , praised the jury during Stone 's sentencing on Thursday for multiple crimes , including lying to the House Intelligence Committee , obstruction of a congressional investigation , and witness tampering .
In a filing late Friday , Stone 's team took issue with the way Jackson commended them , though she did not refer to any specific juror .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defendant 's pending Motion for a New Trial ... and statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Defendant 's Sentencing Hearing on February 20 , 2020 .
Stone 's argument for a new trial rests on newly discovered information indicating there there was juror misconduct during Mr. Stone 's trial , thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury .
Defendant 's Motion has not been ruled on , and in fact , the Defendant 's Reply to the Government 's Opposition is not yet due , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' the motion for judicial disqualification from Stone 's lawyers said .
`` The Court must still consider whether any juror interviews are appropriate in light of the allegations .
However , given the statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Sentencing Hearing , recusal ... is warranted in order to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system , '' filing with the U.S. District Court in Washington added .
Stone 's attorneys cite one particular statement by Jackson , when she said , `` the jurors who served with integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking a retrial , Stone 's lawyers alleged one of the members of the jury , Tomeka Hart , was not an impartial juror due to her past partisan activity .
Hart , who was a former Democratic congressional candidate and a program officer for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , repeatedly shared anti-Trump posts on social media .
“ I ca n't keep quiet any longer , ” Hart said in a Facebook post first reported by CNN .
“ I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky , Adam Jed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial who have all resigned from the case in response to the DOJ 's interference with their sentencing recommendation.
” Jackson sentenced Stone to 40 months for obstruction of justice and 12 months for the other five counts to be served concurrently .
Stone also received a $ 20,000 fine and 24 months of supervised release when he gets out .
Jackson said she ’ d rule on the retrial motion after sentencing .
She previously presided over a number of other spinoff cases from special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort , former Trump campaign deputy turned government witness Rick Gates , and former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig .
One big question that remains unresolved : whether the Republican operative will receive a pardon from President Trump , who tweeted a segment from Tucker Carlson 's show on Fox News calling for a Stone pardon early Thursday morning .
Hours earlier , speaking at the commencement address at the Hope for Prisoners graduation in Las Vegas , Trump said Hart was `` totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm following this very closely , and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration , in my opinion . ''

As former Trump aide Roger Stone seeks a new trial, his attorneys now argue the presiding judge in his case must recuse herself while raising concerns about her partiality.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, praised the jury during Stone's sentencing on Thursday for multiple crimes, including lying to the House Intelligence Committee, obstruction of a congressional investigation, and witness tampering. In a filing late Friday, Stone's team took issue with the way Jackson commended them, though she did not refer to any specific juror.
"The issue at hand arises from the Defendant's pending Motion for a New Trial ... and statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Defendant's Sentencing Hearing on February 20, 2020. Stone's argument for a new trial rests on newly discovered information indicating that there was juror misconduct during Mr. Stone's trial, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury. Defendant's Motion has not been ruled on, and in fact, the Defendant's Reply to the Government's Opposition is not yet due, nor has a hearing been set," the motion for judicial disqualification from Stone's lawyers said.
"The Court must still consider whether any juror interviews are appropriate in light of the allegations. However, given the statements made by Judge Berman-Jackson during the Sentencing Hearing, recusal ... is warranted in order to protect the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system," the filing with the U.S. District Court in Washington added.
Stone's attorneys cite one particular statement by Jackson, when she said, "The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared."
In seeking a retrial, Stone's lawyers alleged one of the members of the jury, Tomeka Hart, was not an impartial juror due to her past partisan activity. Hart, who was a former Democratic congressional candidate and a program officer for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, repeatedly shared anti-Trump posts on social media.
“I can't keep quiet any longer,” Hart said in a Facebook post first reported by CNN. “I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial who have all resigned from the case in response to the DOJ's interference with their sentencing recommendation.”
JUST IN: Roger Stone is moving to force Judge Amy Berman Jackson to recuse herself because she praised the jurors for serving with "integrity."
Stone says she can't rule fairly on his motion for a new trial (based on juror bias) because of this. pic.twitter.com/IPPKruT1Wx — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 22, 2020
Jackson sentenced Stone to 40 months for obstruction of justice and 12 months for the other five counts to be served concurrently. Stone also received a $20,000 fine and 24 months of supervised release when he gets out.
Jackson said she’d rule on the retrial motion after sentencing. She previously presided over a number of other spinoff cases from special counsel Robert Mueller’s two-year investigation, including against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign deputy turned government witness Rick Gates, and former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig.
One big question that remains unresolved: whether the Republican operative will receive a pardon from President Trump, who tweeted a segment from Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News calling for a Stone pardon early Thursday morning.
Hours earlier, speaking at the commencement address at the Hope for Prisoners graduation in Las Vegas, Trump said Hart was "totally tainted." He added, "I'm following this very closely, and I want to see it play out to its fullest because Roger has a very good chance of exoneration, in my opinion."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-21--WATCH: Trump honors ‘Miracle on Ice’ hockey players on 40th anniversary of historic Olympic win

Flanked by members of the famed `` Miracle on Ice '' U.S. Olympic hockey team , President Trump celebrated the @ @ @ @ @ at a campaign rally on Friday .
Forty years after the team defeated the Russian @ @ @ @ @ of the 1980 Olympic Games , Trump honored the historic victory by bringing captain Mike @ @ @ @ @ 's daughter onstage during a campaign stop in Las Vegas .
The team stood behind @ @ @ @ @ through his stump speech and lashed out at the `` fake news media . ''
@ @ @ @ @ America Great Again hats and told the president they want him to be reelected .
@ @ @ @ @ team , which featured a group of amateur players , beat the Russian favorites by @ @ @ @ @ what is considered one of the greatest upsets in sports history .


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-02-22--Trump tries to block release of book by 'traitor' John Bolton

President Trump is trying to block his former national security adviser John Bolton 's book from being published .
The immediate issue with the book , which contains claims about Trump 's dealings with Ukraine , is that it may have classified information , according to the Washington Post .
The Room Where It Happened , which is so far scheduled to be released on March 17 , `` appears to contain significant amounts of classified information , '' according to a letter sent last month from the White House 's National Security Council 's Records Management Division to Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that some of this classified information is at the TOP SECRET level , '' the letter said .
`` Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed , as a condition for gaining access to classified information , the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information . ''
Beyond classification issues , Trump has told aides the book should not be released before the 2020 election .
And in an off-the-record lunch with news anchors in the lead-up to his State of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bolton is a `` traitor '' and that the White House was `` going to try and block the publication of the book . ''
“ After I leave office , he can do this .
But not in the White House , '' he said .
In excerpts of the manuscript that were leaked during the impeachment saga , Bolton alleged Trump made security aid to Ukraine dependent on the country investigating his political rival Joe Biden , the linchpin in the case made by House Democrats .
The claims , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump defense team 's claim that the freeze of security assistance was not linked to the pressure campaign for investigations , but the GOP-led Senate voted not to hear from additional witnesses , and Bolton never testified in the impeachment trial despite his stated willingness to do so .
Trump was acquitted by the GOP-led Senate earlier this month .

President Trump is trying to block his former national security adviser John Bolton's book from being published.
The immediate issue with the book, which contains claims about Trump's dealings with Ukraine, is that it may have classified information, according to the Washington Post.
The Room Where It Happened, which is so far scheduled to be released on March 17, "appears to contain significant amounts of classified information," according to a letter sent last month from the White House's National Security Council's Records Management Division to Bolton's lawyers.
"It also appears that some of this classified information is at the TOP SECRET level," the letter said. "Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed, as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information."
Beyond classification issues, Trump has told aides the book should not be released before the 2020 election.
And in an off-the-record lunch with news anchors in the lead-up to his State of the Union, Trump told those in attendance that Bolton is a "traitor" and that the White House was "going to try and block the publication of the book."
“After I leave office, he can do this. But not in the White House," he said.
In excerpts of the manuscript that were leaked during the impeachment saga, Bolton alleged Trump made security aid to Ukraine dependent on the country investigating his political rival Joe Biden, the linchpin in the case made by House Democrats.
The claims, which the president denied, undermined the Trump defense team's claim that the freeze of security assistance was not linked to the pressure campaign for investigations, but the GOP-led Senate voted not to hear from additional witnesses, and Bolton never testified in the impeachment trial despite his stated willingness to do so. Trump was acquitted by the GOP-led Senate earlier this month.