thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Nancy Pelosi, get on with it already

Nancy Pelosi, get on with it already

Exhausted of the never-ending impeachment saga led by House Democrats ?
You are not the only one .
Impeachment fatigue is real , and it ’ s spreading fast .
Trying to follow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s crusade against the White House is like watching a movie starring actors you don ’ t like , where you already know the ending .
You find yourself constantly checking your watch and wondering , “ Is it almost over ?
” We all know how this process will conclude — at some point , it will become politically inexcusable for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
Pelosi will finally admit she has no constitutional authority over Senate rules and procedures , release the articles of impeachment to the Senate , and the president will be acquitted .
So , can we just get on with it already ?
Millions of people have viewed the impeachment proceedings with skepticism and distrust from the beginning .
An internal FreedomWorks poll revealed over 95 % of our membership believes President Trump should not have been impeached by the House .
More than 97 % believe the impeachment was a Democrat-led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump in 2016 .
This process has gone on long enough .
It ’ s time for Democrats to stop doing their best House of Cards impersonation and get back to work .
( Now is where I casually mention the budget deficit through November for fiscal year 2020 is projected to be $ 342 billion , and the total federal debt has surpassed $ 23 trillion .
Maybe they can start work there . )
People are beyond ready to move on from impeachment , and they are beginning to take action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
More than 100 FreedomWorks activists will be gathering at the Capitol on Wednesday to demand Pelosi release the articles of impeachment , and for the Senate to acquit the president as quickly as possible , so the White House can get back to the hard work of governing .
Come to think of it , Democrats in the House and Senate should be thrilled to end this process as quickly as possible — after all , they have been rushing through the process since the beginning .
As pointed out by Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , congressional Democrats moved quickly to begin impeachment because they insisted the situation was “ urgent.
” Some particularly dramatic Democrats even made the argument that impeaching the president was a matter of national security .
Tillis wrote , “ Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry before even reading the transcript between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart .
… In the end , they produced an embarrassingly weak case that failed to convince a single Republican to vote to impeach President Trump.
” No wonder the sense of urgency is gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeachment , trying to “ pass it so they can find out what ’ s in it ” after the fact .
They figured , let ’ s just begin the process and condemn the president now , and we can figure out the “ why ” later .
Except they never did .
House Democrats jumped without looking , and they ’ ve got nothing to show for it .
No strong evidence , no strong case — just a half-baked political character assassination that will likely receive a swift bipartisan acquittal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how this movie is going to end , and they are gathering in Washington this week to deliver a simple message : Get on with it already .
Adam Brandon ( @ adam_brandon ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner 's Beltway Confidential blog .
He is president and CEO of FreedomWorks .

Exhausted of the never-ending impeachment saga led by House Democrats? You are not the only one. Impeachment fatigue is real, and it’s spreading fast. Trying to follow House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s crusade against the White House is like watching a movie starring actors you don’t like, where you already know the ending. You find yourself constantly checking your watch and wondering, “Is it almost over?”
We all know how this process will conclude — at some point, it will become politically inexcusable for the Democrats to keep dragging the process out. Pelosi will finally admit she has no constitutional authority over Senate rules and procedures, release the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and the president will be acquitted.
So, can we just get on with it already?
Millions of people have viewed the impeachment proceedings with skepticism and distrust from the beginning. An internal FreedomWorks poll revealed over 95% of our membership believes President Trump should not have been impeached by the House. More than 97% believe the impeachment was a Democrat-led attempt to silence voters who duly elected Trump in 2016.
This process has gone on long enough. It’s time for Democrats to stop doing their best House of Cards impersonation and get back to work. (Now is where I casually mention the budget deficit through November for fiscal year 2020 is projected to be $342 billion, and the total federal debt has surpassed $23 trillion. Maybe they can start work there.)
People are beyond ready to move on from impeachment, and they are beginning to take action to make their voices heard in Washington. More than 100 FreedomWorks activists will be gathering at the Capitol on Wednesday to demand Pelosi release the articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to acquit the president as quickly as possible, so the White House can get back to the hard work of governing.
Come to think of it, Democrats in the House and Senate should be thrilled to end this process as quickly as possible — after all, they have been rushing through the process since the beginning. As pointed out by Sen. Thom Tillis, Republican from North Carolina, congressional Democrats moved quickly to begin impeachment because they insisted the situation was “urgent.” Some particularly dramatic Democrats even made the argument that impeaching the president was a matter of national security.
Tillis wrote, “Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry before even reading the transcript between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart. … In the end, they produced an embarrassingly weak case that failed to convince a single Republican to vote to impeach President Trump.”
No wonder the sense of urgency is gone. Democrats took the Obamacare approach to impeachment, trying to “pass it so they can find out what’s in it” after the fact. They figured, let’s just begin the process and condemn the president now, and we can figure out the “why” later. Except they never did.
House Democrats jumped without looking, and they’ve got nothing to show for it. No strong evidence, no strong case — just a half-baked political character assassination that will likely receive a swift bipartisan acquittal in the Senate.
FreedomWorks activists already know how this movie is going to end, and they are gathering in Washington this week to deliver a simple message: Get on with it already.
Adam Brandon (@adam_brandon) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is president and CEO of FreedomWorks.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Pelosi will send impeachment articles to Senate pending 'details' of McConnell plan

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats on Monday she will transmit impeachment articles to the Senate when Senate Republicans provide the details of their just-announced plan for holding a trial .
Pelosi ’ s announcement moves Congress a step closer to holding an impeachment trial weighing obstruction of Congress and abuse of power charges against President Trump .
Pelosi called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to provide the details of a resolution McConnell announced Tuesday after a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers .
“ It is important that he immediately publish this resolution , so that , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the arena in which we will be participating , appoint managers , and transmit the articles to the Senate , ” Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats .
McConnell announced Tuesday he has 51 GOP votes to pass a resolution setting rules for an impeachment trial that largely mirror those used 21 years ago when the Senate weighed impeachment charges against President Bill Clinton .
McConnell hasn ’ t released all the details , and there are some differences , he said .
Pelosi wants those details .
“ This morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be glad to show [ the resolution ] to you when we unveil it , ' '' Pelosi told fellow Democrats in the letter .
Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted Republicans to agree to a list of Trump administration witnesses ahead of the trial .
Pelosi has delayed transmitting the articles to the Senate in an effort to push GOP senators to back a pretrial agreement on witnesses .
But McConnell rejected the idea and has the backing of his majority for the Clinton-era plan , which he said is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate in 1999 .
Under the scenario outlined by McConnell , the Senate would allow both sides to present arguments and answer written questions from senators .
Only after that would the Senate take up the question of whether to call any witnesses .
Pelosi , in the memo to fellow lawmakers , said the Senate should be required to call witnesses who were not interviewed during the weekslong House impeachment proceedings because they fought requests and subpoenas in court .
“ This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and testimony , ” Pelosi said .
“ Under the Clinton trial , witnesses were deposed.
” Pelosi attached a document from Schumer outlining six “ facts Sen. McConnell is conveniently leaving out.
” Among them , Schumer argued , was a concern during Clinton ’ s impeachment trial that the Senate did not want live testimony in the chamber from witness Monica Lewinsky , who was involved in a sexual relationship with Clinton .
“ Senators of both parties were concerned that having Monica Lewinsky testify would create an unseemly spectacle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses , Schumer pointed out , “ had already testified under oath in the grand jury and their testimony was available to the Senate.
” Schumer also argued in the memo that he believes McConnell wants the trial over within two weeks and will try to thwart votes on witnesses .
“ When Democrats argue for witnesses and documents at that point , you can bet McConnell will accuse them of dragging out a proceeding that has already gone on long enough , ” Schumer said .
Trump is poised to be acquitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would require 67 votes for a conviction .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told fellow Democrats on Monday she will transmit impeachment articles to the Senate when Senate Republicans provide the details of their just-announced plan for holding a trial.
Pelosi’s announcement moves Congress a step closer to holding an impeachment trial weighing obstruction of Congress and abuse of power charges against President Trump.
Pelosi called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to provide the details of a resolution McConnell announced Tuesday after a closed-door meeting with GOP lawmakers.
“It is important that he immediately publish this resolution, so that, as I have said before, we can see the arena in which we will be participating, appoint managers, and transmit the articles to the Senate,” Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats.
McConnell announced Tuesday he has 51 GOP votes to pass a resolution setting rules for an impeachment trial that largely mirror those used 21 years ago when the Senate weighed impeachment charges against President Bill Clinton.
McConnell hasn’t released all the details, and there are some differences, he said. Pelosi wants those details.
“This morning, Leader McConnell said, 'We’ll be glad to show [the resolution] to you when we unveil it,'" Pelosi told fellow Democrats in the letter.
Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted Republicans to agree to a list of Trump administration witnesses ahead of the trial. Pelosi has delayed transmitting the articles to the Senate in an effort to push GOP senators to back a pretrial agreement on witnesses.
But McConnell rejected the idea and has the backing of his majority for the Clinton-era plan, which he said is fair and was accepted unanimously by the Senate in 1999.
Under the scenario outlined by McConnell, the Senate would allow both sides to present arguments and answer written questions from senators. Only after that would the Senate take up the question of whether to call any witnesses.
Pelosi, in the memo to fellow lawmakers, said the Senate should be required to call witnesses who were not interviewed during the weekslong House impeachment proceedings because they fought requests and subpoenas in court.
“This process is not only unfair but designed to deprive senators and the American people of crucial documents and testimony,” Pelosi said. “Under the Clinton trial, witnesses were deposed.”
Pelosi attached a document from Schumer outlining six “facts Sen. McConnell is conveniently leaving out.”
Among them, Schumer argued, was a concern during Clinton’s impeachment trial that the Senate did not want live testimony in the chamber from witness Monica Lewinsky, who was involved in a sexual relationship with Clinton.
“Senators of both parties were concerned that having Monica Lewinsky testify would create an unseemly spectacle,” Schumer said. Lewinsky and other witnesses, Schumer pointed out, “had already testified under oath in the grand jury and their testimony was available to the Senate.”
Schumer also argued in the memo that he believes McConnell wants the trial over within two weeks and will try to thwart votes on witnesses.
“When Democrats argue for witnesses and documents at that point, you can bet McConnell will accuse them of dragging out a proceeding that has already gone on long enough,” Schumer said.
Trump is poised to be acquitted of the two impeachment charges, which would require 67 votes for a conviction.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--'I’ll call him back': Pelosi puts House business first as Pence calls about Iranian ballistic missil

'I’ll call him back': Pelosi puts House business first as Pence calls about Iranian ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was huddling with Democratic colleagues when she was alerted of the missile attack on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops .
The California Democrat was participating in a closed-door meeting with the Democratic caucus Tuesday evening when she received a note that said Vice President Mike Pence was on the phone .
“ Tell him I ’ ll call him back , ” Pelosi said , sources told a Politico reporter .
Pelosi mentioned she had to open the House for a new session .
Moments later , Pelosi was handed another note about the attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ p.m. Pence then briefed her on the attack , four minutes after she conducted the required presiding over the House , according to her deputy chief of staff , Drew Hammill .
Ten ballistic missiles struck Al Asad air base in Anbar province , an Iraqi military center in western Iraq , while another hit a base in Erbil in the northern part of the country .
Four other missiles failed , according to a U.S. military spokesman for Central Command .
Iran 's leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , warned that `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ordered the killings of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al Muhandis in Baghdad last week .
[ Read : Iran claims responsibility for missile attack on US base in western Iraq ] '' Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq .
We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers , including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence .
America & world can not afford war , '' Pelosi said in a tweet about an hour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours later , saying , `` All is well ! ''
`` Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq , '' the president said .
`` Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now .
So far , so good !
We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world , by far !
I will be making a statement tomorrow morning . ''

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was huddling with Democratic colleagues when she was alerted of the missile attack on Iraqi bases that host U.S. troops.
The California Democrat was participating in a closed-door meeting with the Democratic caucus Tuesday evening when she received a note that said Vice President Mike Pence was on the phone.
“Tell him I’ll call him back,” Pelosi said, sources told a Politico reporter. Pelosi mentioned she had to open the House for a new session.
Moments later, Pelosi was handed another note about the attack.
"Pray," Pelosi told members.
[Read: 'Just playing political games': Prominent evangelical Trump supporter explains opposition to Christianity Today]
During a meeting tonight, House Speaker Pelosi was discussing the situation in Iran with members when she was handed a note with news of the attack on US forces in Iraq, lawmakers who attended the meeting said.
“Pray,” Pelosi told members, according to Rep. Debbie Dingell. — Haley Byrd (@byrdinator) January 7, 2020
The speaker called Pence at 6:34 p.m. Pence then briefed her on the attack, four minutes after she conducted the required presiding over the House, according to her deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill.
.@SpeakerPelosi returned a phone call to @VP at 6:34 p.m. tonight after her required presiding over the House at 6:30 p.m. The Vice President briefed the Speaker on the Iranian attacks on facilities housing U.S. troops in Iraq. — Drew Hammill (@Drew_Hammill) January 7, 2020
Ten ballistic missiles struck Al Asad air base in Anbar province, an Iraqi military center in western Iraq, while another hit a base in Erbil in the northern part of the country. Four other missiles failed, according to a U.S. military spokesman for Central Command.
Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned that "revenge awaits" the United States after President Trump ordered the killings of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al Muhandis in Baghdad last week.
[Read: Iran claims responsibility for missile attack on US base in western Iraq]
"Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war," Pelosi said in a tweet about an hour after speaking with Pence.
Closely monitoring the situation following bombings targeting U.S. troops in Iraq. We must ensure the safety of our servicemembers, including ending needless provocations from the Administration and demanding that Iran cease its violence. America & world cannot afford war. — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 8, 2020
Trump tweeted hours later, saying, "All is well!"
"Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq," the president said. "Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--Surging California homeless 'crisis' offsets drop in nation: HUD

A 16 % increase in homelessness in California accounted for most of the 3 % national increase , putting more heat on the state ’ s lagging effort to curb the surge , according to a new federal report .
The Housing and Urban Development Department late Tuesday released its homelessness report and counted 568,000 people without homes .
Significantly , it found that homelessness among veterans , youths , and families is down .
For veterans , it ’ s down 40 % over the last 10 years .
The department , which bases the numbers on a one-night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if California hadn ’ t seen such an explosion in homelessness , the national number would not have increased .
Essentially , said a senior HUD official , California ’ s increase “ offset ” the national trend downward .
In the report , the second “ key finding ” singled out California .
It said : “ While homelessness in most states declined between 2018 and 2019 , homelessness in California increased by 16 percent , or 21,306 people .
The large increase in California is reflected in a nationwide increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experiencing homelessness , between 2018 and 2019.
” HUD Secretary Ben Carson also didn ’ t mince words in his memo included in the 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress .
He wrote , “ This year ’ s report shows that there was a small increase in the one-night estimates of people experiencing homelessness across the nation between 2018 and 2019 ( 3 % ) , which reflects a 16 percent increase in California , and offsets a marked decrease across many other states.
” He added in a statement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and needs to be addressed by local and state leaders with crisis-like urgency .
Addressing these challenges will require a broader , community-wide response that engages every level of government to compassionately house our most vulnerable fellow citizens . ''
The administration has been critical of California ’ s handling of the crisis , which is notable for tent cities in downtown areas .
California has blamed President Trump for the crisis , but HUD recently pushed back , claiming that the state is sitting on $ 450 million in federal aid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driven up the price of a single low-income unit to $ 750,000 .
Throughout the report , California ’ s woes were highlighted .
A sampling : • In terms of absolute numbers , California has more than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the country ( 53 % or 108,432 ) , with nearly nine times as many unsheltered homeless as the state with the next highest number , Florida ( 6 % or 12,476 ) , despite California ’ s population being only twice that of Florida .
• An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homelessness , specifically unsheltered individuals , drove the national increase in all people experiencing homelessness .
The number of unsheltered individuals in California rose 21 percent between 2018 and 2019 , an increase of more than 18,000 people .
• Nearly half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in three states : California ( 27 % or 151,278 people ) ; New York ( 16 % or 92,091 people ) ; and Florida ( 5 % or 28,328 people ) .
• California and New York had the largest numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates of homelessness , at 38 and 46 people per 10,000 , respectively .
• California also had the highest percentage of all people experiencing homelessness staying in unsheltered locations ( 72 % ) .

A 16% increase in homelessness in California accounted for most of the 3% national increase, putting more heat on the state’s lagging effort to curb the surge, according to a new federal report.
The Housing and Urban Development Department late Tuesday released its homelessness report and counted 568,000 people without homes. Significantly, it found that homelessness among veterans, youths, and families is down. For veterans, it’s down 40% over the last 10 years.
The department, which bases the numbers on a one-night national count of homeless people, said that if California hadn’t seen such an explosion in homelessness, the national number would not have increased.
Essentially, said a senior HUD official, California’s increase “offset” the national trend downward.
CNN spewing out more FAKE NEWS on homelessness. In CA, homelessness increased by 21,306 people, that’s more than the entire national increase. No matter how hard @CNN tries to deny it, California is driving this crisis.
As @realdonaldtrump said, we are just a phone call away. — Ben Carson (@SecretaryCarson) January 3, 2020
In the report, the second “key finding” singled out California. It said: “While homelessness in most states declined between 2018 and 2019, homelessness in California increased by 16 percent, or 21,306 people. The large increase in California is reflected in a nationwide increase of 3 percent, or 14,885 people experiencing homelessness, between 2018 and 2019.”
HUD Secretary Ben Carson also didn’t mince words in his memo included in the 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress. He wrote, “This year’s report shows that there was a small increase in the one-night estimates of people experiencing homelessness across the nation between 2018 and 2019 (3%), which reflects a 16 percent increase in California, and offsets a marked decrease across many other states.”
He added in a statement, "California is at a crisis level and needs to be addressed by local and state leaders with crisis-like urgency. Addressing these challenges will require a broader, community-wide response that engages every level of government to compassionately house our most vulnerable fellow citizens."
The administration has been critical of California’s handling of the crisis, which is notable for tent cities in downtown areas. California has blamed President Trump for the crisis, but HUD recently pushed back, claiming that the state is sitting on $450 million in federal aid and doing nothing to slash regulations that have driven up the price of a single low-income unit to $750,000.
Throughout the report, California’s woes were highlighted. A sampling:
In terms of absolute numbers, California has more than half of all unsheltered homeless people in the country (53% or 108,432), with nearly nine times as many unsheltered homeless as the state with the next highest number, Florida (6% or 12,476), despite California’s population being only twice that of Florida.
An increase in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness, specifically unsheltered individuals, drove the national increase in all people experiencing homelessness. The number of unsheltered individuals in California rose 21 percent between 2018 and 2019, an increase of more than 18,000 people.
Nearly half of all people experiencing homelessness in the country were in three states: California (27% or 151,278 people); New York (16% or 92,091 people); and Florida (5% or 28,328 people).
California and New York had the largest numbers of people experiencing homelessness and the highest rates of homelessness, at 38 and 46 people per 10,000, respectively.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Insufficient GOP support for rules change to sidestep Pelosi delay

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

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


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Second-choice Sanders goes on offensive to win voters from Biden

A significant portion of Joe Biden ’ s supporters are open to voting for Bernie Sanders , and the Vermont senator ’ s new attacks show he knows those Democrats are up for grabs .
Such a strategy , if done successfully , could shoot Sanders to victory in Iowa .
Polling consistently shows Biden backers are most likely to pick Sanders as their second-choice candidate .
A Morning Consult survey released Tuesday found 29 % of Democratic primary voters who support Biden gravitate to Sanders as a second option .
“ There are a lot of voters who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those voters who have expressed their preference for a candidate , it ’ s a fairly weak preference , ” said Brad Bannon , a Democratic strategist .
“ The reality is that there are Biden voters who are still up for grabs , who can go to Bernie .
There are Bernie voters out there , who could go for Biden .
That ’ s not even counting the undecideds or the support that exists for the lesser candidates.
” Sanders started the new year with attacks on the former vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would make him a weak candidate in a general election against President Trump .
Sanders ’ s team has often hit Biden for embracing the North American Free Trade Agreement and his 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War .
On Monday , Sanders targeted Biden ’ s past support for cutting social programs and spearheading a bill that made it harder to file for bankruptcy , issues that appeal to voters likely to cross from Biden to Sanders .
Many of those voters are older , male , and without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust both Sanders and Biden more than the rest of the field on issues such as the economy and foreign policy , despite the two candidates coming from vastly different ideological wings of the party .
“ You know , Joe Biden has been on the floor of the Senate , talking about the need to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid , ” Sanders said Tuesday .
“ Joe Biden pushed a bankruptcy bill , which has caused enormous financial problems for working families .
So , if we 're going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And to get turnout , you need energy and excitement.
” A number of those who backed Sanders during the 2016 Iowa caucuses , which he lost to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by just a fraction of a percentage , have flocked to Biden ’ s camp .
In that race , Sanders capitalized on Democrats ’ resentment toward a candidate whose record appeared out of touch with voters .
This time around , Sanders is hoping to do the same .
“ At the end of the day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Democratic Party are for some reason also moved by Bernie and Biden .
It could be the facade of Biden looking working class or Bernie actually talking about working-class issues , ” said Nomiki Konst , a Sanders supporter and former member of the Democratic National Committee .
With a recent Iowa poll finding Biden and Sanders tied with former South Bend , Ind .
Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 22 % , a modest draw of soft Biden supporters could lead to significant success for Sanders in early nominating contests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a December Quinnipiac University national poll , 49 % said that they might change their minds before voting in a caucus or primary .
“ There are a lot more seniors going to caucus than voters under 35 , ” Bannon said when asked about Sanders ’ s new rhetoric on Social Security .
“ He has to go for those voters .
You could shave 2 % out of that pool and that would get you a victory in caucus.
” About 50 % of Sanders supporters said that they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those who backed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and 83 % who supported Buttigieg also said that their support was not set in stone .
Sanders was the top second-choice vote among Biden backers early in the primary cycle , but , for a short time in the fall , Warren beat out Sanders as the favorite second option among Biden supporters , coinciding with her bump in popular support for a few months .
“ Now that Warren ’ s dropped back , what ’ s happening is that she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the only thing standing between Bernie and a victory in Iowa is Joe Biden , ” Bannon said .
Sanders ’ s attacks on Biden come as he is riding a comeback in support among Democratic voters , making his targeting of soft Biden supporters more feasible than ever .
On Tuesday , Sanders broke 20 % support in RealClearPolitics ’ s average of national primary polls for the first time since late April 2019 , at about the time Biden announced his candidacy .
He received in a massive $ 34.5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of 2019 , the best quarter for any Democratic candidate yet , $ 9.9 million more than Warren ’ s $ 24.6 million haul and $ 11.7 million more than the $ 22.7 million Biden raised over the same period .
“ Folks who have been in the party for a long time , people in labor , they ’ ve been really familiar with Bernie .
Biden represented that wing of the Obama coalition , and he had to do that work for Obama , ” said Konst .
“ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie has been clear about where Biden really stands on working-class issues , and I think that ’ s why Bernie will be effective in winning those voters back from Biden .
”

A significant portion of Joe Biden’s supporters are open to voting for Bernie Sanders, and the Vermont senator’s new attacks show he knows those Democrats are up for grabs.
Such a strategy, if done successfully, could shoot Sanders to victory in Iowa.
Polling consistently shows Biden backers are most likely to pick Sanders as their second-choice candidate. A Morning Consult survey released Tuesday found 29% of Democratic primary voters who support Biden gravitate to Sanders as a second option.
“There are a lot of voters who are up for grabs. A lot of those voters who have expressed their preference for a candidate, it’s a fairly weak preference,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist. “The reality is that there are Biden voters who are still up for grabs, who can go to Bernie. There are Bernie voters out there, who could go for Biden. That’s not even counting the undecideds or the support that exists for the lesser candidates.”
Sanders started the new year with attacks on the former vice president, arguing that his “baggage” would make him a weak candidate in a general election against President Trump.
Sanders’s team has often hit Biden for embracing the North American Free Trade Agreement and his 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq War. On Monday, Sanders targeted Biden’s past support for cutting social programs and spearheading a bill that made it harder to file for bankruptcy, issues that appeal to voters likely to cross from Biden to Sanders.
Many of those voters are older, male, and without a college degree. They also tend to trust both Sanders and Biden more than the rest of the field on issues such as the economy and foreign policy, despite the two candidates coming from vastly different ideological wings of the party.
“You know, Joe Biden has been on the floor of the Senate, talking about the need to cut Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid,” Sanders said Tuesday. “Joe Biden pushed a bankruptcy bill, which has caused enormous financial problems for working families. So, if we're going to beat Trump, we need turnout. And to get turnout, you need energy and excitement.”
A number of those who backed Sanders during the 2016 Iowa caucuses, which he lost to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by just a fraction of a percentage, have flocked to Biden’s camp. In that race, Sanders capitalized on Democrats’ resentment toward a candidate whose record appeared out of touch with voters. This time around, Sanders is hoping to do the same.
“At the end of the day, the people who are movable from Trump to the Democratic Party are for some reason also moved by Bernie and Biden. It could be the facade of Biden looking working class or Bernie actually talking about working-class issues,” said Nomiki Konst, a Sanders supporter and former member of the Democratic National Committee.
With a recent Iowa poll finding Biden and Sanders tied with former South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 22%, a modest draw of soft Biden supporters could lead to significant success for Sanders in early nominating contests.
Of likely Democratic voters who backed Biden in a December Quinnipiac University national poll, 49% said that they might change their minds before voting in a caucus or primary.
“There are a lot more seniors going to caucus than voters under 35,” Bannon said when asked about Sanders’s new rhetoric on Social Security. “He has to go for those voters. You could shave 2% out of that pool and that would get you a victory in caucus.”
About 50% of Sanders supporters said that they might change their minds, while 76% of those who backed Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and 83% who supported Buttigieg also said that their support was not set in stone.
Sanders was the top second-choice vote among Biden backers early in the primary cycle, but, for a short time in the fall, Warren beat out Sanders as the favorite second option among Biden supporters, coinciding with her bump in popular support for a few months.
“Now that Warren’s dropped back, what’s happening is that she’s less of a threat to Bernie now and the only thing standing between Bernie and a victory in Iowa is Joe Biden,” Bannon said.
Sanders’s attacks on Biden come as he is riding a comeback in support among Democratic voters, making his targeting of soft Biden supporters more feasible than ever.
On Tuesday, Sanders broke 20% support in RealClearPolitics’s average of national primary polls for the first time since late April 2019, at about the time Biden announced his candidacy.
He received in a massive $34.5 million in donations during the last three months of 2019, the best quarter for any Democratic candidate yet, $9.9 million more than Warren’s $24.6 million haul and $11.7 million more than the $22.7 million Biden raised over the same period.
“Folks who have been in the party for a long time, people in labor, they’ve been really familiar with Bernie. Biden represented that wing of the Obama coalition, and he had to do that work for Obama,” said Konst. “And I think what’s happening is that Bernie has been clear about where Biden really stands on working-class issues, and I think that’s why Bernie will be effective in winning those voters back from Biden.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Biden reacts to Iranian strike on base with US forces: 'Chaos' is 'predictable'

Joe Biden reacted to Iran 's strike on an Iraqi military base that houses U.S. military forces by saying he was not surprised , though he noted that he was reacting generally and details were still developing .
“ What ’ s happening in Iraq and Iran today was predictable , ” the former vice president , 77 , said at a campaign fundraiser in the Philadelphia suburb of Gladwyne on Tuesday evening , according to a pool report .
“ Not exactly what ’ s happening , but the chaos that ’ s ensuing . ''
Biden criticized President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal and expressed worry about the effects resulting from the president 's ordered strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani .
“ Some of the things he ’ s done and said in the meantime have been close to ludicrous , ” Biden said , mentioning Trump 's threat to target culturally significant sites .
`` I just pray to god as he goes through what ’ s happening , as we speak , that he ’ s listening to his military commanders for the first time , because , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case.
” Later Tuesday evening , Biden said in a tweet that he would wait for more details before he reacted further .
`` I ’ m going to hold off on commenting on the news tonight until we know more , but there is one thing I will say : Jill and I are keeping our troops and Americans overseas in our prayers , '' Biden said .
Earlier Tuesday , Biden delivered a foreign policy speech in which he said Iran instead of Iraq .
`` Iran 's parliament , Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and coalition forces from the country , '' Biden said Tuesday during the speech .
On Sunday , the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops , not Iran 's parliament .

Joe Biden reacted to Iran's strike on an Iraqi military base that houses U.S. military forces by saying he was not surprised, though he noted that he was reacting generally and details were still developing.
“What’s happening in Iraq and Iran today was predictable,” the former vice president, 77, said at a campaign fundraiser in the Philadelphia suburb of Gladwyne on Tuesday evening, according to a pool report. “Not exactly what’s happening, but the chaos that’s ensuing."
Biden criticized President Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and expressed worry about the effects resulting from the president's ordered strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
“Some of the things he’s done and said in the meantime have been close to ludicrous,” Biden said, mentioning Trump's threat to target culturally significant sites. "I just pray to god as he goes through what’s happening, as we speak, that he’s listening to his military commanders for the first time, because, so far, that has not been the case.”
Later Tuesday evening, Biden said in a tweet that he would wait for more details before he reacted further.
"I’m going to hold off on commenting on the news tonight until we know more, but there is one thing I will say: Jill and I are keeping our troops and Americans overseas in our prayers," Biden said.
I’m going to hold off on commenting on the news tonight until we know more, but there is one thing I will say: Jill and I are keeping our troops and Americans overseas in our prayers. We hope you’ll keep them in yours. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) January 8, 2020
Earlier Tuesday, Biden delivered a foreign policy speech in which he said Iran instead of Iraq.
"Iran's parliament, Iran's parliament voted to eject all Americans and coalition forces from the country," Biden said Tuesday during the speech. On Sunday, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel U.S. troops, not Iran's parliament.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Hawks and doves agree: Trump is right to not retaliate against Iranian missile strike

In a rare moment of agreement , hawks and doves concur that President Trump ’ s decision not to retaliate against Iran for Tuesday night ’ s missile strikes targeting U.S. forces is the right course of action .
In a speech on Wednesday , Trump remained unapologetic for killing Qassem Soleimani , an who helped terrorist groups kill U.S. forces , but he announce plans for payback .
The Department of Defense referred the Washington Examiner to Trump 's speech when asked in any retaliatory strikes against Iran 's missile sites were in the works .
“ Iran appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world , ” Trump said , adding that no American forces were killed thanks to precautions taken and an early warning system “ that worked very well.
” Speaking to Iran directly , Trump said he wants the country to have a great future .
“ The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it , ” he said .
Behnam Ben Taleblu , a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some kind of retaliation outside Iran , but in this instance , he felt Trump made the right decision .
“ He was quite presidential because he ’ s taking the opportunity not to just get even , but he ’ s taking the opportunity to build a broader coalition for max pressure , ” Taleblu said .
“ I think there ’ s an opportunity to pause , take a breath , and use this to broaden the coalition .
And if you can ’ t , and the Iranians respond or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance that they will — then you have the opportunity there to deploy force as needed.
” Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz , a known Trump ally , praised the president ’ s restraint in a tweet on Wednesday .
“ The Trump Doctrine is one where we strike and then move , not invade and then try to persuade people that we ’ re liberators , ” Gaetz said .
Christopher Preble , a former Navy officer who serves as vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said he appreciates the presidential moderation .
“ I ’ m grateful , in fact , that he did not take this latest incident last night as an excuse to escalate further , and perhaps he recognizes that yet another war in the greater Middle East would be disastrous for American security and for him personally and politically , ” Preble told the Washington Examiner .
The usual hawkish voices that would advocate an aggressive stance with Iran have been noticeably quiet , according to John Allen Gay , executive director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s in great part because conflict involves uncertainty , ” Gay told the Washington Examiner .
“ But it ’ s particularly strong in situations where both sides have very little communication , don ’ t trust each other , assume the worst about each other ’ s intentions .
That makes it very hard to get these messages through clearly and really adds the risk of things getting out of control.
” Despite Trump ’ s decision to avoid escalation , House Democrats said on Wednesday they are prepared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an effort to impose restraint .
“ It ’ s going to be sooner rather than later , ” House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer on Wednesday .

In a rare moment of agreement, hawks and doves concur that President Trump’s decision not to retaliate against Iran for Tuesday night’s missile strikes targeting U.S. forces is the right course of action.
In a speech on Wednesday, Trump remained unapologetic for killing Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who helped terrorist groups kill U.S. forces, but he did not announce plans for payback.
The Department of Defense referred the Washington Examiner to Trump's speech when asked in any retaliatory strikes against Iran's missile sites were in the works.
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world,” Trump said, adding that no American forces were killed thanks to precautions taken and an early warning system “that worked very well.”
Speaking to Iran directly, Trump said he wants the country to have a great future.
“The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it,” he said.
Behnam Ben Taleblu, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who studies Iran, said he normally might support some kind of retaliation outside Iran, but in this instance, he felt Trump made the right decision.
“He was quite presidential because he’s taking the opportunity not to just get even, but he’s taking the opportunity to build a broader coalition for max pressure,” Taleblu said.
“I think there’s an opportunity to pause, take a breath, and use this to broaden the coalition. And if you can’t, and the Iranians respond or escalate further — and there’s a chance that they will — then you have the opportunity there to deploy force as needed.”
The Trump Doctrine is one where we strike and then move, not invade and then try to persuade people that we're liberators. https://t.co/awoTBNriXH — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) January 8, 2020
Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, a known Trump ally, praised the president’s restraint in a tweet on Wednesday.
“The Trump Doctrine is one where we strike and then move, not invade and then try to persuade people that we’re liberators,” Gaetz said.
Christopher Preble, a former Navy officer who serves as vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, advocates restraint in the U.S.-Iranian relationship, said he appreciates the presidential moderation.
“I’m grateful, in fact, that he did not take this latest incident last night as an excuse to escalate further, and perhaps he recognizes that yet another war in the greater Middle East would be disastrous for American security and for him personally and politically,” Preble told the Washington Examiner.
The usual hawkish voices that would advocate an aggressive stance with Iran have been noticeably quiet, according to John Allen Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society.
“It’s in great part because conflict involves uncertainty,” Gay told the Washington Examiner. “But it’s particularly strong in situations where both sides have very little communication, don’t trust each other, assume the worst about each other’s intentions. That makes it very hard to get these messages through clearly and really adds the risk of things getting out of control.”
Despite Trump’s decision to avoid escalation, House Democrats said on Wednesday they are prepared to vote on a war powers resolution in an effort to impose restraint.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Bret Baier: Trump 'does not get credit when things go right'

Fox News anchor Bret Baier marveled at the responses from critics of President Trump who are hesitant to approve of his strategy on Iran .
`` You wonder whether Trump Derangement Syndrome factors in to some of the responses you hear publicly in Washington , '' Baier said Wednesday .
`` Trump Derangement Syndrome '' is a label defenders of the president use as a pejorative to describe liberals or others who oppose Trump in anything he does or says .
Baier , regarded nationally as one of Fox News 's fairest journalists on staff , praised Trump for not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikes on a series of U.S. air bases in Iraq on Tuesday .
Iran `` appears to be standing down , '' Trump said Wednesday during a speech at the White House .
`` The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it . ''
It was a major shift in rhetoric from Trump , who last week threatened to bomb Iranian cultural sites if the country targeted Americans .
`` He did draw that red line , '' Baier said during his analysis .
`` There is this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not get credit when things go right . ''
The strikes in Iraq were in retaliation for the killing of Iran 's top general , Qassem Soleimani .
Trump said Soleimani was killed because of an `` imminent threat '' he posed to American lives in the region .
Some Democrats have criticized the move and said Trump was needlessly bringing America to the brink of another war in the Middle East .
Some even suggested he killed Soleimani to distract from his impeachment by the U.S. House .
`` Originally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was going to be World War III , he started World War III , and there 's no strategy here , '' Baier said .
`` Now we saw what Iran did in response .
We see what the U.S. is saying in response to that . ''

Fox News anchor Bret Baier marveled at the responses from critics of President Trump who are hesitant to approve of his strategy on Iran.
"You wonder whether Trump Derangement Syndrome factors in to some of the responses you hear publicly in Washington," Baier said Wednesday.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a label defenders of the president use as a pejorative to describe liberals or others who oppose Trump in anything he does or says.
Baier, regarded nationally as one of Fox News's fairest journalists on staff, praised Trump for not attacking Iran after the country launched missile strikes on a series of U.S. air bases in Iraq on Tuesday.
Iran "appears to be standing down," Trump said Wednesday during a speech at the White House. "The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it."
It was a major shift in rhetoric from Trump, who last week threatened to bomb Iranian cultural sites if the country targeted Americans.
....targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020
"He did draw that red line," Baier said during his analysis. "There is this sense that this president, perhaps, does not get credit when things go right."
The strikes in Iraq were in retaliation for the killing of Iran's top general, Qassem Soleimani. Trump said Soleimani was killed because of an "imminent threat" he posed to American lives in the region.
Some Democrats have criticized the move and said Trump was needlessly bringing America to the brink of another war in the Middle East. Some even suggested he killed Soleimani to distract from his impeachment by the U.S. House.
This makes no sense. Sanctions are economic warfare.
They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran.
You cannot claim to want deescalation and then announce new sanctions with no clear goal. This is not a measured response! https://t.co/sGWtwXuNDT — Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 8, 2020
"Originally, as this all was happening, it was going to be World War III, he started World War III, and there's no strategy here," Baier said. "Now we saw what Iran did in response. We see what the U.S. is saying in response to that."


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump de-escalates Iran crisis after Tehran strikes cause 'minimal damage'

President Trump signaled that he would not order fresh military action against Iran following Tuesday night ’ s missile attacks , as foreign diplomats said Tehran ’ s limited strikes had fallen short of American red lines .
In a dramatic White House address flanked by senior military officers , Trump warned that the United States would not tolerate Iranian aggression and promised new sanctions on Tehran .
But after saying that Iran would not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon , he turned quickly to a damage assessment .
“ I 'm pleased to inform you : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy no Americans were harmed in last night ’ s attack by the Iranian regime , ” he said amid the marble pillars and glittering chandeliers of the White House Grand Foyer .
“ We suffered no casualties , all of our soldiers are safe , and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.
” Western diplomats in the Middle East said they had been advised by American officials that the U.S. was prepared to accept a limited amount of damage from the Iranian missile strikes without considering a military response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines that a number of missiles would be OK as long as there was no significant damage and definitely no loss of U.S. lives , ” said one .
Iranian forces fired more than a dozen missiles at Iraqi bases housing American troops before dawn on Wednesday morning in response to the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran ’ s most senior military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani .
It represented a major escalation in tension in an already restive region .
However , reports suggested some of the Iranian missiles missed their targets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that Finnish and Lithuanian troops at one of the targeted bases had time to seek shelter after being warned of impending attacks .
So while Iranian state media were able to claim as many as 80 American casualties in the attack , Trump was able to step away from the brink of war .
“ Iran appears to be standing down , which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world , ” he said .
“ No American or Iraqi lives were lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispersal of forces , and an early warning system that worked very well.
” The president had spent the morning huddled with Vice President Mike Pence and senior aides in the White House situation room .
The text of his remarks was being finalized right up to the moment he delivered his speech .
[ Read more : ' I ’ ll call him back ' : Pelosi puts House business first as Pence calls about Iranian ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases ] He used the moment to offer further justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s top terrorist , ” and called on allies such as the United Kingdom and Germany to follow the U.S. in walking away from the Iran nuclear deal .
He called on NATO nations to do more in countering the threat from Iran and said America ’ s armed forces were more powerful than ever .
“ The fact that we have this great military and equipment , however , does not mean we have to use it , ” he said .
“ We do not want to use it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic , is the best deterrent.
” That balance had been successful in facing down Iran , according to Matt Schlapp , chairman of the American Conservative Union , as that nation realized it could not win .
“ They may be crazy , but they are just smart enough to avoid making Donald Trump a military foe , ” he said .
“ They are clearly rattled that there ’ s an American president who ’ s not going to take any crap , and their retaliation was incredibly timid for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to allies , including Britain ’ s Prime Minister Boris Johnson , who had publicly urged a de-escalation .
Tom Tugendhat , the chairman of the British foreign affairs committee in the last parliament , said he was encouraged that the immediate crisis had been averted .
“ This has gone better than many feared , ” he said .
“ What looks like posturing may be the best outcome .
There is always a danger we have not seen the end , but , for the moment , we have to hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

President Trump signaled that he would not order fresh military action against Iran following Tuesday night’s missile attacks, as foreign diplomats said Tehran’s limited strikes had fallen short of American red lines.
In a dramatic White House address flanked by senior military officers, Trump warned that the United States would not tolerate Iranian aggression and promised new sanctions on Tehran. But after saying that Iran would not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon, he turned quickly to a damage assessment.
“I'm pleased to inform you: The American people should be extremely grateful and happy no Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime,” he said amid the marble pillars and glittering chandeliers of the White House Grand Foyer. “We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.”
Western diplomats in the Middle East said they had been advised by American officials that the U.S. was prepared to accept a limited amount of damage from the Iranian missile strikes without considering a military response.
“It was expressed along the lines that a number of missiles would be OK as long as there was no significant damage and definitely no loss of U.S. lives,” said one.
Iranian forces fired more than a dozen missiles at Iraqi bases housing American troops before dawn on Wednesday morning in response to the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s most senior military leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani. It represented a major escalation in tension in an already restive region.
However, reports suggested some of the Iranian missiles missed their targets or malfunctioned. And the Associated Press said that Finnish and Lithuanian troops at one of the targeted bases had time to seek shelter after being warned of impending attacks.
So while Iranian state media were able to claim as many as 80 American casualties in the attack, Trump was able to step away from the brink of war.
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world,” he said. “No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well.”
The president had spent the morning huddled with Vice President Mike Pence and senior aides in the White House situation room. The text of his remarks was being finalized right up to the moment he delivered his speech.
[Read more: 'I’ll call him back': Pelosi puts House business first as Pence calls about Iranian ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases]
He used the moment to offer further justification for the killing of Soleimani, “the world’s top terrorist,” and called on allies such as the United Kingdom and Germany to follow the U.S. in walking away from the Iran nuclear deal. He called on NATO nations to do more in countering the threat from Iran and said America’s armed forces were more powerful than ever.
“The fact that we have this great military and equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it,” he said. “We do not want to use it. American strength, both military and economic, is the best deterrent.”
That balance had been successful in facing down Iran, according to Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, as that nation realized it could not win.
“They may be crazy, but they are just smart enough to avoid making Donald Trump a military foe,” he said. “They are clearly rattled that there’s an American president who’s not going to take any crap, and their retaliation was incredibly timid for that reason.”
Trump spent the day speaking to allies, including Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who had publicly urged a de-escalation.
Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the British foreign affairs committee in the last parliament, said he was encouraged that the immediate crisis had been averted.
“This has gone better than many feared,” he said. “What looks like posturing may be the best outcome. There is always a danger we have not seen the end, but, for the moment, we have to hope that further escalation has been avoided.”


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Mystery over Mar-a-Lago incident that sent police racing to help Secret Service

Secret Service and Palm Beach police declined to give details about an unspecified incident at President Trump ’ s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida .
Officers were called to the resort Monday night to assist Secret Service , according to the incident report .
However , most of the report is redacted due to “ criminal investigative or intelligence information received from other states or the federal government , ” Staci Mussmacher , a records specialist with the police department , told the Washington Examiner .
Palm Beach police spokesman Michael Ogrodnick said that the Secret Service was leading the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no comment .
“ As a matter of practice the Secret Service does not confirm or comment on the absence or existence of our criminal investigations , '' a Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement .
Trump and his family departed on Sunday to return to Washington , D.C. , after spending the holidays in Palm Beach .
Shortly before Trump left Palm Beach International Airport for the White House , a Florida man who was dishonorably discharged from the Marines for sex offenses was arrested after breaching Trump ’ s airport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforcement officer .
In the last year , two Chinese nationals had breached security and entered the club ’ s grounds .
Last month , Jing Lu , 56 , was told to leave after trying to enter Mar-a-Lago via the main gate .
She then entered the property through a service driveway and was seen on security footage taking photos , according to police documents .
In November , Yujing Zhang , 33 , was sentenced to time served for trespassing and lying to federal agents about why she was at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was suspicious of Zhang alerted Secret Service to the Chinese businesswoman , who had originally said she was there to swim .
Zhang is currently in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as she awaits deportation .

Secret Service and Palm Beach police declined to give details about an unspecified incident at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.
Officers were called to the resort Monday night to assist Secret Service, according to the incident report. However, most of the report is redacted due to “criminal investigative or intelligence information received from other states or the federal government,” Staci Mussmacher, a records specialist with the police department, told the Washington Examiner.
Palm Beach police spokesman Michael Ogrodnick said that the Secret Service was leading the investigation into the matter and his department had no comment.
“As a matter of practice the Secret Service does not confirm or comment on the absence or existence of our criminal investigations," a Secret Service spokesperson said in a statement.
Trump and his family departed on Sunday to return to Washington, D.C., after spending the holidays in Palm Beach.
Shortly before Trump left Palm Beach International Airport for the White House, a Florida man who was dishonorably discharged from the Marines for sex offenses was arrested after breaching Trump’s airport security by allegedly impersonating a federal law enforcement officer.
In the last year, two Chinese nationals had breached security and entered the club’s grounds.
Last month, Jing Lu, 56, was told to leave after trying to enter Mar-a-Lago via the main gate. She then entered the property through a service driveway and was seen on security footage taking photos, according to police documents.
In November, Yujing Zhang, 33, was sentenced to time served for trespassing and lying to federal agents about why she was at the resort in March. A receptionist who was suspicious of Zhang alerted Secret Service to the Chinese businesswoman, who had originally said she was there to swim. Zhang is currently in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as she awaits deportation.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump now has the chance to de-escalate with Iran and keep his 'America First' promises

Late last night , an Iranian missile strike in an act of retaliation after the U.S. of Iranian general and Qassem Soleimani .
These strikes might sound like an escalation at first glance , yet they actually could be a step toward a cease-fire .
Thankfully , no Americans were killed , and that may have been the point .
Some experts and government insiders are saying that this could have been a strike meant to `` symbolically striking back at the United States to please angered Iranians at home without actually doing enough damage to spark an all-out war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on Fox News that “ if they wanted to hit targets that caused damage , they could have.
” As Phil Klein , “ If there were no casualties in this case , Trump has an opening to declare victory and avoid a retaliatory strike.
” Responding to this strike , President Trump Wednesday morning .
He said that “ Iran appears to be standing down … which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.
” He went on to say that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to Iran … powerful [ economic ] sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.
” The president said , “ We do not want to use [ military force ] .
American strength … is the best deterrent.
” He stressed the opportunity for working with Iran , saying that `` the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it . ''
It ’ s clear there ’ s an opportunity to de-escalate military tensions here .
Trump should take it .
As I ’ ve previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than the failed war in Iraq : The president surely knows this .
He campaigned against our multiple endless foreign wars in the Middle East , rightfully decrying them as a waste of our resources and American lives .
The president promised an “ America First ” foreign policy that prioritizes our country over regime-change wars and protracted nation-building exercises overseas .
Trump must take this opportunity to avoid war with Iran .
If the president now needlessly escalates the situation further in lieu of serious Iranian aggression , it will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made to voters .

Late last night, an Iranian missile strike hit two apparently abandoned American military bases in an act of retaliation after the U.S. killing of Iranian general and terrorist-in-chief Qassem Soleimani. These strikes might sound like an escalation at first glance, yet they actually could be a step toward a cease-fire.
Thankfully, no Americans were killed, and that may have been the point. Some experts and government insiders are saying that this could have been a strike meant to " save face," symbolically striking back at the United States to please angered Iranians at home without actually doing enough damage to spark an all-out war. In response, Rep. Will Hurd said on Fox News that “if they wanted to hit targets that caused damage, they could have.” As Phil Klein noted , “If there were no casualties in this case, Trump has an opening to declare victory and avoid a retaliatory strike.”
Responding to this strike, President Trump addressed the nation Wednesday morning. He said that “Iran appears to be standing down … which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world.” He went on to say that “as we continue to evaluate options in response to Iran … powerful [economic] sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.”
The president said, “We do not want to use [military force]. American strength … is the best deterrent.” He stressed the opportunity for working with Iran, saying that "the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it."
Finally, to the people and leaders of Iran, we want you to have a future, and a great future.
One that you deserve.
One of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world.
The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.
- @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/Hij6guMUbd — Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 8, 2020
It’s clear there’s an opportunity to de-escalate military tensions here. Trump should take it.
As I’ve previously written, war with Iran would be a complete disaster , far worse than the failed war in Iraq:
Iran is a much larger country than Iraq, with roughly three times the landmass, a much less favorable, mountainous geography, and almost four times the population. Iran has a much larger military, with estimates as high as half a million troops. So if the Iraq War turned into a decade-long disaster costing thousands of American lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars … well, an all-out conflict with Iran would likely only be more protracted and costly.
The president surely knows this. He campaigned against our multiple endless foreign wars in the Middle East, rightfully decrying them as a waste of our resources and American lives. The president promised an “America First” foreign policy that prioritizes our country over regime-change wars and protracted nation-building exercises overseas.
Trump must take this opportunity to avoid war with Iran. If the president now needlessly escalates the situation further in lieu of serious Iranian aggression, it will be a betrayal of the foreign policy promises he made to voters.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--Trump responds to Iran's act of war

Trump responds to Iran's act of war

In all the reportage and commentary on the killing of Qassem Soleimani , I haven ’ t seen much mention of an interesting parallel between the Iranian mullah regime ’ s attacks on America this past week and its attacks when it first came to power 40 years ago .
The similarity is that on both occasions , the Iranian regime violated diplomatic immunity .
In 1979 , they seized 52 American diplomats and held them hostage for 444 days , releasing them only on the day Ronald Reagan took office .
Last week , they attacked the U.S. Embassy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. troops in Iraq .
Diplomatic immunity is perhaps the oldest and most basic principle of international law .
It has been sanctioned by international agreements and observed ( even by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin ) for at least three centuries .
Violation of diplomatic immunity is an act of war .
Iran ’ s attacks on diplomats reveal it as an outlaw regime .
That ’ s why it promulgated the fiction that “ students ” seized and controlled the hostages beyond the government ’ s control .
In the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mullah regime ’ s similar fictions , calling those who attacked the U.S. Embassy “ mourners ” ( the New York Times ) or “ protesters ” ( the Washington Post ) .
That ’ s in line with the Post headlines describing Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as “ an austere religious scholar ” and calling Soleimani “ Iran ’ s most revered military leader.
” American media giants ’ ready endorsement of a tyrannical regime ’ s propaganda labels shouldn ’ t fool anyone .
“ The whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Embassy compound in Baghdad last week was almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation , ” the New York Times ’ s Thomas Friedman wrote last week , not a spontaneous attack by “ mourners ” or “ protesters , ” just as the hostage-taking in 1979 was the work not of “ students ” but of the regime .
Much media commentary following Soleimani ’ s death dwelled on the possibility , clearly relished by some commentators , that Iran would retaliate violently against the United States .
Few bothered to note that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : oil tankers seized , drones downed , bombs lobbed at a Saudi oil refinery , and rockets at U.S. troops .
Iran ’ s retaliation so far seems perfunctory .
It ’ s possible Iran will attack the “ great Satan ” more aggressively later or that it will halt its attacks , as it did after Ronald Reagan ordered sorties that sank some of its ships in 1988 .
In the meantime , the Obama administration ’ s hopes in the permanence of its JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were shattered by President Trump ’ s withdrawal in May 2018 .
And there ’ s little or no evidence that Iran ever became the cooperative partner in the Middle East that Barack Obama expected .
Distaste for Trump is obviously warping many critics ’ judgment on Iran .
Without losing a beat , Democrats such as Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut moved straight from criticizing Trump ’ s inaction to criticizing his action .
News stories depicting his decision as impulsive and not based on serious military planning were , without acknowledgment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
But it ’ s possible for a knowledgeable observer not afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome to discern a coherent foreign policy strategy , “ a bold agenda internationally and a deeply controversial one at home , ” as Walter Russell Mead wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal .
” Confrontation with Iran , competition with China , outreach to Russia.
” Does “ confrontation ” mean , as the New Yorker ’ s military correspondent Dexter Filkins argues , regime change in Iran ?
Critics treat that as unthinkable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by millions of Iranians .
Those who care about human rights should not mourn the end of a thugocracy that throws gay men off high-rises and beats up women whose headscarves slip down .
It ’ s possible to encourage peaceful regime change .
Reagan administration policies in the 1980s helped to undermine the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and unravel the Soviet Union — things almost no experts thought could happen .
Iran ’ s current regime has lasted for 40 years so far , about as long as the communist satellite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totally unrealistic to hope that it might peacefully disappear as well ?
It is clear that the attempted Obama rapprochement with the Iranian regime has failed , and it seems possible that the elimination of its most aggressive promoter of terrorism , and Trump 's crackdown on its economy , are an attempt to provoke peaceful regime change .
Meanwhile , Trump was justified under international law to respond with military force to a violation of diplomatic immunity ( an act of war ) , just as Jimmy Carter was 40 years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iran .
That attempt , unhappily , failed .
The regime stayed in place .
Trump ’ s action succeeded , and we ’ ll see what happens next .

In all the reportage and commentary on the killing of Qassem Soleimani, I haven’t seen much mention of an interesting parallel between the Iranian mullah regime’s attacks on America this past week and its attacks when it first came to power 40 years ago.
The similarity is that on both occasions, the Iranian regime violated diplomatic immunity.
In 1979, they seized 52 American diplomats and held them hostage for 444 days, releasing them only on the day Ronald Reagan took office. Last week, they attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad after launching multiple attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.
Diplomatic immunity is perhaps the oldest and most basic principle of international law. It has been sanctioned by international agreements and observed (even by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin) for at least three centuries. Violation of diplomatic immunity is an act of war.
Iran’s attacks on diplomats reveal it as an outlaw regime.
That’s why it promulgated the fiction that “students” seized and controlled the hostages beyond the government’s control. In the past week, leading American media have echoed the mullah regime’s similar fictions, calling those who attacked the U.S. Embassy “mourners” (the New York Times) or “protesters” (the Washington Post). That’s in line with the Post headlines describing Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi as “an austere religious scholar” and calling Soleimani “Iran’s most revered military leader.”
American media giants’ ready endorsement of a tyrannical regime’s propaganda labels shouldn’t fool anyone. “The whole ‘protest’ against the United States Embassy compound in Baghdad last week was almost certainly a Soleimani-staged operation,” the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman wrote last week, not a spontaneous attack by “mourners” or “protesters,” just as the hostage-taking in 1979 was the work not of “students” but of the regime.
Much media commentary following Soleimani’s death dwelled on the possibility, clearly relished by some commentators, that Iran would retaliate violently against the United States. Few bothered to note that the embassy attack followed weeks of violent attacks: oil tankers seized, drones downed, bombs lobbed at a Saudi oil refinery, and rockets at U.S. troops.
Iran’s retaliation so far seems perfunctory. It’s possible Iran will attack the “great Satan” more aggressively later or that it will halt its attacks, as it did after Ronald Reagan ordered sorties that sank some of its ships in 1988.
In the meantime, the Obama administration’s hopes in the permanence of its JCPOA nuclear agreement with Iran, which never had majority support in Congress, were shattered by President Trump’s withdrawal in May 2018. And there’s little or no evidence that Iran ever became the cooperative partner in the Middle East that Barack Obama expected.
Distaste for Trump is obviously warping many critics’ judgment on Iran. Without losing a beat, Democrats such as Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut moved straight from criticizing Trump’s inaction to criticizing his action. News stories depicting his decision as impulsive and not based on serious military planning were, without acknowledgment, contradicted by news stories the next day.
But it’s possible for a knowledgeable observer not afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome to discern a coherent foreign policy strategy, “a bold agenda internationally and a deeply controversial one at home,” as Walter Russell Mead wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal. ”Confrontation with Iran, competition with China, outreach to Russia.”
Does “confrontation” mean, as the New Yorker’s military correspondent Dexter Filkins argues, regime change in Iran? Critics treat that as unthinkable, even though it would be welcomed by millions of Iranians. Those who care about human rights should not mourn the end of a thugocracy that throws gay men off high-rises and beats up women whose headscarves slip down.
It’s possible to encourage peaceful regime change. Reagan administration policies in the 1980s helped to undermine the communist regimes in Eastern Europe and unravel the Soviet Union — things almost no experts thought could happen.
Iran’s current regime has lasted for 40 years so far, about as long as the communist satellite regimes in Eastern Europe. Is it totally unrealistic to hope that it might peacefully disappear as well?
It is clear that the attempted Obama rapprochement with the Iranian regime has failed, and it seems possible that the elimination of its most aggressive promoter of terrorism, and Trump's crackdown on its economy, are an attempt to provoke peaceful regime change.
Meanwhile, Trump was justified under international law to respond with military force to a violation of diplomatic immunity (an act of war), just as Jimmy Carter was 40 years ago when he authorized the hostage rescue raid in Iran.
That attempt, unhappily, failed. The regime stayed in place. Trump’s action succeeded, and we’ll see what happens next.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-08--WATCH: Trump addresses nation after Iranian missile attack

President Trump will deliver a statement from the White House about Iran 's missile attack on Iraqi-U.S. military bases at @ @ @ @

President Trump will deliver a statement from the White House about Iran's missile attack on Iraqi-U.S. military bases at 11 a.m. EST.


thewashingtonexaminer--2020-01-07--Rachel Maddow: Documents suggest Pence played role in brokering Ukraine aid delay

An MSNBC host raised questions about whether Vice President Mike Pence was involved in the Trump administration 's delayed release of military aid to Ukraine .
Rachel Maddow said on her show Monday that unredacted documents , reviewed by Just Security , suggest Pence played a role in brokering a deal in which millions of dollars of congressionally approved funds would be released if Ukrainian officials announced investigations into his political rivals .
She referred to an email exchange in which Eric Chewning , Defense Secretary Mark Esper ’ s chief of staff , told the acting Pentagon comptroller , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they expected the issue to get `` resolved '' during a planned Sept. 1 meeting in Poland between Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky .
`` Why did he think it was all going to get sorted ?
... We now know that , in the defense secretary 's office , they thought that that would all click into place as soon as this meeting between Mike Pence and the Ukrainian president took place .
So , it was Mike Pence who was supposed to personally get the assurance from the Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to announce the investigations ? ''
Maddow told her audience .
`` Because that was the deal , right ?
That 's what everybody was waiting on , '' Maddow added .
Gordon Sondland , the U.S. ambassador to the European Union , testified in a November impeachment hearing that he raised concerns to Pence about Ukraine aid being tied to President Trump 's push for investigations .
Pence 's office denied that such a conversation ever took place and noted that other witnesses denied under oath that the vice president ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Ukrainians .
The hold on the military aid continued for more than a week after the Pence-Zelensky meeting , and it was finally lifted on Sept. 11 .
The Ukrainians have not announced any investigations that Trump desired , including one into former Vice President Joe Biden , who is a candidate for president , and his son Hunter Biden .
After testimony by dozens of witnesses on the Ukraine matter , the Democrat-led House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , a Democrat from California , is withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses .
The Kentucky Republican plans to move ahead with rules for an impeachment trial without an agreement from Democrats .
The Pentagon announced on Monday that Chewning is leaving his post at the end of the month .
He plans to return to the private sector .
Maddow , a vocal critic of Trump , has been criticized for using her MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump-Russia collusion theory and British ex-spy Christopher Steele 's anti-Trump dossier .

An MSNBC host raised questions about whether Vice President Mike Pence was involved in the Trump administration's delayed release of military aid to Ukraine.
Rachel Maddow said on her show Monday that unredacted documents, reviewed by Just Security, suggest Pence played a role in brokering a deal in which millions of dollars of congressionally approved funds would be released if Ukrainian officials announced investigations into his political rivals.
She referred to an email exchange in which Eric Chewning, Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s chief of staff, told the acting Pentagon comptroller, who raised concerns about the hold, that they expected the issue to get "resolved" during a planned Sept. 1 meeting in Poland between Pence and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
"Why did he think it was all going to get sorted? ... We now know that, in the defense secretary's office, they thought that that would all click into place as soon as this meeting between Mike Pence and the Ukrainian president took place. So, it was Mike Pence who was supposed to personally get the assurance from the Ukrainian government at that meeting that they were going to announce the investigations?" Maddow told her audience.
"Because that was the deal, right? That's what everybody was waiting on," Maddow added.
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, testified in a November impeachment hearing that he raised concerns to Pence about Ukraine aid being tied to President Trump's push for investigations. Pence's office denied that such a conversation ever took place and noted that other witnesses denied under oath that the vice president ever broached "potential investigations" in conversations with the Ukrainians.
The hold on the military aid continued for more than a week after the Pence-Zelensky meeting, and it was finally lifted on Sept. 11. The Ukrainians have not announced any investigations that Trump desired, including one into former Vice President Joe Biden, who is a candidate for president, and his son Hunter Biden.
After testimony by dozens of witnesses on the Ukraine matter, the Democrat-led House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, is withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses. The Kentucky Republican plans to move ahead with rules for an impeachment trial without an agreement from Democrats.
The Pentagon announced on Monday that Chewning is leaving his post at the end of the month. He plans to return to the private sector.
Maddow, a vocal critic of Trump, has been criticized for using her MSNBC show to give overly gratuitous attention to the Trump-Russia collusion theory and British ex-spy Christopher Steele's anti-Trump dossier.