freebeacon--2020-03-02--Obama Alum Evelyn Farkas Is Running For Congress—And Away From Burisma

Evelyn Farkas , a former Obama Defense Department official now running for Congress in New York ’ s 17th Congressional District , can often be found railing against President Trump 's efforts to investigate Burisma Holdings from her platforms on cable news and social media .
The analyst-cum-candidate has called Trump 's actions `` illegal , '' brushed off concerns about money laundering at the Ukrainian energy giant ( `` nothing to see there '' ) , and argued that scrutiny of Hunter Biden 's work for Burisma just ends up `` helping Russia . ''
`` The beneficiary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story is the Kremlin , '' wrote Farkas in one tweet .
`` This is why ppl call @ realDonaldTrump a Russian intel asset . ''
Left unmentioned in her public statements is that Farkas was an integral part of a muscular effort by Burisma to rehabilitate its reputation both in the United States and abroad .
As a part of that effort , Farkas traveled to Ukraine on Burisma 's dime and spoke at an Atlantic Council conference bankrolled by the energy company in 2018 .
At the time of her trip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specializing in Ukraine policy at the Atlantic Council , a Washington , D.C. , think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Burisma for its Eurasia programming .
The conference attracted a spate of local news coverage that broadcast the fact that `` American diplomats '' were visiting Burisma 's oil fields .
Photos from the trip show Farkas wearing a jacket with a Burisma logo while touring the gas company 's facilities in the region .
A spokesman for the Atlantic Council , Alex Kisling , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Ms. Farkas participated in Atlantic Council programming related to Ukraine , Russia , and NATO among other issues given her expertise '' but that Farkas was not compensated for her work .
Kisling initially told the Free Beacon that the Atlantic Council paid for Farkas 's travel .
Asked why a spokesman for the Atlantic Council was quoted in a Yahoo News article conceding that Burisma `` reimbursed [ the Atlantic Council for ] speaker travel and event costs , which … amounted to around [ $ 50,000 to $ 70,000 ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma had covered the costs .
Farkas 's relationship with Burisma—and the Atlantic Council's—reflects the growing influence of foreign money on U.S. think tanks and the American media , experts say .
There is a growing concern among scholars and experts that the line between lobbyists and policy analysts is becoming increasingly blurry .
`` It is perceived by Ukrainian and other Eastern European politicians and oligarchs as a way to buy influence in D.C. and launder their reputations , '' Christina Pushaw , an Eastern Europe political consultant and policy specialist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Holdings and its owner , Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky , have been the subjects of fraud and money laundering investigations in the United Kingdom and Ukraine dating back to 2012 .
Zlochevsky has been accused of using his businesses to launder millions of dollars in stolen funds from the Ukrainian treasury .
Burisma mounted a massive public relations and lobbying campaign to fight these charges and bolster its reputation in Washington .
In 2014 , the company appointed then-Vice President Joe Biden 's son , Hunter Biden , to a lucrative board position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member Sally Painter , the chief operating officer of Blue Star Strategies , a Washington , D.C. , lobbying firm .
Painter had served for years alongside Hunter Biden on the board of the liberal Truman National Security Project .
The company has been the focus of intrigue and controversy since the New York Times first reported on the salacious details of Hunter Biden 's work for the company in the context of the Trump administration 's efforts to spur a Ukrainian investigation into Biden 's conduct .
The saga ultimately served as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acquittal of President Trump .
The issue has also dogged Joe Biden 's presidential campaign .
Biden , who was the Obama administration 's point man on Ukraine policy while his son was on the board of Burisma , successfully pressured the Ukrainian government into removing its top prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016 .
While there were credible concerns about Shokin 's integrity , his ouster also appeared to benefit Burisma Holdings owner Zlochevsky , the New York Times reported .
Shokin had an open investigation into Zlochevsky and was reportedly using it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Times .
The prosecutor who replaced Shokin , Yuriy Lutsenko , later closed the investigation .
Farkas frequently discusses Burisma in the U.S. news media , where she is often portrayed as an independent expert on Ukraine .
MSNBC 's Lawrence O'Donnell , for example , introduced her as a `` former deputy assistant secretary in defense in Obama administration '' in October .
Farkas told O'Donnell that the Obama administration had `` reformed '' Ukraine 's oil and gas industry and the Trump administration was attempting to corrupt it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all , [ Trump ] trying to get the dirt on Biden and his son , and basically to use it for his own political purposes .
And then there are [ Trump 's associates ] trying to make business deals and basically trying to take the reformed Ukrainian natural gas industry , '' said Farkas .
`` It was like the one place where we had success .
And it was n't corrupt anymore .
And they 're trying to dirty it up again . ''
Farkas was asked directly if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept the Burisma position , during a WBUR interview in October .
`` Was n't it more than a little unseemly that the vice president 's son was sitting on the board of a company that was run by Mykola Zlochevsky who was under investigation , by foreign governments in fact , for corruption ? ''
asked the host .
`` I do n't want to split hairs … I do n't think it looks okay , '' Farkas said .
`` Really , it looks like he was put on the board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his father understands Eastern Europe . ''
But she said the fact that the Ukrainian government `` dropped the investigation '' into Burisma 's owner Zlochevsky `` leaves the impression that there 's nothing to see there .
Who knows .
Really that 's up to the Ukrainian government .
Hunter Biden sitting on the board of that company , that does n't necessarily implicate him in any wrongdoing . ''
Farkas did not disclose her own connection to Burisma during the interview .
Farkas has also weighed in on the matter on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma by name , instead obliquely referring to it as a `` company '' that employed Biden 's son .
`` People !
@ JoeBiden pressured the Ukrainian prez to fire his corrupt prosecutor general .
It was US policy ( DOJ , Treasury , we all wanted ) not something he did on a whim or to help himself/Obama in elections , '' she wrote in one tweet .
`` Unrelated fact : His son was on a board in that country . ''
`` I was in the government and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we were all urging the prosecutor to be fired because he was absolutely completely corrupt , '' she wrote on Sept. 20 , 2019 .
She also claimed Biden 's actions were actually damaging to Burisma .
`` If anything , the company Hunter was on the board of would have had more to fear from a new noncorrupt [ prosecutor general ] ! ''
she said on Sept. 21 , 2019 .
The prosecutor who replaced Shokin , Lutsenko , helped negotiate an end to the Burisma investigation in 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid prosecution and reenter the country , according to the New York Times .
Farkas argued that Hunter Biden 's Burisma work was mainly controversial because the company was based in Ukraine , rather than France .
`` [ I ] f you substituted the word France for Ukraine , would we have the same outcry ?
I doubt it .
I 'm not excusing the son 's poor judgement , but this is infuriating , because it 's hurting Ukraine and helping Russia , '' she wrote on Sept. 22 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden 's involvement with Burisma was bad optics for his father 's campaign .
Farkas said she personally avoids doing anything in her professional life that she would n't want to see on the front page of the Washington Post .
`` It has to pass the front page of the @ washingtonpost test for me every time I think of doing something in government or now in my private work/life , '' she wrote on Twitter .
Farkas , 52 , announced her campaign for New York 's 17th Congressional District in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to run for reelection .
Farkas , who is facing over a dozen other Democrats in the primary , has billed herself as the candidate who can best protect her constituents from `` foreign interference '' by the Russian government .
`` I campaigned to help elect Secretary [ of State Hillary ] Clinton as our next President .
When Russians interfered in that election , I was among the first to sound the alarm and urge Congress to take action , '' she said on her website .
`` And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Farkas 's campaign would not comment specifically on the candidate 's work for the Atlantic Council and Burisma but said she is no longer with the Atlantic Council .
In 2017 , the Atlantic Council partnered with Burisma—over internal and external objections , according to congressional testimony and sources familiar with the discussions—to organize programming on Eastern European energy policy , an agreement that yielded a $ 100,000 annual windfall for the U.S. think tank .
In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee , George Kent , the deputy assistant secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Ukrainian anticorruption activist Daria Kaleniuk slammed the Atlantic Council 's Ukraine program director , the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst , for entering into the Burisma partnership .
Kent himself said that in mid-2016 , he intervened to prevent Burisma from cosponsoring events with U.S. government organizations because `` Burisma had a poor reputation in the business and I did n't think it was appropriate for the U.S. government to cosponsor something with a company that had a bad reputation . ''
Burisma first approached the Atlantic Council with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Wall Street Journal , but the think tank allegedly turned it down because the company was still under investigation .
After the investigations were closed , in early 2017 , the Atlantic Council agreed to partner with Burisma on Eastern European policy programming .
Under the agreement , Burisma provided the Atlantic Council with $ 100,000 a year and covered the costs of joint conferences and events , according to the Wall Street Journal .
Burisma `` also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs , which … amounted to around [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , '' the Atlantic Council told Yahoo News .
Ilya Zaslavskiy , head of research at the Free Russia Foundation , said the Atlantic Council should have been aware that there were still significant concerns about Burisma and its owner Zlochevsky 's finances when the think tank took the money , despite the fact that Ukraine and the U.K. had closed their investigations .
`` They were no longer under criminal investigations , but there were absolutely explicit questions about Zlochevsky and his money , not long before [ the Atlantic Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zaslavskiy .
Burisma has funded several high-profile Atlantic Council events since 2017 , including annual energy-related conferences in Ukraine and Monaco .
The 2018 conference was organized by Painter 's firm , Blue Star Strategies .
Attendees included the head of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams , Burisma executive Vadym Pozharkskiy , and former ambassador to Ukraine Herbst .
Farkas spoke on a panel at the conference , flanked by large Burisma signs and a Burisma flag waving in the background .
`` Starting in 2014 when I was in the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we have committed almost a billion [ dollars ] of assistance to Ukraine in order to help Ukraine with its defense , '' said Farkas .
Promotional video of the event shows Farkas and a group of `` U.S. representatives '' touring Burisma 's facilities while wearing track jackets with the company 's logo on it .
Herbst , the Atlantic Council Ukraine program director and former ambassador , gave a glowing assessment of Burisma 's industry work at the event—an indication of what Burisma expected in return for its investment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely powerful equipment .
And the fact that Burisma Group invested into best-in-class rigs deserves respect .
I am impressed with the innovative equipment and highly technological processes here , '' said Herbst .
More recently , Herbst has appeared on cable news to discuss the impeachment investigations , where his affiliation with Burisma 's lobbying operation has not been disclosed .
In a Jan. 15 CNN appearance , Herbst slammed `` the false narrative that Joe Biden was doing something corrupt in Ukraine when , in fact , he was fighting corruption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all about , '' said Herbst .
`` And it 's very sad .
And , of course , it directly contradicts America 's great interest in Ukraine . ''

Former Obama DoD official, Atlantic Council fellow didn’t disclose her work with Burisma even as she defended Hunter Biden
Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Defense Department official now running for Congress in New York’s 17th Congressional District, can often be found railing against President Trump's efforts to investigate Burisma Holdings from her platforms on cable news and social media.
The analyst-cum-candidate has called Trump's actions "illegal," brushed off concerns about money laundering at the Ukrainian energy giant ("nothing to see there"), and argued that scrutiny of Hunter Biden's work for Burisma just ends up "helping Russia."
"The beneficiary of @realDonaldTrump 's fake @JoeBiden story is the Kremlin," wrote Farkas in one tweet. "This is why ppl call @realDonaldTrump a Russian intel asset."
Left unmentioned in her public statements is that Farkas was an integral part of a muscular effort by Burisma to rehabilitate its reputation both in the United States and abroad. As a part of that effort, Farkas traveled to Ukraine on Burisma's dime and spoke at an Atlantic Council conference bankrolled by the energy company in 2018.
At the time of her trip, Farkas was a nonresident senior fellow specializing in Ukraine policy at the Atlantic Council, a Washington, D.C., think tank that has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Burisma for its Eurasia programming.
The conference attracted a spate of local news coverage that broadcast the fact that "American diplomats" were visiting Burisma's oil fields. Photos from the trip show Farkas wearing a jacket with a Burisma logo while touring the gas company's facilities in the region.
A spokesman for the Atlantic Council, Alex Kisling, said that as a nonresident senior fellow, "Ms. Farkas participated in Atlantic Council programming related to Ukraine, Russia, and NATO among other issues given her expertise" but that Farkas was not compensated for her work. Kisling initially told the Free Beacon that the Atlantic Council paid for Farkas's travel. Asked why a spokesman for the Atlantic Council was quoted in a Yahoo News article conceding that Burisma "reimbursed [the Atlantic Council for] speaker travel and event costs, which ... amounted to around [$50,000 to $70,000] per year," he acknowledged that Burisma had covered the costs.
Farkas's relationship with Burisma—and the Atlantic Council's—reflects the growing influence of foreign money on U.S. think tanks and the American media, experts say. There is a growing concern among scholars and experts that the line between lobbyists and policy analysts is becoming increasingly blurry.
"It is perceived by Ukrainian and other Eastern European politicians and oligarchs as a way to buy influence in D.C. and launder their reputations," Christina Pushaw, an Eastern Europe political consultant and policy specialist, said of the Atlantic Council.
Burisma Holdings and its owner, Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, have been the subjects of fraud and money laundering investigations in the United Kingdom and Ukraine dating back to 2012. Zlochevsky has been accused of using his businesses to launder millions of dollars in stolen funds from the Ukrainian treasury.
Burisma mounted a massive public relations and lobbying campaign to fight these charges and bolster its reputation in Washington. In 2014, the company appointed then-Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to a lucrative board position. Burisma also retained Atlantic Council board member Sally Painter, the chief operating officer of Blue Star Strategies, a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Painter had served for years alongside Hunter Biden on the board of the liberal Truman National Security Project.
The company has been the focus of intrigue and controversy since the New York Times first reported on the salacious details of Hunter Biden's work for the company in the context of the Trump administration's efforts to spur a Ukrainian investigation into Biden's conduct. The saga ultimately served as the catalyst for the impeachment and subsequent acquittal of President Trump.
The issue has also dogged Joe Biden's presidential campaign. Biden, who was the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine policy while his son was on the board of Burisma, successfully pressured the Ukrainian government into removing its top prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016.
While there were credible concerns about Shokin's integrity, his ouster also appeared to benefit Burisma Holdings owner Zlochevsky, the New York Times reported. Shokin had an open investigation into Zlochevsky and was reportedly using it to extract bribes from the oligarch, according to the Times. The prosecutor who replaced Shokin, Yuriy Lutsenko, later closed the investigation.
Farkas frequently discusses Burisma in the U.S. news media, where she is often portrayed as an independent expert on Ukraine.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, for example, introduced her as a "former deputy assistant secretary in defense in Obama administration" in October. Farkas told O'Donnell that the Obama administration had "reformed" Ukraine's oil and gas industry and the Trump administration was attempting to corrupt it again.
"There's, first of all, [Trump] trying to get the dirt on Biden and his son, and basically to use it for his own political purposes. And then there are [Trump's associates] trying to make business deals and basically trying to take the reformed Ukrainian natural gas industry," said Farkas. "It was like the one place where we had success. And it wasn't corrupt anymore. And they're trying to dirty it up again."
Farkas was asked directly if it was inappropriate for Hunter Biden to accept the Burisma position, during a WBUR interview in October.
"Wasn't it more than a little unseemly that the vice president's son was sitting on the board of a company that was run by Mykola Zlochevsky who was under investigation, by foreign governments in fact, for corruption?" asked the host.
"I don't want to split hairs ... I don't think it looks okay," Farkas said. "Really, it looks like he was put on the board because his father is vice president and his father understands Eastern Europe."
But she said the fact that the Ukrainian government "dropped the investigation" into Burisma's owner Zlochevsky "leaves the impression that there's nothing to see there. Who knows. Really that's up to the Ukrainian government. Hunter Biden sitting on the board of that company, that doesn't necessarily implicate him in any wrongdoing."
Farkas did not disclose her own connection to Burisma during the interview.
Farkas has also weighed in on the matter on Twitter. She has avoided referring to Burisma by name, instead obliquely referring to it as a "company" that employed Biden's son.
"People! @JoeBiden pressured the Ukrainian prez to fire his corrupt prosecutor general. It was US policy (DOJ, Treasury, we all wanted) not something he did on a whim or to help himself/Obama in elections," she wrote in one tweet. "Unrelated fact: His son was on a board in that country."
"I was in the government and the prosecutor was not investigating Biden's son and we were all urging the prosecutor to be fired because he was absolutely completely corrupt," she wrote on Sept. 20, 2019.
She also claimed Biden's actions were actually damaging to Burisma. "If anything, the company Hunter was on the board of would have had more to fear from a new noncorrupt [prosecutor general]!" she said on Sept. 21, 2019.
The prosecutor who replaced Shokin, Lutsenko, helped negotiate an end to the Burisma investigation in 2017, allowing the company's fugitive owner Zlochevsky to avoid prosecution and reenter the country, according to the New York Times.
Farkas argued that Hunter Biden's Burisma work was mainly controversial because the company was based in Ukraine, rather than France.
"[I]f you substituted the word France for Ukraine, would we have the same outcry? I doubt it. I'm not excusing the son's poor judgement, but this is infuriating, because it's hurting Ukraine and helping Russia," she wrote on Sept. 22, 2019.
She also acknowledged that Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma was bad optics for his father's campaign. Farkas said she personally avoids doing anything in her professional life that she wouldn't want to see on the front page of the Washington Post.
"It has to pass the front page of the @washingtonpost test for me every time I think of doing something in government or now in my private work/life," she wrote on Twitter.
Farkas, 52, announced her campaign for New York's 17th Congressional District in November after longtime Democratic representative Nita Lowey declined to run for reelection. Farkas, who is facing over a dozen other Democrats in the primary, has billed herself as the candidate who can best protect her constituents from "foreign interference" by the Russian government.
"I campaigned to help elect Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton as our next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the alarm and urge Congress to take action," she said on her website. "And I haven’t let up since then."
Farkas's campaign would not comment specifically on the candidate's work for the Atlantic Council and Burisma but said she is no longer with the Atlantic Council.
In 2017, the Atlantic Council partnered with Burisma—over internal and external objections, according to congressional testimony and sources familiar with the discussions—to organize programming on Eastern European energy policy, an agreement that yielded a $100,000 annual windfall for the U.S. think tank.
In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, said that the Ukrainian anticorruption activist Daria Kaleniuk slammed the Atlantic Council's Ukraine program director, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst, for entering into the Burisma partnership.
Kent himself said that in mid-2016, he intervened to prevent Burisma from cosponsoring events with U.S. government organizations because "Burisma had a poor reputation in the business and I didn't think it was appropriate for the U.S. government to cosponsor something with a company that had a bad reputation."
Burisma first approached the Atlantic Council with a funding offer in 2016, according to the Wall Street Journal, but the think tank allegedly turned it down because the company was still under investigation. After the investigations were closed, in early 2017, the Atlantic Council agreed to partner with Burisma on Eastern European policy programming.
Under the agreement, Burisma provided the Atlantic Council with $100,000 a year and covered the costs of joint conferences and events, according to the Wall Street Journal. Burisma "also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which ... amounted to around [$50,000 to $70,000] per year," the Atlantic Council told Yahoo News.
Ilya Zaslavskiy, head of research at the Free Russia Foundation, said the Atlantic Council should have been aware that there were still significant concerns about Burisma and its owner Zlochevsky's finances when the think tank took the money, despite the fact that Ukraine and the U.K. had closed their investigations.
"They were no longer under criminal investigations, but there were absolutely explicit questions about Zlochevsky and his money, not long before [the Atlantic Council] took the money," said Zaslavskiy.
Burisma has funded several high-profile Atlantic Council events since 2017, including annual energy-related conferences in Ukraine and Monaco. The 2018 conference was organized by Painter's firm, Blue Star Strategies. Attendees included the head of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharkskiy, and former ambassador to Ukraine Herbst.
Farkas spoke on a panel at the conference, flanked by large Burisma signs and a Burisma flag waving in the background.
"Starting in 2014 when I was in the Pentagon, but up to the present moment, we have committed almost a billion [dollars] of assistance to Ukraine in order to help Ukraine with its defense," said Farkas.
Promotional video of the event shows Farkas and a group of "U.S. representatives" touring Burisma's facilities while wearing track jackets with the company's logo on it.
Herbst, the Atlantic Council Ukraine program director and former ambassador, gave a glowing assessment of Burisma's industry work at the event—an indication of what Burisma expected in return for its investment.
"Mining at a deep level requires extremely powerful equipment. And the fact that Burisma Group invested into best-in-class rigs deserves respect. I am impressed with the innovative equipment and highly technological processes here," said Herbst.
More recently, Herbst has appeared on cable news to discuss the impeachment investigations, where his affiliation with Burisma's lobbying operation has not been disclosed.
In a Jan. 15 CNN appearance, Herbst slammed "the false narrative that Joe Biden was doing something corrupt in Ukraine when, in fact, he was fighting corruption."
"That's what this is all about," said Herbst. "And it's very sad. And, of course, it directly contradicts America's great interest in Ukraine."


freebeacon--2020-03-02--Media Darling Katie Hill Says She Planned to Lie to Media Until Scandal Passed

Former California congresswoman Katie Hill ( D. ) admitted in a new profile that she initially planned to lie about the `` throuple '' relationship with a campaign staffer that came to light in October .
`` You know , honestly , it was one of those things where it was like , Well , I 'll just deny it , [ emphasis in original ] '' Hill told New York magazine writer Caitlin Moscatello .
`` Morgan [ the staffer ] is not accusing me of anything .
She does n't want it to come out any more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians lie , but it 's rare for one to tell a reporter it was her game plan , '' Moscatello wrote .
Hill announced her resignation on Oct. 27 , nine days after RedState first reported photos and text messages showing her and ex-husband Kenny Heslep in an intimate relationship with a female campaign staffer .
Hill admitted in a letter to constituents before resigning that she did have a relationship with the staffer , Morgan , whom she told New York she `` fell in love '' with .
She also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a # MeToo violation , even though Morgan was her body woman on the campaign trail .
`` We joked about this a lot .
Morgan was way more my boss than I was hers , '' Hill said , `` because she got me to places on time .
So yes , I recognize that I had power , but also it just was n't like that at the time … I was a fucking person that was a few years older than her , and we got wrapped up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I happened to be the face of it .
But to me , she was just as responsible for it , you know ? ''
Hill continued the three-person relationship when she took office before breaking things off with both Morgan and Heslep in May .
Upon her resignation , Hill blamed Heslep for leaking the photos to the media , portraying herself as a victim of revenge porn .
She decried the `` double standard '' for female politicians and the `` dirtiest gutter politics I 've ever seen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied having a separate affair with her male legislative director , Graham Kelly .
The alleged affair became the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation .
Since her scandal broke , Hill has been interviewed on Good Morning America , MSNBC 's All In with Chris Hayes , and CNN 's Reliable Sources .
She has also published an op-ed in the New York Times , and is writing a memoir .
According to New York magazine , she dated Playboy writer Alex Thomas last summer and fall , but she now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill 's election received national attention due to her sexuality and age—she was only 31 when elected—as well as her flipping of a Republican-held seat .
Her win in the 2018 Democratic primary , however , is now also under scrutiny after a staffer 's husband was arrested last month for hacking an opponent 's campaign .
UPDATE : 1:17 P.M. : This article was corrected to show when Hill and Thomas dated .

Former California congresswoman Katie Hill (D.) admitted in a new profile that she initially planned to lie about the "throuple" relationship with a campaign staffer that came to light in October.
"You know, honestly, it was one of those things where it was like, Well, I'll just deny it, [emphasis in original]" Hill told New York magazine writer Caitlin Moscatello. "Morgan [the staffer] is not accusing me of anything. She doesn't want it to come out any more than I do."
"Plenty of politicians lie, but it's rare for one to tell a reporter it was her game plan," Moscatello wrote.
Hill announced her resignation on Oct. 27, nine days after RedState first reported photos and text messages showing her and ex-husband Kenny Heslep in an intimate relationship with a female campaign staffer.
Hill admitted in a letter to constituents before resigning that she did have a relationship with the staffer, Morgan, whom she told New York she "fell in love" with. She also said she didn't see the relationship as a #MeToo violation, even though Morgan was her body woman on the campaign trail.
"We joked about this a lot. Morgan was way more my boss than I was hers," Hill said, "because she got me to places on time. So yes, I recognize that I had power, but also it just wasn't like that at the time … I was a fucking person that was a few years older than her, and we got wrapped up in this movement of trying to do something, and I happened to be the face of it. But to me, she was just as responsible for it, you know?"
Hill continued the three-person relationship when she took office before breaking things off with both Morgan and Heslep in May.
Upon her resignation, Hill blamed Heslep for leaking the photos to the media, portraying herself as a victim of revenge porn. She decried the "double standard" for female politicians and the "dirtiest gutter politics I've ever seen."
Hill, who is bisexual, denied having a separate affair with her male legislative director, Graham Kelly. The alleged affair became the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation.
Since her scandal broke, Hill has been interviewed on Good Morning America, MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes, and CNN's Reliable Sources. She has also published an op-ed in the New York Times, and is writing a memoir. According to New York magazine, she dated Playboy writer Alex Thomas last summer and fall, but she now has a "new girlfriend."
Hill's election received national attention due to her sexuality and age—she was only 31 when elected—as well as her flipping of a Republican-held seat. Her win in the 2018 Democratic primary, however, is now also under scrutiny after a staffer's husband was arrested last month for hacking an opponent's campaign.
UPDATE: 1:17 P.M.: This article was corrected to show when Hill and Thomas dated.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Establishment-Backed Democrats Accused of Campaign Finance Violations

Two establishment-backed Democratic candidates face accusations of illegally coordinating with a liberal dark money group , according to ethics complaints filed as voters prepare to cast ballots in the Super Tuesday primaries .
VoteVets has spent tens of millions of dollars backing Democrats in key 2020 Senate races , including Cal Cunningham in North Carolina and M.J. Hegar in Texas .
The dark money group spent over $ 7 million supporting the pair in February .
The seven-figure ad blitz has helped Cunningham and Hegar secure their frontrunner status ahead of contested Super Tuesday primaries .
The ad blitz also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hegar of illegally coordinating with the dark money group in ethics complaints obtained by the Washington Free Beacon .
Campaign photos and videos released by Cunningham and Hegar were later used in VoteVets ads .
The short turnaround suggests `` coordination with an outside organization , '' which is illegal under campaign finance law , according to the complaints , which will be filed on Tuesday .
Charges of wrongdoing are hardly new for VoteVets .
In February , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass . )
accused the group of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' through its support of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg .
Sen. Gary Peters ( D. , Mich. ) was also accused of illegally coordinating with the group in December .
The repeated allegations call into question VoteVets ' legitimacy as an organization , according to Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust executive director Kendra Arnold .
`` VoteVets is pumping millions of dollars into political campaigns throughout the country—from Senate races in Michigan , North Carolina , and Texas , to the presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg , '' Arnold said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many of the ads that VoteVets has been running on behalf of these candidates were the result of illegal coordination , calling into question the entire scope of VoteVets ' activity and the legality of their actions . ''
VoteVets did not respond to a request for comment .
Cunningham and Hegar have each spent more than $ 3 million to win the Democratic nomination in crowded primary fields .
Outside spending takes on even more importance in such closely contested races , as it allows candidates to save funds for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to enforce coordination complaints in recent years , and both Cunningham and Hegar have vowed to fight the same campaign finance loopholes they are now accused of exploiting .
Cunningham 's corruption plan promises to reform the FEC `` so it can carry out its watchdog function over our elections , instead of letting the current gridlock create loopholes for those willing to violate campaign finance laws and get away with it . ''
Hegar has touted an endorsement from End Citizens United PAC , a liberal group that focuses on campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns did not respond to requests for comment .
VoteVets has emerged as a key power broker in progressive politics .
Since its 2006 founding , the group has spent more than twice as much money on elections as long-standing liberal groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sierra Club combined .
While the group characterizes itself as a `` grassroots '' organization , a Center for Responsive Politics review of VoteVets ' 2014 tax documents revealed that the group receives most of its funding from labor unions and fellow liberal dark money groups .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2011 , and the group received $ 2 million from labor groups , including the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and AFL-CIO in 2013 and 2014 alone .
Though VoteVets downplays its progressive nature—its mission statement makes no mention of a partisan goal and prioritizes `` matters of national security '' —the group has spent tens of millions of dollars backing Democrats and no money supporting Republicans .
Some of its 2020 ads have failed to discuss foreign affairs , instead touting candidates based on their progressive views on issues such as health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to guarantee coverage for preexisting conditions , take on drug companies jacking up prices , and work to finally expand Medicaid , '' a February VoteVets ad said .
Both Cunningham and Hegar are expected to win their respective primaries Tuesday , and VoteVets will no doubt continue to boost the Democrats to make up for their fundraising disadvantages .
Sen. Thom Tillis ( R. , N.C. ) holds $ 5.4 million on hand compared with Cunningham 's $ 1.5 million .
Sen. John Cornyn ( R. , Texas ) has $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's $ 850,000 .

Two establishment-backed Democratic candidates face accusations of illegally coordinating with a liberal dark money group, according to ethics complaints filed as voters prepare to cast ballots in the Super Tuesday primaries.
VoteVets has spent tens of millions of dollars backing Democrats in key 2020 Senate races, including Cal Cunningham in North Carolina and M.J. Hegar in Texas. The dark money group spent over $7 million supporting the pair in February. The seven-figure ad blitz has helped Cunningham and Hegar secure their frontrunner status ahead of contested Super Tuesday primaries. The ad blitz also drew scrutiny from watchdogs who accuse Cunningham and Hegar of illegally coordinating with the dark money group in ethics complaints obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Campaign photos and videos released by Cunningham and Hegar were later used in VoteVets ads. The short turnaround suggests "coordination with an outside organization," which is illegal under campaign finance law, according to the complaints, which will be filed on Tuesday.
Charges of wrongdoing are hardly new for VoteVets. In February, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) accused the group of "exploiting our broken campaign finance laws" through its support of former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg. Sen. Gary Peters (D., Mich.) was also accused of illegally coordinating with the group in December. The repeated allegations call into question VoteVets' legitimacy as an organization, according to Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust executive director Kendra Arnold.
"VoteVets is pumping millions of dollars into political campaigns throughout the country—from Senate races in Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas, to the presidential campaign of Pete Buttigieg," Arnold said. "Evidence gathered by FACT suggests that many of the ads that VoteVets has been running on behalf of these candidates were the result of illegal coordination, calling into question the entire scope of VoteVets' activity and the legality of their actions."
VoteVets did not respond to a request for comment.
Cunningham and Hegar have each spent more than $3 million to win the Democratic nomination in crowded primary fields. Outside spending takes on even more importance in such closely contested races, as it allows candidates to save funds for the general election.
The FEC has largely failed to enforce coordination complaints in recent years, and both Cunningham and Hegar have vowed to fight the same campaign finance loopholes they are now accused of exploiting. Cunningham's corruption plan promises to reform the FEC "so it can carry out its watchdog function over our elections, instead of letting the current gridlock create loopholes for those willing to violate campaign finance laws and get away with it." Hegar has touted an endorsement from End Citizens United PAC, a liberal group that focuses on campaign finance reform.
The Cunningham and Hegar campaigns did not respond to requests for comment.
VoteVets has emerged as a key power broker in progressive politics. Since its 2006 founding, the group has spent more than twice as much money on elections as long-standing liberal groups NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sierra Club combined. While the group characterizes itself as a "grassroots" organization, a Center for Responsive Politics review of VoteVets' 2014 tax documents revealed that the group receives most of its funding from labor unions and fellow liberal dark money groups. America Votes has given VoteVets $775,000 since 2011, and the group received $2 million from labor groups, including the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and AFL-CIO in 2013 and 2014 alone.
Though VoteVets downplays its progressive nature—its mission statement makes no mention of a partisan goal and prioritizes "matters of national security"—the group has spent tens of millions of dollars backing Democrats and no money supporting Republicans. Some of its 2020 ads have failed to discuss foreign affairs, instead touting candidates based on their progressive views on issues such as health care.
"[Cunningham] will fight to guarantee coverage for preexisting conditions, take on drug companies jacking up prices, and work to finally expand Medicaid," a February VoteVets ad said.
Both Cunningham and Hegar are expected to win their respective primaries Tuesday, and VoteVets will no doubt continue to boost the Democrats to make up for their fundraising disadvantages. Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) holds $5.4 million on hand compared with Cunningham's $1.5 million. Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) has $12 million on hand compared with Hegar's $850,000.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Bloomberg Misleads on Gun Background Checks During Fox News Town Hall

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg incorrectly asserted Monday that background checks are not required to be performed on gun sales done at gun shows or over the internet .
At a Fox News town hall , Bloomberg falsely claimed gun stores are required to perform background checks on sales done at their physical premises but sales conducted elsewhere were exempt from background check requirements .
`` You can not buy a gun in a gun store where they wo n't do a background check .
And all they do is look for those three categories—if you 're a minor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you have a criminal record , '' Bloomberg said .
`` The law does not apply to guns sold over the internet or in gun shows . ''
Federally licensed gun dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on gun sales , regardless of where they take place .
Under federal law , non-licensed individuals are not required to conduct background checks on intrastate gun sales between one another .
There is no special exception in federal law for sales made at gun stores or over the internet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sales as well , and gun-control advocates want a federal law requiring the same .
Despite spending an estimated $ 270 million boosting the gun-control movement over the past 13 years and presenting himself as a doctrinaire alternative to frontrunner Bernie Sanders on the issue , Bloomberg has consistently bumbled the basic facts surrounding the gun debate .
He misstated how the background check system works , appeared to invent a new `` loophole '' in federal gun laws , and made questionable claims about young people and firearm ownership during his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into question his expertise in the issue he has described as his `` life 's work . ''
In another false claim , Bloomberg went on during Monday 's town hall to say federal law does n't apply to internet and gun show sales because the internet and gun shows did not exist when the federal background check law was passed in 1993 .
`` Why ?
Because those two things came after the law that applies to gun stores was passed , '' Bloomberg said .
`` And what I tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because the federal government does n't seem to want to do it , to just check before they sell anybody a gun to make sure they are not in one of those categories where people really—I think most people would agree—should not have guns . ''

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg incorrectly asserted Monday that background checks are not required to be performed on gun sales done at gun shows or over the internet.
At a Fox News town hall, Bloomberg falsely claimed gun stores are required to perform background checks on sales done at their physical premises but sales conducted elsewhere were exempt from background check requirements.
"You cannot buy a gun in a gun store where they won't do a background check. And all they do is look for those three categories—if you're a minor, if you have psychiatric problems, or if you have a criminal record," Bloomberg said. "The law does not apply to guns sold over the internet or in gun shows."
Federally licensed gun dealers are required by federal law to conduct background checks on gun sales, regardless of where they take place. Under federal law, non-licensed individuals are not required to conduct background checks on intrastate gun sales between one another.
There is no special exception in federal law for sales made at gun stores or over the internet. Some states require background checks on non-licensed sales as well, and gun-control advocates want a federal law requiring the same.
Despite spending an estimated $270 million boosting the gun-control movement over the past 13 years and presenting himself as a doctrinaire alternative to frontrunner Bernie Sanders on the issue, Bloomberg has consistently bumbled the basic facts surrounding the gun debate.
He misstated how the background check system works, appeared to invent a new "loophole" in federal gun laws, and made questionable claims about young people and firearm ownership during his campaign launch. His repeated misstatements may call into question his expertise in the issue he has described as his "life's work."
In another false claim, Bloomberg went on during Monday's town hall to say federal law doesn't apply to internet and gun show sales because the internet and gun shows did not exist when the federal background check law was passed in 1993.
"Why? Because those two things came after the law that applies to gun stores was passed," Bloomberg said. "And what I tried to do is just to get every state, because the federal government doesn't seem to want to do it, to just check before they sell anybody a gun to make sure they are not in one of those categories where people really—I think most people would agree—should not have guns."


freebeacon--2020-03-04--Lawyer Defending CFPB Cites Coronavirus to Fend off Presidential Oversight

A lawyer invoked the coronavirus outbreak before the Supreme Court Tuesday as he argued that Congress can restrict the president 's power to fire senior government officials .
Attorney Paul Clement , defending the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) , said Congress can legitimately insulate executive branch agencies from political influence , citing the Centers for Disease Control and the coronavirus as an illustration .
Seila Law LLC , challenging the structure of the CFPB , is arguing that Dodd-Frank , the 2010 law that established the agency , violates the Constitution by constraining the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the agency .
`` In the current situation , you see people are trying to make a political football out of dealing with a pandemic disease , '' Clement said .
`` So maybe Congress decides : You know what makes sense , let 's have the head of CDC be protected by for-cause removal because that 'll make sure people get good advice and it does n't become political . ''
`` That is the kind of sensible decision that Congress has been making for over 100 years , '' he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass. )
.
Its director , unlike other senior government officials , may only be removed for `` inefficiency , neglect of duty or malfeasance in office , '' according to Dodd-Frank .
The 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the CFPB , prompting Seila Law to appeal to the Supreme Court .
The Court appointed Clement to argue on the agency 's behalf after the Trump administration refused to defend the removal provision .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority to dismiss senior government officials .
`` By vesting the executive power in the President alone , the Constitution ensures that all exercises of this great power of the government are ultimately subject to the will of the people , '' the administration 's brief reads .
`` The statutory restriction on the President 's authority to remove the CFPB Director contravenes this basic principle . ''
Kannon Shanmugam represented Seila Law before the justices Tuesday .
Shanmugam said there is no historical precedent for the removal restriction at issue .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given so much executive power to a single individual who does not answer to the president , '' Shanmugam said .
The conservative justices broadly agreed the removal restriction is a problem .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the director 's five-year tenure puts the removal issue in sharp relief .
The legislation could create a situation , he said , in which an incumbent president is saddled with the previous administration 's director and `` will not be able to supervise or direct that person , even if that president has a wildly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Chief Justice John Roberts drew attention to the CFPB 's funding rules , asking if they exacerbate the constitutional questions .
Unlike most agencies , the bureau does not have its budget set by Congress .
Instead , the Federal Reserve finances CFPB operations .
In that sense , Roberts said , the CFPB director is even more powerful than the president , who largely depends on congressional appropriations .
`` They do n't even have to go to Congress to get their money , '' Roberts said .
`` Is n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the substantive question on [ the director 's ] removability ? ''
Clement said that the case can be dismissed on technical grounds .
He argued Seila Law , a California-based firm , does not have standing to challenge the removal clause .
He said that justices have only reviewed restrictions on the president 's removal powers when the president himself attempts to fire executive officials .
Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution says very little about removal restrictions or the organization of the government in general .
Instead , the Constitution leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance and which modes of governance are best to promote liberty and to serve the public interest . ''
The Justice Department generally defends federal statutes in court , unless no reasonable argument can be made in their favor .
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Francisco for refusing to defend the agency .
Justice Samuel Alito countered that the Department of Justice similarly refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act ( DoMA ) in court under the Obama administration .
The justices said little about what should happen to other sections of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down and gave little indication as to how the Court would rule .
A decision in the case , No .
19-7 Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , is expected by June .

A lawyer invoked the coronavirus outbreak before the Supreme Court Tuesday as he argued that Congress can restrict the president's power to fire senior government officials.
Attorney Paul Clement, defending the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), said Congress can legitimately insulate executive branch agencies from political influence, citing the Centers for Disease Control and the coronavirus as an illustration. Seila Law LLC, challenging the structure of the CFPB, is arguing that Dodd-Frank, the 2010 law that established the agency, violates the Constitution by constraining the ability of presidents to fire the head of the agency.
"In the current situation, you see people are trying to make a political football out of dealing with a pandemic disease," Clement said. "So maybe Congress decides: You know what makes sense, let's have the head of CDC be protected by for-cause removal because that'll make sure people get good advice and it doesn't become political."
"That is the kind of sensible decision that Congress has been making for over 100 years," he added.
The CFPB is the brainchild of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). Its director, unlike other senior government officials, may only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," according to Dodd-Frank. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the CFPB, prompting Seila Law to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court appointed Clement to argue on the agency's behalf after the Trump administration refused to defend the removal provision. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the removal requirement undermines the president's authority to dismiss senior government officials.
"By vesting the executive power in the President alone, the Constitution ensures that all exercises of this great power of the government are ultimately subject to the will of the people," the administration's brief reads. "The statutory restriction on the President's authority to remove the CFPB Director contravenes this basic principle."
Kannon Shanmugam represented Seila Law before the justices Tuesday. Shanmugam said there is no historical precedent for the removal restriction at issue.
"Never before in American history has Congress given so much executive power to a single individual who does not answer to the president," Shanmugam said.
The conservative justices broadly agreed the removal restriction is a problem. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the director's five-year tenure puts the removal issue in sharp relief. The legislation could create a situation, he said, in which an incumbent president is saddled with the previous administration's director and "will not be able to supervise or direct that person, even if that president has a wildly different conception of consumer financial protection."
Chief Justice John Roberts drew attention to the CFPB's funding rules, asking if they exacerbate the constitutional questions. Unlike most agencies, the bureau does not have its budget set by Congress. Instead, the Federal Reserve finances CFPB operations. In that sense, Roberts said, the CFPB director is even more powerful than the president, who largely depends on congressional appropriations.
"They don't even have to go to Congress to get their money," Roberts said. "Isn't that something that we should factor into the substantive question on [the director's] removability?"
Clement said that the case can be dismissed on technical grounds. He argued Seila Law, a California-based firm, does not have standing to challenge the removal clause. He said that justices have only reviewed restrictions on the president's removal powers when the president himself attempts to fire executive officials.
Justice Elena Kagan said the Constitution says very little about removal restrictions or the organization of the government in general. Instead, the Constitution leaves Congress "to decide which institutions of governance and which modes of governance are best to promote liberty and to serve the public interest."
The Justice Department generally defends federal statutes in court, unless no reasonable argument can be made in their favor. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized Francisco for refusing to defend the agency. Justice Samuel Alito countered that the Department of Justice similarly refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) in court under the Obama administration.
The justices said little about what should happen to other sections of Dodd-Frank if the removal restriction is struck down and gave little indication as to how the Court would rule. A decision in the case, No. 19-7 Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is expected by June.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Rep. Cheney: Secret Deals With Taliban Don’t Adequately Address Ties to Al Qaeda

Secret agreements reached between the Taliban and the Trump administration do not do enough to compel the terrorist organization to sever its ties with al Qaeda , Rep. Liz Cheney ( R. , Wyo . )
disclosed after reviewing classified documents .
Cheney , a leading Republican lawmaker , disclosed on Tuesday that she had reviewed classified portions of the peace agreement recently reached with the Taliban in Afghanistan .
She said contrary to promises made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , these secret deals , which are kept from the American public , do not address key demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The secret annexes of the peace accord have been generating pushback in Congress from Republican lawmakers typically aligned with the Trump administration on national security issues .
Cheney and more than 20 of her colleagues in the House recently warned the Trump administration against inking the deal with the Taliban , saying the group can not be trusted to uphold a peace accord .
Lawmakers remain concerned the administration did not fully extract promises from the Taliban to cut ties with al Qaeda and other terror organizations operating in war-torn Afghanistan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Pompeo and other State Department officials that the secret annexes would address security concerns .
`` [ Pompeo ] made assertions , including that there were complex , interlocking verification mechanisms , '' Cheney said , explaining that classified documents she has read do not square with the secretary 's claims .
`` He asserted that there would be a full and complete renunciation of al Qaeda by the Taliban .
I 've read the documents and my concerns remain .
I 'm not going to talk about what 's in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified , as you know , but the documents that have been sent to the Hill do not include those things . ''
Pompeo and senior U.S. officials working on the peace deal had assured lawmakers that the administration would be able to closely monitor the Taliban 's compliance with the peace accord , which was said to include assurances it would disassociate with al Qaeda , the terror group the Taliban harbored following the 9/11 terror attacks .
Cheney said she remains concerned after reading the classified documents provided to Congress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the peace deal includes a `` verification complex and mechanism by which we can observe and hold every member of the agreement accountable . ''
This purportedly includes `` a commitment to break with al Qaeda . ''
Cheney has been a vocal critic of the accord , saying during the weekend that secret portions of the deal are reminiscent of the Obama administration 's efforts to keep the terms of the nuclear deal with Iran secret .
`` Today 's agreement with the Taliban includes concessions that could threaten the security of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taliban fighters , lifting sanctions on international terrorists , and agreeing to withdraw all U.S. forces in exchange for promises from the Taliban , with no disclosed mechanism to verify Taliban compliance , would be reminiscent of the worst aspects of the Obama Iran nuclear deal , '' Cheney said .
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on Cheney 's claims .

Secret agreements reached between the Taliban and the Trump administration do not do enough to compel the terrorist organization to sever its ties with al Qaeda, Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wyo.) disclosed after reviewing classified documents.
Cheney, a leading Republican lawmaker, disclosed on Tuesday that she had reviewed classified portions of the peace agreement recently reached with the Taliban in Afghanistan. She said contrary to promises made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these secret deals, which are kept from the American public, do not address key demands for the Taliban to abandon al Qaeda.
The secret annexes of the peace accord have been generating pushback in Congress from Republican lawmakers typically aligned with the Trump administration on national security issues. Cheney and more than 20 of her colleagues in the House recently warned the Trump administration against inking the deal with the Taliban, saying the group cannot be trusted to uphold a peace accord.
Lawmakers remain concerned the administration did not fully extract promises from the Taliban to cut ties with al Qaeda and other terror organizations operating in war-torn Afghanistan.
Cheney said she was misled by assurances from Pompeo and other State Department officials that the secret annexes would address security concerns.
"[Pompeo] made assertions, including that there were complex, interlocking verification mechanisms," Cheney said, explaining that classified documents she has read do not square with the secretary's claims. "He asserted that there would be a full and complete renunciation of al Qaeda by the Taliban. I've read the documents and my concerns remain. I'm not going to talk about what's in the documents, a number of them are classified, as you know, but the documents that have been sent to the Hill do not include those things."
Pompeo and senior U.S. officials working on the peace deal had assured lawmakers that the administration would be able to closely monitor the Taliban's compliance with the peace accord, which was said to include assurances it would disassociate with al Qaeda, the terror group the Taliban harbored following the 9/11 terror attacks.
Cheney said she remains concerned after reading the classified documents provided to Congress.
Pompeo has stated in multiple interviews that the peace deal includes a "verification complex and mechanism by which we can observe and hold every member of the agreement accountable." This purportedly includes "a commitment to break with al Qaeda."
Cheney has been a vocal critic of the accord, saying during the weekend that secret portions of the deal are reminiscent of the Obama administration's efforts to keep the terms of the nuclear deal with Iran secret.
"Today's agreement with the Taliban includes concessions that could threaten the security of the United States. Releasing thousands of Taliban fighters, lifting sanctions on international terrorists, and agreeing to withdraw all U.S. forces in exchange for promises from the Taliban, with no disclosed mechanism to verify Taliban compliance, would be reminiscent of the worst aspects of the Obama Iran nuclear deal," Cheney said.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on Cheney's claims.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--MSNBC Anchor Shocked to Learn Latino Voter Supports Trump

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur was shocked to learn that a Latino voter will be supporting Republican President Donald Trump in the November election .
Tur 's surprise came during an interview with an East Los Angeles voter who told her through a translator that he was supporting Bernie Sanders .
Tur asked whether the man 's daughter pushing him to support Sanders , and was told that she was actually supporting Trump .
`` Your daughter 's going to vote for Donald Trump ? ''
a surprised Tur said .
`` Por qué ? ''
`` I do n't know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man said in Spanish , further explaining that the strong economy is why his daughter supports Trump .
The translator joining Tur called the voter 's response `` fascinating '' and told Tur that a `` stubborn '' 10 to 15 percent of the Latino vote supports Trump .
`` I do n't know what the exact reasons are , but there tends to be that certain conservative flank within the Latino community , '' the translator said .
He also said that Latino law enforcement officers and Latinos concerned with the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
Recent polling has shown Trump with a stable 30 percent approval rating among Latino voters .

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur was shocked to learn that a Latino voter will be supporting Republican President Donald Trump in the November election.
Tur's surprise came during an interview with an East Los Angeles voter who told her through a translator that he was supporting Bernie Sanders. Tur asked whether the man's daughter was pushing him to support Sanders and was told that she was actually supporting Trump.
"Your daughter's going to vote for Donald Trump?" a surprised Tur said. "Por qué?"
"I don't know, she loves him," the man said in Spanish, further explaining that the strong economy is why his daughter supports Trump.
The translator joining Tur called the voter's response "fascinating" and told Tur that a "stubborn" 10 to 15 percent of the Latino vote supports Trump.
"I don't know what the exact reasons are, but there tends to be that certain conservative flank within the Latino community," the translator said. He also said that Latino law enforcement officers and Latinos concerned with the economy were the main base of conservative Latino support.
Recent polling has shown Trump with a stable 30 percent approval rating among Latino voters.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Warren Gets Dark Money Help in Florida

Warren Gets Dark Money Help in Florida

Elizabeth Warren 's flip flop on super PACs is paying dividends in Florida .
Her struggling campaign got a boost from a dark money group late last week that spent more than $ 100,000 on canvassing and advertisements to support Warren 's candidacy .
New Florida Majority , a progressive social justice nonprofit that does not disclose its donors , disbursed $ 101,345 between Feb. 27 and Feb. 29 to help Warren 's campaign .
Warren has promised to rid the political process of super PACs and dark money .
After her campaign went into February with just $ 2.3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course on receiving help from super PACs when Persist PAC formed on Feb. 18 to support her candidacy .
It now appears Warren has similarly reversed course on dark money .
When a dark money group purchased an ad in November supporting Warren in Iowa , the Massachusetts senator 's campaign asked the group to halt its promotion of the senator .
`` Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous , dark-money attempts to influence voters—whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy , '' Chris Hayden , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren 's campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the new dark money effort to support her candidacy in Florida .
New Florida Majority endorsed Warren late last year .
At the time , the group said it was ready to mobilize constituents in support of the senator 's plans for `` big structural change . ''
`` The stakes are too high for millions of Floridians in 2020 , '' said Andrea Mercado , executive director of New Florida Majority .
`` We 're prepared to support whoever the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda of inequality and division and our members endorse Elizabeth Warren as the best candidate for the job . ''
In its endorsement statement , New Florida Majority boasted that it helped reach 1.5 million voters and register 20,000 new voters in Florida as part of a coalition of liberal groups during the 2018 elections .
That coalition , known as the Win Justice campaign , focused on the battleground states of Florida , Michigan , and Nevada .
Win Justice 's federal PAC was initially bankrolled by a $ 3 million check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was for months the PAC 's sole source of funding .
Soros later contributed another $ 2 million to the committee .
Cash also flowed in from billionaire megadonor Donald Sussman , director Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Capshaw , and a host of liberal groups , including the Center for Community Change , Planned Parenthood , and the SEIU .
New Florida Majority has a goal of registering 100,000 new voters for the 2020 elections .
Last week , the group held a joint press conference with the Florida Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the groups have registered tens of thousands of Floridians as Democrats .
The Florida primary is scheduled for March 17 .

Elizabeth Warren's flip flop on super PACs is paying dividends in Florida. Her struggling campaign got a boost from a dark money group late last week that spent more than $100,000 on canvassing and advertisements to support Warren's candidacy.
New Florida Majority, a progressive social justice nonprofit that does not disclose its donors, disbursed $101,345 between Feb. 27 and Feb. 29 to help Warren's campaign. Warren has promised to rid the political process of super PACs and dark money. After her campaign went into February with just $2.3 million cash on hand, Warren reversed course on receiving help from super PACs when Persist PAC formed on Feb. 18 to support her candidacy.
It now appears Warren has similarly reversed course on dark money. When a dark money group purchased an ad in November supporting Warren in Iowa, the Massachusetts senator's campaign asked the group to halt its promotion of the senator. "Elizabeth Warren believes democracy is undermined by anonymous, dark-money attempts to influence voters—whether that influence is meant to help or hurt her candidacy," Chris Hayden, a spokesman for the campaign, said.
Warren's campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the new dark money effort to support her candidacy in Florida.
New Florida Majority endorsed Warren late last year. At the time, the group said it was ready to mobilize constituents in support of the senator's plans for "big structural change."
"The stakes are too high for millions of Floridians in 2020," said Andrea Mercado, executive director of New Florida Majority. "We're prepared to support whoever the candidate is to defeat Trump and his agenda of inequality and division and our members endorse Elizabeth Warren as the best candidate for the job."
In its endorsement statement, New Florida Majority boasted that it helped reach 1.5 million voters and register 20,000 new voters in Florida as part of a coalition of liberal groups during the 2018 elections. That coalition, known as the Win Justice campaign, focused on the battleground states of Florida, Michigan, and Nevada.
Win Justice's federal PAC was initially bankrolled by a $3 million check from liberal billionaire George Soros, who was for months the PAC's sole source of funding. Soros later contributed another $2 million to the committee. Cash also flowed in from billionaire megadonor Donald Sussman, director Steven Spielberg and his wife Kate Capshaw, and a host of liberal groups, including the Center for Community Change, Planned Parenthood, and the SEIU.
New Florida Majority has a goal of registering 100,000 new voters for the 2020 elections. Last week, the group held a joint press conference with the Florida Democratic Party and two other activist organizations, boasting that the groups have registered tens of thousands of Floridians as Democrats. The Florida primary is scheduled for March 17.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--The Thrill Is Gone: The Best of Chris Matthews

We look back on some of the thrilling highlights of MSNBC host Chris Matthews , who stepped down as the @ @ @ @ @ a career dominated by shouting , Obama-loving , and hawk-denouncing .
David Rutz is senior @ @ @ @ @ Beacon .
He was previously a sports reporter for two years in Atlanta and has @ @ @ @ @ the Washington Post .
He graduated from Vanderbilt University in 2010 and lives in Marietta @ @ @ @ @ is @ DavidRutz .
He can be reached at rutz @ freebeacon.com .

We look back on some of the thrilling highlights of MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who stepped down as the host of Hardball Monday after a career dominated by shouting, Obama-loving, and hawk-denouncing.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--WaPo: ‘Sanctuaries’ Good for Illegal Immigrants, Bad for Gun Owners

The Washington Post editorial board slammed the use of `` sanctuary '' laws designed to safeguard Second Amendment rights , despite supporting the same policies when they are used to protect illegal immigrants .
In a February 28 editorial , the paper argued local officials should not undermine new gun laws in Virginia .
`` Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such laws ; they are free to mount legal challenges to their constitutionality , '' the board wrote .
`` But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court , no one is free to violate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virginia have passed Second Amendment `` sanctuary '' resolutions , pledging to not enforce new gun laws that they consider unconstitutional and taking particular aim at a proposed Red Flag law backed by state Democrats .
The newspaper 's editorial board called the idea of following through on such measures `` alarming '' and a threat to the rule of law .
But when Washington , D.C. , unveiled a `` sanctuary '' plan that would direct taxpayer dollars to legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation , the board said the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' The discrepancy between the two Washington Post `` sanctuary '' editorials has fueled distrust among gun owners and advocates .
Philip Van Cleave , president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League , which helped organize the Second Amendment `` sanctuary '' movement in the state , called the board 's position `` a complete double standard . ''
`` These gun laws are n't even aimed at criminals , '' Van Cleave told the Washington Free Beacon .
`` [ The board ] said , ‘ Well , as long as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we 're okay with the sanctuary . '
Well , what about gun owners that are n't violent at all and merely found themselves on the wrong end of the law because the law changed ?
Suddenly something that was perfectly lawful before , is n't anymore .
Now it 's okay to take away their civil rights ?
I just see it as a ridiculous double standard . ''
In a 2017 editorial on D.C. 's `` sanctuary '' proposal , the Post argued it was `` sensible '' for the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they are in the country illegally to avoid becoming `` an auxiliary deportation force . ''
The board argued the city should cooperate with federal authorities for some illegal immigrants they 've arrested while defying them on others .
`` Other cities , including New York , have taken steps to protect some ex-convict undocumented immigrants from deportation but not others , depending on the severity of their crimes , '' the board wrote .
`` That ’ s a sound policy , and D.C. officials should take note . ''
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoping to protect gun owners from laws they deem unconstitutional .
`` Whether [ new gun laws ] are popular or not , statewide or locally , is not relevant to a sheriff 's obligation to follow and enforce the law , '' the board said .
Van Cleave said the Post ‘ s differing approach to `` sanctuaries '' that protect gun owners is representative of a larger bias at major media outlets against gun owners .
`` This is clear bias , '' he told the Free Beacon .
`` They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal aliens , hoping we wo n't remember that , and then they want to come out with a totally different opinion when it deals with guns .
Guns always get this special exception at newspapers and other media that is n't fair .
It is n't right . ''
The Washington Post editorial board did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

The Washington Post editorial board slammed the use of "sanctuary" laws designed to safeguard Second Amendment rights, despite supporting the same policies when they are used to protect illegal immigrants.
In a February 28 editorial, the paper argued local officials should not undermine new gun laws in Virginia.
"Gun-rights activists are free to denounce such laws; they are free to mount legal challenges to their constitutionality," the board wrote. "But unless and until the laws are struck down by a court, no one is free to violate them."
Nearly 150 localities in Virginia have passed Second Amendment "sanctuary" resolutions, pledging to not enforce new gun laws that they consider unconstitutional and taking particular aim at a proposed Red Flag law backed by state Democrats. The newspaper's editorial board called the idea of following through on such measures "alarming" and a threat to the rule of law. But when Washington, D.C., unveiled a "sanctuary" plan that would direct taxpayer dollars to legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation, the board said the city was pursuing an "admirable goal."
The discrepancy between the two Washington Post "sanctuary" editorials has fueled distrust among gun owners and advocates. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which helped organize the Second Amendment "sanctuary" movement in the state, called the board's position "a complete double standard."
"These gun laws aren't even aimed at criminals," Van Cleave told the Washington Free Beacon. "[The board] said, 'Well, as long as the illegal alien is not particularly violent, we're okay with the sanctuary.' Well, what about gun owners that aren't violent at all and merely found themselves on the wrong end of the law because the law changed? Suddenly something that was perfectly lawful before, isn't anymore. Now it's okay to take away their civil rights? I just see it as a ridiculous double standard."
In a 2017 editorial on D.C.'s "sanctuary" proposal, the Post argued it was "sensible" for the city to not ask those who are arrested if they are in the country illegally to avoid becoming "an auxiliary deportation force." The board argued the city should cooperate with federal authorities for some illegal immigrants they've arrested while defying them on others.
"Other cities, including New York, have taken steps to protect some ex-convict undocumented immigrants from deportation but not others, depending on the severity of their crimes," the board wrote. "That’s a sound policy, and D.C. officials should take note."
The board offered different advice to Virginia officials hoping to protect gun owners from laws they deem unconstitutional.
"Whether [new gun laws] are popular or not, statewide or locally, is not relevant to a sheriff's obligation to follow and enforce the law," the board said.
Van Cleave said the Post's differing approach to "sanctuaries" that protect gun owners is representative of a larger bias at major media outlets against gun owners.
"This is clear bias," he told the Free Beacon. "They want us to forget their position on illegal aliens, hoping we won't remember that, and then they want to come out with a totally different opinion when it deals with guns. Guns always get this special exception at newspapers and other media that isn't fair. It isn't right."
The Washington Post editorial board did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Chris Matthews Ousted in Disgrace as Netanyahu Triumphs Again

Longtime MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews , who once included Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a list of `` bad guys '' along with Russia 's Vladimir Putin and Turkey 's Recep Tayyip Erdogan , announced his `` retirement '' from the network on Monday .
Netanyahu , meanwhile , celebrated a stunning election victory in Israel .
`` They already eulogized us , '' the 2019 Washington Free Beacon Man of the Year told a crowd of supporters early Tuesday .
`` Our opponents said the Netanyahu era is over . ''
But it was n't .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era on MSNBC .
The Hardball host 's surprising exit , which Matthews announced at the start of Monday 's show , comes amid a series of controversies surrounding Matthews 's behavior on and off the studio set .
The cantankerous and perpetually disheveled host was dogged for years by allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior toward female guests and coworkers .
Matthews addressed the allegations in an on-air apology on Monday .
`` Compliments on a woman 's appearance that some men , including me , might have once incorrectly thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then and certainly not today .
And for making such comments in the past , I 'm sorry , '' Matthews said .
The final straw , however , appears to have been Matthews 's interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D. , Mass . )
following last week 's Democratic debate in Charleston .
Matthews grilled Warren over her attack on former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg .
Warren had repeated during the debate a claim that Bloomberg told a pregnant female employee to `` kill it . ''
Matthews pressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman who made the allegation instead of Bloomberg , who emphatically denied making the comment .
`` You believe he is lying ? ''
asked Matthews .
`` Why would he lie ? ''
Warren insisted that she had every reason to believe the accuser .
`` Why would she lie ? ''
Warren responded .
The interview prompted feminist activists to call on MSNBC to fire Matthews .
It also prompted GQ columnist Laura Bassett to reveal—in an article published three days before the `` retirement '' announcement—that Matthews had made inappropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his show : Another time , he stood between me and the mirror and complimented the red dress I was wearing for the segment .
`` You going out tonight ? ''
he asked .
I said I did n't know , and he said—again to the makeup artist— '' Make sure you wipe this off her face after the show .
We do n't make her up so some guy at a bar can look at her like this . ''
Notwithstanding the allegations of inappropriate behavior toward women , Matthews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had grown increasingly deranged in recent years .
After Sen. Bernie Sanders 's ( I. , Vt. ) decisive victory in the Nevada caucus in February , the Hardball host said it reminded him of the French Army 's failure to beat back the Nazi invasion in 1940 .
Just days ago , on the eve of the South Carolina primary , Matthews humiliated himself on air by failing to tell the difference between two black politicians from the Palmetto State .

Longtime MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews, who once included Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a list of "bad guys" along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, announced his "retirement" from the network on Monday.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, celebrated a stunning election victory in Israel. "They already eulogized us," the 2019 Washington Free Beacon Man of the Year told a crowd of supporters early Tuesday. "Our opponents said the Netanyahu era is over." But it wasn't. The same cannot be said of the Matthews era on MSNBC.
The Hardball host's surprising exit, which Matthews announced at the start of Monday's show, comes amid a series of controversies surrounding Matthews's behavior on and off the studio set. The cantankerous and perpetually disheveled host was dogged for years by allegations of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior toward female guests and coworkers.
Matthews addressed the allegations in an on-air apology on Monday. "Compliments on a woman's appearance that some men, including me, might have once incorrectly thought were okay were not okay, not then and certainly not today. And for making such comments in the past, I'm sorry," Matthews said.
The final straw, however, appears to have been Matthews's interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) following last week's Democratic debate in Charleston. Matthews grilled Warren over her attack on former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Warren had repeated during the debate a claim that Bloomberg told a pregnant female employee to "kill it."
Matthews pressed Warren to explain why she believed the woman who made the allegation instead of Bloomberg, who emphatically denied making the comment. "You believe he is lying?" asked Matthews. "Why would he lie?" Warren insisted that she had every reason to believe the accuser. "Why would she lie?" Warren responded.
The interview prompted feminist activists to call on MSNBC to fire Matthews. It also prompted GQ columnist Laura Bassett to reveal—in an article published three days before the "retirement" announcement—that Matthews had made inappropriate comments on multiple occasions during her appearances on his show:
Another time, he stood between me and the mirror and complimented the red dress I was wearing for the segment. "You going out tonight?" he asked. I said I didn't know, and he said—again to the makeup artist—"Make sure you wipe this off her face after the show. We don't make her up so some guy at a bar can look at her like this."
Notwithstanding the allegations of inappropriate behavior toward women, Matthews's general conduct as a political commentator had grown increasingly deranged in recent years. After Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) decisive victory in the Nevada caucus in February, the Hardball host said it reminded him of the French Army's failure to beat back the Nazi invasion in 1940.
Just days ago, on the eve of the South Carolina primary, Matthews humiliated himself on air by failing to tell the difference between two black politicians from the Palmetto State.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Donna Brazile to RNC Chairwoman: ‘Go to Hell’

Former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile had harsh words for RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel , who said Democratic superdelegates may try to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I. , Vt. ) from being the party 's presidential nominee .
`` Ronna , go to hell , '' Brazile said on America 's Newsroom , startling anchors Ed Henry and Sandra Smith .
`` No , go to hell , I 'm tired of it , Ed .
We are not trying to prevent anyone from becoming the nominee .
If you have the delegates and win , you will win .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ another Democrats are out there trying to put hurdles or roadblocks before one candidate , that 's stupid , '' Brazile said .
She added that Republicans are scared President Donald Trump will lose his reelection bid in November .
`` Donna , with all due respect we had [ McDaniel ] on to talk about what she sees happening here in the same way we ask you to , '' Smith said .
McDaniel 's and Brazile 's comments come after presidential candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in endorsing Joe Biden ahead of Super Tuesday .
The former DNC chairwoman said McDaniel 's assertion was highly inappropriate without proof .
`` I know the process .
Ronna knows the process .
But to infer that we are trying to prevent one candidate over another [ sic ] , that 's not happening , '' Brazile said .
`` If there is any proof , Madam Chairwoman , any proof , Mr. President , that we 're trying to somehow or another change this process for one candidate to get an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brazile previously faced allegations that her party acted to Sanders 's disadvantage in the 2016 Democratic primary .
She helped Hillary Clinton during her 2016 primary campaign by passing along CNN town hall questions to her .
After initially denying the assistance to Clinton , Brazile said it was a `` mistake I will forever regret . ''
Brazile finished by saying the moderates and left wing of the Democratic Party will unite and that she 'd like to reconcile with McDaniel soon .
`` I 'm all about reconciliation , you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'm trying to keep my karma .
But stop lying about the Democratic process , '' Brazile said .

Former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile had harsh words for RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who said Democratic superdelegates may try to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) from being the party's presidential nominee.
"Ronna, go to hell," Brazile said on America's Newsroom, startling anchors Ed Henry and Sandra Smith. "No, go to hell, I'm tired of it, Ed. We are not trying to prevent anyone from becoming the nominee. If you have the delegates and win, you will win."
"This notion that somehow or another Democrats are out there trying to put hurdles or roadblocks before one candidate, that's stupid," Brazile said. She added that Republicans are scared President Donald Trump will lose his reelection bid in November.
"Donna, with all due respect we had [McDaniel] on to talk about what she sees happening here in the same way we ask you to," Smith said.
Brazile previously faced allegations that her party acted to Sanders's disadvantage in the 2016 Democratic primary. She helped Hillary Clinton during her 2016 primary campaign by passing along CNN town hall questions to her. After initially denying the assistance to Clinton, Brazile said it was a "mistake I will forever regret."
McDaniel's and Brazile's comments come after presidential candidates Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race and joined multiple Democratic party leaders in endorsing Joe Biden ahead of Super Tuesday.
The former DNC chairwoman said McDaniel's assertion was highly inappropriate without proof.
"I know the process. Ronna knows the process. But to infer that we are trying to prevent one candidate over another [sic], that's not happening," Brazile said. "If there is any proof, Madam Chairwoman, any proof, Mr. President, that we're trying to somehow or another change this process for one candidate to get an advantage, show the proof."
Brazile finished by saying the moderates and left wing of the Democratic Party will unite and that she'd like to reconcile with McDaniel soon.
McDaniel shot back at Brazile later on Tuesday, saying Brazile was "out of line" and offering more evidence for her argument that establishment Democrats are opposed to Sanders.
"I don't think it's something that we can't discuss, and I think her response was a little out of line and disproportionate to my comments earlier today," McDaniel said.
Tuesday night, Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Brazile on air about her "spicy" comments, and she expressed thanks for Fox News's Chris Wallace and Brit Hume talking with her about them.
"Brit [Hume] reminded me that, you know, sometimes you don't, you shouldn't call people outright. But let me just say this, as long as I'm alive, I'm going to speak truth to power. And I want to make sure that the chairwoman, I know what her job is like, but I want her to understand, to respect the process on the Democratic side," Brazile said.
UPDATED: This post was updated with further comments from McDaniel and Brazile.


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Clinton Still Thinks Sanders Campaign Is ‘Baloney’

Two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she still felt Sen. Bernie Sanders 's ( I. , Vt. ) campaign was `` baloney . ''
ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis noted that Clinton was critical of Sanders 's 2016 campaign in her new Hulu documentary , asking whether she still believes his campaign is `` baloney '' and that she felt `` so bad people got sucked into it . ''
`` Sure , yeah , '' Clinton said during the Good Morning America interview .
`` That was my authentic opinion then .
It ’ s my authentic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked about Sanders 's belief that he should be the Democratic nominee if he has the most pledged delegates going into the convention .
It 's a reversal of his position in 2016 .
`` My reaction is , let ’ s follow the rules , '' Clinton said .
`` We ’ ve got rules .
We had rules last time , and we have rules this time . ''
Clinton has been a staunch critic of Sanders since her victory in the 2016 Democratic primary .
In a four-part documentary that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as a `` career politician '' and said , `` Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done . ''
`` I 'm not going to go there yet , '' Clinton said Tuesday when asked about potentially campaigning for Sanders .
`` It 's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women .
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture—not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really be very much supporting it . ''

Two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she still felt Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I., Vt.) campaign was "baloney."
ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis noted that Clinton was critical of Sanders's 2016 campaign in her new Hulu documentary, asking whether she still believes his campaign is "baloney" and that she felt "so bad people got sucked into it."
"Sure, yeah," Clinton said during the Good Morning America interview. "That was my authentic opinion then. It’s my authentic opinion now."
She laughed when asked about Sanders's belief that he should be the Democratic nominee if he has the most pledged delegates going into the convention. It's a reversal of his position in 2016.
"My reaction is, let’s follow the rules," Clinton said. "We’ve got rules. We had rules last time, and we have rules this time."
Clinton has been a staunch critic of Sanders since her victory in the 2016 Democratic primary.
In a four-part documentary that will air this month, Clinton dismissed him as a "career politician" and said, "Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done."
"I'm not going to go there yet," Clinton said Tuesday when asked about potentially campaigning for Sanders. "It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture—not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it."


freebeacon--2020-03-03--Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates to Battle Coronavirus

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) – The U.S. Federal Reserve cut interest rates on Tuesday in an emergency move designed to @ @ @ @ @ largest economy from the impact of the coronavirus .
In a statement , the central @ @ @ @ @ rates by a half percentage point to a target range of 1.00 % to 1.25 @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. economy remain strong .
However , the coronavirus poses evolving risks to @ @ @ @ @ of these risks and in support of achieving its maximum employment and price stability goals @ @ @ @ @ Committee decided today to lower the target range for the federal funds rate , '' @ @ @ @ @ .
The decision was unanimous among policymakers .
The Fed ’ s decision to cut @ @ @ @ @ scheduled policy meeting on March 17-18 reflects the urgency with which the Fed feels it @ @ @ @ @ to prevent the possibility of a global recession .
Reporting by Lindsay Dunsmuir ; Editing @ @ @ @ @ Ricci

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve cut interest rates on Tuesday in an emergency move designed to shield the world’s largest economy from the impact of the coronavirus.
In a statement, the central bank said it was cutting rates by a half percentage point to a target range of 1.00% to 1.25%.
"The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. However, the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity. In light of these risks and in support of achieving its maximum employment and price stability goals, the Federal Open Market Committee decided today to lower the target range for the federal funds rate," the Fed said a statement.
The decision was unanimous among policymakers.
The Fed’s decision to cut interest rates before its next scheduled policy meeting on March 17-18 reflects the urgency with which the Fed feels it needs to act in order to prevent the possibility of a global recession.
Reporting by Lindsay Dunsmuir; Editing by Dan Burns and Andrea Ricci