talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--Trump Tells Limbaugh: ‘Even I Was Impressed With How Clean I Am’

Amid the controversy surrounding his authorization of the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani , President Trump made time to rail against Democrats for impeaching him .
According to a Washington Post report Monday afternoon , Trump maintained his typical talking point of the impeachment process being a “ hoax ” and argued that the Russia probe led by former special counsel Robert Mueller demonstrated that Democrats found “ nothing ” that incriminated him , during an appearance on Rush Limbaugh ’ s radio show .
Trump then touted to Limbaugh that “ even I was impressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the Post .
The President , clearly perturbed by the House ’ s delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate , also accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and other House Democrats of trying to “ illegally ” sabotage the 2020 election by withholding the articles of impeachment .
“ I think what they ’ re trying to do is affect the election , illegally , ” Trump said , according to the Post .
“ They are a joke .
They are not crimes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing.
” Trump added that the Democrats “ created a situation that was false , that was fraudulent , and then they investigated the false , fraudulent situation.
” On Sunday , Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) vowed to help Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) revise the Senate ’ s rules on impeachment trials if Pelosi fails to hand over the two articles of impeachment against Trump this week .
Last week , McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) made their differences clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like to handle the delivery of articles of impeachment from the House .
While Schumer has said that he wants the Senate ’ s trial to include testimony from additional witnesses that weren ’ t brought before the House during its inquiry as well as documents that the White House has not provided , McConnell argued that the Senate should hold off until after White House attorneys and impeachment managers give their opening testimony on the Senate floor to decide on witnesses .

Amid the controversy surrounding his authorization of the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani, President Trump made time to rail against Democrats for impeaching him.
According to a Washington Post report Monday afternoon, Trump maintained his typical talking point of the impeachment process being a “hoax” and argued that the Russia probe led by former special counsel Robert Mueller demonstrated that Democrats found “nothing” that incriminated him, during an appearance on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.
Trump then touted to Limbaugh that “even I was impressed with how clean I am,” according to the Post.
The President, clearly perturbed by the House’s delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, also accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other House Democrats of trying to “illegally” sabotage the 2020 election by withholding the articles of impeachment.
“I think what they’re trying to do is affect the election, illegally,” Trump said, according to the Post. “They are a joke. They are not crimes. There is nothing there. They found nothing.”
Trump added that the Democrats “created a situation that was false, that was fraudulent, and then they investigated the false, fraudulent situation.”
On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) vowed to help Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) revise the Senate’s rules on impeachment trials if Pelosi fails to hand over the two articles of impeachment against Trump this week.
Last week, McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made their differences clear on the Senate floor on how they would like to handle the delivery of articles of impeachment from the House. While Schumer has said that he wants the Senate’s trial to include testimony from additional witnesses that weren’t brought before the House during its inquiry as well as documents that the White House has not provided, McConnell argued that the Senate should hold off until after White House attorneys and impeachment managers give their opening testimony on the Senate floor to decide on witnesses.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Covington Student Reaches Settlement With CNN In Second Defamation Lawsuit

Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann , who went viral last year for footage of him and his classmates appearing to mock a Native American protester , has reached a settlement with CNN — the second defamation lawsuit he filed against a media outlet .
A CNN spokesperson confirmed the settlement to TPM Tuesday but declined to comment on details .
Sandmann ’ s lawyer Todd McMurtry also declined to comment on the settlement with CNN .
However , McMurtry told TPM that Sandmann ’ s lawsuits against NBC and the Washington Post will continue and that there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near future .
Last March , Sandmann ’ s family sued CNN for $ 275 million , accusing the network of calling Sandmann and his classmate ’ s conduct “ racist ” in at least four TV segments and in nine articles posted online .
“ CNN brought down the full force of its corporate power , influence , and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking , vilifying , and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child , ” Sandmann ’ s lawsuit against CNN said .
Sandmann ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month after he and his parents sued the Washington Post for $ 250 million for defamation — a move that was cheered on by President Trump who tweeted “ Go get them Nick.
” Last May , Sandmann and his family filed a $ 275 million lawsuit against NBC Universal , alleging that it defamed Sandmann in its coverage of the protest by “ relying heavily on biased and unreliable sources without conducting any reasonable investigation of the circumstances.
” Covington High School conducted its own investigation of the incident and concluded the @ @ @ @ @ @

Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann, who went viral last year for footage of him and his classmates appearing to mock a Native American protester, has reached a settlement with CNN — the second defamation lawsuit he filed against a media outlet.
A CNN spokesperson confirmed the settlement to TPM Tuesday but declined to comment on details.
Sandmann’s lawyer Todd McMurtry also declined to comment on the settlement with CNN. However, McMurtry told TPM that Sandmann’s lawsuits against NBC and the Washington Post will continue and that there are plans to add additional defendants in the near future.
Last March, Sandmann’s family sued CNN for $275 million, accusing the network of calling Sandmann and his classmate’s conduct “racist” in at least four TV segments and in nine articles posted online.
“CNN brought down the full force of its corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child,” Sandmann’s lawsuit against CNN said.
Sandmann’s lawsuit against CNN was filed a month after he and his parents sued the Washington Post for $250 million for defamation — a move that was cheered on by President Trump who tweeted “Go get them Nick.”
Last May, Sandmann and his family filed a $275 million lawsuit against NBC Universal, alleging that it defamed Sandmann in its coverage of the protest by “relying heavily on biased and unreliable sources without conducting any reasonable investigation of the circumstances.”
Covington High School conducted its own investigation of the incident and concluded the students were not to blame.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Biden Says McConnell Might Be ‘Mildly Cooperative’ Under A New President

Former Vice President Joe Biden said that he predicts Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) may become “ mildly cooperative ” in a post-Trump era .
“ I ’ m not suggesting all of a sudden everyone ’ s going to project a new sense of courage and political courage , ” Biden said at a campaign event in New York .
“ What I ’ m suggesting [ is ] that the dynamic changes when the right vote , as opposed to the vote you don ’ t agree with , becomes a possibility if you vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot water with progressives before for his optimistic vision of a bipartisan future , though he tried to give his perspective more nuance in the most recent Democratic debate .
He said then that he has “ no love ” for Republicans at the moment , especially because of how they ’ ve treated his son , Hunter , during the impeachment inquiry , but that he refuses to accept that we can never reach a place of “ cooperation.
” He previously predicted that Republicans would have an “ epiphany ” when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Biden ’ s rosy visions with angry reminders about outright Republican obstructionism under President Barack Obama — especially McConnell ’ s refusal to let Obama name Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court — the Biden camp clearly sees bipartisan appeal as part of his edge .
Biden also recently floated choosing a Republican for his vice president : a highly unlikely move , but one that establishes him as the cooperation candidate .
In a crowded primary field , Biden has cut his path as the potential President who will bring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly taking the gamble that even if he angers some on the left , statements like these are worth it to attract voters of a more independent or even right-leaning constitution .

Former Vice President Joe Biden said that he predicts Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) may become “mildly cooperative” in a post-Trump era.
“I’m not suggesting all of a sudden everyone’s going to project a new sense of courage and political courage,” Biden said at a campaign event in New York. “What I’m suggesting [is] that the dynamic changes when the right vote, as opposed to the vote you don’t agree with, becomes a possibility if you vote for it.”
Biden has gotten in hot water with progressives before for his optimistic vision of a bipartisan future, though he tried to give his perspective more nuance in the most recent Democratic debate.
He said then that he has “no love” for Republicans at the moment, especially because of how they’ve treated his son, Hunter, during the impeachment inquiry, but that he refuses to accept that we can never reach a place of “cooperation.”
He previously predicted that Republicans would have an “epiphany” when Trump leaves office.
Though many respond to Biden’s rosy visions with angry reminders about outright Republican obstructionism under President Barack Obama — especially McConnell’s refusal to let Obama name Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court — the Biden camp clearly sees bipartisan appeal as part of his edge. Biden also recently floated choosing a Republican for his vice president: a highly unlikely move, but one that establishes him as the cooperation candidate.
In a crowded primary field, Biden has cut his path as the potential President who will bring the fractured country together again. Biden is clearly taking the gamble that even if he angers some on the left, statements like these are worth it to attract voters of a more independent or even right-leaning constitution.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Duncan Hunter Tells Nancy Pelosi He’ll Resign Jan. 13, Six Weeks After Guilty Plea

Rep. Duncan Hunter ( R-CA ) submitted a letter of resignation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) on Tuesday .
He said he would resign his seat effective Jan. 13 .
Last month Hunter pleaded guilty to conspiring with his wife Margaret to use more than $ 150,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses .
The Hunters were indicted in August 2018 .
Prosecutors detailed thousands of dollars in vacations , flights , school tuition and other everyday costs the couple billed to Hunter ’ s re-election effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any violations .
A few months later , she pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors , who in June introduced evidence that Duncan Hunter used campaign funds on extramarital affairs .
Hunter didn ’ t say in Tuesday ’ s letter why he ’ d waited more than a month after pleading guilty to formally resign .
Tuesday was the House of Representatives ’ first day in session after the holidays .
The Associated Press noted last week that congressional paychecks are distributed on the first day of every month .
A spokesperson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff Mike Harrison , didn ’ t say when asked Monday whether Hunter would keep any salary he received after his guilty plea .
Read Hunter ’ s letters to Pelosi and Newsom below :

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) submitted a letter of resignation to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday. He said he would resign his seat effective Jan. 13.
Last month Hunter pleaded guilty to conspiring with his wife Margaret to use more than $150,000 in campaign funds on personal expenses.
The Hunters were indicted in August 2018. Prosecutors detailed thousands of dollars in vacations, flights, school tuition and other everyday costs the couple billed to Hunter’s re-election effort. The congressman initially blamed his wife for any violations. A few months later, she pleaded guilty and cooperated with prosecutors, who in June introduced evidence that Duncan Hunter used campaign funds on extramarital affairs.
Hunter didn’t say in Tuesday’s letter why he’d waited more than a month after pleading guilty to formally resign. Tuesday was the House of Representatives’ first day in session after the holidays.
The Associated Press noted last week that congressional paychecks are distributed on the first day of every month. A spokesperson for the congressman, deputy chief of staff Mike Harrison, didn’t say when asked Monday whether Hunter would keep any salary he received after his guilty plea.
Read Hunter’s letters to Pelosi and Newsom below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--READ: Manhattan Feds Charge Trump Inaugural Donor With Obstruction

Manhattan federal prosecutors charged Trump inauguration donor and Los Angeles businessman Imaad Zuberi with one count of obstruction of justice on Tuesday .
The charge came via a criminal information , a legal instrument which typically suggests that a defendant has agreed to plead guilty .
Zuberi has yet to plead guilty ; no hearing in his New York case has been scheduled , according to a spokesperson for the Federal Courthouse for the Southern District of New York .
Zuberi contributed $ 900,000 to the Trump inaugural committee after the President was elected , marking a shift from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats .
Those contributions landed Zuberi with a separate guilty plea last year in federal court in Los Angeles , in which he admitted to charges of tax evasion , campaign finance violations , and failure to register as a foreign agent .
For the obstruction charge brought by the U.S. Attorney ’ s Office for the Southern District of New York , Manhattan federal prosecutors say that Zuberi backdated a $ 50,000 check and deleted emails .
Prosecutors also say that Zuberi reimbursed one source of funds used “ to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s inaugural committee .
Zuberi was named in a February 2019 subpoena issued by Manhattan federal prosecutors to the Trump inaugural committee .
The committee came under scrutiny in part for taking in and spending more money than any other while also putting on fewer events than previous inaugurals .

Manhattan federal prosecutors charged Trump inauguration donor and Los Angeles businessman Imaad Zuberi with one count of obstruction of justice on Tuesday.
The charge came via a criminal information, a legal instrument which typically suggests that a defendant has agreed to plead guilty. Zuberi has yet to plead guilty; no hearing in his New York case has been scheduled, according to a spokesperson for the Federal Courthouse for the Southern District of New York.
Zuberi contributed $900,000 to the Trump inaugural committee after the President was elected, marking a shift from the businessman’s prior fundraising for top Democrats.
Those contributions landed Zuberi with a separate guilty plea last year in federal court in Los Angeles, in which he admitted to charges of tax evasion, campaign finance violations, and failure to register as a foreign agent.
For the obstruction charge brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Manhattan federal prosecutors say that Zuberi backdated a $50,000 check and deleted emails.
Prosecutors also say that Zuberi reimbursed one source of funds used “to make a substantial donation to” President Trump’s inaugural committee.
Zuberi was named in a February 2019 subpoena issued by Manhattan federal prosecutors to the Trump inaugural committee. The committee came under scrutiny in part for taking in and spending more money than any other while also putting on fewer events than previous inaugurals.
But, according to the information, the February subpoena prompted Zuberi to take steps to conceal the true origin of the $900,000 that he contributed to the committee. In fact, prosecutors say, Zuberi served as a straw donor for other contributors who gave the Los Angeles-based businessman money in return for “exclusive access to certain inaugural events.”
One donor, who allegedly gave Zuberi $50,000 to funnel into the committee, demanded a refund after deciding not to attend the inaugural. The document says that Zuberi initially refused to return the money.
But after news of the subpoena broke on February 5, prosecutors say, Zuberi arranged an “in-person” meeting with the unnamed donor. At the meeting, Zuberi allegedly agreed to refund the $50,000 after the donor reminded him that “Inauguration 17” was written on the check itself.
Zuberi then allegedly backdated the date of the refund check to February 1 — days before Manhattan federal prosecutors issued the subpoena to the inaugural committee.
Prosecutors also accuse Zuberi of deleting emails “with individuals who provided money” to him around the time of his contribution to the inaugural, including correspondence with a foreign national “who transferred approximately $5.8 million to the account Zuberi to fund the [inaugural] donation at and around the time the donation was made.”
Federal campaign finance law prohibits foreign contributions to inaugural committees.
The pattern of alleged obstruction continued, prosecutors say, even after the government intensified scrutiny of Zuberi.
In July 2019, after prosecutors told Zuberi through his lawyers that they believed he had “intentionally deleted pertinent emails” with the foreign donor, the Los Angeles businessman asked his email service provider “how to ensure that copies of his emails were not stored on a server.”
Trump’s inaugural committee took in a record-setting $106 million, nearly double more than than the next most-expensive inauguration on record. Along the way, it failed to disclose key financial data to the Internal Revenue Service.
Federal prosecutors reportedly opened an investigation into campaign finance violations, wire fraud, money laundering, disclosure violations, and conspiracy.
A spokesman for Zuberi declined to comment.
Read the information here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Trump: ‘I Like To Obey The Law’ But Iran Will Face Consequences If It Retaliates

President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday that although he likes to obey the law , Iran will face consequences if it retaliates against the U.S. for the killing of commander Qasem Soleimani .
When asked to clarify his threat to target Iranian cultural sites , Trump responded that “ they ’ re allowed to kill our people , they ’ re allowed to maim our people , they ’ re allowed to blow up everything that we have ” and that “ there ’ s nothing that stops them.
” Trump then said that he liked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to “ various laws ” that say we are “ supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage.
” “ And you know what , if that ’ s what the law is , I —I like to obey the law , ” Trump said .
“ But think of it — they kill our people .
They blow up our people , then we have to be gentle with their cultural institutions .
But I ’ m okay with it .
It ’ s okay with me.
” Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether the President would authorize attacks on Iranian cultural sites , which could be considered a war crime .
Trump added that Iran will suffer the consequences if it “ does anything they shouldn ’ t be doing.
” “ I will say this — if Iran does anything that they shouldn ’ t be doing , they ’ re going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly , ” Trump said .
On Sunday , the President doubled down on his threat to destroy Iran ’ s culturally significant sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice to Congress on attacks against Iran .

President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday that although he likes to obey the law, Iran will face consequences if it retaliates against the U.S. for the killing of commander Qasem Soleimani.
When asked to clarify his threat to target Iranian cultural sites, Trump responded that “they’re allowed to kill our people, they’re allowed to maim our people, they’re allowed to blow up everything that we have” and that “there’s nothing that stops them.”
Trump then said that he liked to “obey the law” when it comes to “various laws” that say we are “supposed to be very careful with their cultural heritage.”
“And you know what, if that’s what the law is, I —I like to obey the law,” Trump said. “But think of it — they kill our people. They blow up our people, then we have to be gentle with their cultural institutions. But I’m okay with it. It’s okay with me.”
Trump’s comments did little to provide clarity on whether the President would authorize attacks on Iranian cultural sites, which could be considered a war crime.
Trump added that Iran will suffer the consequences if it “does anything they shouldn’t be doing.”
“I will say this — if Iran does anything that they shouldn’t be doing, they’re going to be suffering the consequences and very strongly,” Trump said.
On Sunday, the President doubled down on his threat to destroy Iran’s culturally significant sites by arguing that his tweets are official notice to Congress on attacks against Iran.
Watch Trump’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Teen Charged With Throwing Incendiary Device At Planned Parenthood Left Toxic IG Posts

After an 18-year-old allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at a Delaware Planned Parenthood , investigators looked at his social media footprint — and found signs of anti-abortion extremism .
Samuel James Gulick is accused of spray painting “ Deus Vult ” — “ God wills it ” — on the outer wall of a Delaware Planned Parenthood clinic on Friday , then throwing an incendiary device at the building ’ s front window .
The device exploded and burned for a minute before self-extinguishing , an FBI agent said in Gulick ’ s criminal complaint , citing surveillance camera footage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Molotov cocktail , according to an ATF explosives enforcement officer cited in the complaint .
Gulick was charged with malicious damage of a building used in interstate commerce through the use of fire or destructive device , intentional damage to a facility that provides reproductive health services and possession of an unregistered device under the National Firearms Act .
He was arrested Saturday and the charges against him were announced Monday .
It was unclear Tuesday whether he had retained an attorney .
“ Several postings on the Samuel Gulick ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology , ” the complaint against Gulick read .
It referenced an Instagram page that was registered to Gulick ’ s phone number , shared his name and included the phrase “ Dues Vult ” in its bio .
The phrase is associated with the Crusades and has been appropriated by modern-day right-wing extremists to refer to civilizational struggle .
On Tuesday , the Instagram account appeared to have been deleted .
“ This is an act of domestic terrorism and a blatant attack on reproductive health , ” the president and CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lytle-Barnaby , told The New York Times Tuesday .
“ Unfortunately , I feel like we are in a time and an administration that emboldens people to do things and this is one of the kinds of things that has been happening around the country.
” One of the infographics Gulick appeared to have shared on his account came from National Right To Life , the anti-abortion organization .
“ The Nazis said killing millions of Jews was a national health issue , ” Gulick wrote below the image .
“ Democrats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children.
” Another infographic compared the number of abortion procedures in the United States to the casualty numbers of major wars .

After an 18-year-old allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at a Delaware Planned Parenthood, investigators looked at his social media footprint — and found signs of anti-abortion extremism.
Samuel James Gulick is accused of spray painting “Deus Vult” — “God wills it” — on the outer wall of a Delaware Planned Parenthood clinic on Friday, then throwing an incendiary device at the building’s front window. The device exploded and burned for a minute before self-extinguishing, an FBI agent said in the criminal complaint against Gulick, citing surveillance camera footage.
The device appeared to have been a Molotov cocktail, according to an ATF explosives enforcement officer cited in the complaint.
Gulick was charged with malicious damage of a building used in interstate commerce through the use of fire or destructive device, intentional damage to a facility that provides reproductive health services and possession of an unregistered device under the National Firearms Act. He was arrested Saturday and the charges against him were announced Monday. It was unclear Tuesday whether he had retained an attorney.
“Several postings on the Samuel Gulick’s Instagram page indicate support of strong anti-abortion ideology,” the complaint against Gulick read. It referenced an Instagram page that was registered to Gulick’s phone number, shared his name and included the phrase “Deus Vult” in its bio. The phrase is associated with the Crusades and has been appropriated by modern-day right-wing extremists to refer to civilizational struggle.
On Tuesday, the Instagram account appeared to have been deleted.
“This is an act of domestic terrorism and a blatant attack on reproductive health,” the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Delaware, Ruth Lytle-Barnaby, told The New York Times Tuesday. “Unfortunately, I feel like we are in a time and an administration that emboldens people to do things and this is one of the kinds of things that has been happening around the country.”
One of the infographics Gulick appeared to have shared on his account came from National Right To Life, the anti-abortion organization.
“The Nazis said killing millions of Jews was a national health issue,” Gulick wrote below the image. “Democrats are using the same excuse to kill American children.” Another infographic compared the number of abortion procedures in the United States to the casualty numbers of major wars.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--McConnell Announces He Has Votes To Approve Starting Trial Without Witnesses

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) announced Tuesday that he has the votes for his rules proposal to begin the Senate impeachment trial without calling witnesses , the news coming a day after key moderate members signaled that they were staying aligned with his plan .
His plan would leave the question of calling witnesses or obtaining documents until after the opening statements of the trial .
“ All we ’ re doing here is saying we ’ re going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ll get around to the discussion of witnesses like we did after round one 20 years ago.
” “ I ’ m sure there will be intense discussion about the witness issue , ” he added .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) took the microphone minutes after , decrying McConnell ’ s plan and targeting moderate Republican senators .
“ Many of [ McConnell ’ s ] colleagues are very very worried about going home and saying that they are not for witnesses and documents , ” Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell came up with this kick the can down the road theory.
” “ They can run but they can ’ t hide , ” he added .
“ There will be votes on the four witnesses we have have asked for , ” he said , intoning that the “ eyes of America ” are on his Republican colleagues .
On Monday , former National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s announcement that he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed put renewed scrutiny on the Republican senators traditionally most likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by McConnell ’ s side .
“ I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton , where we had three stages , ” Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) told TPM on Monday .
“ First , we heard opening statements from both sides , then senators submitted our own questions through the chief justice .
And then , we took up the issue of witnesses.
” Sens .
Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) and Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) also approved of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he wanted to hear from Bolton at that later stage .
Some Republicans , like Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , are hewing to the McConnell talking point that it ’ s not the Senate ’ s job to call witnesses the House didn ’ t pursue .
The House never subpoenaed Bolton , choosing to focus on witnesses willing to speak out while lumping in the rest with the White House obstruction argument .
Bolton concluded Monday that after his plan to wait for a judge ’ s decision fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the serious competing issues as best I could , based on careful consideration and study ” and decided that he would testify if called .
Democrats would need four Republicans to defect to alter the trial structure and call witnesses to the floor .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) told McConnell in late December that along with Bolton , he wants to hear from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Tuesday that he has the votes for his rules proposal to begin the Senate impeachment trial without calling witnesses, the news coming a day after key moderate members signaled that they were staying aligned with his plan.
His plan would leave the question of calling witnesses or obtaining documents until after the opening statements of the trial.
“All we’re doing here is saying we’re going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago,” McConnell told reporters on Tuesday. “We’ll get around to the discussion of witnesses like we did after round one 20 years ago.”
“I’m sure there will be intense discussion about the witness issue,” he added.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the microphone minutes after, decrying McConnell’s plan and targeting moderate Republican senators.
“Many of [McConnell’s] colleagues are very very worried about going home and saying that they are not for witnesses and documents,” Schumer said. “That is why Leader McConnell came up with this kick the can down the road theory.”
“They can run but they can’t hide,” he added. “There will be votes on the four witnesses we have have asked for,” he said, intoning that the “eyes of America” are on his Republican colleagues.
On Monday, former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s announcement that he would be willing to testify if subpoenaed put renewed scrutiny on the Republican senators traditionally most likely to buck the party.
But they stuck by McConnell’s side.
“I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton, where we had three stages,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told reporters on Monday. “First, we heard opening statements from both sides, then senators submitted our own questions through the chief justice. And then, we took up the issue of witnesses.”
Sens. Mitt Romney (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) also approved of McConnell’s plan, though Romney said he wanted to hear from Bolton at that later stage.
Some Republicans, like Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), are hewing to the McConnell talking point that it’s not the Senate’s job to call witnesses the House didn’t pursue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton, choosing to focus on witnesses willing to speak out while lumping in the rest with the White House obstruction argument.
Bolton concluded Monday that after his plan to wait for a judge’s decision fell through, he “had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study” and decided that he would testify if called.
Democrats would need four Republicans to defect to alter the trial structure and call witnesses to the floor. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told McConnell in late December that along with Bolton, he wants to hear from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Esper: Soleimani Caught ‘Red-Handed’ Plotting With Another Terrorist Leader Before Strike

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday that Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was caught “ red-handed ” plotting in Baghdad with another terrorist leader just before the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed him .
“ The fact of the matter is , Soleimani was caught red-handed on the ground in Baghdad , one terrorist leader of a terrorist organization meeting with another terrorist leader to synchronize and plan additional attacks on American forces , diplomats and facilities , ” he said on CNN .
When pressed on the immediacy of the threat , Esper said that he thinks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of days , certainly no more than weeks.
” His explanation , while still vague , holds together better than what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offered earlier on Tuesday .
Pompeo both pointed to Soleimani ’ s history of violence and attacks against Americans as rationale for the strike , seemingly switching away from the imminent attack defense to one of retribution .
He did add that Soleimani was working to build up a “ network of campaign activities ” that could “ potentially ” end with American deaths .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanation for the sudden strike , bouncing between preemptive and retroactive rationales and declining to share any real specifics .
One point officials have come together on — including Esper and Pompeo — is that President Donald Trump ’ s threat to attack Iranian cultural sites , should tensions escalate , is an empty one .
“ I have no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day , we will follow the laws of armed conflict if we end up in a situation with Iran , and that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal orders , ” Esper said , referring to the war crime Trump put on the table .

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday that Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was caught “red-handed” plotting in Baghdad with another terrorist leader just before the U.S. launched the drone strike that killed him.
“The fact of the matter is, Soleimani was caught red-handed on the ground in Baghdad, one terrorist leader of a terrorist organization meeting with another terrorist leader to synchronize and plan additional attacks on American forces, diplomats and facilities,” he said on CNN.
When pressed on the immediacy of the threat, Esper said that he thinks the attack would have happened in “a matter of days, certainly no more than weeks.”
His explanation, while still vague, holds together better than what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offered earlier on Tuesday.
Pompeo both pointed to Soleimani’s history of violence and attacks against Americans as rationale for the strike, seemingly switching away from the imminent attack defense to one of retribution. He did add that Soleimani was working to build up a “network of campaign activities” that could “potentially” end with American deaths.
The administration has struggled to coalesce behind one explanation for the sudden strike, bouncing between preemptive and retroactive rationales and declining to share any real specifics.
One point officials have come together on — including Esper and Pompeo — is that President Donald Trump’s threat to attack Iranian cultural sites, should tensions escalate, is an empty one.
“I have no doubt in my mind that at the end of the day, we will follow the laws of armed conflict if we end up in a situation with Iran, and that the commander in chief will only give us legal orders,” Esper said, referring to the war crime Trump put on the table.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--No Take-Backs! Iraq Still Expects US Withdrawal Mistakenly Promised In DOD Letter

Oh , the Trump administration ’ s letter informing Iraq of the U.S. ’ withdrawal from the country was actually just “ an honest mistake ” ?
Too bad .
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that even though the Pentagon clumsily retracted Marine Corp Brig .
Gen. William Seely ’ s letter on Monday and told reporters there was “ no decision whatsoever ” to leave Iraq , the Middle Eastern country expects the U.S. to go through with it anyway .
“ We don ’ t deal with statements [ made ] in the media , ” an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ As a state , we deal with the official letters that we receive , and we will act in accordance with this letter.
” According to the official , Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi believes there is “ no way to organize Iraq stably ” while foreign troops are still in the country .
“ We will tell the U.S. to put in place a timeline to implement this withdrawal , ” the official said .
The Post stated that another official had backed up the first official ’ s remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Ministry of Defense on Monday , Seely laid out the U.S. ’ “ movement out of Iraq ” and acknowledged Iraq ’ s “ sovereign decision to order our departure , ” referencing the Iraqi parliament ’ s resolution to have all foreign forces removed .
The letter prompted a wave of confusion given that a day prior to the letter , President Donald Trump had made a blustering threat to impose “ very big sanctions ” on Iraq if it expelled U.S. troops .
Several hours after Seely ’ s letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley scrambled to walk back the “ poorly worded ” letter , which they said was merely a draft and an “ honest mistake.
” “ That ’ s not what ’ s happening , ” Milley said of the letter ’ s affirmation of U.S. withdrawal .
On Tuesday , Esper doubled down on the Pentagon ’ s disavowal of the letter .
“ We are not leaving Iraq , and a draft , unsigned letter does not constitute a policy change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference .
“ There are a few procedural mechanisms , hurdles , if you will , that the Iraqi government would need to go through , ” the Defense secretary responded when a reporter asked what the U.S. would do if Iraq formally requested the withdrawal of U.S. troops .
“ We remain in constant contact with them on that.
” “ I think it ’ s fair to say that many Iraqis recognize the strategic importance of our partnership with them , whether it ’ s training and advising their military to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle or it ’ s working together with them to defeat ISIS coalition , ” he added .

Oh, the Trump administration’s letter informing Iraq of the U.S.’ withdrawal from the country was actually just “an honest mistake”? Too bad.
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that even though the Pentagon clumsily retracted Marine Corp Brig. Gen. William Seely’s letter on Monday and told reporters there was “no decision whatsoever” to leave Iraq, the Middle Eastern country expects the U.S. to go through with it anyway.
“We don’t deal with statements [made] in the media,” an unnamed senior Iraqi official told the Post. “As a state, we deal with the official letters that we receive, and we will act in accordance with this letter.”
According to the official, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi believes there is “no way to organize Iraq stably” while foreign troops are still in the country.
“We will tell the U.S. to put in place a timeline to implement this withdrawal,” the official said.
The Post stated that another official had backed up the first official’s remarks.
In his letter to Iraq’s Ministry of Defense on Monday, Seely laid out the U.S.’ “movement out of Iraq” and acknowledged Iraq’s “sovereign decision to order our departure,” referencing the Iraqi parliament’s resolution to have all foreign forces removed.
The letter prompted a wave of confusion given that a day prior to the letter, President Donald Trump had made a blustering threat to impose “very big sanctions” on Iraq if it expelled U.S. troops.
Several hours after Seely’s letter spread online, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley scrambled to walk back the “poorly worded” letter, which they said was merely a draft and an “honest mistake.”
“That’s not what’s happening,” Milley said of the letter’s affirmation of U.S. withdrawal.
On Tuesday, Esper doubled down on the Pentagon’s disavowal of the letter.
“We are not leaving Iraq, and a draft, unsigned letter does not constitute a policy change,” he said during a press conference.
“There are a few procedural mechanisms, hurdles, if you will, that the Iraqi government would need to go through,” the Defense secretary responded when a reporter asked what the U.S. would do if Iraq formally requested the withdrawal of U.S. troops. “We remain in constant contact with them on that.”
“I think it’s fair to say that many Iraqis recognize the strategic importance of our partnership with them, whether it’s training and advising their military to become more effective on the field of battle or it’s working together with them to defeat ISIS coalition,” he added.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Conway Deflects Trump War Crimes Question By Accusing Reporters Of ‘Engaging In Hypotheticals’

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway failed to offer a direct response when asked whether President Trump “ believes that war crimes are a thing ” during a press availability Monday at the White House .
After Trump threatened to destroy Iran ’ s culturally significant sites on Saturday night , the President doubled down on his threat the day after by arguing that his tweets are official notice to Congress on attacks against Iran .
When asked if the President is “ willing to violate international law by striking Iranian cultural sites , ” Conway dodged by pointing out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we will be within the law , and I think that Iran has many military , strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites.
” But when Breakfast Media correspondent Andrew Feinberg asked her if she was “ saying that Iran is camouflaging or concealing military targets within cultural sites , ” Conway initially denied , only to later add , “ I mean , maybe , ” before reiterating that Pompeo said “ we will be under the law.
” The back-and-forth between Feinberg and Conway then took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ what the secretary of state may have said before ” Trump doubled down on his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites , “ the President immediately contradicted.
” Conway hit back by asking Feinberg if he wanted to “ talk about hypotheticals that may happen ” instead of talking “ about the fact that Soleimani ” is dead .
Conway repeated the same deflection tactic when another reporter pressed her on the same topic , asking the reporter “ are you speaking about hypotheticals ?
” She said that she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today because [ the Soleimani strike ] was a big deal.
” After Feinberg jumped in and told Conway that the reporter is “ asking about something the President of the United States said on the record , ” Conway responded that Trump has “ identified sites , ” which she would later clarify in the press conference that she meant that the President “ has identified those sites and has said that it may happen if Iran retaliates in a certain way.
” But when told by a reporter that the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they are cultural sites , ” Conway responded : “ If , if , if .
I ’ m telling you .
Get it .
”

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway failed to offer a direct response when asked whether President Trump “believes that war crimes are a thing” during a press availability Monday at the White House.
After Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s culturally significant sites on Saturday night, the President doubled down on his threat the day after by arguing that his tweets are official notice to Congress on attacks against Iran.
When asked if the President is “willing to violate international law by striking Iranian cultural sites,” Conway dodged by pointing out that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “we will be within the law, and I think that Iran has many military, strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites.”
But when Breakfast Media correspondent Andrew Feinberg asked her if she was “saying that Iran is camouflaging or concealing military targets within cultural sites,” Conway initially denied, only to later add, “I mean, maybe,” before reiterating that Pompeo said “we will be under the law.”
The back-and-forth between Feinberg and Conway then took a turn once the reporter pointed out that “what the secretary of state may have said before” Trump doubled down on his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites, “the President immediately contradicted.”
Conway hit back by asking Feinberg if he wanted to “talk about hypotheticals that may happen” instead of talking “about the fact that Soleimani” is dead.
Conway repeated the same deflection tactic when another reporter pressed her on the same topic, asking the reporter “are you speaking about hypotheticals?” She said that she’s “gotta deal in reality today because [the Soleimani strike] was a big deal.”
After Feinberg jumped in and told Conway that the reporter is “asking about something the President of the United States said on the record,” Conway responded that Trump has “identified sites,” which she would later clarify in the press conference that she meant that the President “has identified those sites and has said that it may happen if Iran retaliates in a certain way.”
But when told by a reporter that the potential move “would still violate international law if they are cultural sites,” Conway responded: “If, if, if. I’m telling you. Get it.”
Watch Conway’s remarks via Mediaite here.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Ginsburg Confirms She’s Starting The Year ‘Cancer Free’

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmed that she is “ cancer free ” in an interview with CNN this week .
@ @ @ @ @ , the four-time cancer survivor missed several weeks at the Supreme Court while recovering from @ @ @ @ @ discovered a cancerous tumor on her pancreas soon after , which she received three-week radiation @ @ @ @ @ A week after the treatment in August , Ginsburg said during an appearance at the @ @ @ @ @ , DC , that she feels very much “ alive ” and that her work @ @ @ @ @ “ kept me going .
”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmed that she is “cancer free” in an interview with CNN this week.
“I’m cancer free,” Ginsburg told CNN on Tuesday. “That’s good.”
At this time last year, the four-time cancer survivor missed several weeks at the Supreme Court while recovering from lung cancer surgery. Ginsburg discovered a cancerous tumor on her pancreas soon after, which she received three-week radiation treatment for in August.
A week after the treatment in August, Ginsburg said during an appearance at the National Book Festival in Washington, DC, that she feels very much “alive” and that her work on the Supreme Court has “kept me going.”
Read Ginsburg’s interview with CNN here.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Here’s What We Know About The Mystery Plane Crash In Iran That Claimed 176 Lives

A few minutes after 6 a.m. Tehran time Wednesday , Ukraine International Flight 752 took off from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport .
Within 10 minutes , the plane had exploded in midair and crashed into a field , killing all 167 passengers and nine crew on board .
Some experts have pointed to possible foul play , but details are still emerging .
The tragedy added to a turbulent time in Iran : On Friday , the United States killed the country ’ s most famous military commander , Qassem Soleimani .
On Tuesday , 56 people were killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s casket was carried in a funeral procession .
A few hours later , Iran fired missiles that struck two American bases in Iraq , killing none .
When the plane crashed within hours of those strikes , rumors swirled — was the crash related to escalating Iran-U.S. tensions ?
So far , no evidence has emerged to support that .
Still , several aviation experts have pointed to possible foul play .
Jeff Guzzetti , former accident investigation chief at the Federal Aviation Administration , told the Washington Post the crash had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act.
” “ That is the wreckage of an explosion in the air , ” former Department of Transportation inspector general Mary Schiavo told USA Today .
“ Something happened to blow that plane out of the air .
Statistically speaking , that ’ s a missile or a bomb.
” According to public data , flight 752 stopped transmitting radar data just more than three minutes after taking off , and just after reaching an altitude of 7,500 feet .
Iran ’ s state news agency shared a video that it claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streaks before eventually crashing in even more flames .
The crash site , miles northwest of where the plane was when it stopped transmitting radar data , suggests that it banked northwest , The New York Times reported .
The plane , a Boeing 737-800 , was manufactured in the United States .
Typically , that would mean the National Transportation Safety Board would play a role in the crash investigation , along with Iran and Ukraine .
But Iran ’ s top civil air official said the United States wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ black box , ” which was recovered after the crash and likely holds vital information about the plane ’ s final seconds .
“ We will not give the black box to the manufacturer and the Americans , ” the official , Ali Abedzadeh , said .
“ This accident will be investigated by Iran ’ s aviation organization but the Ukrainians can also be present.
” A spokesperson for the NTSB told the Times that the agency “ is working with the State Department and other agencies to determine the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passengers ’ nationalities varied , suggesting some were dual citizens .
In all counts , the plurality of the deceased were Iranian .
Ukraine ’ s minister of foreign affairs counted 63 Canadians aboard the fight .
Others on board included citizens of Ukraine , Sweden , Afghanistan , Germany and the United Kingdom .
One hundred and thirty-eight people on board the flight were on their way to Canada , Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday .
Soon after the crash , according to multiple reports , the Ukrainian embassy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the cause of the crash .
Later , it took the statement down and said “ any statements about the causes of the accident before the decision of the commission are not official .
”

A few minutes after 6 a.m. Tehran time Wednesday, Ukraine International Flight 752 took off from Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport.
Within 10 minutes, the plane had exploded in midair and crashed into a field, killing all 167 passengers and nine crew on board. Some experts have pointed to possible foul play, but details are still emerging.
The tragedy added to a turbulent time in Iran: On Friday, the United States killed the country’s most famous military commander, Qassem Soleimani. On Tuesday, 56 people were killed in a stampede as the commander’s casket was carried in a funeral procession. A few hours later, Iran fired missiles that struck two American bases in Iraq, killing none.
When the plane crashed within hours of those strikes, rumors swirled — was the crash related to escalating Iran-U.S. tensions? So far, no evidence has emerged to support that.
Still, several aviation experts have pointed to possible foul play.
Jeff Guzzetti, former accident investigation chief at the Federal Aviation Administration, told the Washington Post the crash had “all the earmarks of an intentional act.”
“That is the wreckage of an explosion in the air,” former Department of Transportation inspector general Mary Schiavo told USA Today. “Something happened to blow that plane out of the air. Statistically speaking, that’s a missile or a bomb.”
According to public data, flight 752 stopped transmitting radar data just more than three minutes after taking off, and just after reaching an altitude of 7,500 feet. Iran’s state news agency shared a video that it claimed showed the plane breaking up in fiery streaks before eventually crashing in even more flames.
The crash site, miles northwest of where the plane was when it stopped transmitting radar data, suggests that it banked northwest, The New York Times reported.
The plane, a Boeing 737-800, was manufactured in the United States. Typically, that would mean the National Transportation Safety Board would play a role in the crash investigation, along with Iran and Ukraine.
But Iran’s top civil air official said the United States wouldn’t be granted access to the plane’s “black box,” which was recovered after the crash and likely holds vital information about the plane’s final seconds.
“We will not give the black box to the manufacturer and the Americans,” the official, Ali Abedzadeh, said. “This accident will be investigated by Iran’s aviation organization but the Ukrainians can also be present.”
A spokesperson for the NTSB told the Times that the agency “is working with the State Department and other agencies to determine the best course of action.”
Tallies of passengers’ nationalities varied, suggesting some were dual citizens. In all counts, the plurality of the deceased were Iranian. Ukraine’s minister of foreign affairs counted 63 Canadians aboard the flight. Others on board included citizens of Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan, Germany and the United Kingdom. One hundred and thirty-eight people on board the flight were on their way to Canada, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday.
Soon after the crash, according to multiple reports, the Ukrainian embassy in Iran released a statement ruling out terrorism as the cause of the crash. Later, it took the statement down and said “any statements about the causes of the accident before the decision of the commission are not official.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Mnuchin Wants To Delay Dem Effort Requiring Secret Service To Disclose Spending

The Trump administration is reportedly seeking to delay a Democratic effort requiring the Secret Service to disclose its spending on the protection of President Trump and his family during their travels .
According to a Washington Post report Wednesday , people familiar with the discussions said that the administration would like to delay the Secret Service requirement until after the 2020 election .
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and key senators have reportedly discussed the issue as they ’ ve negotiated draft legislation to transfer the Secret Service to his department .
People with knowledge of the talks told the Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to Democrats ’ demands that the bill mandates the Secret Service to disclose spending related to the President and his adult children ’ s travels within 120 days after the legislation passes .
Although Mnuchin agreed to a requirement that the Secret Service report its travel expenses , he wants said disclosure to begin next year .
In a statement obtained by the Post , the Treasury Department said that Mnuchin has been in talks with Secret Service Director James Murray and congressional committees regarding legislation to transfer the Secret Service from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic home in the Treasury .
However , the statement failed to address the dispute surrounding the reporting requirement .
“ Conversations about the return of the Secret Service to the Treasury Department are ongoing , and we decline to comment on individual aspects of those conversations , ” a Treasury official told the Post .

The Trump administration is reportedly seeking to delay a Democratic effort requiring the Secret Service to disclose its spending on the protection of President Trump and his family during their travels.
According to a Washington Post report Wednesday, people familiar with the discussions said that the administration would like to delay the Secret Service requirement until after the 2020 election. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and key senators have reportedly discussed the issue as they’ve negotiated draft legislation to transfer the Secret Service to his department.
People with knowledge of the talks told the Post that Mnuchin has been reluctant when it comes to Democrats’ demands that the bill mandates the Secret Service to disclose spending related to the President and his adult children’s travels within 120 days after the legislation passes. Although Mnuchin agreed to a requirement that the Secret Service report its travel expenses, he wants said disclosure to begin next year.
In a statement obtained by the Post, the Treasury Department said that Mnuchin has been in talks with Secret Service Director James Murray and congressional committees regarding legislation to transfer the Secret Service from the Department of Homeland Security to its historic home in the Treasury. However, the statement failed to address the dispute surrounding the reporting requirement.
“Conversations about the return of the Secret Service to the Treasury Department are ongoing, and we decline to comment on individual aspects of those conversations,” a Treasury official told the Post.
Read the Washington Post’s report here.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Lee, Paul Back War Powers Resolution After ‘Insulting’ Admin Briefing On Iran

Two Republican senators came out of a Trump administration briefing on the assassination of a top Iranian commander steaming mad , with one saying the briefing was so bad that it made him support a Democratic war powers resolution .
Talking to reporters after the briefing , Sens .
Mike Lee ( R-UT ) and Rand Paul ( R-KY ) seemed exasperated .
It was “ probably the worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the United States Senate , ” Lee said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefers had communicated that Congress debating the appropriateness of future military action in Iran would “ embolden ” Iran .
“ I find it insulting , and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States to which we ’ ve all sworn an oath , ” Lee said .
Later , he said none of the briefers had stood in objection when one of them discouraged debate about military action against Iran .
He and Paul are known as relative doves among Senate Republicans — less eager than their counterparts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive power .
But Lee rarely expresses that sentiment to reporters in the halls of Congress , and almost never in the mood he was in Wednesday .
“ They left after 75 minutes , ” he said of the Trump administration briefers — “ while they ’ re in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public.
” “ I find that absolutely insane , ” he said .
Paul later echoed many of his colleague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence the senators heard was “ less than satisfying.
” “ I think we need to have a debate about separation of powers , ” he said .
Both senators said they would support Sen. Tim Kaine ’ s ( D-VA ) war powers resolution in the Senate , with some amendments .
The House will also take up a war powers resolution on Iran .
“ That briefing is what changed my mind , ” Lee said .
“ I walked into the briefing undecided , I walked out decided , specifically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ It ’ s un-American , un-Constitutional and wrong , and I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future.
” Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , speaking to TPM shortly after Paul and Lee ’ s remarks , defended the administration .
“ The question was asked , would a War Powers debate now send a bad signal , and I think the obvious answer is ‘ Yeah , it shows there ’ s division , ’ ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to debate .
But I have the right to say , ‘ What you ’ re doing is hurting us.
’ ” Lee told reporters that the Trump administration briefers were asked repeatedly what it would take for the executive branch to ask Congress for a formal authorization to use military force .
“ I ’ m sure we can think of something , ” he recalled one of the briefers responding at one point .
“ They struggled to identify anything ” that would require congressional authorization , Lee said .

Two Republican senators came out of a Trump administration briefing on the assassination of a top Iranian commander steaming mad, with one saying the briefing was so bad that it made him support a Democratic war powers resolution.
Talking to reporters after the briefing, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) seemed exasperated.
It was “probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate,” Lee said.
The Utah senator said the Trump administration briefers had communicated that Congress debating the appropriateness of future military action in Iran would “embolden” Iran.
“I find it insulting, and I find it demeaning to the Constitution of the United States to which we’ve all sworn an oath,” Lee said. Later, he said none of the briefers had stood in objection when one of them discouraged debate about military action against Iran.
JUST IN: GOP Sen. Mike Lee says classified briefing on Iran was "probably the worst briefing I've seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I've served in the United States Senate." https://t.co/iI3HHGfReL pic.twitter.com/eRxVJva9M4 — ABC News (@ABC) January 8, 2020
He and Paul are known as relative doves among Senate Republicans — less eager than their counterparts to endorse foreign military interventions and unchecked executive power. But Lee rarely expresses that sentiment to reporters in the halls of Congress, and almost never in the mood he was in Wednesday.
“They left after 75 minutes,” he said of the Trump administration briefers — “while they’re in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public.”
“I find that absolutely insane,” he said.
Paul later echoed many of his colleague’s remarks, saying that the intelligence the senators heard was “less than satisfying.”
“I think we need to have a debate about separation of powers,” he said.
Both senators said they would support Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution in the Senate, with some amendments. The House will also take up a war powers resolution on Iran.
“That briefing is what changed my mind,” Lee said. “I walked into the briefing undecided, I walked out decided, specifically because of what happened in that briefing.”
“It’s un-American, un-Constitutional and wrong, and I hope and expect that they will show greater deference to their own limited power in the future.”
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), speaking to TPM shortly after Paul and Lee’s remarks, defended the administration.
“The question was asked, would a War Powers debate now send a bad signal, and I think the obvious answer is ‘Yeah, it shows there’s division,’” he said. “They have the right to debate. But I have the right to say, ‘What you’re doing is hurting us.’”
Lee told reporters that the Trump administration briefers were asked repeatedly what it would take for the executive branch to ask Congress for a formal authorization to use military force.
“I’m sure we can think of something,” he recalled one of the briefers responding at one point.
“They struggled to identify anything” that would require congressional authorization, Lee said.
Tierney Sneed contributed reporting from Washington, D.C.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Democrats Leave Soleimani Strike Briefing Unconvinced That It Was Justified

A closed-door briefing with national security officials Wednesday afternoon did nothing to convince House Democrats that the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week was justified .
The Wednesday afternoon briefing was held just hours after Trump announced new “ punishing ” sanctions on Iran in response to its retaliatory missile strike .
Trump also said Iran “ appears to be standing down.
” Several House Democrats seemed unified after leaving the briefing , saying that the administration failed to make a convincing case for the Trump administration ’ s talking point of the President authorizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imminent ” attack against the U.S. “ Without commenting on content , my reaction to this briefing was it was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing , ” Connelly told reporters .
“ And I believe more than ever that Congress needs to act to protect the constitutional provisions about war and peace.
” When asked about his reaction to the rationale for the strike on Soleimani and also the idea of whether there were imminent threats like the Trump administration has argued , Connelly said that he believes “ there was no rationale that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and that he was “ utterly unpersuaded ” regarding any compelling evidence justifying an imminent threat .
“ I was — well , utterly unpersuaded — about any evidence about the imminence of a threat that was new or compelling , ” Connolly said , adding that the “ sophomoric ” legal rationale shared in the briefing was centered around Article II of the Constitution and the 2002 AUMF authorization for the use of military force which “ had nothing to do with Iran.
” Connolly wasn ’ t alone in being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the Washington Post , Rep. Marcia L. Fudge ( D-OH ) said she wasn ’ t sure that the officials themselves even understood the justification for why Trump authorized the Soleimani strike .
“ I don ’ t know that they know the rationale , ” Fudge said , according to the Post .
“ Certainly they didn ’ t tell me what it was .
… The explanation did not in any way show that it was imminent .
They did not convince me that it was something that should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported that Rep. Seth Moulton ( D-MA ) , a member of the House Armed Services Committee , echoed Fudge ’ s reaction and described the briefing as having “ multiple moments of grumbling in the room.
” “ I didn ’ t hear any justification that differed from any activity that Soleimani has conducted over the last 15 years at various points , ” Moulton said , according to the Post .

A closed-door briefing with national security officials Wednesday afternoon did nothing to convince House Democrats that the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week was justified.
The Wednesday afternoon briefing was held just hours after Trump announced new “punishing” sanctions on Iran in response to its retaliatory missile strike. Trump also said Iran “appears to be standing down.”
Several House Democrats seemed unified after leaving the briefing, saying that the administration failed to make a convincing case for the Trump administration’s talking point of the President authorizing the Soleimani strike to prevent an “imminent” attack against the U.S.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) called the briefing “sophomoric and utterly unconvincing.”
“Without commenting on content, my reaction to this briefing was it was sophomoric and utterly unconvincing,” Connelly told reporters. “And I believe more than ever that Congress needs to act to protect the constitutional provisions about war and peace.”
When asked about his reaction to the rationale for the strike on Soleimani and also the idea of whether there were imminent threats like the Trump administration has argued, Connelly said that he believes “there was no rationale that could pass a graduate school thesis test” and that he was “utterly unpersuaded” regarding any compelling evidence justifying an imminent threat.
“I was — well, utterly unpersuaded — about any evidence about the imminence of a threat that was new or compelling,” Connolly said, adding that the “sophomoric” legal rationale shared in the briefing was centered around Article II of the Constitution and the 2002 AUMF authorization for the use of military force which “had nothing to do with Iran.”
Watch Connolly’s remarks below:
Rep. Gerry Connolly: “Utterly unpersuaded” that the strike on Soleimani was justified pic.twitter.com/ftWjYdSfWl — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 8, 2020
Connolly wasn’t alone in being underwhelmed by the national security briefing.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--People Are Getting Fake Texts Warning They’ve Been Drafted Into Army Amid Iran Standoff

As President Donald Trump straps the U.S. to a powder keg with Iran , people have been getting alarming text messages telling them they ’ ve been drafted into the Army and should expect to be shipped off to the Middle Eastern nation – even though the draft has been abolished since 1973 .
On Tuesday , the U.S. Army Recruiting Command ( USAREC ) issued an advisory warning of hoax texts that have been circulating “ throughout the country ” this week .
“ U.S .
Army Recruiting Command has received multiple calls and emails about these fake text @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these texts are false and were not initiated by this command or the U.S. Army , ” the advisory reads .
In the screenshots of the texts obtained by TPM , an anonymous sender posing as an Army recruiter informs the recipient that they ’ ve “ been marked eligible ” and must go to their nearest military branch “ for immediate departure to Iran.
” One of the more menacing messages threatens the recipient with fines and even prison .
“ We ’ re aware that this number is not disconnected , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jail for minimum 6 years if no reply , ” the text reads .
“ Army security personnel are looking into the origin of the messages , ” USAREC spokesperson Lisa Ferguson , who provided the screenshots , told TPM in an emailed statement .
The U.S .
Selective Service System ( SSS ) is the only agency responsible for the draft process .
And it too has received numerous panicked calls in recent days over false rumors about involuntary deployment to Iran .
SSS spokesperson Matthew Tittmann told TPM that while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hoax texts , the SSS has been flooded with “ thousands ” of inquiries stemming from Twitter rumors spread by fraudulent accounts , one of which pretended to be Trump .
According to Tittmann , the rumors began shortly after Trump authorized a drone strike on Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani last week .
“ On Friday morning , we noticed increased social media traffic stating specifically there would be a resumption of the draft , ” the spokesperson said .
“ That created some concern , and that concern sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deployment to Iran can take comfort in the fact that the draft can only be reinstated in the unlikely event that Congress passes legislation on it .
Additionally , panic over the possibility of war was alleviated somewhat on Wednesday when Trump declined to take further military action against Iran after its non-lethal retaliatory strikes on Iraqi bases holding U.S. troops on Tuesday .
Iran “ appears to be standing down , ” Trump said .

As President Donald Trump straps the U.S. to a powder keg with Iran, people have been getting alarming text messages telling them they’ve been drafted into the Army and should expect to be shipped off to the Middle Eastern nation – even though the draft has been abolished since 1973.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) issued an advisory warning of hoax texts that have been circulating “throughout the country” this week.
“U.S. Army Recruiting Command has received multiple calls and emails about these fake text messages and wants to ensure Americans understand these texts are false and were not initiated by this command or the U.S. Army,” the advisory reads.
In the screenshots of the texts obtained by TPM, an anonymous sender posing as an Army recruiter informs the recipient that they’ve “been marked eligible” and must go to their nearest military branch “for immediate departure to Iran.”
The recipient is then told to contact a certain recruiter using a phone number provided in the text.
“The verbiage of the message has varied, but some have included fake names claiming to be Army recruiters, and others have used real names of leaders within our command,” USAREC spokesperson Lisa Ferguson, who provided the screenshots, told TPM in an email. “The numbers have been real; for instance (888) 550-ARMY is the actual number to our Go Army call center where people can call for information about joining.”
One of the more menacing messages threatens the recipient with fines and even prison if they do not call the number provided.
“We’re aware that this number is not disconnected, you’ll be fined and sent to jail for minimum 6 years if no reply,” the text reads.
“Army security personnel are looking into the origin of the messages,” Ferguson said.
The U.S. Selective Service System (SSS) is the only agency responsible for the draft process. And it too has received numerous panicked calls in recent days over false rumors about involuntary deployment to Iran.
SSS spokesperson Matthew Tittmann told TPM that while his agency has not received any reports of hoax texts, the SSS has been flooded with “thousands” of inquiries stemming from Twitter rumors spread by fraudulent accounts, one of which pretended to be Trump.
According to Tittmann, the rumors began shortly after Trump authorized a drone strike on Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani last week.
“On Friday morning, we noticed increased social media traffic stating specifically there would be a resumption of the draft,” the spokesperson said. “That created some concern, and that concern sort of spun.”
However, those fearing involuntary deployment to Iran can take comfort in the fact that the draft can only be reinstated in the unlikely event that Congress passes legislation on it.
Additionally, the possibility of war was diminished somewhat on Wednesday when Trump declined to take further military action against Iran after its non-lethal retaliatory strikes on Iraqi bases holding U.S. troops on Tuesday.
Iran “appears to be standing down,” Trump said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Pelosi Pressing On With Resolution Due To Trump’s Lack Of ‘Coherent Strategy’ On Iran

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) was not satisfied with President Donald Trump ’ s national address on the @ @ @ @ @ Citing a lack of “ coherent strategy , ” Pelosi said in a statement that @ @ @ @ @ resolution curtailing Trump ’ s military authority regarding Iran to the floor for a vote @ @ @ @ @ of Congress have serious , urgent concerns about the administration ’ s decision to engage @ @ @ @ @ about its lack of strategy moving forward , ” she said .
“ Our concerns @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the administration ’ s briefing @ @ @ @ @ his address that Iran is “ standing down ” after the country launched missiles at @ @ @ @ @ soldiers Tuesday night .
There were no casualties and no significant damage .
He also @ @ @ @ @ economic sanctions and ludicrously tried to blame Iran ’ s attack of the bases on @ @ @ @ @

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was not satisfied with President Donald Trump’s national address on the tensions with Iran Wednesday.
Citing a lack of “coherent strategy,” Pelosi said in a statement that she intended to bring a resolution curtailing Trump’s military authority regarding Iran to the floor for a vote on Thursday.
“Members of Congress have serious, urgent concerns about the administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran and about its lack of strategy moving forward,” she said. “Our concerns were not addressed by the President’s insufficient War Powers Act notification and by the administration’s briefing today.”
Trump said in his address that Iran is “standing down” after the country launched missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. soldiers Tuesday night. There were no casualties and no significant damage.
He also promised additional “punishing” economic sanctions and ludicrously tried to blame Iran’s attack of the bases on former President Barack Obama.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Experts Scoff At Trump’s Explosive Claim That Obama Paid For Iran’s Missile Strike

President Donald Trump essentially blamed his predecessor on Wednesday for funding the missiles that hit American military bases Tuesday night , but military and diplomatic experts told TPM the claim is ridiculous .
“ The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for by the funds made available by the last administration , ” Trump said Wednesday morning , flanked by military brass and the vice president , secretary of state and secretary of defense .
His 2020 reelection campaign boosted the attack .
It was a reference to the Iran nuclear deal — the Joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and five other countries negotiated with the Iranians during the Obama administration .
Among other things , the deal unfroze billons in Iranian money that had been stranded overseas as a result of international sanctions on Iran .
In exchange , Iran set strict limits on its nuclear program .
Multiple experts told TPM that Trump ’ s statement was plainly false , and still others pointed out that the types of missiles said to have been used in the strikes Tuesday , the Fateh-110 and Qiam-1 , have been produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceding the Iran deal even began .
The precision-guided missiles were “ already a prime focus back then , ” said Fabian Hinz , a research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies .
“ Iran developed the Qiam missile that was used last night in 2010-11 , ” added Ali Vaez , International Crisis Group ’ s Iran project director and an adjunct professor at Georgetown .
He emphasized that Trump ’ s claim was “ totally false !
” “ It takes years to develop ballistic missiles , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long before the agreement , ” noted Benjamin H. Friedman , policy director at Defense Priorities .
Obama administration officials did acknowledge at the time that some of the Iranian money unfrozen by the Iran deal could end up funding the Iranian military .
“ I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the [ Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps ] or of other entities , some of which are labeled terrorists , ” then-Secretary of State John Kerry told CNBC in January 2016 .
But by May 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency , Vincent Stewart , testified that while “ some ” of the money the agreement had made available ended up in Iran ’ s military , “ the preponderance of the money [ has ] gone to economic development and infrastructure.
” Trump announced in May 2018 that the U.S. would withdraw from the deal , despite his administration repeatedly affirming that Iran was complying with its terms .
“ Iran ’ s fundamental national security policies have not changed since the JCPOA , ” Sina Toossi , a senior research analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Nor was most of the supposed economic ‘ windfall ’ Iran got from that deal spent on defense and its regional intervention.
” Professor Jeffrey Lewis , a nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies , put it more bluntly Wednesday .
“ There is no truth to [ Trump ’ s ] statement whatsoever , ” he said .
“ You could say the same thing about sales tax on a soft drink one purchased in Tehran.
” Trump on Wednesday also misstated , again , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had freed up , saying that Iran was “ given $ 150 billion ” as part of the deal .
The actual sum Iran recovered is closer to $ 50 billion or less , according to officials from both Iran and the United States .
The White House did not respond to TPM ’ s request for comment .
Obama ’ s national security adviser , Susan Rice , said on MSNBC Wednesday that Trump ’ s claim was another in a “ series of despicable lies.
” That Trump remained “ obsessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , she said , “ shows President ’ s Trump ’ s extreme weakness and insecurity .
”

President Donald Trump essentially blamed his predecessor on Wednesday for funding the missiles that hit American military bases Tuesday night, but military and diplomatic experts told TPM the claim is ridiculous.
“The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for by the funds made available by the last administration,” Trump said Wednesday morning, flanked by military brass and the vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense. His 2020 reelection campaign boosted the attack.
It was a reference to the Iran nuclear deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — that the United States and five other countries negotiated with the Iranians during the Obama administration. Among other things, the deal unfroze billons in Iranian money that had been stranded overseas as a result of international sanctions on Iran. In exchange, Iran set strict limits on its nuclear program.
Multiple experts told TPM that Trump’s statement was plainly false, and still others pointed out that the types of missiles said to have been used in the strikes Tuesday, the Fateh-110 and Qiam-1, have been produced for years — well before the talks preceding the Iran deal even began.
The precision-guided missiles were “already a prime focus back then,” said Fabian Hinz, a research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
“Iran developed the Qiam missile that was used last night in 2010-11,” added Ali Vaez, International Crisis Group’s Iran project director and an adjunct professor at Georgetown. He emphasized that Trump’s claim was “totally false!”
“It takes years to develop ballistic missiles, and Iran had a large arsenal of them long before the agreement,” noted Benjamin H. Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities.
Obama administration officials did acknowledge at the time that some of the Iranian money unfrozen by the Iran deal could end up funding the Iranian military.
“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps] or of other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists,” then-Secretary of State John Kerry told CNBC in January 2016.
But by May 2017, the then-director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vincent Stewart, testified that while “some” of the money the agreement had made available ended up in Iran’s military, “the preponderance of the money [has] gone to economic development and infrastructure.”
Trump announced in May 2018 that the U.S. would withdraw from the deal, despite his administration repeatedly affirming that Iran was complying with its terms.
“Iran’s fundamental national security policies have not changed since the JCPOA,” Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council, said. “Nor was most of the supposed economic ‘windfall’ Iran got from that deal spent on defense and its regional intervention.”
Professor Jeffrey Lewis, a nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, put it more bluntly Wednesday.
“There is no truth to [Trump’s] statement whatsoever,” he said. “You could say the same thing about sales tax on a soft drink one purchased in Tehran.”
Trump on Wednesday also misstated, again, the amount of Iranian money the Iran deal had freed up, saying that Iran was “given $150 billion” as part of the deal. The actual sum Iran recovered is closer to $50 billion or less, according to officials from both Iran and the United States.
The White House did not respond to TPM’s request for comment.
Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, said on MSNBC Wednesday that Trump’s claim was another in a “series of despicable lies.”
That Trump remained “obsessed” with Obama three years after taking office, she said, “shows President’s Trump’s extreme weakness and insecurity.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Senate Dems Haven’t Given Up Just Yet On Securing Impeachment Trial Witnesses

Senate Democrats may have lost an early battle with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) to call witnesses for the upcoming Senate impeachment trial .
But many Dems are refusing to concede the war over bringing in additional evidence into their proceedings , which will decide whether President Trump should be acquitted or removed from office for his Ukraine pressure campaign .
Doing so would require four Republicans to join them in their request , and so far McConnell has maintained total unity among his caucus .
However , what the Republican leader has gotten the Senate GOP to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward that doesn ’ t foreclose witnesses entirely .
“ I think Leader McConnell plays very close attention to what four members are willing to insist upon in terms of process , witnesses evidence , and I remain hopeful that there are four members who will say , ‘ Trials have witnesses , cover-ups don ’ t , ’ ” Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) told TPM Wednesday .
McConnell announced Tuesday that he had secured the votes to open an impeachment trial without a bipartisan deal on whether to subpoena witnesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s inquiry .
Instead , Senate Republicans have agreed to a path modeled after the 1999 Clinton impeachment , where a decision on witnesses wasn ’ t hashed out until the trial had proceeded through its beginning stages .
The upshot of McConnell ’ s proposal is that it allows Republicans — particularly those up for tough re-elections — to punt for now on the question of whether witnesses should be called .
Democrats are nonetheless vowing to make Republicans to take multiple votes on the matter .
“ We ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) told reporters , adding that there would be at least two opportunities — at the beginning of the trial , and after each side presents its case — that GOP lawmakers will have to vote on witnesses .
Compared to how the Senate typically operates , McConnell has far less control in an impeachment trial over what gets voted on by the chamber , meaning he won ’ t be able to shield his caucus forever , Democrats argued .
“ Mitch can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Sen. Brian Schatz ( D-HI ) said .
“ And there are a lot of Republicans who are quietly quite worried about rejecting the premise that a trial should have witnesses and documents , and so we will continue to make that case both to our colleagues and to the American people.
” The optimism comes as some Democratic senators have grown anxious about the idea that Pelosi will withhold transmission of the articles of impeachment in an effort to secure concessions from the Senate .
After Pelosi suggested Tuesday evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before seeing the Senate rules package , McConnell took a shot at her for trying to “ reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us.
” It ’ s not clear how the stalemate will end .
“ My belief is that the leverage over Republicans exist in votes we take inside the trial , so I think that ’ s is where is our greatest leverage exists , is inside the trial , ” Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-CT ) told reporters .
Murphy later added that , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come around on witnesses , he was choosing to have “ faith that some of [ McConnell ’ s ] members would chose to have a fair trial.
” McConnell , meanwhile , warned Democrats in his floor remarks when the time to debate witnesses come , “ not all the potential witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from.
” The line appeared to be a reference to the call by some Republicans to bring in Hunter Biden or others in order to litigate the baseless claims Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate Joe Biden or alleged Ukraine 2016 election interference .
Not every Senate Democrat shared in their colleagues ’ optimism that later votes on witnesses could break in their favor .
“ I am not ” optimistic , Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-RI ) said .
“ I think the enterprise has been tribal and political so far , but perhaps the actual taking of an oath will have an effect .
”

Senate Democrats may have lost an early battle with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to call witnesses for the upcoming Senate impeachment trial. But many Dems are refusing to concede the war over bringing in additional evidence into their proceedings, which will decide whether President Trump should be acquitted or removed from office for his Ukraine pressure campaign.
Doing so would require four Republicans to join them in their request, and so far McConnell has maintained total unity among his caucus. However, what the Republican leader has gotten the Senate GOP to agree to so far is a path forward that doesn’t foreclose witnesses entirely.
“I think Leader McConnell plays very close attention to what four members are willing to insist upon in terms of process, witnesses evidence, and I remain hopeful that there are four members who will say, ‘Trials have witnesses, cover-ups don’t,’” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) told TPM Wednesday.
McConnell announced Tuesday that he had secured the votes to open an impeachment trial without a bipartisan deal on whether to subpoena witnesses or documents withheld from the House’s inquiry. Instead, Senate Republicans have agreed to a path modeled after the 1999 Clinton impeachment, where a decision on witnesses wasn’t hashed out until the trial had proceeded through its beginning stages.
The upshot of McConnell’s proposal is that it allows Republicans — particularly those up for tough re-elections — to punt for now on the question of whether witnesses should be called.
Democrats are nonetheless vowing to make Republicans to take multiple votes on the matter.
“We’re going to put our colleagues on the record,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told reporters, adding that there would be at least two opportunities — at the beginning of the trial, and after each side presents its case — that GOP lawmakers will have to vote on witnesses.
Compared to how the Senate typically operates, McConnell has far less control in an impeachment trial over what gets voted on by the chamber, meaning he won’t be able to shield his caucus forever, Democrats argued.
“Mitch can’t prevent his members from taking tough votes,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) said. “And there are a lot of Republicans who are quietly quite worried about rejecting the premise that a trial should have witnesses and documents, and so we will continue to make that case both to our colleagues and to the American people.”
The optimism comes as some Democratic senators have grown anxious about the idea that Pelosi will withhold transmission of the articles of impeachment in an effort to secure concessions from the Senate. After Pelosi suggested Tuesday evening she wouldn’t send them over before seeing the Senate rules package, McConnell took a shot at her for trying to “reach into the Senate and dictate our trial proceedings to us.” It’s not clear how the stalemate will end.
“My belief is that the leverage over Republicans exist in votes we take inside the trial, so I think that’s is where is our greatest leverage exists, is inside the trial,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) told reporters. Murphy later added that, while he has no faith that McConnell will come around on witnesses, he was choosing to have “faith that some of [McConnell’s] members would chose to have a fair trial.”
McConnell, meanwhile, warned Democrats in his floor remarks when the time to debate witnesses come, “not all the potential witnesses would be people the Democrats are eager to hear from.” The line appeared to be a reference to the call by some Republicans to bring in Hunter Biden or others in order to litigate the baseless claims Trump has made to justify his demands that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden or alleged Ukraine 2016 election interference.
Not every Senate Democrat shared in their colleagues’ optimism that later votes on witnesses could break in their favor.
“I am not” optimistic, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said. “I think the enterprise has been tribal and political so far, but perhaps the actual taking of an oath will have an effect.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-08--Iran’s President Warns If US ‘Commits Another Crime’ It Risks ‘A Stronger Reaction’

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned that Iran ’ s missile strikes Thursday night could just be the beginning of its retaliation against the U.S. “ if America wants to commit another crime.
” Rouhani ’ s remarks come a few hours after President Trump announced “ punishing economic sanctions ” against Iran during a Wednesday morning address during which he added that the nation “ appears to be standing down.
” According to a CNN report Wednesday , Rouhani said during a cabinet meeting that “ if America commits a crime , no matter how much she threatens us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisively as we have already shown.
” Rouhani then clarified his comment by saying that “ from now on if America wants to commit another crime , must know that they will receive a stronger reaction , ” according to CNN .
“ If they [ the U.S. ] find that they have a problem anywhere in the world , do not say it was ordered by Iran , ” Rouhani said , according to CNN .
“ If tomorrow something in another country happens , Americans would say this is the action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not have any proxy forces.
” Rouhani added that “ from the beginning , Americans had it wrong ” and said that “ the people of the region are aware , free and act on their own.
” “ They are not under our control or order , ” Rouhani said , according to CNN .
On Tuesday night , Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stated that Tehran had “ concluded ” its retaliatory attacks against the U.S. in response to the Trump-authorized strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani @ @ @

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned that Iran’s missile strikes Thursday night could just be the beginning of its retaliation against the U.S. “if America wants to commit another crime.”
Rouhani’s remarks come a few hours after President Trump announced “punishing economic sanctions” against Iran during a Wednesday morning address during which he added that the nation “appears to be standing down.”
According to a CNN report Wednesday, Rouhani said during a cabinet meeting that “if America commits a crime, no matter how much she threatens us, she must know that we will act decisively as we have already shown.”
Rouhani then clarified his comment by saying that “from now on if America wants to commit another crime, must know that they will receive a stronger reaction,” according to CNN.
“If they [the U.S.] find that they have a problem anywhere in the world, do not say it was ordered by Iran,” Rouhani said, according to CNN. “If tomorrow something in another country happens, Americans would say this is the action of proxy forces of Iran. We do not have any proxy forces.”
Rouhani added that “from the beginning, Americans had it wrong” and said that “the people of the region are aware, free and act on their own.”
“They are not under our control or order,” Rouhani said, according to CNN.
On Tuesday night, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif stated that Tehran had “concluded” its retaliatory attacks against the U.S. in response to the Trump-authorized strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week.
Read CNN’s report here.