talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Some GOPers Don’t Even Want To Weigh In On The Merits Of House’s Case

Just days ahead of a vote to convict or acquit President Trump , several Senate Republicans said Monday that they did not need to weigh in on the merits of the House ’ s case , because they have decided to clear Trump merely because the conduct alleged was not impeachable .
Their skittishness towards commenting on Trump ’ s underlying Ukraine behavior comes after Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) issued a statement Thursday that validated the major claims against the President and that called his behavior “ inappropriate.
” Alexander concluded , however , the conduct was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to calling additional witnesses for the trial .
Alexander ’ s GOP colleagues were quick praise the Tennessean — whose statement Thursday effectively killed any hopes for trial witnesses — for his thoughtfulness .
But so far , only a few appeared interested in following the delicate path he charted , while others skirted what he had to say altogether .
“ I have a lot of respect for Lamar , I just don ’ t think that ’ s what this discussion is about , ” Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If you get into that , then you begin to convince the House you should impeach people just so we can could decide what they did was inappropriate .
Appropriateness is not relative to this process we ’ ve gone through.
” Instead , some Republicans are staking out the position that , because they don ’ t believe the alleged offense was impeachable , there is no point in any commentary on Trump ’ s conduct or on whether the House proved its case .
“ The actual actions that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the level of an impeachable offense by themselves , ” Sen. Mike Rounds ( R-ND ) told TPM .
Asked whether the conduct was inappropriate , Rounds said , “ I won ’ t go into the degrees , because in this particular case either it ’ s an impeachable offense or it ’ s not.
” “ In this case it did not rise to that , that ’ s all the farther than we need to go , ” he added .
The idea that , even if everything the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it still wasn ’ t impeachable , was pushed by Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the argument was way outside the mainstream of constitutional law .
More than 500 constitutional lawyers signed a letter in December , while the House was finishing its impeachment procedures , describing Trump ’ s conduct as impeachable .
Even a scholar tapped by House Republicans to testify at one of the hearings there publicly disagreed with the Trump team ’ s take on what constitutes an impeachable offense .
Nonetheless , GOP senators are clinging to Dershowitz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s conduct — and avoid his wrath — without endorsing the President ’ s Ukraine behavior outright ( though plenty of Republicans have also argued it was justified ) .
Republicans have also used their qualms about how the House conducted its impeachment inquiry , which was largely in line with past presidential impeachments , as a shield to avoid assessing the case it put in front of the Senate .
“ Senator Alexander was arguing more or less based on the merits , and whether or not he thought that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) told TPM .
“ They lost me when they completely abused the impeachment power , so mine is purely on the basis on we should not even be having this discussion .
I am not going to comment on the President ’ s choice of words or tactics .
I had a real problem with the way it started .
”

Just days ahead of a vote to convict or acquit President Trump, several Senate Republicans said Monday that they did not need to weigh in on the merits of the House’s case, because they have decided to clear Trump merely because the conduct alleged was not impeachable.
Their skittishness towards commenting on Trump’s underlying Ukraine behavior comes after Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) issued a statement Thursday that validated the major claims against the President and that called his behavior “inappropriate.” Alexander concluded, however, the conduct was not impeachable, and also announced his opposition to calling additional witnesses for the trial.
Alexander’s GOP colleagues were quick praise the Tennessean — whose statement Thursday effectively killed any hopes for trial witnesses — for his thoughtfulness. But so far, only a few appeared interested in following the delicate path he charted, while others skirted what he had to say altogether.
“I have a lot of respect for Lamar, I just don’t think that’s what this discussion is about,” Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) told reporters after closing arguments Monday. “If you get into that, then you begin to convince the House you should impeach people just so we can could decide what they did was inappropriate. Appropriateness is not relative to this process we’ve gone through.”
Instead, some Republicans are staking out the position that, because they don’t believe the alleged offense was impeachable, there is no point in any commentary on Trump’s conduct or on whether the House proved its case.
“The actual actions that they accuse the President of do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense by themselves,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-ND) told TPM.
Asked whether the conduct was inappropriate, Rounds said, “I won’t go into the degrees, because in this particular case either it’s an impeachable offense or it’s not.”
“In this case it did not rise to that, that’s all the farther than we need to go,” he added.
The idea that, even if everything the House said about Trump was true, it still wasn’t impeachable, was pushed by Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz and the argument was way outside the mainstream of constitutional law. More than 500 constitutional lawyers signed a letter in December, while the House was finishing its impeachment procedures, describing Trump’s conduct as impeachable. Even a scholar tapped by House Republicans to testify at one of the hearings there publicly disagreed with the Trump team’s take on what constitutes an impeachable offense.
Nonetheless, GOP senators are clinging to Dershowitz’ framework as a way to dismiss Trump’s conduct — and avoid his wrath — without endorsing the President’s Ukraine behavior outright (though plenty of Republicans have also argued it was justified).
Republicans have also used their qualms about how the House conducted its impeachment inquiry, which was largely in line with past presidential impeachments, as a shield to avoid assessing the case it put in front of the Senate.
“Senator Alexander was arguing more or less based on the merits, and whether or not he thought that the case had solid grounding,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told TPM. “They lost me when they completely abused the impeachment power, so mine is purely on the basis on we should not even be having this discussion. I am not going to comment on the President’s choice of words or tactics. I had a real problem with the way it started.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Prosecutors Have 20 Phones Still To Crack In Parnas Case

Manhattan federal prosecutors expect to crack open the contents of 20 more electronic devices in the prosecution of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman .
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos said at a Monday status conference that none of the defendants in the case had provided the government with passwords to access their devices , meaning that the FBI is currently trying to hack into their phones , computers , and other hard drives .
That process is ongoing as federal prosecutors mull whether – and when – to file a superseding indictment in the case .
Prosecutors had said earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken asked Roos whether that held true , and he replied that the government ’ s “ position had not changed ” and that there were ongoing discussions .
Roos suggested that it may be filed this spring , before initial pretrial motions are due on May 1 .
“ The government is aware of when it is appropriate to bring superseding indictments , ” Roos said .
Parnas and Fruman were indicted with two associates in October on campaign finance charges relating to a scheme to funnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Fruman has stayed silent and ignored a subpoena issued by the House Intelligence Committee for information relating to his involvement in President Trump ’ s pressure campaign on Ukraine , Parnas used the document demand as an opportunity to very publicly distance himself from the President and his attorney Rudy Giuliani .
He used discovery received in the case to comply with the subpoena , allowing the House to release conversations between Parnas and key figures in the campaign that led to President Trump ’ s impeachment one week before his trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political world , appears to have had minimal impact on Parnas ’ s criminal proceedings .
After the proceeding came to an end , Parnas and his attorney Joseph Bondy addressed reporters outside the courtroom .
“ If we were to have trial with no evidence , no witnesses , and a jury of our friends , it would go a lot faster , ” Bondy quipped , in a not-so-veiled reference to the impeachment proceedings .
“ But we ’ re gon na have a fair trial.
” When asked if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ’ s criminal case , Parnas demurred , and said only that “ I ’ m here to tell the truth.
” Roos said that 197,000 pages of discovery had been produced in the case so far , and that , barring any unexpected reveals from outstanding subpoenas or the uncracked devices , prosecutors expect to finish delivering discovery to defendants by mid-March .
The sheer amount of evidence in the case led to a brief confrontation in the courtroom , with one defense attorney present – Gerald Lefcourt – demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early in the case to provide a “ guide ” to the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents before them .
Roos replied that each search warrant had a “ 100-page affidavit ” attached , which , he argued , provided enough of a “ guide.
” Judge Oetken declined to force the government to provide exhibits early , and set a trial date in the case for Oct. 5 .

Manhattan federal prosecutors expect to crack open the contents of 20 more electronic devices in the prosecution of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Nicolas Roos said at a Monday status conference that none of the defendants in the case had provided the government with passwords to access their devices, meaning that the FBI is currently trying to hack into their phones, computers, and other hard drives.
That process is ongoing as federal prosecutors mull whether – and when – to file a superseding indictment in the case. Prosecutors had said earlier that they expect to file additional charges.
U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken asked Roos whether that held true, and he replied that the government’s “position had not changed” and that there were ongoing discussions.
Roos suggested that it may be filed this spring, before initial pretrial motions are due on May 1.
“The government is aware of when it is appropriate to bring superseding indictments,” Roos said.
Parnas and Fruman were indicted with two associates in October on campaign finance charges relating to a scheme to funnel foreign cash into GOP campaign coffers.
While Fruman has stayed silent and ignored a subpoena issued by the House Intelligence Committee for information relating to his involvement in President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine, Parnas used the document demand as an opportunity to very publicly distance himself from the President and his attorney Rudy Giuliani.
He used discovery received in the case to comply with the subpoena, allowing the House to release conversations between Parnas and key figures in the campaign that led to President Trump’s impeachment one week before his trial.
That development, while resonant for the political world, appears to have had minimal impact on Parnas’s criminal proceedings.
After the proceeding came to an end, Parnas and his attorney Joseph Bondy addressed reporters outside the courtroom.
“If we were to have trial with no evidence, no witnesses, and a jury of our friends, it would go a lot faster,” Bondy quipped, in a not-so-veiled reference to the impeachment proceedings. “But we’re gonna have a fair trial.”
When asked if he planned on becoming a cooperator in the government’s criminal case, Parnas demurred, and said only that “I’m here to tell the truth.”
Roos said that 197,000 pages of discovery had been produced in the case so far, and that, barring any unexpected reveals from outstanding subpoenas or the uncracked devices, prosecutors expect to finish delivering discovery to defendants by mid-March.
The sheer amount of evidence in the case led to a brief confrontation in the courtroom, with one defense attorney present – Gerald Lefcourt – demanding that the government produce an exhibit list early in the case to provide a “guide” to the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents before them.
Roos replied that each search warrant had a “100-page affidavit” attached, which, he argued, provided enough of a “guide.”
Judge Oetken declined to force the government to provide exhibits early, and set a trial date in the case for Oct. 5.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Adam Schiff Delivers Soaring Impeachment Closer To A Senate That Will Likely Acquit

With lofty rhetoric and appeals to history and legacy , House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) on Monday argued one last time for the impeachment of President Donald Trump .
But after a vote on whether to hear from additional witnesses failed Friday , largely along partisan lines , his appeal seemed destined to fall on deaf ears in the Republican-controlled Senate .
“ If you find that the House has proved its case and still vote to acquit , your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you find the courage to stand up to him , to speak the awful truth to his rank falsehood , your place will be among the Davids who took on Goliath.
” “ If only you will say ‘ enough !
’ ” Alas , none of the Senate ’ s 53 Republicans have shown any inkling that they will vote to convict Trump of leaning on Ukraine for political dirt , or of obstructing Congress in its investigation of that pressure campaign .
Several Republicans , meanwhile , claimed over the weekend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the impeachment proceedings .
“ Hopefully it ’ ll be instructive ” to Trump , Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) said Sunday , referring to the removal articles which are unlikely to receive any Republican votes when put up for consideration Wednesday , and which received no Republican support in the House .
In that light , Schiff ’ s soaring rhetoric Monday may have had a different audience — the public .
“ Every single vote , even a single vote by a single member , can change the course of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single man or woman of courage makes a majority , ” Schiff said .
“ Is there one among you who will say ‘ enough ’ ?
” Schiff ’ s fellow impeachment managers had built up to his soaring crescendo , one after the other .
“ Senators , we know what the President did and why he did it , ” Rep. Sylvia Garcia ( D-TX ) argued , before seemingly referencing Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) .
“ This fact is seriously not in doubt .
Senators on both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much.
” “ The question for you now is does it warrant removal from office ?
” Rep. Jason Crow ( D-CO ) quoted Dumbledore : “ It is our choices that show who we truly are , far more than our abilities.
” Rep. Val Demmings ( D-FL ) invoked her experience as a police chief : “ Today , unfortunately , I believe we ’ re holding young police recruits to a higher standard than we are the leader of the free world.
” And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries ( D-NY ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my fellow Americans , ” told them to “ walk by faith ” and “ do the right thing.
” Schiff ’ s last words as bandleader referred not to the scripture , but to a force some congressional institutionalists might insist is a higher power : “ The Founders.
” “ It may be midnight in Washington , but the sun will rise again , ” he said .
“ I put my faith in the optimism of the founders.
” The founders , the California Democrat said , “ gave us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a remedy as powerful as the evil it was meant to constrain — impeachment.
” “ They meant it to be used rarely , ” he continued , “ but they put it in the Constitution for a reason : For a man who would sell out his country for a political favor , for a man who would threaten the integrity of our elections , for a man who would invite foreign interference in our affairs , for a man who would undermine our national security and that of our allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ They gave you a remedy , and they meant for you to use it , ” he concluded .
“ They gave you an oath and they meant for you to observe it .
We have proven Donald Trump guilty .
Now do impartial justice and convict him.
” Just after Schiff concluded , Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) — seen at one point as a possible swing vote for new impeachment trial witnesses , a hope she quashed last week — said she would announce her intended vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ahead of schedule .

With lofty rhetoric and appeals to history and legacy, House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Monday argued one last time for the removal of President Donald Trump.
But after a vote on whether to hear from additional witnesses failed Friday, largely along partisan lines, his appeal seemed destined to fall on deaf ears in the Republican-controlled Senate.
“If you find that the House has proved its case and still vote to acquit, your name will be tied to his with a cord of steel and for all of history,” Schiff said. “But if you find the courage to stand up to him, to speak the awful truth to his rank falsehood, your place will be among the Davids who took on Goliath.”
“If only you will say ‘enough!’”
Alas, none of the Senate’s 53 Republicans have shown any inkling that they will vote to convict Trump of leaning on Ukraine for political dirt, or of obstructing Congress in its investigation of that pressure campaign. Several Republicans, meanwhile, claimed over the weekend that the President had been chastened by the impeachment proceedings.
“Hopefully it’ll be instructive” to Trump, Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) said Sunday, referring to the removal articles which are unlikely to receive any Republican votes when put up for consideration Wednesday, and which received no Republican support in the House.
In that light, Schiff’s soaring rhetoric Monday may have had a different audience — the public.
“Every single vote, even a single vote by a single member, can change the course of history. It is said that a single man or woman of courage makes a majority,” Schiff said. “Is there one among you who will say ‘enough’?”
Schiff’s fellow impeachment managers had built up to his soaring crescendo, one after the other.
“Senators, we know what the President did and why he did it,” Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) argued, before seemingly referencing Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). “This fact is seriously not in doubt. Senators on both sides of the aisle have said as much.”
“The question for you now is does it warrant removal from office?”
Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) quoted Dumbledore: “It is our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities.”
Rep. Val Demmings (D-FL) invoked her experience as a police chief: “Today, unfortunately, I believe we’re holding young police recruits to a higher standard than we are the leader of the free world.”
And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), referring to the senators as “my fellow Americans,” told them to “walk by faith” and “do the right thing.”
Schiff’s last words as bandleader referred not to the scripture, but to a force some congressional institutionalists might insist is a higher power: “The Founders.”
“It may be midnight in Washington, but the sun will rise again,” he said. “I put my faith in the optimism of the founders.”
The founders, the California Democrat said, “gave us the tools to do the job, a remedy as powerful as the evil it was meant to constrain — impeachment.”
“They meant it to be used rarely,” he continued, “but they put it in the Constitution for a reason: For a man who would sell out his country for a political favor, for a man who would threaten the integrity of our elections, for a man who would invite foreign interference in our affairs, for a man who would undermine our national security and that of our allies, for a man like Donald J. Trump.”
“They gave you a remedy, and they meant for you to use it,” he concluded. “They gave you an oath and they meant for you to observe it. We have proven Donald Trump guilty. Now do impartial justice and convict him.”
Just after Schiff concluded, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) — seen at one point as a possible swing vote for new impeachment trial witnesses, a hope she quashed last week — said she would announce her intended vote on impeachment by the end of the day, ahead of schedule.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Wyden Presses DOJ For Evidence Of Trump Meddling Described In Bolton Manuscript

Attorney General Bill Barr has some explaining to do .
That ’ s according to Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , who on Monday pressed the attorney general to share what he knows about President Donald Trump ’ s alleged attempts to intervene in a federal case against a Turkish bank accused of sanctions violations .
The reported contents of a manuscript by former National Security Adviser John Bolton have added more weight to the senator ’ s questions .
The bank , Halkbank , was ultimately charged in October with six counts related to a scheme to evade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution was politically fraught : Trump ’ s lawyer Rudy Giuliani represented a Turkish gold trader involved in the scheme , Reza Zarrab , and at one point claimed to have met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2017 to discuss a “ state-to-state resolution in this case.
” And as Wyden noted in his letter Monday , the charges against Halkbank came just days after Turkey invaded northern Syria , opening the doors to political backlash in America .
“ I am concerned that absent these actions by the Turkish government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of Turkey ’ s Halkbank requests could have undermined years of effort by U.S. law enforcement , and may still do so , ” Wyden wrote .
In October , Bloomberg News reported that Trump “ assigned ” Barr and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “ deal with ” Erdogan ’ s pleas that the United States not charge Halkbank .
The outlet also reported that Trump urged then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to persuade the DOJ to drop the case against Zarrab , something Tillerson reportedly refused .
And more recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolton ’ s book manuscript described a conversation Bolton and Barr had in which they shared concerns that Trump was doing favors for — or at least , that he could appear to exert an undue influence on behalf of — for Erdogan , as well as for Chinese President Xi Jinping .
( The DOJ has said the Times ’ report “ mischaracterizes ” the conversation . )
“ Did President Trump , or did anyone at his direction , ever instruct you to take any action with regard to Halkbank , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Wyden asked Barr in a letter Monday , one of several questions the senator posed .
Later , he asked of Barr or other senior DOJ officials “ ever appeal [ ed ] directly to the Treasury Department , at any level , on behalf of President Trump or the Turkish government ?
” The senator also noted that , despite the DOJ ’ s quibbling of Bolton ’ s reported manuscript , a Treasury Department official had confirmed some aspects of the story .
“ As was publicly reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with President Trump in April 2019 , the President referred the issue to the Executive Branch departments responsible by law for the investigation and enforcement of economic sanctions — the Treasury and DOJ , ” a Treasury Department official told Wyden last year , which the senator cited in his letter Monday .

Attorney General Bill Barr has some explaining to do.
That’s according to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who on Monday pressed the attorney general to share what he knows about President Donald Trump’s alleged attempts to intervene in a federal case against a Turkish bank accused of sanctions violations.
The reported contents of a manuscript by former National Security Adviser John Bolton have added more weight to the senator’s questions.
The bank, Halkbank, was ultimately charged in October with six counts related to a scheme to evade U.S. sanctions on Iran, but the prosecution was politically fraught: Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani represented a Turkish gold trader involved in the scheme, Reza Zarrab, and at one point claimed to have met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2017 to discuss a “state-to-state resolution in this case.”
And as Wyden noted in his letter Monday, the charges against Halkbank came just days after Turkey invaded northern Syria, opening the doors to political backlash in America.
“I am concerned that absent these actions by the Turkish government, the Administration’s interference in favor of Turkey’s Halkbank requests could have undermined years of effort by U.S. law enforcement, and may still do so,” Wyden wrote.
In October, Bloomberg News reported that Trump “assigned” Barr and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to “deal with” Erdogan’s pleas that the United States not charge Halkbank. The outlet also reported that Trump urged then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to persuade the DOJ to drop the case against Zarrab, something Tillerson reportedly refused.
And more recently, The New York Times reported that Bolton’s book manuscript described a conversation Bolton and Barr had in which they shared concerns that Trump was doing favors for — or at least, that he could appear to exert an undue influence on behalf of — for Erdogan, as well as for Chinese President Xi Jinping. (The DOJ has said the Times’ report “mischaracterizes” the conversation.)
“Did President Trump, or did anyone at his direction, ever instruct you to take any action with regard to Halkbank, or any co-conspirators such as Reza Zarrab?” Wyden asked Barr in a letter Monday, one of several questions the senator posed.
Later, he asked of Barr or other senior DOJ officials “ever appeal[ed] directly to the Treasury Department, at any level, on behalf of President Trump or the Turkish government?”
The senator also noted that, despite the DOJ’s quibbling of Bolton’s reported manuscript, a Treasury Department official had confirmed some aspects of the story.
“As was publicly reported, when Prime Minister Erdogan raised concerns directly with President Trump in April 2019, the President referred the issue to the Executive Branch departments responsible by law for the investigation and enforcement of economic sanctions — the Treasury and DOJ,” a Treasury Department official told Wyden last year, which the senator cited in his letter Monday.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Graham Says Senate Intel Committee Will Call Whistleblower To Testify

The Senate Intelligence Committee is going to call the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump to testify , according to Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) .
“ The House Intel Committee , excuse me , the Senate Intel Committee under Richard Burr has told us that we will call the whistleblower , ” Graham told Fox News “ Sunday Morning Futures ” host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday .
The Republican senator , a strident opponent of Trump ’ s impeachment , said he wanted to “ find out how all this crap started.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee–associate of Joe Biden , I think that would be important , ” he said .
“ If the whistleblower was working with people on [ Rep. Adam Schiff ] ’ s staff that wanted to take Trump down a year and a half ago , I think that would be important.
” Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr ( R-NC ) has said that while he does want to hear from the whistleblower , he wants the person ’ s identity to remain anonymous .
There has been no evidence that the whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who serves as House Intelligence Committee chair and lead investigator in the impeachment investigation , when he or she filed a complaint about Trump ’ s infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president on July 25 .
Additionally , Democrats no longer feel that the whistleblower is relevant to the impeachment case now that multiple witness testimonies have corroborated his or her account of the call .
Nevertheless , Trump ’ s Republican allies in Congress , particularly Graham , have been fixated on unmasking the whistleblower ever since the impeachment process against @ @ @ @

The Senate Intelligence Committee is going to call the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump to testify, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
“The House Intel Committee, excuse me, the Senate Intel Committee under Richard Burr has told us that we will call the whistleblower,” Graham told Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo on Sunday.
The Republican senator, a strident opponent of Trump’s impeachment, said he wanted to “find out how all this crap started.”
“If the whistleblower is a former employee–associate of Joe Biden, I think that would be important,” he said. “If the whistleblower was working with people on [Rep. Adam Schiff]’s staff that wanted to take Trump down a year and a half ago, I think that would be important.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) has said that while he does want to hear from the whistleblower, he wants the person’s identity to remain anonymous.
There has been no evidence that the whistleblower conspired with Joe Biden or Schiff, who serves as House Intelligence Committee chair and lead investigator in the impeachment investigation, when he or she filed a complaint about Trump’s infamous phone call with the Ukrainian president on July 25.
Additionally, Democrats no longer feel that the whistleblower is relevant to the impeachment case now that multiple witness testimonies have corroborated his or her account of the call.
Nevertheless, Trump’s Republican allies in Congress, particularly Graham, have been fixated on unmasking the whistleblower ever since the impeachment process against the President began.
Watch Graham below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Last Iowa Poll: Sanders Holds 7-Point Lead

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) has a 7-point lead in Iowa going into the state ’ s caucus Monday @ @ @ @ @ poll by Emerson College and local broadcast channel 7 News Iowa released on Sunday .
@ @ @ @ @ “ Likely Democratic Caucus Goers ” from January 30 through February 2 , shows Sanders @ @ @ @ @ by Democratic primary rival Joe Biden at 21 percent .
The Vermont senator and former @ @ @ @ @ two candidates to reach over 20 percent in the survey , while former South Bend @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN @ @ @ @ @ , 14 percent , and 11 percent , respectively .
Emerson noted that Sanders experienced @ @ @ @ @ last poll with 7 News Iowa held January 23–January 26 .
The new poll surveyed @ @ @ @ @ voters via landline , cell phone , and Internet surveys , with a margin of @ @ @ @ @ .

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has a 7-point lead in Iowa going into the state’s caucus Monday, according to a final poll by Emerson College and local broadcast channel 7 News Iowa released on Sunday.
The poll, which surveyed “Likely Democratic Caucus Goers” from January 30 through February 2, shows Sanders at 28 percent, followed by Democratic primary rival Joe Biden at 21 percent.
The Vermont senator and former vice president are the only two candidates to reach over 20 percent in the survey, while former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are at 15 percent, 14 percent, and 11 percent, respectively.
Emerson noted that Sanders experienced a 2-point drop from its last poll with 7 News Iowa held January 23–January 26.
The new poll surveyed 852 registered Democratic and independent voters via landline, cell phone, and Internet surveys, with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 points.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-03--Trump Flubs Which State Kansas City Chiefs Are In

After the Kansas City Chiefs , a team that hails from Missouri , won the Super Bowl on Sunday night @ @ @ @ @ it upon himself to congratulate the wrong state .
“ Congratulations to the Kansas City @ @ @ @ @ , and a fantastic comeback , under immense pressure , ” he tweeted at 10:15 @ @ @ @ @ represented the Great State of Kansas and , in fact , the entire USA , @ @ @ @ @ realizing his mistake , Trump deleted the tweet a little over ten minutes later and @ @ @ @ @ 10:27 PM .
“ Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game and @ @ @ @ @ pressure , ” he wrote in the new tweet .
“ We are proud of @ @ @ @ @ of Missouri.
” This isn ’ t the first time the President has struggled with @ @ @ @ @ October , he bragged about building his U.S.-Mexico border wall in…Colorado .

Really?
After the Kansas City Chiefs, a team that hails from Missouri, won the Super Bowl on Sunday night, President Donald Trump took it upon himself to congratulate the wrong state.
“Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure,” he tweeted at 10:15 PM EST. “You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well.”
Additionally, Slate reporter Ashley Feinberg noted that the White House retweeted Trump’s erroneous post.
Apparently realizing his mistake, Trump deleted the tweet a little over ten minutes later and posted a new one at 10:27 PM.
“Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game and a fantastic comeback under immense pressure,” he wrote in the new tweet. “We are proud of you and the Great State of Missouri.”
This isn’t the first time the President has struggled with basic U.S. geography. Last October, he bragged about building his U.S.-Mexico border wall in…Colorado.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Massive Vote Tallying Issues Bog Down Iowa Caucuses

Early Tuesday morning , hours after the doors closed on caucuses all over Iowa , not a single precinct had reported any official vote tallies .
After a flurry of voters scuttled around high school gyms and coalitions built and broke and reformed , the long wait began .
Trouble was forecasted earlier on Monday when reports started to surface about problems with an app used to transit voting data to the state Democratic Party .
It was a humiliating night for the caucus as an exercise , which had already come under intense scrutiny for its lack of representativeness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tabulating seemed to revolve around inconsistent reporting and an increased volume of data to process .
“ We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results , ” Iowa Democratic Party communications director Mandy McClure said in a statement late Monday .
“ In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results , we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.
” Cable news pundits were forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content in lieu of data .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) cashed in on that hunger first , giving an early speech that was treated to wall-to-wall coverage .
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg used his time to declare himself the night ’ s victor , notwithstanding the lack of any evidence .
The rest of the leading candidates also gave upbeat remarks as primetime slipped away and Americans on the east coast called it lights out .
Biden ’ s campaign shot off a letter to the state party , demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ire widely reverberated in responses from the other campaigns during a conference call around 10:30 p.m .
ET .
Per BuzzFeed News , the party spokesperson told campaign officials that “ user error ” on the app resulted in inconsistencies , and that only about 35 percent of precincts were reported at all .
“ This is an unbelievable explanation , ” one participant on the call shouted , according to BuzzFeed .
“ I think he speaks for all of us , ” another added .
Top surrogates for President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manager Brad Parscale , wasted no time sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the process on Twitter .
Iowa Democrats definitively ruled out hacking as the cause of the confusion .
At least for the duration of Monday night , the delays obscured the political import of the first contest .
In weeks leading up to the caucus , the polls stayed incredibly tight with Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg bunched together at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed to hold a slight lead heading into caucus day .
But now , as party officials feverishly tabulate the results , the candidates are setting their sights on New Hampshire , the next ( and hopefully less glitchy ) early state primary .

Early Tuesday morning, hours after the doors closed on caucuses all over Iowa, not a single precinct had reported any official vote tallies.
After a flurry of voters scuttled around high school gyms and coalitions built and broke and reformed, the long wait began. Trouble was forecasted earlier on Monday when reports started to surface about problems with an app used to transit voting data to the state Democratic Party.
It was a humiliating night for the caucus as an exercise, which had already come under intense scrutiny for its lack of representativeness and convoluted rules. Issues during vote tabulating seemed to revolve around inconsistent reporting and an increased volume of data to process.
“We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results,” Iowa Democratic Party communications director Mandy McClure said in a statement late Monday. “In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report.”
Cable news pundits were forced to fill the airwaves, grasping for content in lieu of data.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) cashed in on that hunger first, giving an early speech that was treated to wall-to-wall coverage. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg used his time to declare himself the night’s victor, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence. The rest of the leading candidates also gave upbeat remarks as primetime slipped away and Americans on the east coast called it lights out.
Biden’s campaign shot off a letter to the state party, demanding answers:
Here’s Biden’s letter to the Iowa Democratic Party pic.twitter.com/MbHs5G6wK6 — Brittany L. Shepherd (@blrshepherd) February 4, 2020
The Biden campaign’s ire widely reverberated in responses from the other campaigns during a conference call around 10:30 p.m. ET. Per BuzzFeed News, the party spokesperson told campaign officials that “user error” on the app resulted in inconsistencies, and that only about 35 percent of precincts were reported at all.
“This is an unbelievable explanation,” one participant on the call shouted, according to BuzzFeed. “I think he speaks for all of us,” another added.
Top surrogates for President Donald Trump, including Donald Trump Jr. and campaign manager Brad Parscale, wasted no time sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the process on Twitter. Iowa Democrats definitively ruled out hacking as the cause of the confusion.
At least for the duration of Monday night, the delays obscured the political import of the first contest. In weeks leading up to the caucus, the polls stayed incredibly tight with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg bunched together at the front of the pack. Sanders seemed to hold a slight lead heading into caucus day.
But now, as party officials feverishly tabulate the results, the candidates are setting their sights on New Hampshire, the next (and hopefully less glitchy) early state primary.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucuses App Couldn’t Handle Complexity, Experts Say

Those administering the Iowa caucuses this year faced increased complexity in their task amid rules changes and a decision to use a third-party app to transmit election results .
Experts in cybersecurity and election administration told TPM on Tuesday that the app chosen by the Iowa Democratic Party failed to handle the complexity , providing an example of what not to do in administering an election .
After complaints over alleged irregularities in the count of the state ’ s 2016 primary , which was done by hand , the Democratic Party instituted various changes to the data that had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That includes three data sets : the initial vote tally , the second round of voting , and then the final tally .
“ It ’ s clear that it was not ready for primetime , ” said Andrew Appel , a Princeton computer science professor and election security expert .
Separate reporting has suggested that Shadow , the company behind the app used to convey data from precincts to state Democratic Party administrators , may be at fault .
The Verge reported on Tuesday that Shadow used a free tier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based , giving it reduced capacity .
Shadow apologized for the issue in a statement .
Tammy Patrick , a senior adviser at Democracy Fund and a former commissioner on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration , told TPM that elections can rarely satisfy the demands of being free , cheap to administer , and accurate .
“ The average county budget for an election department is less than one percent of the entire county ’ s budget , ” Patrick said , adding that problems would likely persist “ until we dedicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Patrick added that states and other jurisdictions which hold elections with the same systems on a regular basis are far less likely to face the kind of problems that occurred this year in the Iowa caucuses .
“ Here , you have counties reporting through a party in a way that they probably don ’ t ever do … .
other than last night in the caucus , ” she said .
Appel argued that speed is essential to Iowa in part because of the status they hold in influencing later primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s really interesting to know on election night who won , but we can afford to wait a couple of days for the official results , ” he argued .
“ In the Iowa caucuses , the informal election results are very influential in the next primary , and so it makes a bigger difference.
” But Patrick cautioned that any significant delay in the time between vote tallying and presentation to the public could damage public confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the election .
“ You have individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t have information or a declared winner or an unofficial winner , that that is in and of itself representative of something to be concerned about , ” she said .
“ I think we ’ re just going to see this escalate through the course of the primary season.
” After nearly 24 hours of delays , Iowa Democrats attempted to assure the public that the caucus results were reliable .
“ We also have a paper trail , and documentation that is accurate , ” said Iowa Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who attributed the problem to a “ coding error on the backend.
” “ We will be reporting more data than we ever have before , ” Price said , adding that the state ’ s Democratic Party has a different paper trail than before .

Those administering the Iowa caucuses this year faced increased complexity in their task amid rules changes and a decision to use a third-party app to transmit election results.
Experts in cybersecurity and election administration told TPM on Tuesday that the app chosen by the Iowa Democratic Party failed to handle the complexity, providing an example of what not to do in administering an election.
After complaints over alleged irregularities in the count of the state’s 2016 primary, which was done by hand, the Democratic Party instituted various changes to the data that had to be recorded during the Iowa caucuses.
That includes three data sets: the initial vote tally, the second round of voting, and then the final tally.
“It’s clear that it was not ready for primetime,” said Andrew Appel, a Princeton computer science professor and election security expert.
Separate reporting has suggested that Shadow, the company behind the app used to convey data from precincts to state Democratic Party administrators, may be at fault. The Verge reported on Tuesday that Shadow used a free tier for the platform on which the app was based, giving it reduced capacity.
Shadow apologized for the issue in a statement.
We sincerely regret the delay in the reporting of the results of last night’s Iowa caucuses and the uncertainty it has caused to the candidates, their campaigns, and Democratic caucus-goers. — Shadow, Inc. (@ShadowIncHQ) February 4, 2020
Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at Democracy Fund and a former commissioner on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, told TPM that elections can rarely satisfy the demands of being free, cheap to administer, and accurate.
“The average county budget for an election department is less than one percent of the entire county’s budget,” Patrick said, adding that problems would likely persist “until we dedicate sufficient resources to the infrastructure of elections.”
Patrick added that states and other jurisdictions which hold elections with the same systems on a regular basis are far less likely to face the kind of problems that occurred this year in the Iowa caucuses.
“Here, you have counties reporting through a party in a way that they probably don’t ever do …. other than last night in the caucus,” she said.
Appel argued that speed is essential to Iowa in part because of the status they hold in influencing later primary elections.
“In normal elections, it’s really interesting to know on election night who won, but we can afford to wait a couple of days for the official results,” he argued. “In the Iowa caucuses, the informal election results are very influential in the next primary, and so it makes a bigger difference.”
But Patrick cautioned that any significant delay in the time between vote tallying and presentation to the public could damage public confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the election.
“You have individuals out there saying that the fact that we don’t have information or a declared winner or an unofficial winner, that that is in and of itself representative of something to be concerned about,” she said. “I think we’re just going to see this escalate through the course of the primary season.”
After nearly 24 hours of delays, Iowa Democrats attempted to assure the public that the caucus results were reliable.
“We also have a paper trail, and documentation that is accurate,” said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price on Tuesday, who attributed the problem to a “coding error on the backend.”
“We will be reporting more data than we ever have before,” Price said, adding that the state’s Democratic Party has a different paper trail than before.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Trump ‘Hasn’t Told Me Not To’: Giuliani Still Sniffing Around For Biden Dirt

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani acknowledged Tuesday that he ’ s still sniffing around for “ more information ” on Joe Biden in Ukraine , even as the Senate approaches its vote to acquit President Trump in his impeachment trial .
Witnesses in the impeachment proceedings against Trump described Giuliani ’ s central role in Trump ’ s pressure campaign on Ukraine , in which the former New York mayor and others sought out political dirt from the country on the President ’ s behalf as Trump withheld military aide and a White House meeting from Ukraine ’ s president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hunt for dirt continued — with Trump ’ s tacit approval .
“ He hasn ’ t told me not to do it , ” the former New York City mayor said .
Giuliani said separately in the interview , referring to Trump investigating Biden , “ I would have no problem with him doing it.
” “ In fact , I ’ d have a problem with him not doing it , ” Giuliani said .
“ I think he would be saying that Joe Biden can get away with selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fool in the Ukraine.
” Giuliani has alternately described his efforts in Ukraine as defense work for his client , the President , and as volunteer work done at the request of American diplomatic officials .
Various impeachment witnesses said Giuliani acted as a de facto White House representative in his talks with Ukrainian and American officials — while he was also pursuing Trump ’ s political goals .
But the Justice Department has denied any involvement in the dirt-digging quest against the Bidens , and Giuliani ’ s interest in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political rivals — rather than an actual probe — undercuts his and Trump ’ s claim that their efforts were in the public ’ s interest , rather than Trump ’ s political interests .
Giuliani refused to tell NPR whether he ’ d shared anything with the Justice Department .
“ I can ’ t answer that .
it would be privileged material , ” he said .
“ I can ’ t tell you if I did or didn ’ t do something with the Justice Department .
”

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani acknowledged Tuesday that he’s still sniffing around for “more information” on Joe Biden in Ukraine, even as the Senate approaches its vote to acquit President Trump in his impeachment trial.
Witnesses in the impeachment proceedings against Trump described Giuliani’s central role in Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine, in which the former New York mayor and others sought out political dirt from the country on the President’s behalf as Trump withheld military aide and a White House meeting from Ukraine’s president.
On Tuesday, Giuliani told NPR that the hunt for dirt continued — with Trump’s tacit approval.
“He hasn’t told me not to do it,” the former New York City mayor said.
Giuliani said separately in the interview, referring to Trump investigating Biden, “I would have no problem with him doing it.”
“In fact, I’d have a problem with him not doing it,” Giuliani said. “I think he would be saying that Joe Biden can get away with selling out the United States, making us a fool in the Ukraine.”
Giuliani has alternately described his efforts in Ukraine as defense work for his client, the President, and as volunteer work done at the request of American diplomatic officials. Various impeachment witnesses said Giuliani acted as a de facto White House representative in his talks with Ukrainian and American officials — while he was also pursuing Trump’s political goals.
But the Justice Department has denied any involvement in the dirt-digging quest against the Bidens, and Giuliani’s interest in an announcement of a Ukrainian investigation into Trump’s political rivals — rather than an actual probe — undercuts his and Trump’s claim that their efforts were in the public’s interest, rather than Trump’s political interests.
Giuliani refused to tell NPR whether he’d shared anything with the Justice Department.
“I can’t answer that. it would be privileged material,” he said. “I can’t tell you if I did or didn’t do something with the Justice Department.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Iowa Dems Will Release At Least Half Of Caucus Results Soon — But Which Half?

The Iowa Democratic Party has acquired a mop , and it ’ s going to clean up… about half of the mess it made last night .
That ’ s the latest news from the Iowa Democratic Party , which bungled its caucus accounting last night and still has not released any results from the nation ’ s first presidential primary contest .
In a statement to TPM , spokesperson Mandy McClure said Tuesday that the IDP “ will be releasing the majority of caucus results at 4p.m .
CST.
” “ Moving forward — just like we would would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — we will continue to release results as we are able to , ” McClure said .
“ We are also executing our plans and procedures to gather the paper documents and chasing any additional precincts to report results as we normally would on caucus night.
” “ We want to get some results out there , ” Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price separately told campaigns on a phone call Tuesday .
The statements raise a few questions .
How much of a “ majority ” will the party release this afternoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and for what purpose ?
And which “ additional precincts ” is the party “ chasing ” ?
Releasing only a selective portion of the results may also have unintended consequences .
Depending on what results are released , the numbers could be more misleading than they are helpful for campaigns and caucus-watchers eager to find out how each candidate fared in the first-in-the-nation presidential contest .
“ I just don ’ t understand what that means to release half of the data , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get it together and release all of the data.
” The catch is Iowa ’ s caucus system : Across the state , in more than 1,600 high school gyms , union halls , cafeterias , mosques and other meeting places , Democrats gathered for the communal voting spectacle that defines the state ’ s system .
Some of these caucus sites held hundreds of people , some just a dozen .
Some are in bustling urban centers , some in sparse rural towns .
So , depending on what “ majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it could paint a distorted picture : Say , for example , the results released Tuesday afternoon disproportionately come from college towns , or farmland-heavy counties — this data might hypothetically favor the progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , in the former case , or the more moderate Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , in the latter .
Another complication : The Iowa Democratic Party this year committed to releasing three numbers , each a benchmark of the caucus process .
The “ first count ” and “ second count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites before and after nonviable candidates are eliminated , while a third number — the “ state delegate equivalent ” — counts the representatives who , ultimately , decide the winner of the state .
Any missing data related to precinct location or vote count could undermine the results released Tuesday afternoon .
Indeed , Sanders ’ campaign acknowledged the inherently flawed nature of incomplete data early Tuesday morning , when it released its own organizers ’ caucus data showing the Vermont senator tentatively placing first in the state .
The campaign released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it said .
The partial tally , Sanders ’ campaign said , represented “ precincts from all four congressional districts from a cross section of urban and rural parts of the state.
” But , senior Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver hedged , “ we recognize that this does not replace the full data from the Iowa Democratic Party .
”

The Iowa Democratic Party has acquired a mop, and it’s going to clean up… about half of the mess it made last night.
That’s the latest news from the Iowa Democratic Party, which bungled its caucus accounting last night and still has not released any results from the nation’s first presidential primary contest.
In a statement to TPM, spokesperson Mandy McClure said Tuesday that the IDP “will be releasing the majority of caucus results at 4p.m. CST.”
“Moving forward — just like we would would [sic] have on caucus night — we will continue to release results as we are able to,” McClure said. “We are also executing our plans and procedures to gather the paper documents and chasing any additional precincts to report results as we normally would on caucus night.”
“We want to get some results out there,” Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price separately told campaigns on a phone call Tuesday.
The statements raise a few questions. How much of a “majority” will the party release this afternoon? What paper documents are being gathered, and for what purpose? And which “additional precincts” is the party “chasing”?
Releasing only a selective portion of the results may also have unintended consequences. Depending on what results are released, the numbers could be more misleading than they are helpful for campaigns and caucus-watchers eager to find out how each candidate fared in the first-in-the-nation presidential contest.
“I just don’t understand what that means to release half of the data,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said Tuesday. “I think they ought to get it together and release all of the data.”
The catch is Iowa’s caucus system: Across the state, in more than 1,600 high school gyms, union halls, cafeterias, mosques and other meeting places, Democrats gathered for the communal voting spectacle that defines the state’s system. Some of these caucus sites held hundreds of people, some just a dozen. Some are in bustling urban centers, some in sparse rural towns.
So, depending on what “majority” of caucus results is released, it could paint a distorted picture: Say, for example, the results released Tuesday afternoon disproportionately come from college towns, or farmland-heavy counties — this data might hypothetically favor the progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in the former case, or the more moderate Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), in the latter.
Another complication: The Iowa Democratic Party this year committed to releasing three numbers, each a benchmark of the caucus process. The “first count” and “second count” measure individuals’ votes at caucus sites before and after nonviable candidates are eliminated, while a third number — the “state delegate equivalent” — counts the representatives who, ultimately, decide the winner of the state.
Any missing data related to precinct location or vote count could undermine the results released Tuesday afternoon.
Indeed, Sanders’ campaign acknowledged the inherently flawed nature of incomplete data early Tuesday morning, when it released its own organizers’ caucus data showing the Vermont senator tentatively placing first in the state. The campaign released results from nearly 40% of precincts, it said.
The partial tally, Sanders’ campaign said, represented “precincts from all four congressional districts from a cross section of urban and rural parts of the state.”
But, senior Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver hedged, “we recognize that this does not replace the full data from the Iowa Democratic Party.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--AZ Man Allegedly Threatened To ‘Blow Schiff’s Brains Out’ After Watching Fox Segment

Federal prosecutors charged an Arizona man in October over alleged threats to murder House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , a court document filed last week reveals .
The document , first spotted by the eagle-eyed Nick Martin of The Informant , stems from the prosecution of Jan Peter Meister .
Arizona federal prosecutors charged Meister , a convicted sex offender , in October with making threats through interstate commerce and unlawful possession of firearms .
The indictment recorded Meister as leaving a phone call with the office of a congressman only identified by the initials “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other things , “ I ’ m gon na fucking blow your brains out you fucking piece of shit mother fucker.
” But it wasn ’ t until a Jan. 28 court filing from Meister ’ s defense attorney that the congressman ’ s identity was confirmed : Adam Schiff .
The document cites a summary of an interview that FBI agents conducted with Meister before his October arrest .
“ Agents explained that the call was to Congressman Adam Schiff , ” the filing reads .
“ Meister responded that he watches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something that he saw on the news .
He stated that he strongly dislikes the Democrats , and feels they are to blame for the country ’ s political issues.
” Meister allegedly made the call on Oct. 1 , as Schiff led the House Intelligence Committee in its impeachment inquiry into President Trump ’ s Ukraine scheme .
The Arizona convict wasn ’ t arrested , however , until Oct. 25 , after FBI agents had interviewed Meister at his property .
FBI agents allegedly found a trove of weapons at Meister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted felon , Meister would be prohibited from owning firearms .
Upon Meister ’ s arrest , prosecutors wrote , he exclaimed : “ ‘ Fuck A.S. ’ ( the defendant stated the alleged victim ’ s full name ) .
” Meister is pleading not guilty in the case .
His trial is currently scheduled for March .
His defense attorneys dispute “ whether [ Meister ] ’ s words reflected a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon the congressman , ” and argued in the Tuesday filing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the charges involve threats “ against a political figure who figures very prominently in the ongoing impeachment of President Trump .
”

Federal prosecutors charged an Arizona man in October over alleged threats to murder House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), a court document filed last week reveals.
The document, first spotted by the eagle-eyed Nick Martin of The Informant, stems from the prosecution of Jan Peter Meister.
Arizona federal prosecutors charged Meister, a convicted sex offender, in October with making threats through interstate commerce and unlawful possession of firearms.
The indictment recorded Meister as leaving a phone call with the office of a congressman only identified by the initials “A.S.,” allegedly saying, among other things, “I’m gonna fucking blow your brains out you fucking piece of shit mother fucker.”
But it wasn’t until a Jan. 28 court filing from Meister’s defense attorney that the congressman’s identity was confirmed: Adam Schiff.
The document cites a summary of an interview that FBI agents conducted with Meister before his October arrest.
“Agents explained that the call was to Congressman Adam Schiff,” the filing reads. “Meister responded that he watches Fox News and likely was upset at something that he saw on the news. He stated that he strongly dislikes the Democrats, and feels they are to blame for the country’s political issues.”
Meister allegedly made the call on Oct. 1, as Schiff led the House Intelligence Committee in its impeachment inquiry into President Trump’s Ukraine scheme. The Arizona convict wasn’t arrested, however, until Oct. 25, after FBI agents had interviewed Meister at his property.
FBI agents allegedly found a trove of weapons at Meister’s Arizona home. As a convicted felon, Meister would be prohibited from owning firearms.
Upon Meister’s arrest, prosecutors wrote, he exclaimed: “‘Fuck A.S.’ (the defendant stated the alleged victim’s full name).”
Meister is pleading not guilty in the case. His trial is currently scheduled for March.
His defense attorneys dispute “whether [Meister]’s words reflected a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon the congressman,” and argued in the Tuesday filing that jurors were at risk of being prejudiced because the charges involve threats “against a political figure who figures very prominently in the ongoing impeachment of President Trump.”
Read the filing here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Tracking The Main Excuses GOP Senators Are Offering Trump Ahead Of Acquittal

After months of using an inevitable impeachment trial as a pass to dodge questions about President Trump ’ s Ukraine behavior , the pending acquittal vote has GOP senators laying out their reasons for clearing Trump for the conduct .
It ’ s not expected that any Republicans will join Democrats in voting to remove the President , which requires a 67-vote threshold .
Rather they ’ re reaching for a handful of excuses to explain their vote to acquit the President of charges that he sought to leverage military aid for Ukrainian investigations into his political rivals .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct , while many are validating it , or claiming they need not commentate on the House ’ s allegations beyond finding them short of an impeachable standard .
As senators make closing speeches from the Senate floor , we ’ re tracking which senators latch onto which excuse .
Here ’ s a look at the different rationales Republicans are floating to defend their acquittal votes , set to take place late Wednesday afternoon : Trump ’ s most ardent supporters in the Senate have shied away from any criticism of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigating the Bidens was justified or that the evidence the House put forward showed only a policy difference between Trump and the administration witnesses who testified about the pressure campaign .
They ’ ve also bear hugged the argument put forward by the Trump legal team that the conduct the House ’ s case describes is not impeachable because it is not statutorily criminal .
Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) said on the floor that , “ the House ’ s abuse of power article rests on objectively legal conduct , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise , a president is within his authority to request that a foreign leader assist with anti corruption efforts.
” Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-OK ) argued , “ There was nothing wrong with President Trump ’ s phone call with President Zelensky ” while claiming the House ’ s evidence was “ hearsay ” and lacked a “ direct witness.
” “ The transcript speaks for itself .
No evidence of a quid pro quo , of any wrongdoing whatsoever , ” he said .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s underlying behavior , using his floor remarks to mostly bash the House ’ s process instead .
But he did suggest the House ’ s allegations amounted to a policy difference , claiming that the House was seeking removal because the President “ acted inconsistently with their conception of the national interest , a conception shared by some of the President ’ s subordinates , as well.
” Sen. John Kennedy ( R-LA ) said it was within the President ’ s authority to freeze the aid and that Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Bidens — were justified : “ No fair-minded person can argue that an investigation of this possible corruption was not in the national interest.
” Sen. David Perdue ( R-GA ) said that the evidence put forward in the trial showed that “ President was well within his rights to ask for help in rooting out this fairly obvious example of corruption.
” Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) : “ It is entirely reasonable for there to be able to be a pause [ in military assistance ] in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short of green-lighting Trump ’ s conduct outright and instead have claimed that the House failed to prove its case .
Majority Whip John Thune ( R-SD ) : “ I considered all the evidence carefully , but ultimately I concluded that the two charges presented by the House managers , abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , did not provide a compelling case for removing this president.
” He pointed specifically to the eventual release of the Ukraine aid and the lack of the investigation announcements that Trump desired as reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell short .
Sen. Bill Cassidy ( R-LA ) also pointed to the release of the assistance and the President ’ s skepticism of foreign aid more generally : “ The allegation against President Trump was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it does not meet that high threshold.
” Sen. John Hoeven ( R-ND ) twisted himself into a pretzel explaining his belief .
Because the American people have seen the rough transcript of Trump ’ s call with the president of Ukraine and because President Zelensky has said that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and because the Ukraine aid was eventually handed over , “ the House ’ s allegations do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
” Sen. Mike Rounds ’ ( R-SD ) floor statement explaining his acquittal vote focused on a legal argument that claimed abuse of power is not an impeachable offense : “ The framers did not intend impeachment proceedings to be brought every time an abuse of power is alleged.
” Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) : ” The reason that acquittal is the right decision is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their case , ” he said , claiming that allegations didn ’ t meet the constitutional standards for impeachment .
Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) led the charge with this nuanced take , in a statement explaining his “ no ” vote on witnesses .
He backed the main points of the House ’ s allegations and said Trump ’ s conduct was “ inappropriate.
” “ But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from this year ’ s ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-AK ) , whose statement on her witness “ no ” vote dashed Democrats ’ hope for additional testimony : “ The President ’ s behavior was shameful and wrong .
His personal interests do not take precedent over those of this great nation.
” But , she said , the response was “ not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.
” Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) called Trump ’ s Ukraine conduct “ wrong , ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor judgment , ” but concluded that the House hadn ’ t proven that it posed an immediate threat to national security warranting his removal .
Sen .
Rob Portman ( R-OH ) : “ While I don ’ t condone this behavior , these actions do not rise to the level of removing President Trump from office and taking him off the ballot in a presidential election year that is already well under way.
” The easiest way to dodge discussing the allegations against the President was to make your acquittal rationale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those allegations .
Several Republicans went that route .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) avoided discussing Trump ’ s conduct altogether , instead blasting the House for its “ false urgency to push through deficient articles only to ask for more time , more evidence , more testimony ” and for the “ the deception of the House managers , who are more focused on political power than they are on pursuing the facts.
” Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-TN ) accused the House of an “ intentional mishandling ” of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing more than an attempt to pre-litigate the 2020 election.
” She also baselessly suggested the whistleblower may have been a “ group ” of people , ” and said the House had employed a “ manipulation tactic aimed right at the hearts of the American people.
” Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) : “ This process was fraught from the start with political aims and partisan innuendos that simply can not be overlooked.
” Sen. Rand Paul ( R-KY ) took several shots at the whistleblower , suggesting that he “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised allegations about the 2016 Russia probe , while also going through his grievances with the House : “ Everything they did about investigating the President was untrue and abused government to do something they never should have done in the first place .
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( R-WV ) struck the House for sending over what she believes to be a partisan inquiry that lacked the support of the President ’ s party in the House .
She also claimed that the “ arguments and evidence do not provide me with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election and removing President Trump from the ballot in 2020.
” Sen. Pat Roberts ’ ( R-KS ) main frustration was with the tone of impeachment managers , whose arguments were “ incorrect and demanding , ” he said during his speech on the floor Tuesday .
“ I am troubled that countless times the House managers made senators feel as if we were the ones on trial … constantly stating that senators had no choice but to agree with their line of reasoning , and if we did not , then we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veiled threat yet to be defined.
” Sen. Steve Daines ( R-MT ) : “ This impeachment has been nothing more than an attempt to overturn the 2016 presidential election and to severely impact the 2020 election.
” Sen. John Boozman ( R-AR ) : “ It was impossible not to take notice of the process that unfolded in the House over the course of its investigation .
Its inquiry was hasty , flawed and clearly undertaken under partisan pretenses .
”

After months of using an inevitable impeachment trial as a pass to dodge questions about President Trump’s Ukraine behavior, the pending acquittal vote has GOP senators laying out their reasons for clearing Trump for the conduct. It’s not expected that any Republicans will join Democrats in voting to remove the President, which requires a 67-vote threshold.
Rather they’re reaching for a handful of excuses to explain their vote to acquit the President of charges that he sought to leverage military aid for Ukrainian investigations into his political rivals. A sprinkling of GOP senators are condemning his conduct, while many are validating it, or claiming they need not commentate on the House’s allegations beyond finding them short of an impeachable standard.
As senators make closing speeches from the Senate floor, we’re tracking which senators latch onto which excuse. Here’s a look at the different rationales Republicans are floating to defend their acquittal votes, set to take place late Wednesday afternoon:
Trump did nothing wrong
Trump’s most ardent supporters in the Senate have shied away from any criticism of his conduct, instead claiming his interest in investigating the Bidens was justified or that the evidence the House put forward showed only a policy difference between Trump and the administration witnesses who testified about the pressure campaign. They’ve also bear hugged the argument put forward by the Trump legal team that the conduct the House’s case describes is not impeachable because it is not statutorily criminal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said on the floor that, “the House’s abuse of power article rests on objectively legal conduct,” and that, “until Congress legislates otherwise, a president is within his authority to request that a foreign leader assist with anti corruption efforts.”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) argued, “There was nothing wrong with President Trump’s phone call with President Zelensky” while claiming the House’s evidence was “hearsay” and lacked a “direct witness.” “The transcript speaks for itself. No evidence of a quid pro quo, of any wrongdoing whatsoever,” he said.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not say much about Trump’s underlying behavior, using his floor remarks to mostly bash the House’s process instead. But he did suggest the House’s allegations amounted to a policy difference, claiming that the House was seeking removal because the President “acted inconsistently with their conception of the national interest, a conception shared by some of the President’s subordinates, as well.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said it was within the President’s authority to freeze the aid and that Trump’s reasons for doing so — forcing investigations into the Bidens — were justified: “No fair-minded person can argue that an investigation of this possible corruption was not in the national interest.”
Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) said that the evidence put forward in the trial showed that “President was well within his rights to ask for help in rooting out this fairly obvious example of corruption.”
Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): “It is entirely reasonable for there to be able to be a pause [in military assistance] in that time period.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said that Trump’s conduct “certainly” wasn’t “impeachable.” “It’s not even make them wrong,” Lee said. “Quite to the contrary, this is exactly the sort of thing the American people elected President Trump to do.”
House didn’t prove allegations
Other Republicans have stopped short of green-lighting Trump’s conduct outright and instead have claimed that the House failed to prove its case.
Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD): “I considered all the evidence carefully, but ultimately I concluded that the two charges presented by the House managers, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, did not provide a compelling case for removing this president.” He pointed specifically to the eventual release of the Ukraine aid and the lack of the investigation announcements that Trump desired as reasons he believes the House’s case fell short.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also pointed to the release of the assistance and the President’s skepticism of foreign aid more generally: “The allegation against President Trump was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt and it does not meet that high threshold.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) twisted himself into a pretzel explaining his belief. Because the American people have seen the rough transcript of Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine and because President Zelensky has said that he didn’t feel pressured by Trump and because the Ukraine aid was eventually handed over, “the House’s allegations do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”
Sen. Mike Rounds’ (R-SD) floor statement explaining his acquittal vote focused on a legal argument that claimed abuse of power is not an impeachable offense: “The framers did not intend impeachment proceedings to be brought every time an abuse of power is alleged.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX):”The reason that acquittal is the right decision is because the House managers failed to prove their case,” he said, claiming that allegations didn’t meet the constitutional standards for impeachment.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that the House had “failed to meet their burden of proof” because the allegations against Trump did not meet the “criminal standard” that the Constitution “clearly” sets.
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) clung to the argument that the House hadn’t alleged impeachable offenses: “Rejecting the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles before us will affirm our belief in the impeachment standards intended by the founders.”
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) said the House’s case fell apart because it “centered around witness statements that the President had somehow threatened or pressured the president of Ukraine to do what he was going to do. … That simply wasn’t the case,” he said.
Inappropriate, but not impeachable
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) led the charge with this nuanced take, in a statement explaining his “no” vote on witnesses. He backed the main points of the House’s allegations and said Trump’s conduct was “inappropriate.” “But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate,” he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), whose statement on her witness “no” vote dashed Democrats’ hope for additional testimony: “The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong. His personal interests do not take precedent over those of this great nation.” But, she said, the response was “not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) called Trump’s Ukraine conduct “wrong,” “improper” and demonstrative of “very poor judgment,” but concluded that the House hadn’t proven that it posed an immediate threat to national security warranting his removal.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): “While I don’t condone this behavior, these actions do not rise to the level of removing President Trump from office and taking him off the ballot in a presidential election year that is already well under way.”
Bash the House
The easiest way to dodge discussing the allegations against the President was to make your acquittal rationale all about condemning how the House presented those allegations. Several Republicans went that route.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) avoided discussing Trump’s conduct altogether, instead blasting the House for its “false urgency to push through deficient articles only to ask for more time, more evidence, more testimony” and for the “the deception of the House managers, who are more focused on political power than they are on pursuing the facts.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) accused the House of an “intentional mishandling” of its “constitutional duty” that was “nothing more than an attempt to pre-litigate the 2020 election.” She also baselessly suggested the whistleblower may have been a “group” of people,” and said the House had employed a “manipulation tactic aimed right at the hearts of the American people.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA): “This process was fraught from the start with political aims and partisan innuendos that simply cannot be overlooked.”
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) took several shots at the whistleblower, suggesting that he “spied” on the President, and raised allegations about the 2016 Russia probe, while also going through his grievances with the House: “Everything they did about investigating the President was untrue and abused government to do something they never should have done in the first place.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) struck the House for sending over what she believes to be a partisan inquiry that lacked the support of the President’s party in the House. She also claimed that the “arguments and evidence do not provide me with a sufficient rationale for reversing the 2016 election and removing President Trump from the ballot in 2020.”
Sen. Pat Roberts’ (R-KS) main frustration was with the tone of impeachment managers, whose arguments were “incorrect and demanding,” he said during his speech on the floor Tuesday. “I am troubled that countless times the House managers made senators feel as if we were the ones on trial … constantly stating that senators had no choice but to agree with their line of reasoning, and if we did not, then we would deal with the consequences. A veiled threat yet to be defined.”
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT): “This impeachment has been nothing more than an attempt to overturn the 2016 presidential election and to severely impact the 2020 election.”
Sen. John Boozman (R-AR): “It was impossible not to take notice of the process that unfolded in the House over the course of its investigation. Its inquiry was hasty, flawed and clearly undertaken under partisan pretenses.”
Sen. Deborah Fischer (R-NE): “The reality is that the House of Representatives didn’t do its job.”
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO): “Animating it all has been the bitter resentment of a professional political class that cannot accept the verdict of the people in 2016, that cannot accept the people’s priorities and that now seeks to overturn the election and entrench themselves in power.”
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND): “Their fixation on his removal was a conclusion in search of a justification.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO): “One of the lessons we send today is to this House and to future Houses of Representatives, do your job. Take it seriously. Don’t make it political.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Charlatans, Conspiracists And The Trump Boys Seize On Iowa Debacle

The debacle over delayed results in the Iowa Democratic caucus Monday night has created an opening for conspiracy theorists and Trumpworld bigwigs alike to foment discord .
And it ’ s not that the failure in Iowa itself didn ’ t tend towards accomplishing that , or that it ’ s somehow beyond the pale for political adversaries to seize on the failings of their opponents .
Rather , the tenor and focus of some of the critique amid the ongoing failure to deliver results in Iowa has gone more towards promoting mistrust of the democratic system itself , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part .
The President ’ s sons led the charge on this , accusing the Democrats of “ rigging this thing.
” Unlike Eric Trump , Donald Trump Jr. took it a step further and drew a comparison with the 2000 Florida recount .
It ’ s a typically nonsensical comparison , but it has its own logic : neither election , regardless of outcome , can be legitimate ; it ’ s only a contest of whose side is the craftier manipulator .
Others in the infrastructure of right-wing messaging took a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem of foreign interference in U.S. elections .
That ’ s become a serious matter of discussion since 2016 , when the Russian government undertook a meddling campaign for Trump ’ s benefit in 2016 .
Experts say that the issue has broadened since then with various foreign actors beyond the Russian perceiving a vulnerability in the U.S. via interfering in its elections .
So Benny Johnson , the disgraced Buzzfeed reporter who is now chief creative officer at Turning Points USA , a right-wing nonprofit , tapped into this thread in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee is incapable of running fair elections .
Johnson ’ s focus is on Bernie Sanders , whose supporters walked away from the 2016 primary feeling cheated by a DNC that supposedly tipped the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton .
That perception was boosted in part by internal DNC emails obtained by Russian hackers and released by Wikileaks .
It ’ s also an incredibly useful narrative for those interested in discrediting the Democratic primary process .
As Trump 2020 campaign manager said at a Monday press conference , “ I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way the president got messed with back in our caucus.
” Parscale ’ s statement refers to the allegations of DNC disfavoring Bernie , but also suggests that Trump ’ s loss in the 2016 Iowa caucuses was illegitimate .
Charlie Kirk , the head of Turning Point USA , homed in on a conspiracy theory that Clinton 2020 campaign manager Robby Mook managed the app which is reportedly the root cause of the delay in reporting .
Kirk ’ s comments suggest that the results are part of a grander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In reality , Mook ’ s involvement was tenuous at best .
The false reports of his involvement stem from an apparent misreading of a Jan. 29 article in the Des Moines Register .
That article stated that both the Democratic and Republican parties and their tech vendors had reached out to a group that Mook runs called Defending Digital Democracy in order “ to develop strategies and systems to protect results and deal with any misinformation that ’ s reported on caucus night.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) chimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a DNC conspiracy .
But possibly the clearest distillation of the opportunistic tendency to allege that elections involving the Democratic Party are fundamentally illegitimate is that delivered by Sean Davis , co-founder of The Federalist .
“ It ’ s abundantly clear that Democrats are the single greatest threat to election security and integrity in this country , ” Davis tweeted .
“ Not Trump , not Russia , not Ukraine .
Democrats .
”

The debacle over delayed results in the Iowa Democratic caucus Monday night has created an opening for conspiracy theorists and Trumpworld bigwigs alike to foment discord.
And it’s not that the failure in Iowa itself didn’t tend towards accomplishing that, or that it’s somehow beyond the pale for political adversaries to seize on the failings of their opponents.
Rather, the tenor and focus of some of the critique amid the ongoing failure to deliver results in Iowa has gone more towards promoting mistrust of the democratic system itself, as opposed to damaging members of the opposite part.
The President’s sons led the charge on this, accusing the Democrats of “rigging this thing.”
Mark my words, they are rigging this thing… what a mess. This is why people don’t want the #Dems running our county. #meltdown — Eric Trump (@EricTrump) February 4, 2020
Unlike Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. took it a step further and drew a comparison with the 2000 Florida recount. It’s a typically nonsensical comparison, but it has its own logic: neither election, regardless of outcome, can be legitimate; it’s only a contest of whose side is the craftier manipulator.
Tens of thousands of ballots all for Joe Biden being shipped to Iowa from Broward County Florida as we speak. “Don’t worry folks we got this covered” DNC operatives. #IowaCaucuses — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 4, 2020
Others in the infrastructure of right-wing messaging took a similar tack, but honed towards the problem of foreign interference in U.S. elections. That’s become a serious matter of discussion since 2016, when the Russian government undertook a meddling campaign for Trump’s benefit in 2016.
Experts say that the issue has broadened since then with various foreign actors beyond the Russian perceiving a vulnerability in the U.S. via interfering in its elections.
So Benny Johnson, the disgraced Buzzfeed reporter who is now chief creative officer at Turning Points USA, a right-wing nonprofit, tapped into this thread in a bid to suggest that the Democratic National Committee is incapable of running fair elections.
A Short History Of @DNC: – Openly rigged elections/delegates against Bernie in ‘16 – Server hacked, *proving* that DNC rigged elections against Bernie – Paid for foreign interference in 2016 with Russian hoax dossier – Went bankrupt – Rigging elections against Bernie in 2020 — Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 4, 2020
Johnson’s focus is on Bernie Sanders, whose supporters walked away from the 2016 primary feeling cheated by a DNC that supposedly tipped the scale in favor of Hillary Clinton. That perception was boosted in part by internal DNC emails obtained by Russian hackers and released by Wikileaks.
It’s also an incredibly useful narrative for those interested in discrediting the Democratic primary process. As Trump 2020 campaign manager said at a Monday press conference, “I can see Bernie trying to get messed with the same way the president got messed with back in our caucus.”
Parscale’s statement refers to the allegations of DNC disfavoring Bernie, but also suggests that Trump’s loss in the 2016 Iowa caucuses was illegitimate.
Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, homed in on a conspiracy theory that Clinton 2020 campaign manager Robby Mook managed the app which is reportedly the root cause of the delay in reporting.
Reports are claiming the delay in the Iowa Caucus is being caused by glitches & irregularities in a new voting app being used for the first time this year Who helped develop the app? Robby Mook—Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager What is going on in Iowa? ? — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) February 4, 2020
Kirk’s comments suggest that the results are part of a grander conspiracy, perhaps connected to the Clintons.
In reality, Mook’s involvement was tenuous at best. The false reports of his involvement stem from an apparent misreading of a Jan. 29 article in the Des Moines Register.
That article stated that both the Democratic and Republican parties and their tech vendors had reached out to a group that Mook runs called Defending Digital Democracy in order “to develop strategies and systems to protect results and deal with any misinformation that’s reported on caucus night.”
That’s a far cry from Kirk’s statement.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) chimed in, darkly hinting at another version of a DNC conspiracy.
What are the odds that: ➡ most anticipated poll of the year (@DMRegister) is cancelled. ➡ voting system completely crashes. ….and it has nothing to do with a Bernie blowout and a Biden crash? — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) February 4, 2020
But possibly the clearest distillation of the opportunistic tendency to allege that elections involving the Democratic Party are fundamentally illegitimate is that delivered by Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist.
“It’s abundantly clear that Democrats are the single greatest threat to election security and integrity in this country,” Davis tweeted. “Not Trump, not Russia, not Ukraine. Democrats.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Iowa GOPers Scramble To Defend Caucuses’ Legacy Amid Dem Catastrophe

The disaster still unfolding in Iowa ’ s Democratic caucuses has sown doubt among Democrats and political commentators as to whether Iowa and its antiquated caucus nomination process ought to cast the first vote in the presidential primary race .
Now Iowa Republicans find themselves on the defensive over the state ’ s “ first-in-the-nation ” status as their Democratic counterparts work through a malfunctioning vote tallying app to finally determine the caucus winner .
Sens .
Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) and Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) released a joint statement with Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds ( R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s nomination process “ is not suffering because of a short delay in knowing the final results.
” “ Iowa ’ s unique role encourages a grassroots nominating process that empowers everyday Americans , not Washington insiders or powerful billionaires , ” the three Republicans said .
“ The face-to-face retail politics nature of Iowa ’ s caucus system also encourages dialogue between candidates and voters that makes our presidential candidates accountable for the positions they take and the records they hold.
” “ Iowa ’ s large population of independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributes greatly to the national presidential primary and makes it the ideal state to kick off the nominating process , ” they continued .
Jeff Kaufmann , Iowa ’ s GOP party chair , thanked President Donald for declaring that Iowa “ will stay where it is ” via Twitter .
“ We know we can count on you !
” Kaufmann wrote .
Rep. Steve King ( R-IA ) , Iowa ’ s only Republican House representative who is best known for his racist comments , tweeted on Monday night that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first in the nation but Democrats must give us a reliable definitive count.
” “ The Heart of the Heartland has saved America before , ” King tweeted .

The disaster still unfolding in Iowa’s Democratic caucuses has sown doubt among Democrats and political commentators as to whether Iowa and its antiquated caucus nomination process ought to cast the first vote in the presidential primary race.
Now Iowa Republicans find themselves on the defensive over the state’s “first-in-the-nation” status as their Democratic counterparts work through a malfunctioning vote tallying app to finally determine the caucus winner.
Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released a joint statement with Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) on Tuesday morning insisting that their state’s nomination process “is not suffering because of a short delay in knowing the final results.”
“Iowa’s unique role encourages a grassroots nominating process that empowers everyday Americans, not Washington insiders or powerful billionaires,” the three Republicans said. “The face-to-face retail politics nature of Iowa’s caucus system also encourages dialogue between candidates and voters that makes our presidential candidates accountable for the positions they take and the records they hold.”
“Iowa’s large population of independent voters and its practice of careful deliberation contributes greatly to the national presidential primary and makes it the ideal state to kick off the nominating process,” they continued.
Jeff Kaufmann, Iowa’s GOP party chair, thanked President Donald for declaring that Iowa “will stay where it is” via Twitter.
“We know we can count on you!” Kaufmann wrote.
Thank you @realDonaldTrump for your continued support of Iowa's #FITN status. We know we can count on you! #IACaucus https://t.co/k7AwWwpeGc — Jeff Kaufmann (@kaufmannGOP) February 4, 2020
Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Iowa’s only Republican House representative who is best known for his racist comments, tweeted on Monday night that the state’s caucuses “can remain first in the nation but Democrats must give us a reliable definitive count.”
“The Heart of the Heartland has saved America before,” King tweeted.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-02-04--Trump Excludes CNN Anchors From White House’s Pre-SOTU Lunch

President Donald Trump has blocked CNN anchors from attending a private annual lunch hosted by the White House on the @ @ @ @ @ the Union , according to the network Three unnamed sources told CNN on Monday that @ @ @ @ @ would not be invited to the presidential lunch , which is traditionally held off the @ @ @ @ @ top networks who plan to cover the State of the Union speech .
CNN anchors @ @ @ @ @ were guests last year .
The network is one of Trump ’ s favorite targets @ @ @ @ @ the press over negative coverage .

President Donald Trump has blocked CNN anchors from attending a private annual lunch hosted by the White House on the day of the State of the Union, according to the network
Three unnamed sources told CNN on Monday that the network’s anchors would not be invited to the presidential lunch, which is traditionally held off the record for news anchors from top networks who plan to cover the State of the Union speech.
CNN anchors Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer were guests last year.
The network is one of Trump’s favorite targets in his frequent attacks against the press over negative coverage.