talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-11--Report Pokes More Holes In Dubious Claim Soleimani Was Plotting ‘Imminent’ Attack

A lengthy new report pokes yet more holes in the Trump administration ’ s already-dubious claims that it needed to kill a top Iranian general in order to prevent an “ imminent ” threat .
The general , Qassem Soleimani , was killed by a done strike outside Baghad International Airport last Friday .
The administration has argued that Soleimani ’ s killing was necessary to prevent an “ imminent ” attack , but its changing rhetoric about the danger Soleimani posed has weakened its case .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , for example , said Thursday that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we don ’ t know precisely where ” the supposedly imminent attack , or attacks , plotted by Soleimani would ’ ve occurred .
“ Soleimani was actively planning new attacks , and he was looking very seriously at our embassies , and not just the embassy in Baghdad , ” President Trump said in an interview with Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham aired Friday , adding : “ I believe it probably would ’ ve been four embassies.
” That was the first time the administration had offered that detail .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times published Saturday matched multiple outlets ’ reporting that Soleimani ’ s killing was one of a number of options presented to Trump as a response to the storming of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad by an Iranian-backed militia .
One unnamed State Department official told the Times it was “ a mistake ” for Pompeo to refer to the purported attack being plotted by Soleimani as “ imminent.
” At the CIA , officers referred to a “ mosaic effect ” of information about a large-scale attack Soleimani was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several unnamed officials told the Times that there was not sufficient information to describe the threat as “ imminent.
” Other unnamed officials told the Times there was no specific intelligence supporting Pompeo ’ s claim that the attack could ’ ve killed “ hundreds ” of people .
The administration ’ s classified briefings to members of Congress about the Soleimani killing — which Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) called “ the worst briefing ” on a military issue he ’ d seen — was similarly fraught .
In the briefings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sell Congress on the imminent threat Soleimani posed , but many legislators left unconvinced after the briefers skimped on detail .
At one point , Gen. Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , reportedly listed three specific dates on which Soleimani had discussed potential attacks .
“ What were the threats ?
” lawmakers shouted , per the Times .
Milley didn ’ t say .
One lawmaker , unnamed in the report , noted that the dates Milley listed , in late December or early January , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without any attacks .

A lengthy new report pokes yet more holes in the Trump administration’s already-dubious claims that it needed to kill a top Iranian general in order to prevent an “imminent” threat.
The general, Qassem Soleimani, was killed by a done strike outside Baghad International Airport last Friday.
The administration has argued that Soleimani’s killing was necessary to prevent an “imminent” attack, but its changing rhetoric about the danger Soleimani posed has weakened its case.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for example, said Thursday that “we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where” the supposedly imminent attack, or attacks, plotted by Soleimani would’ve occurred.
“Soleimani was actively planning new attacks, and he was looking very seriously at our embassies, and not just the embassy in Baghdad,” President Trump said in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham aired Friday, adding: “I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies.”
That was the first time the administration had offered that detail.
Meanwhile, a lengthy report from The New York Times published Saturday matched multiple outlets’ reporting that Soleimani’s killing was one of a number of options presented to Trump as a response to the storming of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad by an Iranian-backed militia.
One unnamed State Department official told the Times it was “a mistake” for Pompeo to refer to the purported attack being plotted by Soleimani as “imminent.”
At the CIA, officers referred to a “mosaic effect” of information about a large-scale attack Soleimani was planning that targeted American assets.
But several unnamed officials told the Times that there was not sufficient information to describe the threat as “imminent.”
Other unnamed officials told the Times there was no specific intelligence supporting Pompeo’s claim that the attack could’ve killed “hundreds” of people.
The administration’s classified briefings to members of Congress about the Soleimani killing — which Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called “the worst briefing” on a military issue he’d seen — was similarly fraught.
In the briefings, several top Trump administration officials attempted to sell Congress on the imminent threat Soleimani posed, but many legislators left unconvinced after the briefers skimped on detail.
At one point, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly listed three specific dates on which Soleimani had discussed potential attacks.
“What were the threats?” lawmakers shouted, per the Times. Milley didn’t say.
One lawmaker, unnamed in the report, noted that the dates Milley listed, in late December or early January, had passed before Soleimani’s killing without any attacks.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-11--Trump Campaign Typo Briefly Celebrates President’s ‘Anti-Semetic Executive Order’

The President ’ s re-election campaign on Saturday accidentally bragged about him signing “ an anti-Semetic [ sic ] executive order ” before cleaning up the mess a few hours later .
A page soliciting supporters ’ contact information on Trump ’ s campaign website Saturday asked them to “ Thank President Trump !
” for a list of his recent achievements in office .
One of those was “ He signed an anti-Semetic [ sic ] executive order.
” BuzzFeed ’ s Josh Billinson spotted the error , which was eventually changed to reflect that Trump “ signed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ copies of the page show the initial text .
The item was likely referencing the executive order Trump signed in December regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act .
The law prohibits against discrimination on the basis of race , color and national origin — not religion .
But , Trump ’ s order said , “ It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI .
@

The President’s re-election campaign on Saturday accidentally bragged about him signing “an anti-Semetic [sic] executive order” before cleaning up the mess a few hours later.
A page soliciting supporters’ contact information on Trump’s campaign website Saturday asked them to “Thank President Trump!” for a list of his recent achievements in office.
One of those was “He signed an anti-Semetic [sic] executive order.” BuzzFeed’s Josh Billinson spotted the error, which was eventually changed to reflect that Trump “signed an executive order to combat anti-Semitism.” Archived copies of the page show the initial text.
This Trump campaign page touts the president signing “an anti-Semetic executive order” as an accomplishment https://t.co/ryaX466cc6 pic.twitter.com/StmuqS7u2u — Josh Billinson (@jbillinson) January 11, 2020
The item was likely referencing the executive order Trump signed in December regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The law prohibits against discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin — not religion.
But, Trump’s order said, “It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-11--WSJ: Trump Admin Threatened Iraq’s Access To NY Fed Account Over Proposed Troop Withdrawal

The Trump administration reportedly threatened to cut off Iraq ’ s access to its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York over a proposed withdrawal of American troops .
The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the State Department threatened to cut off Iraq ’ s New York Fed account in a phone call Wednesday with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi , according to unnamed Iraqi officials .
The resulting cash shortage would hurt Iraq ’ s economy .
Many countries maintain accounts with the New York Fed in order to store government revenue in the form of U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , much of that comes from oil sales .
The State Department didn ’ t respond to TPM ’ s request for comment on Saturday .
Abdul-Mahdi and Iraq ’ s parliament have called for American troops to exit the country following the killing , ordered by President Donald Trump , of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad International Airport a week ago .
Trump in turn threatened to sanction Iraq if U.S. troops were expelled .
The State Department has refused to recognize Iraq ’ s call for the troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how best to recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal , ” the State Department said in a statement quoted by The Washington Post Friday .

The Trump administration reportedly threatened to cut off Iraq’s access to its account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York over a proposed withdrawal of American troops.
The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that the State Department threatened to cut off Iraq’s New York Fed account in a phone call Wednesday with Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi, according to unnamed Iraqi officials. The resulting cash shortage would hurt Iraq’s economy.
Many countries maintain accounts with the New York Fed in order to store government revenue in the form of U.S. dollars. In Iraq’s case, much of that comes from oil sales.
The State Department didn’t respond to TPM’s request for comment on Saturday.
Abdul-Mahdi and Iraq’s parliament have called for American troops to exit the country following the killing, ordered by President Donald Trump, of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani outside Baghdad International Airport a week ago.
Trump in turn threatened to sanction Iraq if U.S. troops were expelled. The State Department has refused to recognize Iraq’s call for the troops to leave.
“At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how best to recommit to our strategic partnership — not to discuss troop withdrawal,” the State Department said in a statement quoted by The Washington Post Friday.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-11--Trump Indicates He’ll Seek To Block Key Impeachment Witnesses’ Testimonies At Trial

President Donald Trump signaled in an interview aired Friday that he would seek to block key witnesses from testifying in the Senate ’ s impeachment trial , including former National Security Adviser John Bolton , former Energy Secretary Rick Perry , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Trump ordered the men , and several other witnesses , not to cooperate with the House of Representatives ’ impeachment inquiry about his pressure campaign on Ukraine to produce political dirt against Democrats .
Now , as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) prepares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate for an impeachment trial , Trump implied he would seek to do the same in that chamber .
Asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham if he would invoke executive privilege in an attempt to prevent Bolton from testifying , Trump said “ I think you have to , for the sake of the office.
” Bolton witnessed several attempts by Trump administration officials to pressure Ukraine to do the President ’ s political bidding .
At one point , referring to the EU ambassador and the White House chief of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am not part of whatever drug deal [ Gordon ] Sondland and [ Mick ] Mulvaney are cooking up.
” After a judge dismissed his lawsuit seeking an answer on whether he was obliged to testify , Bolton announced last week that he would testify if subpoenaed .
Trump similarly suggested Friday he would seek to prevent potential testimony from Pompeo , Mulvaney and Perry .
“ I would love everybody to testify , ” he said .
“ I would like Mick to testify , I like Mike Pompeo to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testify .
I want everybody .
But there are things that you can ’ t do from the standpoint of executive privilege.
” “ You have to maintain that , ” Trump continued .
“ So we ’ ll see where it all goes .
But especially a national security adviser , you can ’ t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia , China , North Korea , everything .
You just can ’ t do that.
” A few GOP senators have hinted that they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate trial , but that hasn ’ t reassured Democrats ; Pelosi has withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks in an attempt to build political pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses that were not part of the House ’ s hearings to testify .

President Donald Trump signaled in an interview aired Friday that he would seek to block key witnesses from testifying in the Senate’s impeachment trial, including former National Security Adviser John Bolton, former Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Trump ordered the men, and several other witnesses, not to cooperate with the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry about his pressure campaign on Ukraine to produce political dirt against Democrats.
Now, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepares to transmit two articles of impeachment to the Senate for an impeachment trial, Trump implied he would seek to do the same in that chamber.
Asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham if he would invoke executive privilege in an attempt to prevent Bolton from testifying, Trump said “I think you have to, for the sake of the office.”
Bolton witnessed several attempts by Trump administration officials to pressure Ukraine to do the President’s political bidding.
At one point, referring to the EU ambassador and the White House chief of staff, Bolton reportedly told a deputy “I am not part of whatever drug deal [Gordon] Sondland and [Mick] Mulvaney are cooking up.”
After a judge dismissed his lawsuit seeking an answer on whether he was obliged to testify, Bolton announced last week that he would testify if subpoenaed.
Trump similarly suggested Friday he would seek to prevent potential testimony from Pompeo, Mulvaney and Perry.
“I would love everybody to testify,” he said. “I would like Mick to testify, I like Mike Pompeo to testify. I like Rick Perry to testify. I want everybody. But there are things that you can’t do from the standpoint of executive privilege.”
“You have to maintain that,” Trump continued. “So we’ll see where it all goes. But especially a national security adviser, you can’t have him explaining all of your statements about national security concerning Russia, China, North Korea, everything. You just can’t do that.”
A few GOP senators have hinted that they would be open to hearing witnesses later on in the Senate trial, but that hasn’t reassured Democrats; Pelosi has withheld the articles of impeachment from the Senate for weeks in an attempt to build political pressure on Senate Republicans to allow witnesses that were not part of the House’s hearings to testify.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-11--Iran Admits Military Mistakenly Shot Down Civilian Plane Outside Tehran

Iran acknowledged Saturday that its own military shot down a civilian plane early Wednesday morning , calling the incident a grave mistake .
Ukraine Airlines flight 752 , with 176 people on board , crashed into an open field after being hit by an Iranian missile operator .
Iranians and Canadians made up the bulk of the passengers .
Most on the plane were headed to Canada ; all perished .
The crash occurred hours after Iran struck two American military bases in Iraq and was bracing for a potential American military response .
Iranian officials initially ruled out a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaming mechanical issues on the plane .
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wrote on Twitter that “ missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent people.
” “ The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake , ” he added .
“ My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families .
I offer my sincerest condolences.
” The leader of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps ’ aerospace division , Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh , addressed the situation in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I wish I could die and not witness such an accident , ” Hajizadeh said , according to a translation from Reuters .
According to a translation from the Iranian journalist Reza Khaasteh , Hajizadeh said later in his remarks that Iran had been ready Wednesday morning for an all-out war with the United States , and that there had been reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran .
An individual missile operator , having seen the Ukrainian plane Wednesday morning , sent a message to commanders but did not receive a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point , the operator shot the plane down , Hajizadeh said , per Khaasteh ’ s translation .
In a separate military statement quoted by USA Today , Iran said the plane was mistaken for a “ hostile target ” after turning toward a “ sensitive military center.
” “ In such a condition , because of human error and in an unintentional way , the flight was hit , ” the statement said .
The crash happened just hours after Iran shot several missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to the American killing of the top Iranian commander Qassim Soleimani days earlier .
Soleimani ’ s killing , ordered by President Donald Trump , caused an uproar in the region — Iraq ’ s parliament called for American forces to leave the country — and at home , where the House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution Thursday to constrain Trump ’ s future potential military action against Iran .
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in a statement that Iran had “ admitted its guilt.
” “ We expect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full and open investigation , holding those responsible accountable , return of the bodies of the deceased , payment of compensation , and official apologies via diplomatic channels , ” he added .
Iran ’ s admission followed preliminary judgments from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that Iran ’ s own missiles had shot down the plane .

Iran acknowledged Saturday that its own military shot down a civilian plane early Wednesday morning, calling the incident a grave mistake.
Ukraine Airlines flight 752, with 176 people on board, crashed into an open field after being hit by an Iranian missile operator. Iranians and Canadians made up the bulk of the passengers. Most on the plane were headed to Canada; all perished.
The crash occurred hours after Iran struck two American military bases in Iraq and was bracing for a potential American military response. Iranian officials initially ruled out a military cause for the crash, instead blaming mechanical issues on the plane.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wrote on Twitter that “missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent people.”
“The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake,” he added. “My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families. I offer my sincerest condolences.”
The leader of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps’ aerospace division, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, addressed the situation in a televised presentation a few hours later.
“I wish I could die and not witness such an accident,” Hajizadeh said, according to a translation from Reuters.
According to a translation from the Iranian journalist Reza Khaasteh, Hajizadeh said later in his remarks that Iran had been ready Wednesday morning for an all-out war with the United States, and that there had been reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran.
An individual missile operator, having seen the Ukrainian plane Wednesday morning, sent a message to commanders but did not receive a response for 10 seconds. At that point, the operator shot the plane down, Hajizadeh said, per Khaasteh’s translation.
In a separate military statement quoted by USA Today, Iran said the plane was mistaken for a “hostile target” after turning toward a “sensitive military center.”
“In such a condition, because of human error and in an unintentional way, the flight was hit,” the statement said.
The crash happened just hours after Iran shot several missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, killing none. Those missiles were fired in response to the American killing of the top Iranian commander Qassim Soleimani days earlier.
Soleimani’s killing, ordered by President Donald Trump, caused an uproar in the region — Iraq’s parliament called for American forces to leave the country — and at home, where the House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution Thursday to constrain Trump’s future potential military action against Iran.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged in a statement that Iran had “admitted its guilt.”
“We expect reassurance from Iran in readiness for a full and open investigation, holding those responsible accountable, return of the bodies of the deceased, payment of compensation, and official apologies via diplomatic channels,” he added.
Iran’s admission followed preliminary judgments from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that Iran’s own missiles had shot down the plane.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--McCarthy Accuses Pelosi Of Holding Back Impeachment Articles To Sabotage Sanders

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) believes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) is holding back the articles of impeachment against President Trump to … sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders ( D-VT ) ?
In an interview on Fox News ’ “ Sunday Morning Futures , ” McCarthy recalled when Democratic National Convention chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign the night before the 2016 nomination convention began , before accusing Democrats of “ doing the exact same thing right now ” by “ cheating ” Sanders .
“ Remember what happened in the last nomination process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schultz had to resign the night before the nomination convention started because they had found out they had cheated senator Bernie Sanders from the opportunity to become the nominee ?
” McCarthy said .
“ They are doing the exact same thing right now.
” McCarthy then argued that because the Iowa caucuses are around the corner and that Sanders “ is in first place ” — without citing a specific poll — Democrats are out to “ benefit ” former Vice President Joe Biden .
“ Iowa caucus is on Feb 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What this does is , this benefits Joe Biden , ” McCarthy said .
McCarthy added that Pelosi ’ s move to hold back the impeachment articles “ harms ” Sanders “ because he will be stuck in the chair.
” “ This harms Sen. Sanders , who is in first place and could become their nominee , because he will be stuck in the chair , because Nancy Pelosi held the papers different than what she said to the American public why she had to move so urgently , ” McCarthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchor Maria Bartiromo if he thinks “ it is by design ” that Pelosi is “ really slow-walking the impeachment trial to have those senators in the room ” and whether it is “ obstruction keeping Bernie Sanders at bay , clearing the decks for Joe Biden , ” McCarthy responded “ that is exactly what I ’ m saying.
” Earlier Sunday , Pelosi told ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos that she denied having any “ second thoughts ” in holding back the impeachment articles because she believes that Democrats accomplished their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need for witnesses.
” Hours after McCarthy ’ s interview on Fox News , Trump tweeted that Sanders is “ surging in the polls ” and is “ looking very good against his opponents .
”

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) believes that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is holding back the articles of impeachment against President Trump to … sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT)?
In an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” McCarthy recalled when Democratic National Convention chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign the night before the 2016 nomination convention began, before accusing Democrats of “doing the exact same thing right now” by “cheating” Sanders.
“Remember what happened in the last nomination process where the DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign the night before the nomination convention started because they had found out they had cheated senator Bernie Sanders from the opportunity to become the nominee?” McCarthy said. “They are doing the exact same thing right now.”
McCarthy then argued that because the Iowa caucuses are around the corner and that Sanders “is in first place” — without citing a specific poll — Democrats are out to “benefit” former Vice President Joe Biden.
“Iowa caucus is on Feb 3. Bernie Sanders is in first place. What this does is, this benefits Joe Biden,” McCarthy said.
McCarthy added that Pelosi’s move to hold back the impeachment articles “harms” Sanders “because he will be stuck in the chair.”
“This harms Sen. Sanders, who is in first place and could become their nominee, because he will be stuck in the chair, because Nancy Pelosi held the papers different than what she said to the American public why she had to move so urgently,” McCarthy said.
When asked by Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo if he thinks “it is by design” that Pelosi is “really slow-walking the impeachment trial to have those senators in the room” and whether it is “obstruction keeping Bernie Sanders at bay, clearing the decks for Joe Biden,” McCarthy responded “that is exactly what I’m saying.”
Earlier Sunday, Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that she denied having any “second thoughts” in holding back the impeachment articles because she believes that Democrats accomplished their desire for “the public to see the need for witnesses.”
Hours after McCarthy’s interview on Fox News, Trump tweeted that Sanders is “surging in the polls” and is “looking very good against his opponents.”
Wow! Crazy Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls, looking very good against his opponents in the Do Nothing Party. So what does this all mean? Stay tuned! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
Watch McCarthy’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Warren ‘Disappointed’ To Hear Sanders ‘Sending His Volunteers Out To Trash Me’

Two days before the last Democratic presidential debate prior to the Iowa caucuses next month , drama appears to have unexpectedly emerged between Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( D-VT ) .
According to a Politico report Sunday morning , a Sanders campaign script instructs volunteers to tell voters who are leaning toward voting for Warren that the “ people who support her are highly-educated , more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what ” and that “ she ’ s bringing no new bases into the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticisms of Warren , the script distributed to Sanders campaign volunteers begins : “ I like Elizabeth Warren .
[ optional ] In fact , she ’ s my second choice .
But here ’ s my concern about her.
” While speaking to reporters in Iowa Sunday , Warren responded to Politico ’ s report by saying that she was “ disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.
” “ Bernie knows me , and has known me for a long time , he knows who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , what I have worked on and fought for and the coalition and grassroots movement we ’ re trying to build , ” Warren said .
Warren added that “ we can ’ t have a repeat ” of the “ impact of the factionalism in 2016 , ” which appeared to take aim at the Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton against then-candidate Donald Trump following Sanders ’ Democratic primary loss .
“ Democrats need to unite our party , and that means pulling in all parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before saying that “ we need someone who can bring our party together ” and that she hopes “ Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.
” When asked whether she meant that Sanders is not a candidate that “ everyone can get behind , ” Warren dodged and responded : “ I believe we need someone every Democrat can get behind and out there fighting for every Democrat .
”

Two days before the last Democratic presidential debate prior to the Iowa caucuses next month, drama appears to have unexpectedly emerged between Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT).
According to a Politico report Sunday morning, a Sanders campaign script instructs volunteers to tell voters who are leaning toward voting for Warren that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she’s bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
Politico reported that before listing criticisms of Warren, the script distributed to Sanders campaign volunteers begins: “I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional] In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.”
While speaking to reporters in Iowa Sunday, Warren responded to Politico’s report by saying that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.”
“Bernie knows me, and has known me for a long time, he knows who I am, where I come from, what I have worked on and fought for and the coalition and grassroots movement we’re trying to build,” Warren said.
Warren added that “we can’t have a repeat” of the “impact of the factionalism in 2016,” which appeared to take aim at the Sanders supporters who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton against then-candidate Donald Trump following Sanders’ Democratic primary loss.
“Democrats need to unite our party, and that means pulling in all parts of the Democratic coalition,” Warren said, before saying that “we need someone who can bring our party together” and that she hopes “Bernie reconsiders and turns his campaign in a different direction.”
When asked whether she meant that Sanders is not a candidate that “everyone can get behind,” Warren dodged and responded: “I believe we need someone every Democrat can get behind and out there fighting for every Democrat.”
Watch Warren’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Schiff Says Trump Is ‘Fudging The Intelligence’ With Embassy Threat Claim

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) isn ’ t taking President Trump ’ s claim that top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani was planning to attack four U.S. embassies lightly .
In an interview with Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham that aired Friday , Trump said that he was driven to authorize the strike that killed Soleimani because the top Iranian military official had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that is at odds with senior officials in his administration .
During an interview on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” Sunday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertion that U.S. embassies were under threat by Iran shows that “ he is fudging the intelligence.
” “ When you hear the President on Fox , he is fudging the intelligence .
And when you hear the secretary say ‘ that wasn ’ t what the intelligence said , that ’ s my personal belief , ’ he is fudging , ” Schiff said .
Schiff added that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also “ fudging ” on CBS last week when he claimed that intelligence analysis shows that killing Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is also fudging — that is not an intelligence conclusion , ” Schiff said .
“ That is Pompeo ’ s personal opinion.
” When asked if he ’ s saying that the Trump administration is lying , Schiff responded that “ you could certainly put it that way , but frankly I think what they ’ re doing is they are overstating and exaggerating what the intelligence shows.
” Schiff also had a response to Defense Secretary Mark Esper ’ s interview on CBS earlier Monday morning — where he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump “ embellished ” the imminency of the threat because “ the bottom line is we had exquisite intelligence that could only be shared with the Gang of Eight ” — which he thinks is “ just plain wrong.
” “ I don ’ t quibble with it .
I think it ’ s just plain wrong , ” Schiff said .
“ There was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies being targeted , we have exquisite intelligence that shows these specific targets.
” Schiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration ’ s briefing on the Soleimani strike last week mentioning the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad .
“ The briefing was much more along the lines of something that Secretary Pompeo admitted the other day when he said we don ’ t know precisely where and we don ’ t know precisely when , ” Schiff said .
“ That was much more of the nature of the briefing that we got .
”

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) isn’t taking President Trump’s claim that top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani was planning to attack four U.S. embassies lightly.
In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that aired Friday, Trump said that he was driven to authorize the strike that killed Soleimani because the top Iranian military official had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that is at odds with senior officials in his administration.
During an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, Schiff said that Trump’s assertion that U.S. embassies were under threat by Iran shows that “he is fudging the intelligence.”
“When you hear the President on Fox, he is fudging the intelligence. And when you hear the secretary say ‘that wasn’t what the intelligence said, that’s my personal belief,’ he is fudging,” Schiff said.
Schiff added that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also “fudging” on CBS last week when he claimed that intelligence analysis shows that killing Soleimani “would improve our security.”
“That is also fudging — that is not an intelligence conclusion,” Schiff said. “That is Pompeo’s personal opinion.”
When asked if he’s saying that the Trump administration is lying, Schiff responded that “you could certainly put it that way, but frankly I think what they’re doing is they are overstating and exaggerating what the intelligence shows.”
Schiff also had a response to Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s interview on CBS earlier Monday morning — where he said that he didn’t believe President Trump “embellished” the imminency of the threat because “the bottom line is we had exquisite intelligence that could only be shared with the Gang of Eight” — which he thinks is “just plain wrong.”
“I don’t quibble with it. I think it’s just plain wrong,” Schiff said. “There was no discussion in the Gang of Eight briefings that these are the four embassies being targeted, we have exquisite intelligence that shows these specific targets.”
Schiff added that he doesn’t recall the Trump administration’s briefing on the Soleimani strike last week mentioning the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
“The briefing was much more along the lines of something that Secretary Pompeo admitted the other day when he said we don’t know precisely where and we don’t know precisely when,” Schiff said. “That was much more of the nature of the briefing that we got.”
Watch Schiff’s remarks on CBS below:
.@RepAdamSchiff on @realDonaldTrump ’s assertion that there were multiple U.S. embassies targeted for attack by Iran: “He is fudging the intelligence” pic.twitter.com/CLKsFjdpUM — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 12, 2020
.@RepAdamSchiff mSchiff responds to @EsperDoD’s intelligence assessment: “I don’t quibble with it,” says @EsperDOD is “just plain wrong,” adding that he doesn’t recall specific information about a plot to bomb the US embassy in Baghdad. pic.twitter.com/1tWdiS52Y1 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 12, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Trump Admin Can’t Confirm ‘Specific’ Intel Of Iran Threat To Attack Four US Embassies

Throughout their multiple appearances on Sunday cable news shows , neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien could confirm that President Trump had specific intelligence that top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani threatened to target four U.S. embassies .
In an interview with Fox News ’ Laura Ingraham that aired Friday , Trump said that he was justified in authorizing the strike that killed Soleimani because the top Iranian military official had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that sits at odds with senior officials in his administration .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tapper Sunday morning , Esper said that Trump never claimed to have “ specific intelligence ” that Soleimani planned to attack four U.S. embassies , but that he shared the President ’ s “ belief ” that was the case .
When Tapper asked Esper whether Trump was “ embellishing ” the imminence of the threats , Esper said that he didn ’ t believe so because “ the bottom line is we had exquisite intelligence that could only be shared with the Gang of Eight.
” After Tapper said that it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to make the threat claim publicly on Fox News while Esper can ’ t share what he said is “ exquisite intelligence ” with Congress , Esper refused to go into details of what they were briefed “ partly because I wasn ’ t there.
” Esper echoed his comments on CNN in an appearance on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” Sunday when he said that he “ believed ” the attacks on four embassies was imminent and insisted that “ the President didn ’ t say there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ piece of evidence.
” “ Are you saying there wasn ’ t one ?
” CBS ’ Margaret Brennan asked Esper , which he said he “ didn ’ t see one with regard to four embassies ” and that he “ shared the President ’ s view that probably , my expectation is they were going to go after our embassies.
” O ’ Brien ’ s appearances on Sunday morning news shows also failed to provide any clarification .
When ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos pointed out to the national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four embassies being targeted seems to be at odds with what a lot of Democrats and others heard in those briefings , ” O ’ Brien said that he “ would love to release the intelligence in light of this ” but that the reason the administration doesn ’ t is “ because that same intelligence , those same streams and channels are what allows us to protect Americans going forward.
” O ’ Brien then insisted to Stephanopolous that “ everything the President has said is consistent with and his interpretation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Soleimani was plotting to kill Americans ” and that “ we feel good about the explanation that ’ s been given to Congress.
” O ’ Brien also added that the four embassies who Trump claims were under Soleimani ’ s threat weren ’ t alerted nor evacuated because “ we ’ re not going to cut and run every time somebody threatens us.
” O ’ Brien didn ’ t clarify the imminency of the threat on “ Meet the Press ” with MSNBC ’ s Chuck Todd either , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon , quickly , you know , in process ” and that the embassy in Baghdad was not warned of a threat because it was a “ very fast-moving situation.
” “ This is a very fast-moving situation .
And Soleimani was traveling around the region , plotting against the United States , ” O ’ Brien told Todd .
“ As soon as it looked like there was going to be some sort of action against the U.S. embassy , the President was decisive and bold in his action.
” O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument that the administration had “ exquisite intelligence ” on Iran ’ s threats that Trump ’ s interpretation of the intelligence is “ consistent.
” “ We had exquisite intelligence and the intelligence showed that they were looking at U.S. facilities throughout the region and that they wanted to inflict casualties on American soldiers , sailors , airmen , marines , as well as diplomats , ” O ’ Brien said .
“ The threat was imminent .
I saw the intelligence.
” Watch O ’ Brien ’ s remarks on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Brien would also tell Fox News ’ Chris Wallace that “ it ’ s always difficult ” for the administration to release “ exquisite intel ” without risking the loss of their source of intelligence .
“ It is always difficult , even with the exquisite intelligence we have , to know exactly what the targets are , ” O ’ Brien answered .
“ But it certainly is consistent with the intelligence to assume they would have hit embassies in at least four countries .
”

Throughout their multiple appearances on Sunday cable news shows, neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien could confirm that President Trump had specific intelligence that top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani threatened to target four U.S. embassies.
In an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that aired Friday, Trump said that he was justified in authorizing the strike that killed Soleimani because the top Iranian military official had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that sits at odds with senior officials in his administration.
During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Sunday morning, Esper said that Trump never claimed to have “specific intelligence” that Soleimani planned to attack four U.S. embassies, but that he shared the President’s “belief” that was the case.
When Tapper asked Esper whether Trump was “embellishing” the imminence of the threats, Esper said that he didn’t believe so because “the bottom line is we had exquisite intelligence that could only be shared with the Gang of Eight.”
After Tapper said that it “doesn’t make sense” for Trump to make the threat claim publicly on Fox News while Esper can’t share what he said is “exquisite intelligence” with Congress, Esper refused to go into details of what they were briefed “partly because I wasn’t there.”
Watch Esper’s remarks on CNN below:
Esper says that Trump never claimed to have "specific intelligence" pic.twitter.com/coevPPPTEm — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 12, 2020
Esper echoed his comments on CNN in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday when he said that he “believed” the attacks on four embassies was imminent and insisted that “the President didn’t say there was a tangible—he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence.”
“Are you saying there wasn’t one?” CBS’ Margaret Brennan asked Esper, which he said he “didn’t see one with regard to four embassies” and that he “shared the President’s view that probably, my expectation is they were going to go after our embassies.”
NEWS: @EsperDod tells @margbrennan he "didn't see" specific evidence showing Iran planned to strike 4 U.S. embassies, despite @realDonaldTrump saying an attack at multiple embassies was “imminent." Watch more of Esper's interview on @FacetheNation today. pic.twitter.com/1Nud8waok1 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 12, 2020
O’Brien’s appearances on Sunday morning news shows also failed to provide any clarification.
When ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos pointed out to the national security adviser that Trump “has said about four embassies being targeted seems to be at odds with what a lot of Democrats and others heard in those briefings,” O’Brien said that he “would love to release the intelligence in light of this” but that the reason the administration doesn’t is “because that same intelligence, those same streams and channels are what allows us to protect Americans going forward.”
O’Brien then insisted to Stephanopolous that “everything the President has said is consistent with and his interpretation is very consistent with the intelligence which showed that Soleimani was plotting to kill Americans” and that “we feel good about the explanation that’s been given to Congress.” O’Brien also added that the four embassies who Trump claims were under Soleimani’s threat weren’t alerted nor evacuated because “we’re not going to cut and run every time somebody threatens us.”
Watch O’Brien’s interview on ABC below:
"In the long run we'd like the Iraqi soldiers and their military to defend their country and allow our men and women to come home," White House national security adviser Robert O'Brien tells @GStephanopoulos when asked about U.S. policy on troops in Iraq. https://t.co/SBtfYJ3x95 pic.twitter.com/VHIVylCJM8 — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 12, 2020
O’Brien didn’t clarify the imminency of the threat on “Meet the Press” with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd either, saying that “imminent, generally, means soon, quickly, you know, in process” and that the embassy in Baghdad was not warned of a threat because it was a “very fast-moving situation.”
“This is a very fast-moving situation. And Soleimani was traveling around the region, plotting against the United States,” O’Brien told Todd. “As soon as it looked like there was going to be some sort of action against the U.S. embassy, the President was decisive and bold in his action.” O’Brien would then echo Esper’s argument that the administration had “exquisite intelligence” on Iran’s threats that Trump’s interpretation of the intelligence is “consistent.” “We had exquisite intelligence and the intelligence showed that they were looking at U.S. facilities throughout the region and that they wanted to inflict casualties on American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, as well as diplomats,” O’Brien said. “The threat was imminent. I saw the intelligence.” Watch O’Brien’s remarks on “Meet the Press” below:
O’Brien would also tell Fox News’ Chris Wallace that “it’s always difficult” for the administration to release “exquisite intel” without risking the loss of their source of intelligence.
“It is always difficult, even with the exquisite intelligence we have, to know exactly what the targets are,” O’Brien answered. “But it certainly is consistent with the intelligence to assume they would have hit embassies in at least four countries.”
Watch O’Brien’s remarks on Fox News below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Lee Says He Didn’t Hear About Soleimani Threat To Attack Four US Embassies In Briefing

A few days after attempting to clean up his “ worst briefing ” comment regarding the Trump administration ’ s briefing on the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week , Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) seems to have added to the mess .
On Friday , President Trump said that he was justified in authorizing the strike that killed Soleimani because he had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that is at odds with senior officials in his administration .
During an interview with CNN ’ s Jake Tapper Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t receive very much information that wasn ’ t already available through public media sources.
” “ This is one of the things that ’ s very frustrating , ” Lee said .
“ When something like this happens , when events are unfolding quickly , events that will have a profound impact on national security and military strategy , Congress does need to know about it , in part so we can evaluate the scope of our authority to act or choose not to act .
We didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” When Tapper asked Lee whether Trump ’ s claim that there was a threat against four U.S. embassies was brought up during last week ’ s briefing , Lee said he “ didn ’ t hear anything about that ” and that “ several of my colleagues have said the same.
” “ So , that was news to me .
It certainly wasn ’ t something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing , ” Lee said .
“ Well , look , I ’ m not sure exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there .
I don ’ t recall being told , look , there were four embassies .
I ’ m sure there was a mention of at least one embassy in that briefing , because there had been an attack on one of our embassies in the days leading up to General Soleimani ’ s killing.
” Lee was then quick to bring up his talking point of issuing “ a statement within a few hours of the attack on General Soleimani ” that “ was a good development from the standpoint of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Americans are “ safer as a result of the fact that he ’ s dead.
” When pressed by Tapper about whether he believes Soleimani posed an “ imminent ” threat , which Trump administration officials have said regarding what prompted the strike that killed the top Iranian military official , Lee dodged the question and appeared to place more blame on the briefers .
“ Look , I have not yet been able to ascertain really specific details as to the imminence of the attack .
Again , we weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were given somewhat general statements , ” Lee said .
“ And I believe that the briefers and the President believe that they had a basis for concluding that there was an imminent attack .
I don ’ t doubt that .
It ’ s just frustrating to be told that and not get the details behind it.
” Lee also echoed similar sentiments during appearances on CBS ’ “ Face the Nation ” later Sunday morning , saying that Trump ’ s claim that four threats were under threat from Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gang of Eight .
”

A few days after attempting to clean up his “worst briefing” comment regarding the Trump administration’s briefing on the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) seems to have added to the mess.
On Friday, President Trump said that he was justified in authorizing the strike that killed Soleimani because he had been planning attacks on four U.S. embassies — a claim that is at odds with senior officials in his administration.
During an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Sunday morning, Lee reiterated how “we didn’t receive very much information that wasn’t already available through public media sources.”
“This is one of the things that’s very frustrating,” Lee said. “When something like this happens, when events are unfolding quickly, events that will have a profound impact on national security and military strategy, Congress does need to know about it, in part so we can evaluate the scope of our authority to act or choose not to act. We didn’t get that. And that was disappointing.”
When Tapper asked Lee whether Trump’s claim that there was a threat against four U.S. embassies was brought up during last week’s briefing, Lee said he “didn’t hear anything about that” and that “several of my colleagues have said the same.”
“So, that was news to me. It certainly wasn’t something that I recall being raised in the classified briefing,” Lee said. “Well, look, I’m not sure exactly what he’s trying to say there. I don’t recall being told, look, there were four embassies. I’m sure there was a mention of at least one embassy in that briefing, because there had been an attack on one of our embassies in the days leading up to General Soleimani’s killing.”
Lee was then quick to bring up his talking point of issuing “a statement within a few hours of the attack on General Soleimani” that “was a good development from the standpoint of the security of the American people” because Americans are “safer as a result of the fact that he’s dead.”
When pressed by Tapper about whether he believes Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat, which Trump administration officials have said regarding what prompted the strike that killed the top Iranian military official, Lee dodged the question and appeared to place more blame on the briefers.
“Look, I have not yet been able to ascertain really specific details as to the imminence of the attack. Again, we weren’t provided that the other day. We were given somewhat general statements,” Lee said. “And I believe that the briefers and the President believe that they had a basis for concluding that there was an imminent attack. I don’t doubt that. It’s just frustrating to be told that and not get the details behind it.”
Watch Lee’s remarks on CNN below:
Mike Lee says he didn’t hear anything in the briefing about four embassies targeted by Soleimani pic.twitter.com/wEee6JshNJ — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) January 12, 2020
Lee also echoed similar sentiments during appearances on CBS’ “Face the Nation” later Sunday morning, saying that Trump’s claim that four threats were under threat from Iran should have been shared beyond “the Gang of Eight.”
Watch Lee’s remarks on CBS below:
.@SenMikeLee tells @margbrennan that intelligence suggesting a plot to attack multiple US embassies in the Middle East should have been shared with the entire Congress. “The Gang of Eight does not equal Congress,” he said. pic.twitter.com/fXhIgDToA3 — Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 12, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Pelosi Denies ‘Second Thoughts’ On Holding Onto Impeachment Articles

Two days after saying that that the House will vote to appoint impeachment managers this week , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) expressed no regrets in holding onto the impeachment articles for three weeks .
During an interview with ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning , Pelosi reiterated that she plans to consult with House Democrats Tuesday morning during their regular caucus meeting .
“ Well , what I did say is , I would be consulting with my members this week , on Tuesday morning , at our regular caucus meeting , that we would vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will determine in our meeting when we send them over , ” Pelosi said .
“ But it — we have never — I have always said I would send them over .
So there shouldn ’ t be any mystery to that.
” When Pelosi added that she believes that Democrats accomplished their desire for “ the public to see the need for witnesses , ” Stephanopoulos pointed out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) “ didn ’ t budge on witnesses at all ” and is “ not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Well , he has — he will — I think that he will be accountable to the American people for that , ” Pelosi said , before arguing that the Senate took the oath to “ have a fair trial.
” “ It ’ s about a fair trial .
They take an oath to take — have a fair trial .
And we think that would be with witnesses and documentation , ” Pelosi said .
“ So , that dynamic has — now the ball is in their court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price for not doing it.
” Pelosi doubled down on her argument that McConnell “ signed on to a resolution to dismiss the case ” and called it a “ cover-up.
” “ Dismissing is a cover-up , ” Pelosi said .
“ If they want to go that route , again , the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not , they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.
” Later in the interview , when Stephanopoulos pressed Pelosi on whether she has “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the impeachment articles for three weeks , Pelosi denied any regrets because of “ a positive result in terms of additional emails and un-redacted information that has come forward.
” “ No , no , no .
We feel that it — it ’ s a positive result in terms of additional emails and un-redacted information that has come forward , that [ former national security adviser John ] Bolton has said that he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate , other information that has come forward , ” Pelosi said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation , and if we don ’ t that is a cover-up.
” When asked by Stephanopoulos about her response to the President ’ s tweet seconds before the start of the interview , which called for Stephanopoulos to ask her to justify House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff ’ s comments during the House hearings , Pelosi responded that she ’ d like to “ talk about some more pleasant subjects ” on Sunday morning .
“ Let me just say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ d like to talk about some more pleasant subjects than the erratic nature of this president of the United States , but he has to know that every knock from him is a boost , ” Pelosi said , before repeating her argument that “ Trump is not worth impeachment .
”

Two days after saying that that the House will vote to appoint impeachment managers this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) expressed no regrets in holding onto the impeachment articles for three weeks.
During an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning, Pelosi reiterated that she plans to consult with House Democrats Tuesday morning during their regular caucus meeting.
“Well, what I did say is, I would be consulting with my members this week, on Tuesday morning, at our regular caucus meeting, that we would vote to send them over, and we will determine in our meeting when we send them over,” Pelosi said. “But it — we have never — I have always said I would send them over. So there shouldn’t be any mystery to that.”
When Pelosi added that she believes that Democrats accomplished their desire for “the public to see the need for witnesses,” Stephanopoulos pointed out that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “didn’t budge on witnesses at all” and is “not promising up front to have witnesses.”
“Well, he has — he will — I think that he will be accountable to the American people for that,” Pelosi said, before arguing that the Senate took the oath to “have a fair trial.”
“It’s about a fair trial. They take an oath to take — have a fair trial. And we think that would be with witnesses and documentation,” Pelosi said. “So, that dynamic has — now the ball is in their court to either do that, or pay a price for not doing it.”
Pelosi doubled down on her argument that McConnell “signed on to a resolution to dismiss the case” and called it a “cover-up.”
“Dismissing is a cover-up,” Pelosi said. “If they want to go that route, again, the senators who are thinking now about voting for witnesses or not, they will have to be accountable for not having a fair trial.”
Later in the interview, when Stephanopoulos pressed Pelosi on whether she has “any second thoughts about holding on” to the impeachment articles for three weeks, Pelosi denied any regrets because of “a positive result in terms of additional emails and un-redacted information that has come forward.”
“No, no, no. We feel that it — it’s a positive result in terms of additional emails and un-redacted information that has come forward, that [former national security adviser John] Bolton has said that he would testify if subpoenaed by the Senate, other information that has come forward,” Pelosi said. “And more importantly, raising the profile of the fact that we need to have witnesses and documentation, and if we don’t that is a cover-up.”
When asked by Stephanopoulos about her response to the President’s tweet seconds before the start of the interview, which called for Stephanopoulos to ask her to justify House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff’s comments during the House hearings, Pelosi responded that she’d like to “talk about some more pleasant subjects” on Sunday morning.
George @GStephanopoulos, ask Crazy Nancy why she allowed Adam “Shifty” Schiff to totally make up my conversation with the Ukrainian President & read his false words to Congress and the world, as though I said it? He got caught! Ask why hearing was most unfair & biased in history? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2020
“Let me just say, it’s Sunday morning, I’d like to talk about some more pleasant subjects than the erratic nature of this president of the United States, but he has to know that every knock from him is a boost,” Pelosi said, before repeating her argument that “Trump is not worth impeachment.”
Watch Pelosi’s remarks below:
"No, no, no," Speaker Pelosi tells @GStephanopoulos when asked if she has "second thoughts" about waiting to send the articles of impeachment, adding that it "produced a positive result" and highlights the importance of having "witnesses and documents." https://t.co/DrRhiob214 pic.twitter.com/bS5i9FNcbA — ABC News (@ABC) January 12, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-12--Giuliani Dismisses Impeachment Trial That He Says Would Be Good For Trump

Rudy Giuliani appeared to both advocate and dismiss the Senate impeachment trial during a Saturday night appearance on Fox News .
Giuliani began arguing his case against the Senate impeachment trial by telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that “ there are no rules for a trial in the Supreme Court ” and that “ all it says in the Senate is there shall be a trial.
” “ The Chief Justice presides .
What happens at the beginning of the trial ?
The defense lawyer says I move to dismiss the indictment because it fails to state a crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to indicting him in New York for “ not looking nice tonight ” and bringing him on trial before the New York Supreme Court .
Pirro then asked Giuliani if the same case applies to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) .
“ Mitch sets the rules , ” Giuliani said .
“ This should be done as if it were a trial in the United States district court.
” Giuliani went on to confusingly argue that despite how President Trump will be acquitted , “ politically it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ they ’ ll find out about Biden.
” “ If we do go to trial he will get acquitted and they ’ ll make fools out of themselves .
I can even argue that politically it would be better to go to trial !
” Giuliani said , before baselessly claiming that former Vice President Joe Biden made money in countries like Iraq .
“ They ’ ll find out about Biden , they ’ ll find out what a big crook Biden is .
”

Rudy Giuliani appeared to both advocate and dismiss the Senate impeachment trial during a Saturday night appearance on Fox News.
Giuliani began arguing his case against the Senate impeachment trial by telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro that “there are no rules for a trial in the Supreme Court” and that “all it says in the Senate is there shall be a trial.”
“The Chief Justice presides. What happens at the beginning of the trial? The defense lawyer says I move to dismiss the indictment because it fails to state a crime,” Giuliani said, before likening it to indicting him in New York for “not looking nice tonight” and bringing him on trial before the New York Supreme Court.
Pirro then asked Giuliani if the same case applies to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
“Mitch sets the rules,” Giuliani said. “This should be done as if it were a trial in the United States district court.”
Giuliani went on to argue that despite how President Trump will be acquitted, “politically it would be better to go to trial” because “they’ll find out about Biden.”
“If we do go to trial he will get acquitted and they’ll make fools out of themselves. I can even argue that politically it would be better to go to trial!” Giuliani said, before baselessly claiming that former Vice President Joe Biden made money in countries like Iraq. “They’ll find out about Biden, they’ll find out what a big crook Biden is.”
Watch Giuliani’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Perez Says DNC Still Committed To Diversity Despite No Candidates Of Color At Debate

On the morning of the last Democratic presidential debate ahead of the Iowa caucuses , Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez insisted that the party remains committed to diversity despite no candidates of color taking the stage Tuesday night .
When pressed by CNN ’ s John Berman about there being no candidates of color among the six candidates set to take the stage , which former Gov .
Deval Patrick took issue with in a Tuesday morning tweet , Perez insisted that the Democratic Party “ set a remarkably inclusive and frankly low bar throughout the campaigns.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Perez said , before boasting that “ we did have the most diverse field in American history , ” given how last month there were three women , two candidates of color and an openly gay candidate on the debate stage .
After arguing that Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA ) suspended her campaign “ not because of any criteria that the DNC set , ” Perez said that he takes “ a back seat to no one in my commitment to diversity and inclusion.
” He defended the debate qualification criteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates needed to reach 5 percent in four out of 23 polls .
“ Now , let me give you a point of reference , four years ago you needed to average 5 percent in the five polls leading up to Iowa .
So the bar was much higher in the past , ” Perez said , pointing out that Rev .
Al Sharpton , Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson would have surpassed the criteria in the past .
“ We have had a large field this year .
As a result , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t able to make the debate stage.
” Perez went on to praise his former boss , Patrick , despite “ polling at about 1 percent right now in the national polls , ” as well as Cory Booker — who he says “ may be out of the race , but he is not out of the fight ” — before reiterating that the Democratic Party is fighting for communities of color .
“ When you look at the issues that are confronting communities of color and you look at who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s long track record of fighting for diversity and inclusion is something I ’ m very proud of , ” Perez said .

On the morning of the last Democratic presidential debate ahead of the Iowa caucuses, Democratic National Committee chair Tom Perez insisted that the party remains committed to diversity despite no candidates of color taking the stage Tuesday night.
When pressed by CNN’s John Berman about there being no candidates of color among the six candidates set to take the stage, which former Gov. Deval Patrick took issue with in a Tuesday morning tweet, Perez insisted that the Democratic Party “set a remarkably inclusive and frankly low bar throughout the campaigns.”
“I’m proud of that,” Perez said, before boasting that “we did have the most diverse field in American history,” given how last month there were three women, two candidates of color and an openly gay candidate on the debate stage.
After arguing that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) suspended her campaign “not because of any criteria that the DNC set,” Perez said that he takes “a back seat to no one in my commitment to diversity and inclusion.” He defended the debate qualification criteria that the DNC set this month where candidates needed to reach 5 percent in four out of 23 polls.
“Now, let me give you a point of reference, four years ago you needed to average 5 percent in the five polls leading up to Iowa. So the bar was much higher in the past,” Perez said, pointing out that Rev. Al Sharpton, Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson would have surpassed the criteria in the past. “We have had a large field this year. As a result, we had sitting senators who weren’t able to make the debate stage.”
Perez went on to praise his former boss, Patrick, despite “polling at about 1 percent right now in the national polls,” as well as Cory Booker — who he says “may be out of the race, but he is not out of the fight” — before reiterating that the Democratic Party is fighting for communities of color.
“When you look at the issues that are confronting communities of color and you look at who has been fighting for you, the Democratic Party’s long track record of fighting for diversity and inclusion is something I’m very proud of,” Perez said.
Watch Perez’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--House To Vote On Impeachment Managers Wednesday

The House will vote on an impeachment managers resolution Wednesday , setting the stage for the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump in the coming days .
Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) announced the timeline for the vote at a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning , where she also declined to say just yet who she is selecting for the House managers team , according to lawmakers leaving the meeting .
Some Democratic members said the caucus had a general idea who would be appointed to make the House ’ s impeachment case to the Senate .
Other Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team may not even know so yet .
“ The team will be prepared , ” House Committee Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) told reporters .
Having led the second half of the House ’ s impeachment process last year , Nadler is expected to be named to the team .
But on Tuesday he declined to say whether he was expecting to be chosen .
There was little other information coming out of Tuesday ’ s meeting about Pelosi ’ s House manger plans .
It ’ s unclear exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Clinton impeachment , the managers team was made up of 13 House managers — or how far ahead of the resolution vote she will announce their names .
Once the managers resolution is put on the floor , the vote will happen very quickly , after only 10 minutes of debate .
The House will then seek notice from the Senate on when the Senate would like to receive the impeachment articles , a process that involves the managers physically carrying the articles to the Senate chamber and reading them aloud on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Monday evening said that once they received the articles , they expected to spend the remainder of the week dealing with the house keeping measures setting up the initial procedures for conducting the Senate trial .
It appears that opening arguments will not begin until early next week , after the Martin Luther King Day holiday on Monday .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) has not yet unveiled the package of impeachment trial rules expected to shape the initial phases of the proceedings .

The House will vote on an impeachment managers resolution Wednesday, setting the stage for the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump in the coming days.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the timeline for the vote at a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning, where she also declined to say just yet who she is selecting for the House managers team, according to lawmakers leaving the meeting.
Some Democratic members said the caucus had a general idea who would be appointed to make the House’s impeachment case to the Senate. Other Democrats said those who will be on the team may not even know so yet.
“The team will be prepared,” House Committee Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) told reporters. Having led the second half of the House’s impeachment process last year, Nadler is expected to be named to the team. But on Tuesday he declined to say whether he was expecting to be chosen.
There was little other information coming out of Tuesday’s meeting about Pelosi’s House manger plans. It’s unclear exactly how many she will choose — during the Clinton impeachment, the managers team was made up of 13 House managers — or how far ahead of the resolution vote she will announce their names.
Once the managers resolution is put on the floor, the vote will happen very quickly, after only 10 minutes of debate. The House will then seek notice from the Senate on when the Senate would like to receive the impeachment articles, a process that involves the managers physically carrying the articles to the Senate chamber and reading them aloud on the Senate floor.
Senate GOP leaders on Monday evening said that once they received the articles, they expected to spend the remainder of the week dealing with the house keeping measures setting up the initial procedures for conducting the Senate trial. It appears that opening arguments will not begin until early next week, after the Martin Luther King Day holiday on Monday.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has not yet unveiled the package of impeachment trial rules expected to shape the initial phases of the proceedings.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Barr Hints At Adding Roadblocks In Future FBI Probes Into Presidential Campaigns

Attorney General Bill Barr said on Monday that the Justice Department is considering establishing a rule requiring the FBI to @ @ @ @ @ an investigation into a presidential campaign .
“ [ FBI Director ] Chris Wray and @ @ @ @ @ of possibilities , ” Barr replied when a reporter asked if his department was planning @ @ @ @ @ s process of launching probes into political campaigns .
“ One of the things that @ @ @ @ @ that the opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that @ @ @ @ @ would have to sign off on , and the attorney general would have to sign @ @ @ @ @ said .
Barr has boosted President Donald Trump ’ s accusation that the FBI opened @ @ @ @ @ bias against him , even after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz thoroughly debunked that conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ December .
However , Wray backed Horowitz ’ s report when it was published , @ @ @ @ @ “ fully accept its findings and recommendations .
”

Attorney General Bill Barr said on Monday that the Justice Department is considering establishing a rule requiring the FBI to obtain his permission before opening an investigation into a presidential campaign.
“[FBI Director] Chris Wray and I have discussed a number of possibilities,” Barr replied when a reporter asked if his department was planning on changing the FBI’s process of launching probes into political campaigns.
“One of the things that we have agreed on is that the opening of a counterintelligence investigation of a presidential campaign would be something that the director of the FBI would have to sign off on, and the attorney general would have to sign off on,” he said.
Barr has boosted President Donald Trump’s accusation that the FBI opened the Trump-Russia probe out of bias against him, even after DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz thoroughly debunked that conspiracy theory in his report in December.
However, Wray backed Horowitz’s report when it was published, saying he and his agency “fully accept its findings and recommendations.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Warren On That Convo With Sanders: ‘I Thought A Woman Could Win; He Disagreed’

2020 Democratic candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) confirmed on Monday night that she and progressive rival Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) had disagreed on whether a female candidate could win the presidency in 2020 .
According to Warren , the subject arose when she and Sanders had met in December 2018 for several hours to discuss the race .
“ Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate , ” Warren said in a statement .
“ I thought a woman could win ; he disagreed.
” “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry , ” she added .
The Massachusetts senator also said she and Sanders “ have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time , and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.
” Sanders had flatly denied that he ’ d made the comment after CNN reported on the conversation Monday .
“ It is ludicrous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president , I would tell her that a woman couldn ’ t win , ” he said .
“ It ’ s sad that , three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation , staff who weren ’ t in the room are lying about what happened .
”

2020 Democratic candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) confirmed on Monday night that she and progressive rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) had disagreed on whether a female candidate could win the presidency in 2020.
According to Warren, the subject arose when she and Sanders had met in December 2018 for several hours to discuss the race.
“Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate,” Warren said in a statement. “I thought a woman could win; he disagreed.”
“I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common than our differences on punditry,” she added.
The Massachusetts senator also said she and Sanders “have been friends and allies in this fight for a long time, and I have no doubt we will continue to work together to defeat Donald Trump and put our government on the side of the people.”
Sanders had flatly denied that he’d made the comment after CNN reported on the conversation Monday.
“It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn’t win,” he said. “It’s sad that, three weeks before the Iowa caucus and a year after that private conversation, staff who weren’t in the room are lying about what happened.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-14--Giuliani Has Been Lobbying To Join Trump’s Impeachment Defense Team

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is itching to join President Donald Trump ’ s anti-impeachment team ahead of the Senate impeachment @ @ @ @ @ reported on Monday night .
An unnamed adviser told HuffPost that Giuliani has been “ @ @ @ @ @ his efforts .
Another adviser said that the lawyer has made it clear to Trump @ @ @ @ @ ” to serve as one of the President ’ s lawyers .
“ They said @ @ @ @ @ no thanks , ' ” the second adviser said .
“ The President is never @ @ @ @ @ the Senate trial , starting with the problem that he ’ s a potential witness @ @ @ @ @ CNN .
Giuliani is at the center of the Ukraine scandal that led to Trump @ @ @ @ @ , Lev Parnas , Giuliani ’ s Ukrainian associate who was indicted last fall on @ @ @ @ @ has offered to testify to Congress .

Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani is itching to join President Donald Trump’s anti-impeachment team ahead of the Senate impeachment trial, HuffPost and CNN reported on Monday night.
An unnamed adviser told HuffPost that Giuliani has been “working Trump hard” in his efforts. Another adviser said that the lawyer has made it clear to Trump that he was “available” to serve as one of the President’s lawyers.
However, Trump’s team apparently isn’t interested.
“They said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” the second adviser said.
“The President is never going to have him in the Senate trial, starting with the problem that he’s a potential witness,” a source told CNN.
Giuliani is at the center of the Ukraine scandal that led to Trump’s impeachment. Additionally, Lev Parnas, Giuliani’s Ukrainian associate who was indicted last fall on campaign finance law violations, has offered to testify to Congress.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-13--Pompeo Says He Doesn’t Know Who  First Described Embassy Threat As ‘Imminent’

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did nothing to clear up confusion over whether there was “ specific ” intelligence supporting President Trump ’ s claim that there was an “ imminent threat ” by top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani to attack four US embassies , during a Monday night interview on Fox News .
When Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Pompeo whether the Trump administration described the threat to the four embassies as “ imminent ” because “ it pleased the lawyers , ” Pompeo said he was unsure “ who used it first , but it reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know who used it first , but it reflects what we saw , ” Pompeo said .
“ We can dance around the maypole on the word ‘ imminent ’ — I can assure you of this .
The intelligence picture that was painted not only in those days , but in all of the history that builds up to this doesn ’ t just come to your radar screen new and fresh.
” After Pompeo insisted that “ there was active plotting underway by Qassem Soleimani himself and all those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state on whether there was concern that congressional Democrats would leak information if they were alerted about the attack ahead of time .
“ Anytime information about something so sensitive gets into too many hands , you should know that not only did we limit this information in the legislative branch , we limited inside the executive branch as well , ” Pompeo said .
“ We made sure that everyone who needed to know knew precisely what they needed different people , needed different levels of information , but we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circle.
” Pompeo ’ s remarks on Fox News came shortly after CNN reported that State Department security officials were not given the heads up of the imminent threats to four US embassies .
On Sunday , neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien could confirm during their multiple cable news appearances that Trump had specific intelligence to back his claim that Soleimani threatened to target four U.S. embassies .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did nothing to clear up confusion over whether there was “specific” intelligence supporting President Trump’s claim that there was an “imminent threat” by top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani to attack four US embassies, during a Monday night interview on Fox News.
When Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked Pompeo whether the Trump administration described the threat to the four embassies as “imminent” because “it pleased the lawyers,” Pompeo said he was unsure “who used it first, but it reflects what we saw.”
“I don’t know who used it first, but it reflects what we saw,” Pompeo said. “We can dance around the maypole on the word ‘imminent’ — I can assure you of this. The intelligence picture that was painted not only in those days, but in all of the history that builds up to this doesn’t just come to your radar screen new and fresh.”
After Pompeo insisted that “there was active plotting underway by Qassem Soleimani himself and all those around him,” Baier pressed the secretary of state on whether there was concern that congressional Democrats would leak information if they were alerted about the attack ahead of time.
“Anytime information about something so sensitive gets into too many hands, you should know that not only did we limit this information in the legislative branch, we limited inside the executive branch as well,” Pompeo said. “We made sure that everyone who needed to know knew precisely what they needed different people, needed different levels of information, but we kept this information in a very tight circle.”
Pompeo’s remarks on Fox News came shortly after CNN reported that State Department security officials were not given the heads up of the imminent threats to four US embassies.
On Sunday, neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien could confirm during their multiple cable news appearances that Trump had specific intelligence to back his claim that Soleimani threatened to target four U.S. embassies.
Watch Pompeo’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-13--State Dept. Officials ‘Blindsided’ By Trump’s ‘Imminent’ Threats Claim

State Department security officials were reportedly not given the heads up of the imminent threats to four US embassies , which President Trump said last week justified his authorization of the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani .
Two State Department officials told CNN in a Monday report that the department failed to issue warnings about specific threats to any US embassy prior to Trump ’ s authorization of the Soleimani strike .
Although a senior State Department official said and the department spokesperson confirmed to CNN that a global warning was sent to all US embassies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning was not directed at specific embassies and did not signal an imminent attack .
According to CNN , one senior State Department said they were “ blindsided ” when the Trump administration argued that the Soleimani strike was justified due to an imminent threat to blow up US embassies .
Despite senior Trump administration officials repeatedly insisting that US embassies in the Middle East were under threat , sources told CNN that State Department officials are unclear of the specific nature of that threat and added that the department failed to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat .
Former State Department officials also told CNN that the department didn ’ t operate as it usually does in an “ imminent threat ” situation , given how it would typically issue an explicit warning to diplomats overseas , take follow-up measures to restrict their movements or actively weigh whether to evacuate staff .
On Sunday , neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien could confirm during their multiple cable news appearances that Trump had specific intelligence to back his claim that Soleimani threatened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “ we don ’ t know precisely when and we don ’ t know precisely where ” the supposedly imminent attacks plotted by Soleimani would ’ ve occurred , Fox News aired the President ’ s interview with Laura Ingraham Friday where he claimed that his administration needed to kill Soleimani in order to prevent an “ imminent ” threat .

State Department security officials were reportedly not given the heads up of the imminent threats to four US embassies, which President Trump said last week justified his authorization of the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani.
Two State Department officials told CNN in a Monday report that the department failed to issue warnings about specific threats to any US embassy prior to Trump’s authorization of the Soleimani strike.
Although a senior State Department official said and the department spokesperson confirmed to CNN that a global warning was sent to all US embassies before the Soleimani strike happened, the warning was not directed at specific embassies and did not signal an imminent attack.
According to CNN, one senior State Department said they were “blindsided” when the Trump administration argued that the Soleimani strike was justified due to an imminent threat to blow up US embassies.
Despite senior Trump administration officials repeatedly insisting that US embassies in the Middle East were under threat, sources told CNN that State Department officials are unclear of the specific nature of that threat and added that the department failed to provide analysis that those embassies faced an imminent threat.
Former State Department officials also told CNN that the department didn’t operate as it usually does in an “imminent threat” situation, given how it would typically issue an explicit warning to diplomats overseas, take follow-up measures to restrict their movements or actively weigh whether to evacuate staff.
On Sunday, neither Defense Secretary Mark Esper nor National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien could confirm during their multiple cable news appearances that Trump had specific intelligence to back his claim that Soleimani threatened to target four U.S. embassies.
A day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that “we don’t know precisely when and we don’t know precisely where” the supposedly imminent attacks plotted by Soleimani would’ve occurred, Fox News aired the President’s interview with Laura Ingraham Friday where he claimed that his administration needed to kill Soleimani in order to prevent an “imminent” threat.
Read CNN’s report here.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-13--Senate GOP Wary Of Voting To Dismiss Impeachment Case Early In Trial

Now that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) has the votes to open an impeachment trial without a bipartisan agreement on the rules , one of the last major questions about the early phase of the proceedings is whether the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss before it ’ s heard all the evidence .
President Trump has hinted on Twitter that he ’ d like the case against him thrown out from the start .
According to CNN , the White House has behind the scenes been pushing to include a vote on a motion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the procedural package McConnell is expected to unveil this week .
There was a motion to dismiss vote during the Clinton impeachment trial , after each side had presented its case and the senators had the opportunity to submit questions .
The motion only takes 51 votes to pass , but it failed at that stage of the Clinton impeachment .
This time around , it could be a potentially tough vote for vulnerable or moderate GOP senators to take , for fear of looking like they did not give the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him off the hook .
Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) , a McConnell ally , played down the idea that the Senate would vote to dismiss the case early on in the trial .
When asked about Trump ’ s recent comments favoring the idea , he pointed to the contrary position expressed by Trump before that .
“ I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss .
They think both sides need to be heard .
They believe the President needs to be heard for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Blunt said .
Sen. Joni Ernst ( R-IA ) , who faces a tough race in 2020 , dodged the question of whether there should be a motion to dismiss at all .
“ Any senator can make any motion , so we ’ ll just see how it goes .
We still don ’ t have the articles yet , ” she said .
Sen .
Rob Portman ( R-OH ) , meanwhile , suggested he would not be in favor of dismissing the case before the Senate took major steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been consistent and clear , which is I think we ought to have the opportunity to hear from both sides , and senators ought to have the opportunity to have their questions answered , and then we ’ ll see where we are , ” he said .
There are currently 53 Republicans in the Senate , meaning only three GOP defections would doom a motion to dismiss .
McConnell , according to reporting by CNN , sees little use in bringing up a motion that is likely to fail , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote that could haunt them come November .
The threshold for convicting and removing the President at the end of the trial is 67 votes , and there is no doubt that Republicans will have plenty of votes to stop that from happening .
Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) , according to NBC News , acknowledged the political trap a motion to dismiss presented Republicans .

Now that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has the votes to open an impeachment trial without a bipartisan agreement on the rules, one of the last major questions about the early phase of the proceedings is whether the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss before it’s heard all the evidence.
President Trump has hinted on Twitter that he’d like the case against him thrown out from the start. According to CNN, the White House has behind the scenes been pushing to include a vote on a motion to dismiss after opening arguments as part of the procedural package McConnell is expected to unveil this week.
There was a motion to dismiss vote during the Clinton impeachment trial, after each side had presented its case and the senators had the opportunity to submit questions. The motion only takes 51 votes to pass, but it failed at that stage of the Clinton impeachment. This time around, it could be a potentially tough vote for vulnerable or moderate GOP senators to take, for fear of looking like they did not give the case against Trump a full hearing before letting him off the hook.
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), a McConnell ally, played down the idea that the Senate would vote to dismiss the case early on in the trial. When asked about Trump’s recent comments favoring the idea, he pointed to the contrary position expressed by Trump before that.
“I think our members generally are not interested in a motion to dismiss. They think both sides need to be heard. They believe the President needs to be heard for the first time in a fair setting,” Blunt said.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who faces a tough race in 2020, dodged the question of whether there should be a motion to dismiss at all.
“Any senator can make any motion, so we’ll just see how it goes. We still don’t have the articles yet,” she said.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), meanwhile, suggested he would not be in favor of dismissing the case before the Senate took major steps in hearing evidence.
“My position has been consistent and clear, which is I think we ought to have the opportunity to hear from both sides, and senators ought to have the opportunity to have their questions answered, and then we’ll see where we are,” he said.
There are currently 53 Republicans in the Senate, meaning only three GOP defections would doom a motion to dismiss.
McConnell, according to reporting by CNN, sees little use in bringing up a motion that is likely to fail, while subjecting members of his caucus to a vote that could haunt them come November. The threshold for convicting and removing the President at the end of the trial is 67 votes, and there is no doubt that Republicans will have plenty of votes to stop that from happening.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), according to NBC News, acknowledged the political trap a motion to dismiss presented Republicans.