talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-20--As Iowa Looms, The Democratic Primary Gets More Negative

With the Iowa caucus just weeks away , some in the Democratic primary are firing off personal attacks .
The tension between Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , highlighted at the last debate , spilled over into the weekend as Sanders addressed a comment he allegedly made to Warren telling her that a woman couldn ’ t be elected President ( he has denied saying it ; she confirmed it ) .
In an interview with New Hampshire public radio Sunday , Sanders said that he does believe gender is an obstacle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think everybody has their own sets of problems , ” he said .
“ I ’ m 78 years of age .
That ’ s a problem .
.
.
.
If you ’ re looking at Buttigieg , he ’ s a young guy , people will say , ‘ well , he ’ s too young to be President .
You look at this one , she ’ s a woman.
’ So everybody , you know , brings some negatives.
” “ I would just hope very much that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a candidate , ” he continued .
“ Not at their gender , not at their sexuality , not at their age .
But at everything .
Nobody is perfect .
There ain ’ t no perfect candidate out there.
” In an unrelated spat , Sanders went after former Vice President Joe Biden with a video on Biden ’ s stance on social security .
According to the Washington Post , Biden has called the video “ doctored , ” though he seems to mean that his comments were taken out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have included fuller context of Biden ’ s comments , but insists that voters look at his record .
The Sanders campaign also launched an anti-Biden op-ed attack Monday , accusing the former Vice President of having a “ corruption problem.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) has been taking the fight to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , slamming him for skipping the early voting states and for declining to release documentation of his personal finances until after Super Tuesday .
“ Think about this : If he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest , business interests in other parts of the world or other corporations , ” she said per the Post , “ when are we going to know about that ?
Not until after Super Tuesday .
That is not how democracy is supposed to work , and we need to shut that down.
” The tension comes as multiple candidates are bunched together in the Iowa polling , desperate to pull ahead of the pack .
The candidates have two weeks to change the narrative and see how the negative attacks will @ @ @ @ @

With the Iowa caucus just weeks away, some in the Democratic primary are firing off personal attacks.
The tension between Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), highlighted at the last debate, spilled over into the weekend as Sanders addressed a comment he allegedly made to Warren telling her that a woman couldn’t be elected President (he has denied saying it; she confirmed it).
In an interview with New Hampshire public radio Sunday, Sanders said that he does believe gender is an obstacle for female candidates.
“But I think everybody has their own sets of problems,” he said. “I’m 78 years of age. That’s a problem. . . . If you’re looking at Buttigieg, he’s a young guy, people will say, ‘well, he’s too young to be President. You look at this one, she’s a woman.’ So everybody, you know, brings some negatives.”
“I would just hope very much that the American people look at the totality of a candidate,” he continued. “Not at their gender, not at their sexuality, not at their age. But at everything. Nobody is perfect. There ain’t no perfect candidate out there.”
In an unrelated spat, Sanders went after former Vice President Joe Biden with a video on Biden’s stance on social security. According to the Washington Post, Biden has called the video “doctored,” though he seems to mean that his comments were taken out of context. Sanders acknowledged that the clip should have included fuller context of Biden’s comments, but insists that voters look at his record.
The Sanders campaign also launched an anti-Biden op-ed attack Monday, accusing the former Vice President of having a “corruption problem.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been taking the fight to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, slamming him for skipping the early voting states and for declining to release documentation of his personal finances until after Super Tuesday.
“Think about this: If he has entanglements with China, serious conflicts of interest, business interests in other parts of the world or other corporations,” she said per the Post, “when are we going to know about that? Not until after Super Tuesday. That is not how democracy is supposed to work, and we need to shut that down.”
The tension comes as multiple candidates are bunched together in the Iowa polling, desperate to pull ahead of the pack. The candidates have two weeks to change the narrative and see how the negative attacks will play with key constituencies.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-20--Trump Has Been Following McConnell’s Lead On Impeachment…But Will It Last?

President Donald Trump has been letting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) call the shots on impeachment , though the next few weeks may test that odd-couple relationship .
According to the Washington Post , their relationship has become more symbiotic as Trump has come to trust McConnell ’ s political instincts over time , such as when McConnell advised the President not to withdraw Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from the confirmation process .
McConnell has become a go-to adviser for Trump as the Ukraine scandal unfolded .
When Trump became enraged at Republican lawmakers who criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign became clear , McConnell encouraged him to reach out and win their confidence back rather than attacking them on Twitter .
McConnell told Trump to leave rightwing firebrands — like Reps. Jim Jordan ( R-OH ) and John Ratcliffe ( R-TX ) — off his impeachment defense team , despite the President ’ s inclination to include them .
McConnell won .
The Senate Majority Leader has also persuaded Trump to get on board with his no-witness impeachment trial , when the President ’ s instinct was to use the forum to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still , the next few weeks will likely put the President under tremendous strain as the trial heats up and some variables of uncertainty — think the witness vote — attract attention and speculation .
Trump tends to follow his own instincts above anyone else ’ s , and time will tell if McConnell is able to maintain the mercurial President ’ s trust .

President Donald Trump has been letting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) call the shots on impeachment, though the next few weeks may test that odd-couple relationship.
According to the Washington Post, their relationship has become more symbiotic as Trump has come to trust McConnell’s political instincts over time, such as when McConnell advised the President not to withdraw Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from the confirmation process.
McConnell has become a go-to adviser for Trump as the Ukraine scandal unfolded. When Trump became enraged at Republican lawmakers who criticized him as the details of the pressure campaign became clear, McConnell encouraged him to reach out and win their confidence back rather than attacking them on Twitter.
McConnell told Trump to leave rightwing firebrands — like Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and John Ratcliffe (R-TX) — off his impeachment defense team, despite the President’s inclination to include them. McConnell won.
The Senate Majority Leader has also persuaded Trump to get on board with his no-witness impeachment trial, when the President’s instinct was to use the forum to embarrass former Vice President Joe Biden.
Still, the next few weeks will likely put the President under tremendous strain as the trial heats up and some variables of uncertainty — think the witness vote — attract attention and speculation. Trump tends to follow his own instincts above anyone else’s, and time will tell if McConnell is able to maintain the mercurial President’s trust.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-20--Thousands Descend On Virginia Capitol Hours Before Pro-Gun Rally Begins

Early Monday morning , thousands have descended on Virginia ’ s capital city for a pro-gun rally intended to protest the state Democratic leadership ’ s plans to pass gun-control legislation .
According to the Associated Press Monday morning , several thousand activists appeared hours before the 11 a.m. rally was scheduled to begin .
The AP noted that most of the activists are white and male , many clothed in camouflage and are seen waving flags in support of President Trump .
The AP reported that both uniformed and plainclothes officers from the Virginia State Police , the Virginia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a huge police presence at the rally .
Police restricted access to Capitol Square to one entrance and told rally-goers to expect to wait hours to get through security screening .
Authorities began admitting attendees just before 7:30 a.m. Chris Anders , a rally-goer who garnered about 62,000 signatures for his online petition hosted by a group calling itself Virginia Conservatives , told the Washington Post Monday morning that he was inspired to protest against Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s ( D-VA ) vows to enact sweeping gun control measures this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone trying to roll over them , ” Anders told the Post .
The expected arrival of thousands of members of pro-gun groups — which include militia groups , gun hardliners and far-right activists — has sparked fears that the state could experience the kind of violence that broke out in Charlottesville during a gathering of white supremacists and far-right groups in 2017 .
Last week , Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D-VA ) declared a state of emergency in order to prohibit weapons at the rally .
In his announcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from law enforcement that groups , which include out-of-state militias and hate groups , had “ malicious plans ” for the rally .
Organizers of the rally held in Richmond picked Jan. 20 to coincide with an annual event , called Lobby Day , at Virginia ’ s state capitol during which citizens make use of the Martin Luther King Day federal holiday to meet with state legislators and push for issues of importance to them .

Early Monday morning, thousands have descended on Virginia’s capital city for a pro-gun rally intended to protest the state Democratic leadership’s plans to pass gun-control legislation.
According to the Associated Press Monday morning, several thousand activists appeared hours before the 11 a.m. rally was scheduled to begin. The AP noted that most of the activists are white and male, many clothed in camouflage and are seen waving flags in support of President Trump.
The AP reported that both uniformed and plainclothes officers from the Virginia State Police, the Virginia Capitol Police and the Richmond Police planned a huge police presence at the rally. Police restricted access to Capitol Square to one entrance and told rally-goers to expect to wait hours to get through security screening. Authorities began admitting attendees just before 7:30 a.m.
Chris Anders, a rally-goer who garnered about 62,000 signatures for his online petition hosted by a group calling itself Virginia Conservatives, told the Washington Post Monday morning that he was inspired to protest against Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s (D-VA) vows to enact sweeping gun control measures this year.
“People are tired of someone trying to roll over them,” Anders told the Post.
The expected arrival of thousands of members of pro-gun groups — which include militia groups, gun hardliners and far-right activists — has sparked fears that the state could experience the kind of violence that broke out in Charlottesville during a gathering of white supremacists and far-right groups in 2017.
Last week, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) declared a state of emergency in order to prohibit weapons at the rally. In his announcement, Northam also cited “credible intelligence” from law enforcement that groups, which include out-of-state militias and hate groups, had “malicious plans” for the rally.
Organizers of the rally held in Richmond picked Jan. 20 to coincide with an annual event, called Lobby Day, at Virginia’s state capitol during which citizens make use of the Martin Luther King Day federal holiday to meet with state legislators and push for issues of importance to them.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-20--NYT Ed Board Breaks With Tradition, Endorsing Both Warren And Klobuchar

The New York Times editorial board threw its weight behind both Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) and Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , breaking from the traditional one-candidate endorsement to argue that both women are the most effective standard bearers for their wings of the party .
For Warren , the board members praise her detailed policy positions and paint her as a more unifying messenger for the progressive agenda than Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , who they liken to President Donald Trump in his divisiveness and reluctance to compromise .
They also acknowledge the difficulty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , but argue that her various surges in the polls show that there is room for base growth if she can broaden her message from solely blaming the big business boogeyman .
For Klobuchar , the editors highlight her history of bipartisan effectiveness in the Senate and intense popularity in places where she has high name recognition ( read : her home state of Minnesota where she time and time again cruised to reelection ) .
They admit that reports of her staff abuse is worrying , and advise her to polish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ par with that of figures accustomed to the national spotlight .
They disregard the other candidates , including the frontrunners , for a variety of reasons : South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is too green , former Vice President Joe Biden doesn ’ t promise enough change , tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang is too inexperienced , billionaire Mike Bloomberg skipped the interview citing a lack of positions , Sanders is rigid and polarizing .
The editors conclude that the responsibility for picking between the endorsed candidates will lie with Democratic voters , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have the moderate-progressive fight since 2016 .

The New York Times editorial board threw its weight behind both Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), breaking from the traditional one-candidate endorsement to argue that both women are the most effective standard bearers for their wings of the party.
For Warren, the board members praise her detailed policy positions and paint her as a more unifying messenger for the progressive agenda than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who they liken to President Donald Trump in his divisiveness and reluctance to compromise.
They also acknowledge the difficulty in Warren’s path to the nomination, but argue that her various surges in the polls show that there is room for base growth if she can broaden her message from solely blaming the big business boogeyman.
For Klobuchar, the editors highlight her history of bipartisan effectiveness in the Senate and intense popularity in places where she has high name recognition (read: her home state of Minnesota where she time and time again cruised to reelection).
They admit that reports of her staff abuse is worrying, and advise her to polish her political messaging to get it on par with that of figures accustomed to the national spotlight.
They disregard the other candidates, including the frontrunners, for a variety of reasons: South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg is too green, former Vice President Joe Biden doesn’t promise enough change, tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang is too inexperienced, billionaire Mike Bloomberg skipped the interview citing a lack of positions, Sanders is rigid and polarizing.
The editors conclude that the responsibility for picking between the endorsed candidates will lie with Democratic voters, who they say have been “itching” to have the moderate-progressive fight since 2016.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Obama Wanted To ‘Look Forward’ From Bush Scandals. Warren Is Making No Such Promises

Before a backdrop of an impeachment trial that ’ ll probably lack witnesses and any evidentiary documents thanks to Senate Republicans , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) is promising to hold President Trump and his administration accountable — even if the justice is retroactive .
One of her campaign proposals , published Tuesday , would establish a Justice Department Task Force to “ investigate corruption ” within the Trump administration , and to “ pursue any substantiated criminal and civil violations.
” It wouldn ’ t be the first time a new president is called on to demand answers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama took office , he faced extreme pressure from certain corners to hold his predecessor accountable .
President George W. Bush left office with an abysmal 22 percent approval rate .
He was weighed down with scandals concerning mass surveillance , torture programs and war profiteering .
Human rights groups and liberals alike clamored for justice , especially for gruesome reports of brutality , sometimes ending in death , perpetrated on prisoners suspected of terrorism .
Obama , fresh off a hope and change campaign , brushed them off , telling ABC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
” Half-hearted investigations resulted in no charges , and the Obama administration blocked detainees ’ lawsuits by invoking the state secrets doctrine .
According to Paul Pelletier , former federal prosecutor in Obama ’ s Department of Justice , the difference between the politicians ’ approaches lies in the roots of any alleged crimes .
“ These alleged crimes are financial and have nothing to do with politics , ” he told TPM .
“ Using government contracts unlawfully is something we always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think it ’ s completely different than what Obama administration was faced with.
” The Warren campaign cited alleged wrongdoing by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross owning stocks influenced by administration decisions , Trump ’ s children enriching themselves from his business while serving in the administration and Trump ’ s own impeachment over the Ukraine pressure campaign .
“ You have to be very , very careful if you ’ re merely looking at if someone did something wrong politically , ” Pelletier added .
“ But what you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they used the political process to unlawfully or unfairly gain wealth…if it ’ s rooted in corruption you ’ re on much safer ground.
” Back in 2008 , Obama ’ s forward-looking focus set the tone for the administration .
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder opened an investigation in 2009 into the CIA ’ s investigatory methods .
He ultimately closed the case , after reviewing the cases of more than 100 prisoners , without pressing any charges .
In 2010 , the Justice Department said there ’ d be no charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the investigations .
The DOJ also blocked lawsuits from former detainees , citing the state secrets doctrine .
Barbara McQuade , a U.S. attorney under Obama , told TPM that the Obama administration didn ’ t press charges because of the “ investigation into the facts ” and not because of any “ blanket policy decision.
” But Pelletier said that , while the discussions would have been out of his realm as a white collar prosecutor , “ of course ” a consideration of precedent would have played into the administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration officials .
Though Warren cites specific examples of corruption-flavored behavior in her proposal , it ’ s not hard to picture a future president , embittered by some criticism from his or her predecessor , using that power to exact revenge .
In an apparent attempt to curtail that possibility , a Warren campaign aide emphasized to TPM the limits in scope of the task force .
“ The plan calls for a DOJ task force with independent authority and a limited scope to look at specific current laws that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trading laws , and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws , ” the aide said .
“ It will investigate independently and prosecute or not prosecute as they see fit.
” The aide added that the proposal is not about “ political rivals ” but “ restoring the rule of law .
“ The best way to turn the page on Trump-era corruption is for people who broke the law to be held accountable so that future officials — including in a Warren Administration — will know that violating the public trust and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come with consequences .
”

Before a backdrop of an impeachment trial that’ll probably lack witnesses and any evidentiary documents thanks to Senate Republicans, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is promising to hold President Trump and his administration accountable — even if the justice is retroactive.
One of her campaign proposals, published Tuesday, would establish a Justice Department Task Force to “investigate corruption” within the Trump administration, and to “pursue any substantiated criminal and civil violations.”
It wouldn’t be the first time a new president is called on to demand answers from the last.
When President Barack Obama took office, he faced extreme pressure from certain corners to hold his predecessor accountable.
President George W. Bush left office with an abysmal 22 percent approval rate. He was weighed down with scandals concerning mass surveillance, torture programs and war profiteering. Human rights groups and liberals alike clamored for justice, especially for gruesome reports of brutality, sometimes ending in death, perpetrated on prisoners suspected of terrorism.
Obama, fresh off a hope and change campaign, brushed them off, telling ABC News that he held “a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” Half-hearted investigations resulted in no charges, and the Obama administration blocked detainees’ lawsuits by invoking the state secrets doctrine.
According to Paul Pelletier, former federal prosecutor in Obama’s Department of Justice, the difference between the politicians’ approaches lies in the roots of any alleged crimes.
“These alleged crimes are financial and have nothing to do with politics,” he told TPM. “Using government contracts unlawfully is something we always go after, so from that perspective, I think it’s completely different than what Obama administration was faced with.”
The Warren campaign cited alleged wrongdoing by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross owning stocks influenced by administration decisions, Trump’s children enriching themselves from his business while serving in the administration and Trump’s own impeachment over the Ukraine pressure campaign.
“You have to be very, very careful if you’re merely looking at if someone did something wrong politically,” Pelletier added. “But what you’re saying is that people enriched themselves, that they used the political process to unlawfully or unfairly gain wealth…if it’s rooted in corruption you’re on much safer ground.”
Back in 2008, Obama’s forward-looking focus set the tone for the administration. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder opened an investigation in 2009 into the CIA’s investigatory methods. He ultimately closed the case, after reviewing the cases of more than 100 prisoners, without pressing any charges. In 2010, the Justice Department said there’d be no charges pertaining to the CIA destroying videotapes of the investigations. The DOJ also blocked lawsuits from former detainees, citing the state secrets doctrine.
Barbara McQuade, a U.S. attorney under Obama, told TPM that the Obama administration didn’t press charges because of the “investigation into the facts” and not because of any “blanket policy decision.”
But Pelletier said that, while the discussions would have been out of his realm as a white collar prosecutor, “of course” a consideration of precedent would have played into the administration’s decision not to go after the Bush administration officials.
Though Warren cites specific examples of corruption-flavored behavior in her proposal, it’s not hard to picture a future president, embittered by some criticism from his or her predecessor, using that power to exact revenge.
In an apparent attempt to curtail that possibility, a Warren campaign aide emphasized to TPM the limits in scope of the task force.
“The plan calls for a DOJ task force with independent authority and a limited scope to look at specific current laws that were broken: Federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws,” the aide said. “It will investigate independently and prosecute or not prosecute as they see fit.”
The aide added that the proposal is not about “political rivals” but “restoring the rule of law.
“The best way to turn the page on Trump-era corruption is for people who broke the law to be held accountable so that future officials — including in a Warren Administration — will know that violating the public trust and breaking anti-corruption and public integrity laws will come with consequences.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--NSC Russia Official’s Removal Could Signal ‘Egregious’ Security Violation

It ’ s still not clear why President Trump ’ s third National Security Council director for Russia and Eurasia was escorted out of the White House by security last week .
But what is clear is that it ’ s a really big deal .
NSC director for Russia and Eurasia Andrew Peek was put on administrative leave last week amid an unspecified security-related investigation .
Steven Pifer , a former NSC for Russia and Eurasia , told TPM that he could not recall any previous instance in which an NSC director had been escorted off the premises .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very unusual , ” Pifer said .
“ It suggests that there ’ s a security issue that could affect his clearance.
” A former deputy assistant secretary of state for the bureau of near eastern affairs , Peek had reportedly been under investigation for unspecified allegations before taking the position in November 2019 .
Peek followed two NSC officials before him over the past 12 months who were caught up in the impeachment of President Trump .
Fiona Hill testified as a major witness in the impeachment inquiry , having been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign to force Kyiv to manufacture political dirt .
Tim Morrison , her successor , departed in November 2019 after agreeing to testify in the inquiry .
The position Peek occupied is serious , and involves transferring sensitive information to the President as well as ensuring that national security-related orders are implemented .
Though each national security adviser runs the NSC in different ways , and though that can vary between presidential administrations , the position ’ s core responsibilities remain the same .
Hill described the position in her testimony as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive branch “ pertaining to Europe , our European allies … and also including Russia , Turkey , and the subject at hand , Ukraine.
” That also involved “ coordinating U.S. policy ” and meeting with intelligence analysts for up-to-date information .
Peek ’ s role would have been substantially similar , which raises the stakes of his removal .
Pifer , the former NSC official , told TPM that certain violations tend to come with a reprimand , but that the response varies with the severity of the allegation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ security violation , they do happen , ” Pifer said .
“ But when I saw the report saying he was escorted out , I thought , ‘ that is not usual . '
” Peek was scheduled to travel to Davos with President Trump this week , but was removed from the trip once he was placed on administrative leave .
The NSC said in a statement that it does not comment on personnel matters .
Tom Nichols , a professor at the U.S .
Naval War College , tweeted that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yikes ’ level bad ” for Peek to have been escorted away from the White House .
To Loren DeLonge Schulman , a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and former senior advisor to Obama-era National Security Adviser Susan Rice , the removal was “ highly irregular.
” Schulman wrote to TPM that she only recalled one such incident occurring during the Obama administration .
In that case , a national security council staffer was found to have been tweeting inside , albeit non-sensitive gossip from an anonymous Twitter account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – Jofi Joseph – was escorted from the premises after reportedly confessing to being behind the Twitter account .

It’s still not clear why President Trump’s third National Security Council director for Russia and Eurasia was escorted out of the White House by security last week.
But what is clear is that it’s a really big deal.
NSC director for Russia and Eurasia Andrew Peek was put on administrative leave last week amid an unspecified security-related investigation.
Steven Pifer, a former NSC for Russia and Eurasia, told TPM that he could not recall any previous instance in which an NSC director had been escorted off the premises.
“If it has, it’s very unusual,” Pifer said. “It suggests that there’s a security issue that could affect his clearance.”
A former deputy assistant secretary of state for the bureau of near eastern affairs, Peek had reportedly been under investigation for unspecified allegations before taking the position in November 2019.
Peek followed two NSC officials before him over the past 12 months who were caught up in the impeachment of President Trump.
Fiona Hill testified as a major witness in the impeachment inquiry, having been present at key aspects of the pressure campaign to force Kyiv to manufacture political dirt. Tim Morrison, her successor, departed in November 2019 after agreeing to testify in the inquiry.
The position Peek occupied is serious, and involves transferring sensitive information to the President as well as ensuring that national security-related orders are implemented.
Though each national security adviser runs the NSC in different ways, and though that can vary between presidential administrations, the position’s core responsibilities remain the same.
Hill described the position in her testimony as “overseeing all of the interactions” within the executive branch “pertaining to Europe, our European allies … and also including Russia, Turkey, and the subject at hand, Ukraine.” That also involved “coordinating U.S. policy” and meeting with intelligence analysts for up-to-date information.
Peek’s role would have been substantially similar, which raises the stakes of his removal.
Pifer, the former NSC official, told TPM that certain violations tend to come with a reprimand, but that the response varies with the severity of the allegation.
“It could be a particularly egregious security violation, they do happen,” Pifer said. “But when I saw the report saying he was escorted out, I thought, ‘that is not usual.'”
Peek was scheduled to travel to Davos with President Trump this week, but was removed from the trip once he was placed on administrative leave. The NSC said in a statement that it does not comment on personnel matters.
Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, tweeted that the allegations had to have been “‘yikes’ level bad” for Peek to have been escorted away from the White House.
I don't know what Andrew Peek did, and the rumors are unverified so I'm not repeating them. But for someone that senior to get escorted off the grounds and have his Davos flight tix torn up means it wasn't some misplaced paperwork. It was something "yikes" level bad. — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) January 20, 2020
To Loren DeJonge Schulman, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and former senior advisor to Obama-era National Security Adviser Susan Rice, the removal was “highly irregular.”
Schulman wrote to TPM that she only recalled one such incident occurring during the Obama administration.
In that case, a national security council staffer was found to have been tweeting inside, albeit non-sensitive gossip from an anonymous Twitter account, @natsecwonk.
The official involved – Jofi Joseph – was escorted from the premises after reportedly confessing to being behind the Twitter account.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Trump Lawyer Sekulow Throws Everything But Kitchen Sink Into Senate Speech

In a 10-minute speech before the Senate on Tuesday , President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow threw everything but the kitchen sink onto the floor of the Senate , winking and nodding toward a number of stories that didn ’ t have much at all to do with the President ’ s defense strategy .
“ It ’ s worth noting , they said nothing about the resolution , ” House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) commented after Sekulow ’ s presentation concluded , referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s ( R-KY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They had no defense of the McConnell resolution because there is none.
” Instead , over and over , Sekulow blew the kind of smoke that ’ s gotten airtime on Fox News , but that likely won ’ t help Trump ’ s legal case .
“ Not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist.
” Almost immediately when he started his speech , Sekulow took a shot at Schiff , the House Intelligence Committee chairman .
“ Manager Schiff just tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President , ” Sekulow said .
“ He said , not in those words , of course , which is not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist.
” Trump and others have long taken aim at Schiff for paraphrasing Trump during a September impeachment hearing .
Schiff didn ’ t claim to be quoting Trump when he said the President ’ s infamous Zelensky call “ reads like a classic organized crime shakedown.
” But Trump has nonetheless repeatedly accused Schiff of lying about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was treasonous .
“ Eric Holder [ was ] held in both civil and criminal contempt.
” Next up was a reference to the “ Fast and Furious ” scandal of the Obama years .
It has for years remained a hobbyhorse of right-wing media — like Sekulow ’ s radio show .
But it ’ s got nothing to do with Trump ’ s impeachment .
“ Members , [ there are ] managers right here before you today who have said that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ On June 28th , 2012 , Attorney General Eric Holder became the first United States attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt .
Why ?
Because President Obama asserted executive privilege.
” Obama did invoke executive privilege to prevent Eric Holder , then attorney general , from fully cooperating with the House ’ s investigation in 2012 .
But the differences between then and now are myriad — among other things , Trump never actually invoked the privilege during the House investigation .
He just ordered Executive Branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies.
” Next came Robert Mueller and Peter Strzok .
“ I remember , in the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies , ” Sekulow said .
“ The insurance policy didn ’ t work out so well .
So then we moved to other investigations .
I guess you would call it re-insurance , or an umbrella policy .
And that didn ’ t work out so well .
And here we are today.
” There actually wasn ’ t any discussion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance policy , ” but this was Sekulow ’ s reference to a text message between two Justice Department officials that has fueled Trump ’ s anti-DOJ complaints for years .
Specifically , it was a message from the ( since-fired ) FBI official Peter Strzok sent to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page in August 2016 .
Strzok discussed how unlikely it was that Trump would be elected then said : “ I ’ m afraid we can ’ t take that risk .
It ’ s like an insurance policy in the unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 , ” he wrote to Page .
He later said he was discussing the need to move aggressively to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election .
“ Thirty-three days they held on to those impeachment articles !
” Then came a dig at Democrats for holding onto the articles of impeachment for several weeks .
“ Thirty-three days they held on to those impeachment articles , 33 days , ” Sekulow said .
“ It was such a rush of national security to impeach this President before Christmas that they then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have obsessed over the delay between the House of Representatives ’ approval of the impeachment articles against Trump and the articles ’ actual transmission to the Senate .
Democrats have essentially acknowledged that this delay was meant to pressure Republican senators to voice their support for hearing witnesses at Trump ’ s trial — which a few vulnerable Republicans did do .
But on a more basic level , Democrats expressed a fear in December that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would try to fast-track the impeachment trial and quickly let Trump off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures , which would end the trial in a matter of mere days , appear to have confirmed that fear .

In a 10-minute speech before the Senate on Tuesday, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow threw everything but the kitchen sink onto the floor of the Senate, winking and nodding toward a number of stories that didn’t have much at all to do with the President’s defense strategy.
“It’s worth noting, they said nothing about the resolution,” House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) commented after Sekulow’s presentation concluded, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) resolution for an extra-speedy impeachment trial. “They had no defense of the McConnell resolution because there is none.”
Instead, over and over, Sekulow blew the kind of smoke that’s gotten airtime on Fox News, but that likely won’t help Trump’s legal case.
“Not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist.”
Almost immediately when he started his speech, Sekulow took a shot at Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman.
“Manager Schiff just tried to summarize my colleague’s defense of the President,” Sekulow said. “He said, not in those words, of course, which is not the first time Mr. Schiff has put words into transcripts that did not exist.”
Trump and others have long taken aim at Schiff for paraphrasing Trump during a September impeachment hearing. Schiff didn’t claim to be quoting Trump when he said the President’s infamous Zelensky call “reads like a classic organized crime shakedown.” But Trump has nonetheless repeatedly accused Schiff of lying about what he said, even implying it was treasonous.
“Eric Holder [was] held in both civil and criminal contempt.”
Next up was a reference to the “Fast and Furious” scandal of the Obama years. It has for years remained a hobbyhorse of right-wing media — like Sekulow’s radio show. But it’s got nothing to do with Trump’s impeachment.
“Members, [there are] managers right here before you today who have said that executive privilege and constitutional privileges have no place in these proceedings,” Sekulow said. “On June 28th, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder became the first United States attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt. Why? Because President Obama asserted executive privilege.”
Obama did invoke executive privilege to prevent Eric Holder, then attorney general, from fully cooperating with the House’s investigation in 2012. But the differences between then and now are myriad — among other things, Trump never actually invoked the privilege during the House investigation. He just ordered Executive Branch officials not to cooperate.
“In the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies.”
Next came Robert Mueller and Peter Strzok.
“I remember, in the Mueller report there were discussions about insurance policies,” Sekulow said. “The insurance policy didn’t work out so well. So then we moved to other investigations. I guess you would call it re-insurance, or an umbrella policy. And that didn’t work out so well. And here we are today.”
There actually wasn’t any discussion in the Mueller report of an “insurance policy,” but this was Sekulow’s reference to a text message between two Justice Department officials that has fueled Trump’s anti-DOJ complaints for years.
Specifically, it was a message from the (since-fired) FBI official Peter Strzok sent to then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page in August 2016. Strzok discussed how unlikely it was that Trump would be elected then said: “I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” he wrote to Page. He later said he was discussing the need to move aggressively to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
“Thirty-three days they held on to those impeachment articles!”
Then came a dig at Democrats for holding onto the articles of impeachment for several weeks.
“Thirty-three days they held on to those impeachment articles, 33 days,” Sekulow said. “It was such a rush of national security to impeach this President before Christmas that they then held them for 33 days.”
Republicans have obsessed over the delay between the House of Representatives’ approval of the impeachment articles against Trump and the articles’ actual transmission to the Senate.
Democrats have essentially acknowledged that this delay was meant to pressure Republican senators to voice their support for hearing witnesses at Trump’s trial — which a few vulnerable Republicans did do. But on a more basic level, Democrats expressed a fear in December that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would try to fast-track the impeachment trial and quickly let Trump off scot-free. McConnell’s proposed impeachment procedures, which would end the trial in a matter of mere days, appear to have confirmed that fear.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Dems Respond To Trump’s ‘Baseless Objections’ In New Legal Brief

House Democrats responded to arguments from President Donald Trump ’ s legal team in a new brief Tuesday .
The seven House impeachment managers who ’ ll present the lower chamber ’ s argument in the Senate described the President ’ s team ’ s briefing as raising “ baseless objections.
” They also said Trump didn ’ t appear eager to defend his actions .
“ It is clear from his response that President Trump would rather discuss anything other than what he actually did , ” the brief read .
Trump ’ s legal team , led by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow , opened a lengthy brief on impeachment Monday by asserting that “ abuse of power , ” the first charge levied against Trump , was “ a made-up theory that would permanently weaken the Presidency.
” But Democrats pointed out that even the Republicans ’ legal analyst of choice , Jonathan Turley , disagreed .
In congressional testimony , Turley argued that the “ other high crimes and misdemeanors ” listed in the Constitution apply to impeachable acts “ even if they are not technically criminal acts.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue with Trump ’ s team ’ s claim that barring witnesses from testifying was a “ legitimate prerogative ” of the Executive Branch .
“ His across-the-board refusal to provide Congress with information and his assertion that his own lawyers are the sole judges of Presidential privilege undermines the constitutional authority of the people ’ s representatives and shifts power to an imperial president , ” they wrote .
Much of the brief was similar to House impeachment managers ’ earlier brief , filed Saturday .
But with the impeachment kicking off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried a little more punch than the legal salvos launched over the weekend .
“ Indeed , on the eve of his impeachment trial , President Trump continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong , ” the brief read .
“ President Trump ’ s view that he can not be held accountable , except in an election he seeks to fix in his favor , underscores the need for the Senate to exercise its solemn constitutional duty to remove President Trump from office .
”

House Democrats responded to arguments from President Donald Trump’s legal team in a new brief Tuesday.
The seven House impeachment managers who’ll present the lower chamber’s argument in the Senate described the President’s team’s briefing as raising “baseless objections.” They also said Trump didn’t appear eager to defend his actions.
“It is clear from his response that President Trump would rather discuss anything other than what he actually did,” the brief read.
Trump’s legal team, led by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow, opened a lengthy brief on impeachment Monday by asserting that “abuse of power,” the first charge levied against Trump, was “a made-up theory that would permanently weaken the Presidency.”
But Democrats pointed out that even the Republicans’ legal analyst of choice, Jonathan Turley, disagreed. In congressional testimony, Turley argued that the “other high crimes and misdemeanors” listed in the Constitution apply to impeachable acts “even if they are not technically criminal acts.”
The Democrats’ brief took further issue with Trump’s team’s claim that barring witnesses from testifying was a “legitimate prerogative” of the Executive Branch.
“His across-the-board refusal to provide Congress with information and his assertion that his own lawyers are the sole judges of Presidential privilege undermines the constitutional authority of the people’s representatives and shifts power to an imperial president,” they wrote.
Much of the brief was similar to House impeachment managers’ earlier brief, filed Saturday.
But with the impeachment kicking off in earnest Tuesday, the new document carried a little more punch than the legal salvos launched over the weekend.
“Indeed, on the eve of his impeachment trial, President Trump continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong,” the brief read. “President Trump’s view that he cannot be held accountable, except in an election he seeks to fix in his favor, underscores the need for the Senate to exercise its solemn constitutional duty to remove President Trump from office.”
Read Democrats’ brief below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Dems Plan To Force Votes To Change GOP Rules For Skimpy Impeachment Trial

Democratic Senate leaders previewed their plans Tuesday to force votes on changing the impeachment trial rules proposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) that would fast track proceedings and make it even harder than previously expected to secure witness testimony or document subpoenas .
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) would not say exactly how many amendments Democrats planned to put up for votes ahead of expected final approval of McConnell ’ s resolution Tuesday evening .
Schumer said the Senate would vote Tuesday on “ witnesses , documents , egregious rollbacks from even the Clinton [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no Senate Republican has expressed public discomfort with McConnell ’ s resolution , despite the fact that it significantly departed from the rules employed for the Clinton impeachment trial , a model that McConnell previously claimed he would follow .
While Democrats likely lack the votes to force through their amendments , they will seek to put GOP senators on the record opposing an open , transparent and substantive impeachment trial .
Asked about a statement issued by Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-UT ) — who has previously called for witnesses testimony— supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he hoped that Romney had “ carefully read the McConnell resolution.
” “ He ’ s always said he thinks there should be witnesses at the end of the trial .
This makes it harder to even get those , ” Schumer said .
Specifically , the McConnell resolution requires a Senate vote before the parties in the impeachment trial can even put forward motions to subpoena witnesses .
If witnesses are subpoenaed , they must first be deposed in private , under McConnell ’ s resolution , before an additional Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order from them .
McConnell ’ s proposal also requires a Senate vote before the evidence gathered in the House impeachment inquiry is even admitted into the Senate record .
“ McConnell seems to want a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence , ” Schumer said .
“ A trial with no evidence is not a trial at all .
It ’ s a cover-up.
” Schumer said the push for several amendment votes on the trial resolution was not about being “ dilatory.
” He also declined to weigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process would have on Republicans , such Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) , who have tough re-election races this year .
“ We are doing this because we think we have a constitutional duty , ” Schumer said .
“ We think that this is what the Founding Fathers looked at when they said how do we deal with a President who has abused his power.
” The acrimonious debate expected to surround Tuesday ’ s resolution sets this impeachment procedure apart from the Clinton impeachment , where agreement opening phases of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
“ Right off the bat , Republican senators will face a choice about getting the facts or joining Leader McConnell and President Trump in trying to cover them up , ” Schumer said .

Democratic Senate leaders previewed their plans Tuesday to force votes on changing the impeachment trial rules proposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that would fast track proceedings and make it even harder than previously expected to secure witness testimony or document subpoenas.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would not say exactly how many amendments Democrats planned to put up for votes ahead of expected final approval of McConnell’s resolution Tuesday evening. Schumer said the Senate would vote Tuesday on “witnesses, documents, egregious rollbacks from even the Clinton [impeachment] rules.”
So far, no Senate Republican has expressed public discomfort with McConnell’s resolution, despite the fact that it significantly departed from the rules employed for the Clinton impeachment trial, a model that McConnell previously claimed he would follow.
While Democrats likely lack the votes to force through their amendments, they will seek to put GOP senators on the record opposing an open, transparent and substantive impeachment trial.
Asked about a statement issued by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) — who has previously called for witnesses testimony— supporting McConnell’s resolution, Schumer said that he hoped that Romney had “carefully read the McConnell resolution.”
“He’s always said he thinks there should be witnesses at the end of the trial. This makes it harder to even get those,” Schumer said.
Specifically, the McConnell resolution requires a Senate vote before the parties in the impeachment trial can even put forward motions to subpoena witnesses. If witnesses are subpoenaed, they must first be deposed in private, under McConnell’s resolution, before an additional Senate vote on whether public testimony is in order from them.
McConnell’s proposal also requires a Senate vote before the evidence gathered in the House impeachment inquiry is even admitted into the Senate record.
“McConnell seems to want a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence,” Schumer said. “A trial with no evidence is not a trial at all. It’s a cover-up.”
Schumer said the push for several amendment votes on the trial resolution was not about being “dilatory.” He also declined to weigh in on the political impact the impeachment process would have on Republicans, such Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who have tough re-election races this year.
“We are doing this because we think we have a constitutional duty,” Schumer said. “We think that this is what the Founding Fathers looked at when they said how do we deal with a President who has abused his power.”
The acrimonious debate expected to surround Tuesday’s resolution sets this impeachment procedure apart from the Clinton impeachment, where agreement opening phases of the trial was reach unanimously by the Senate.
“Right off the bat, Republican senators will face a choice about getting the facts or joining Leader McConnell and President Trump in trying to cover them up,” Schumer said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Report: Glenn Greenwald Charged In Brazil Over Stories That Embarrassed Bolsonaro Gov’t

The co-founder of The Intercept , Glenn Greenwald , has been criminally charged in Brazil and accused of being part of a “ criminal organization , ” The New York Times reported Tuesday , for his outlet ’ s role in publishing the private discussions of members of a Brazilian anti-corruption task force .
Last summer , The Intercept , which has an office in Brazil , obtained and reported on the internal communications of the task force , called “ Operation Car Wash. ” The articles , which showed wrongdoing from current Justice Minister Sergio Moro , rocked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents came from an anonymous source .
In response , Moro said that The Intercept was “ allied with criminal hackers , ” the Columbia Journalism Review noted in August .
Brazil ’ s President Jair Bolsonaro , who ’ d attacked Greenwald in the past , mused in June that the journalist could “ do time.
” In the criminal complaint reported by the Times , prosecutors alleged that Greenwald had a “ clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime , ” based on his communications with the hackers who @ @ @ @ @ @

The co-founder of The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, has been criminally charged in Brazil and accused of being part of a “criminal organization,” The New York Times reported Tuesday, for his outlet’s role in publishing the private discussions of members of a Brazilian anti-corruption task force.
Last summer, The Intercept, which has an office in Brazil, obtained and reported on the internal communications of the task force, called “Operation Car Wash.” The articles, which showed wrongdoing from current Justice Minister Sergio Moro, rocked the country.
The Intercept said the leaked documents came from an anonymous source.
In response, Moro said that The Intercept was “allied with criminal hackers,” the Columbia Journalism Review noted in August. Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, who’d attacked Greenwald in the past, mused in June that the journalist could “do time.”
In the criminal complaint reported by the Times, prosecutors alleged that Greenwald had a “clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime,” based on his communications with the hackers who allegedly provided the leaked material.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--The 2016 Election Refuses To Die

The 2016 Election Refuses To Die

In a new interview this month , former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton took aim at current presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) — and effectively made the case that 2016 is the year that won ’ t die .
Clinton has blamed Sanders in the past for delaying his endorsement of her after it became clear that his own 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination was doomed .
But in a Hollywood Reporter interview released Tuesday , she wouldn ’ t say whether she would endorse Sanders at all , should he win the nomination this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to go there yet , ” Clinton said , asked about an endorsement .
The revelation came in an interview about “ Hillary , ” a forthcoming documentary series that uses footage from Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
Clinton repeated to the magazine what she ’ s said elsewhere : “ I ’ ll do anything I can to defeat the current incumbent.
” But to election observers , her comments about Sanders meant the 2016 tension that engulfed the Democratic electorate would stick around for 2020 .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , ” BuzzFeed News politics editor Matt Berman commented .
In a statement shared with TPM by his campaign , Sanders said his focus was “ on a monumental moment in American history : the impeachment trial of Donald trump.
” “ Together , we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history , ” he added .
In the documentary , which The Hollywood Reporter quoted in the interview , Clinton made her feelings about the Vermont senator crystal clear .
“ He was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ He had one senator support him .
Nobody likes him , nobody wants to work with him , he got nothing done .
He was a career politician .
It ’ s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.
” Asked if the assessment still holds , Clinton told the magazine , “ Yes , it does.
” She added of Sanders : “ It ’ s not only him , it ’ s the culture around him .
It ’ s his leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters .
It ’ s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors , particularly the women .
And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted , [ he ] seems to really be very much supporting it.
” “ I don ’ t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what your campaign and supporters are doing or you ’ re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [ Harris ] or after Elizabeth [ Warren ] , ” she continued .
“ I think that that ’ s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.
” Clinton also touched on the recent spat between Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , who ’ s said that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that a woman could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flatly denied saying as much .
“ I just think people need to pay attention because we want , hopefully , to elect a president who ’ s going to try to bring us together , and not either turn a blind eye , or actually reward the kind of insulting , attacking , demeaning , degrading behavior that we ’ ve seen from this current administration , ” Clinton said .
In response to the interview , some Sanders supporters pointed to the senator ’ s extensive campaigning for Clinton after he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Clinton supporters ’ shots at Barack Obama in 2008 after he won the party ’ s nomination .
The Washington Post ’ s Dave Weigel recalled the Clinton supporters ’ group “ People United Means Action ” ( or , “ Party Unity My Ass ” ) that formed after Obama clinched the Democratic candidacy .
“ But Obama won , so people kind of forgot about the PUMAs , while Clinton lost , so the fight will rage forever , ” he said .
This post has been updated .

In a new interview this month, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton took aim at current presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — and effectively made the case that 2016 is the year that won’t die.
Clinton has blamed Sanders in the past for delaying his endorsement of her after it became clear that his own 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination was doomed. But in a Hollywood Reporter interview released Tuesday, she wouldn’t say whether she would endorse Sanders at all, should he win the nomination this time around.
“I’m not going to go there yet,” Clinton said, asked about an endorsement.
The revelation came in an interview about “Hillary,” a forthcoming documentary series that uses footage from Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton repeated to the magazine what she’s said elsewhere: “I’ll do anything I can to defeat the current incumbent.”
But to election observers, her comments about Sanders meant the 2016 tension that engulfed the Democratic electorate would stick around for 2020.
“It is year five of the 2016 election,” BuzzFeed News politics editor Matt Berman commented.
In a statement shared with TPM by his campaign, Sanders said his focus was “on a monumental moment in American history: the impeachment trial of Donald trump.”
“Together, we are going to go forward and defeat the most dangerous president in American history,” he added.
In the documentary, which The Hollywood Reporter quoted in the interview, Clinton made her feelings about the Vermont senator crystal clear.
“He was in Congress for years,” she said. “He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”
Asked if the assessment still holds, Clinton told the magazine, “Yes, it does.”
She added of Sanders: “It’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it.”
“I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren],” she continued. “I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.”
Clinton also touched on the recent spat between Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who’s said that Sanders told her in a private 2018 meeting that a woman could not win the presidency. Sanders has flatly denied saying as much.
“I just think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we’ve seen from this current administration,” Clinton said.
In response to the interview, some Sanders supporters pointed to the senator’s extensive campaigning for Clinton after he lined up behind her candidacy, or to Clinton supporters’ shots at Barack Obama in 2008 after he won the party’s nomination.
The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel recalled the Clinton supporters’ group “People United Means Action” (or, “Party Unity My Ass”) that formed after Obama clinched the Democratic candidacy.
“But Obama won, so people kind of forgot about the PUMAs, while Clinton lost, so the fight will rage forever,” he said.
This post has been updated.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Supreme Court Won’t Decide Obamacare’s Fate Before The Election

The Supreme Court denied Tuesday a request that it fast-track a review of a Texas lawsuit seeking to dismantle the Affordable Care Act .
The rejection the request , made by the legal defenders of the law , means that Obamacare ’ s fate won ’ t be decided before the 2020 election , taking political pressure off of President Trump and Republicans .
The Republican lawsuit argues that the 2017 tax law made Obamacare ’ s individual mandate unconstitutional by zeroing out the tax penalty for not having health insurance .
It also alleges that if the mandate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Medicaid expansion and protections for pre-existing conditions — must be invalidated .
Already , a federal judge has agreed with the challengers — who are being supported by Trump ’ s Justice Department — on both points .
An appeals court recently backed the finding that the mandate was unconstitutional , but ordered the the trial judge to re-examine his finding on whether the rest of the law could be severed from the mandate .
That process could take several months , prompting the Obamacare ’ s defenders — which in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives — to seek an immediate Supreme Court intervention .
While the Supreme Court may ultimately agree to take up the case , Tuesday ’ s order means that the justices won ’ t expedite their consideration of whether to do so .
Under the typical , slower timeline , the earliest the case , if granted , could be heard is next term .
It takes only four votes to take up a case , meaning the court ’ s liberal wing might still have the votes to grant review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes were necessary to get the case fast-tracked .

The Supreme Court denied Tuesday a request that it fast-track a review of a Texas lawsuit seeking to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The rejection the request, made by the legal defenders of the law, means that Obamacare’s fate won’t be decided before the 2020 election, taking political pressure off of President Trump and Republicans.
The Republican lawsuit argues that the 2017 tax law made Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional by zeroing out the tax penalty for not having health insurance. It also alleges that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole law — including its Medicaid expansion and protections for pre-existing conditions — must be invalidated.
Already, a federal judge has agreed with the challengers — who are being supported by Trump’s Justice Department — on both points. An appeals court recently backed the finding that the mandate was unconstitutional, but ordered the the trial judge to re-examine his finding on whether the rest of the law could be severed from the mandate.
That process could take several months, prompting the Obamacare’s defenders — which in the case include blue states and the U.S. House of Representatives — to seek an immediate Supreme Court intervention.
While the Supreme Court may ultimately agree to take up the case, Tuesday’s order means that the justices won’t expedite their consideration of whether to do so. Under the typical, slower timeline, the earliest the case, if granted, could be heard is next term.
It takes only four votes to take up a case, meaning the court’s liberal wing might still have the votes to grant review of the lawsuit. However, five votes were necessary to get the case fast-tracked.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Report: Ukrainian Official Funded $10 Million Parnas Loan Amid Trump Access

Ex-Giuliani friend Lev Parnas received significant financial help for a project he was working on from a Ukrainian official who attended the 2017 inauguration and met with President Trump , the Wall Street Journal reported .
Former Ukraine tax chief Roman Nasirov reportedly helped fund a $ 10 million loan Parnas received for a real estate project that the South Florida businessman was attempting to undertake .
That project ultimately failed , and culminated in a lawsuit in which Parnas has demanded reimbursement from a developer for , among other things , the cost of Cadillac Escalades leased for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much Nasirov contributed to the loan .
He did not return multiple requests for comment from TPM .
But the tax official — who was indicted in 2018 on embezzlement charges in Ukraine — managed to gain access to both the Trump inauguration and to the President himself .
Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy tweeted a video of Nasirov briefly meeting Trump at Mar-a-Lago in December 2016 .
Weeks later , Nasirov was photographed at Trump ’ s inauguration , wearing large aviator sunglasses with a blue , fur-lined , Ukraine-branded coat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine , Nasirov launched a presidential campaign in the country ’ s 2019 election .
He finished last .

Ex-Giuliani friend Lev Parnas received significant financial help for a project he was working on from a Ukrainian official who attended the 2017 inauguration and met with President Trump, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Former Ukraine tax chief Roman Nasirov reportedly helped fund a $10 million loan Parnas received for a real estate project that the South Florida businessman was attempting to undertake.
That project ultimately failed, and culminated in a lawsuit in which Parnas has demanded reimbursement from a developer for, among other things, the cost of Cadillac Escalades leased for the aborted project.
It’s unclear how much Nasirov contributed to the loan. He did not return multiple requests for comment from TPM.
But the tax official — who was indicted in 2018 on embezzlement charges in Ukraine — managed to gain access to both the Trump inauguration and to the President himself.
Parnas attorney Joseph Bondy tweeted a video of Nasirov briefly meeting Trump at Mar-a-Lago in December 2016.
Here’s the “I don’t know him at all, don’t know what he’s about, don’t know where he comes from, know nothing about him” guy, w Lev Parnas & Roman Nasirov, former head of Ukrainian Fiscal Service, at Mar-a-Lago 12/16. @POTUS .@realDonaldTrump @Acosta #LevRemembers #LetLevSpeak pic.twitter.com/5B5QY2DJEg — Joseph A. Bondy (@josephabondy) January 16, 2020
Weeks later, Nasirov was photographed at Trump’s inauguration, wearing large aviator sunglasses with a blue, fur-lined, Ukraine-branded coat.
Here's Nasirov pictured at Trump's inauguration. Whether he used state funds to travel there briefly set off a minor scandal in Ukraine https://t.co/1tleBagnJo pic.twitter.com/Skj2liZLTh — Josh Kovensky (@JoshKovensky) January 16, 2020
After fighting off the embezzlement charges in Ukraine, Nasirov launched a presidential campaign in the country’s 2019 election. He finished last.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-21--Michigan State Senator Lodges New Sexual Harrasment Accusation Against Lucido

Emboldened by reporter Allison Donahue ’ s account , Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow ( D ) came forward Tuesday morning with her own accusation of sexual harassment against fellow Sen. Peter Lucido ( R ) .
According to Crain ’ s Detroit Business , McMorrow ’ s episode happened on orientation day for new senators , two days after the 2018 election .
McMorrow walked over and introduced herself to Lucido .
“ He shook my hand and with his other hand held my low back with his fingers on my hips , effectively upper rear , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
She recalled Lucido asking her where she was from .
She told him , and named the Republican incumbent she ’ d unseated .
She said that he looked her body up and down before saying “ I can see why.
” Another Democratic senator , Rosemary Bayer , remembers witnessing Lucido wrapping his arm around McMorrow while they talked .
“ This is the age of consent , right ?
” she said to Crain ’ s .
“ You have to have permission .
You can ’ t be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ husband the day the incident happened ; he confirmed her account .
Lucido denies the allegation , calling it “ untrue and politically motivated.
” McMorrow plans to report the incident to the Senate Business Office , the same entity that is investigating Donahue ’ s accusation about Lucido telling a group of high school boys that they “ could have some fun ” with her while she was trying to interview him .
McMorrow credits Donahue with pushing her to come forward .
The lawmaker said she felt “ guilty ” after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she may have been able to prevent Lucido from humiliating her if she ’ d reported him at the time .
McMorrow added that she was infuriated by Lucido ’ s attempts to discredit Donahue ’ s account — he accused Donahue of misquoting him .
The two incidents are not the only evidence of Lucido ’ s boorish and misogynistic behavior around the statehouse .
Bayer , the senator who witnessed Lucido touching McMorrow , said that he was completely out of control during the sexual harassment training seminar for the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me was for him to stand and make really kind of obnoxious comments during the sexual harassment training about how this is a boy ’ s club and how things aren ’ t going to change here and he can ’ t control his interns because they don ’ t get paid , ” Bayer said .
“ It was really obnoxious .
”

Emboldened by reporter Allison Donahue’s account, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) came forward Tuesday morning with her own accusation of sexual harassment against fellow Sen. Peter Lucido (R).
According to Crain’s Detroit Business, McMorrow’s episode happened on orientation day for new senators, two days after the 2018 election. McMorrow walked over and introduced herself to Lucido.
“He shook my hand and with his other hand held my low back with his fingers on my hips, effectively upper rear, and we had a back-and-forth conversation,” McMorrow said.
She recalled Lucido asking her where she was from. She told him, and named the Republican incumbent she’d unseated. She said that he looked her body up and down before saying “I can see why.”
Another Democratic senator, Rosemary Bayer, remembers witnessing Lucido wrapping his arm around McMorrow while they talked.
“This is the age of consent, right?” she said to Crain’s. “You have to have permission. You can’t be touching people.”
McMorrow also told her husband the day the incident happened; he confirmed her account.
Lucido denies the allegation, calling it “untrue and politically motivated.”
McMorrow plans to report the incident to the Senate Business Office, the same entity that is investigating Donahue’s accusation about Lucido telling a group of high school boys that they “could have some fun” with her while she was trying to interview him.
McMorrow credits Donahue with pushing her to come forward. The lawmaker said she felt “guilty” after reading Donahue’s account, that she may have been able to prevent Lucido from humiliating her if she’d reported him at the time. McMorrow added that she was infuriated by Lucido’s attempts to discredit Donahue’s account — he accused Donahue of misquoting him.
The two incidents are not the only evidence of Lucido’s boorish and misogynistic behavior around the statehouse. Bayer, the senator who witnessed Lucido touching McMorrow, said that he was completely out of control during the sexual harassment training seminar for the new lawmakers.
“What was stunning to me was for him to stand and make really kind of obnoxious comments during the sexual harassment training about how this is a boy’s club and how things aren’t going to change here and he can’t control his interns because they don’t get paid,” Bayer said. “It was really obnoxious.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-22--How The House Made An Impeachment Procedures Debate Also About The Substance

Tuesday ’ s debate about impeachment trial procedures served as a proxy war for the broader arguments the House and President Trump ’ s attorneys will make about the conduct at the heart of the impeachment proceedings .
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) forced eleven votes on subpoenas for documents and witness testimony to be secured at the beginning of the trial .
The gambit that stretched Tuesday ’ s proceedings until nearly 2 in the morning , before the GOP Senate could pass the resolution proposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) that would delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial .
Each amendment vote failed , but the exercise provided an opportunity for the House managers to preview the major points they plan to make in their impeachment case .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) broke with Republicans in favor of one Dem amendment that would have extended the deadlines for certain motions to be filed .
During a debate over authorizing a subpoena for State Department documents , Rep. Val Demings ( D-FL ) reminded the senators — and the watching American public — who in the department was aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign , by citing the testimony of the diplomats who did cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry .
Rep. Jason Crow ( D-CO ) , a military veteran with a Bronze star , argued in favor of the document subpoenas targeting the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget .
While doing so , he stressed the national security implications of the Trump-ordered hold on military aid to Ukraine .
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvany ’ s pivotal role in implementing the Ukraine quid pro quo meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as he argued for a Mulvaney witness subpoena , could recount all the various episodes that involved the OMB chief .
He played a clip of Mulvaney admitting the aid-for-investigations trade-off , and detailed the testimony of various officials who traced the efforts back to the highest ranking White House staffer .
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) argued against McConnell ’ s underlying procedures resolution .
His arguments in favor of subpoenas issued immediately played the dual role of explaining the House ’ s second article of impeachment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he detailed the stonewalling the White House did in the House impeachment inquiry .
The opposition expressed by President Trump ’ s attorneys to the various subpoena measures was less focused on the specific records and testimony being sought .
Instead , Trump ’ s legal team used their debate time to lob their more general complaints about the House impeachment inquiry process .
The Trump attorneys also pivoted towards defending the Trump conduct that the House managers had pointed to in arguing for the subpoenas .
And in turn , the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebut those defenses .
When Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow argued that the Ukraine assistance eventually flowed , Schiff countered that Congress had to take additional steps to ensure that the aid was finally sent to Ukraine because the hold had lasted for so long .
When Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura claimed that the Ukraine never knew about the aid freeze before it was made public , Schiff brought up the multiple administration officials and public reports that indicated Ukraine was aware of the hold before the first public reports .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance of their case against the President , the House impeachment managers elevated Tuesday ’ s proceedings .
Schiff made their importance explicit as he kicked off the debate over the resolution Tuesday afternoon .
“ I believe the most important decision in this case is the one you will make today , the most important question is the question you must answer today : Will the president and the American people get a fair trial ?
” Schiff said .
As the night crept into the early morning , tensions escalated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) accused the President ’ s legal team of lying and the Senate GOP of helping Trump cover-up his crime , prompting an equally spicy retort from Trump ’ s lawyers .
The heated rhetoric earned an admonishment from Chief Justice John Roberts , who urged both parties to be more respectful in the rhetoric they use in front of the Senate .
The entire exchange overshadowed the meticulous case Nadler made for subpoenaing former National Security Advisor John Bolton .
White House counsel Pat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhaustion setting over the chamber as the debate over subpoenas stretched several hours .
He suggested the House was wasting the Senate ’ s time with a debate that amounted to a disagreement over “ when ” to decide to subpoena witnesses documents .
“ There will be no when , ” Schiff shot back , arguing that the White House was not going to have an “ epiphany ” about supporting subpoenas later on in the trial .
“ A vote to delay is a vote to deny .
”

Tuesday’s debate about impeachment trial procedures served as a proxy war for the broader arguments the House and President Trump’s attorneys will make about the conduct at the heart of the impeachment proceedings.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) forced eleven votes on subpoenas for documents and witness testimony to be secured at the beginning of the trial. The gambit that stretched Tuesday’s proceedings until nearly 2 in the morning, before the GOP Senate could pass the resolution proposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that would delay subpoenas decisions until much later in the trial.
Each amendment vote failed, but the exercise provided an opportunity for the House managers to preview the major points they plan to make in their impeachment case. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) broke with Republicans in favor of one Dem amendment that would have extended the deadlines for certain motions to be filed.
During a debate over authorizing a subpoena for State Department documents, Rep. Val Demings (D-FL) reminded the senators — and the watching American public — who in the department was aware of and involved in the Ukraine pressure campaign, by citing the testimony of the diplomats who did cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.
Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), a military veteran with a Bronze star, argued in favor of the document subpoenas targeting the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget. While doing so, he stressed the national security implications of the Trump-ordered hold on military aid to Ukraine.
Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvany’s pivotal role in implementing the Ukraine quid pro quo meant that Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), as he argued for a Mulvaney witness subpoena, could recount all the various episodes that involved the OMB chief.
He played a clip of Mulvaney admitting the aid-for-investigations trade-off, and detailed the testimony of various officials who traced the efforts back to the highest ranking White House staffer.
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) argued against McConnell’s underlying procedures resolution. His arguments in favor of subpoenas issued immediately played the dual role of explaining the House’s second article of impeachment, which alleges obstruction of Congress, as he detailed the stonewalling the White House did in the House impeachment inquiry.
The opposition expressed by President Trump’s attorneys to the various subpoena measures was less focused on the specific records and testimony being sought. Instead, Trump’s legal team used their debate time to lob their more general complaints about the House impeachment inquiry process. The Trump attorneys also pivoted towards defending the Trump conduct that the House managers had pointed to in arguing for the subpoenas. And in turn, the House managers reserved some debate time to then rebut those defenses.
When Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow argued that the Ukraine assistance eventually flowed, Schiff countered that Congress had to take additional steps to ensure that the aid was finally sent to Ukraine because the hold had lasted for so long.
When Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura claimed that the Ukraine never knew about the aid freeze before it was made public, Schiff brought up the multiple administration officials and public reports that indicated Ukraine was aware of the hold before the first public reports.
By tying the procedural debate to the substance of their case against the President, the House impeachment managers elevated Tuesday’s proceedings.
Schiff made their importance explicit as he kicked off the debate over the resolution Tuesday afternoon.
“I believe the most important decision in this case is the one you will make today, the most important question is the question you must answer today: Will the president and the American people get a fair trial?” Schiff said.
As the night crept into the early morning, tensions escalated and the focus of the arguments deteriorated bit. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) accused the President’s legal team of lying and the Senate GOP of helping Trump cover-up his crime, prompting an equally spicy retort from Trump’s lawyers.
The heated rhetoric earned an admonishment from Chief Justice John Roberts, who urged both parties to be more respectful in the rhetoric they use in front of the Senate.
The entire exchange overshadowed the meticulous case Nadler made for subpoenaing former National Security Advisor John Bolton.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone sought to take advantage of the exhaustion setting over the chamber as the debate over subpoenas stretched several hours. He suggested the House was wasting the Senate’s time with a debate that amounted to a disagreement over “when” to decide to subpoena witnesses documents.
“There will be no when,” Schiff shot back, arguing that the White House was not going to have an “epiphany” about supporting subpoenas later on in the trial.
“A vote to delay is a vote to deny.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--Trump Flips Out About His Senate Impeachment Trial On Twitter

After mostly confining his Twitter feed to retweets from GOP allies this week , a livid President Donald Trump fired off tweet after tweet in an extended rant about his Senate impeachment trial on Thursday morning .
“ The Democrat House would not give us lawyers , or not one witness , but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought , or even asked for ?
” he tweeted .
“ They had their chance , but pretended to rush .
Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history !
” The tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invited White House lawyers to participate in the Judiciary Committee ’ s impeachment hearings and had issued several subpoenas to the Trump administration officials whom Democrats seek to subpoena again in the Senate trial .
However , GOP senators have voted against allowing witnesses and documents .
“ No matter what you give to the Radical Left , Do Nothing Democrats , it will never be enough !
” Trump wrote a few minutes later .
Followed up by : “ The Democrats & Shifty Schiff , whose presentation to the Senate was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to state that the Obama Administration withheld aid from many countries including Ukraine , Pakistan , Philippines , Egypt , Honduras , & Mexico .
Witch Hunt !
” Since the trial kicked off this week , Trump has mostly retweeted comments about impeachment from Republican loyalists and Fox News analysts instead of posting his own thoughts on the matter .

After mostly confining his Twitter feed to retweets from GOP allies this week, a livid President Donald Trump fired off tweet after tweet in an extended rant about his Senate impeachment trial on Thursday morning.
“The Democrat House would not give us lawyers, or not one witness, but now demand that the Republican Senate produce the witnesses that the House never sought, or even asked for?” he tweeted. “They had their chance, but pretended to rush. Most unfair & corrupt hearing in Congressional history!”
The tweet contained multiple falsehoods; House Democrats had invited White House lawyers to participate in the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings and had issued several subpoenas to the Trump administration officials whom Democrats seek to subpoena again in the Senate trial. However, GOP senators have voted against allowing witnesses and documents.
“No matter what you give to the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats, it will never be enough!” Trump wrote a few minutes later.
Followed up by: “The Democrats & Shifty Schiff, whose presentation to the Senate was loaded with lies and misrepresentations, are refusing to state that the Obama Administration withheld aid from many countries including Ukraine, Pakistan, Philippines, Egypt, Honduras, & Mexico. Witch Hunt!”
Since the trial kicked off this week, Trump has mostly retweeted comments about impeachment from Republican loyalists and Fox News analysts instead of posting his own thoughts on the matter.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--FBI Missed Judge’s Deadline To Turn Over Kushner Interview Memos In Mueller Probe

Last week , the FBI did not comply with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton ’ s order to give CNN @ @ @ @ @ from the agency ’ s interviews with White House senior adviser Jared Kushner in Special @ @ @ @ @ investigation .
Justice Department lawyer Courtney Enlow told CNN on Wednesday that “ a member @ @ @ @ @ needs to review the memos and make certain redactions first .
The memos “ will @ @ @ @ @ redactions ” afterward , Enlow said without giving an exact timeline .
Walton ordered the @ @ @ @ @ ’ s notes of witness interviews in CNN and Buzzfeed News ’ lawsuit over the @ @ @ @ @ intelligence agency a deadline of January 17 to give all of the requested documents to @ @ @ @ @ Several batches of the documents have already been released , including memos of interviews with @ @ @ @ @ and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen .

Last week, the FBI did not comply with U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton’s order to give CNN and Buzzfeed News the memos from the agency’s interviews with White House senior adviser Jared Kushner in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Justice Department lawyer Courtney Enlow told CNN on Wednesday that “a member of the intelligence community” needs to review the memos and make certain redactions first.
The memos “will be released with the appropriate redactions” afterward, Enlow said without giving an exact timeline.
Walton ordered the FBI to hand over Mueller’s notes of witness interviews in CNN and Buzzfeed News’ lawsuit over the records. He gave the intelligence agency a deadline of January 17 to give all of the requested documents to the two news outlets.
Several batches of the documents have already been released, including memos of interviews with White House adviser Stephen Miller and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-23--After Banning Evidence, GOP Senators Have A Complaint: Dems Talk Too Much

The rules of the impeachment trial are set .
As of this writing , no witnesses are set to be called .
No additional documentary evidence will be considered by the world ’ s greatest deliberative body .
And cross examination ?
Forget about it .
But one day in , Republican senators have a complaint : impeachment managers appointed by House Democrats are talking too much .
Sen. Roy Blunt complained of being told “ the same story over and and over again.
” “ At least one of our members is trying to keep track of how many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make apparently another point , ” Blunt said after the first day of arguments .
Sen. Blunt echoed other Republicans in complaining that nothing was new .
“ Well , we ’ ve just come out of 6 hours of testimony so far today , ” said Sen. John Barrasso ( R-WY ) .
“ I didn ’ t hear anything new at all.
” Indeed , Barrasso has not only lacked an opportunity to hear anything new in the case – he ’ s assisted in making sure that such an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans voted late into the night on Tuesday to prevent subpoenas for documents and testimony from being issued in the impeachment inquiry .
Even amid widespread suggestions that there remain reams of still-hidden evidence , like that uncovered from the iPhone of Giuliani associate Lev Parnas , Republicans prevented the upper chamber from pushing for additional information .
“ Since the House adopted these articles , evidence has continued to come to light related to the President ’ s corrupt scheme , ” said Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) on Wednesday night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to act as if the story being told by impeachment managers is old news , and that Democrats are simply beating a dead horse .
To Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) , “ one of the realities that ’ s already setting in is that just a few hours into [ impeachment managers ’ ] openings arguments , they ’ re already repeating the same points that they made for 13 hours yesterday.
” Cruz added that that in spite of what he referred to as the Democrats ’ “ fit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see an awful lot of repetition on the same points over and over again.
” He went on to suggest that it ’ s “ critical ” for Hunter Biden to testify in the case .
Some senators , like Barrasso , have suggested that Biden ’ s testimony could be offered up as a “ trade ” for the testimony of former National Security Adviser John Bolton .
But it ’ s unclear if Democrats would be willing to embark on such an expedition .
Rather , it would seem , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Freedom of Information Act lawsuits , and reporting will continue to flesh out the missing pieces of the pressure campaign on Ukraine which led to the third impeachment in U.S. history .
Alternatively , you can look at it the way Sen. Tim Scott ( R-SC ) did in comments to reporters on Capitol Hill about the impeachment managers ’ opening arguments .
“ What we ’ ve seen is a rehashing of yesterday ’ s charade , ” he said .

Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.
The rules of the impeachment trial are set.
As of this writing, no witnesses are set to be called. No additional documentary evidence will be considered by the world’s greatest deliberative body. And cross examination? Forget about it.
But one day in, Republican senators have a complaint: impeachment managers appointed by House Democrats are talking too much.
Sen. Roy Blunt complained of being told “the same story over and and over again.”
“At least one of our members is trying to keep track of how many times we saw the same exact video to make apparently another point,” Blunt said after the first day of arguments.
Sen. Blunt echoed other Republicans in complaining that nothing was new.
“Well, we’ve just come out of 6 hours of testimony so far today,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). “I didn’t hear anything new at all.”
Indeed, Barrasso has not only lacked an opportunity to hear anything new in the case – he’s assisted in making sure that such an opportunity would never present itself.
Senate Republicans voted late into the night on Tuesday to prevent subpoenas for documents and testimony from being issued in the impeachment inquiry. Even amid widespread suggestions that there remain reams of still-hidden evidence, like that uncovered from the iPhone of Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, Republicans prevented the upper chamber from pushing for additional information.
“Since the House adopted these articles, evidence has continued to come to light related to the President’s corrupt scheme,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) on Wednesday night.
But it’s far easier to act as if the story being told by impeachment managers is old news, and that Democrats are simply beating a dead horse.
To Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), “one of the realities that’s already setting in is that just a few hours into [impeachment managers’] openings arguments, they’re already repeating the same points that they made for 13 hours yesterday.”
Cruz added that that in spite of what he referred to as the Democrats’ “fit,” “we’re gonna see an awful lot of repetition on the same points over and over again.”
He went on to suggest that it’s “critical” for Hunter Biden to testify in the case. Some senators, like Barrasso, have suggested that Biden’s testimony could be offered up as a “trade” for the testimony of former National Security Adviser John Bolton.
But it’s unclear if Democrats would be willing to embark on such an expedition.
Rather, it would seem, a trickle of information from criminal cases, Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, and reporting will continue to flesh out the missing pieces of the pressure campaign on Ukraine which led to the third impeachment in U.S. history.
Alternatively, you can look at it the way Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) did in comments to reporters on Capitol Hill about the impeachment managers’ opening arguments.
“What we’ve seen is a rehashing of yesterday’s charade,” he said.