To: Vice President Joe Biden

Thursday, March 14, 2019 8:00 AM EDT

Biden in the News

Coons: Biden Has Said He’s “All But Certain” To Enter 2020 Presidential Race.

In an online article, CNN (3/13, Saenz) reported that during a Wednesday appearance on CNN, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said that former Vice President Joe Biden “has indicated it is ‘all but certain’ he’ll run in 2020.” Coons, “one of Biden’s closest allies,” is quoted as saying, “I’m optimistic he’s going to run for president. I’m actually confident he’s going to run for president. He’s 95% there and everything that needs to be in place for him to have a strong and successful launch is being put together.” Coons added, “He’s told me that he is all but certain he is going to run. He hasn’t made that last decision.”

        The Hill (3/13, Frazin) quoted Coons as telling CNN that Biden is “feeling very optimistic about the prospects and is preparing for a run, but has not made that final decision. I expect that soon.” The Delaware News Journal (3/13, Newman) reports that Coons also said that Biden’s Tuesday address at the International Firefighters Association “convention sheds some light on the kind of campaign the former veep will run. ‘Those are the kinds of folks Joe Biden has fought for his entire life,’ Coons said. ‘He gets in his gut what America’s middle class needs and wants in order to move forward. He knows and understands the complexity of American society.’” The Washington Examiner (3/13, Kasperowicz) and Breitbart (3/13, Baker) similarly reported on Coons’ remarks.

NBC News: Biden, Trump Both Have “Strong Support Among White, Blue-Collar Voters.”

On NBC’s Today (3/13), Peter Alexander reported that former Vice President Joe Biden’s “allies” maintain that he “has the name recognition, the experience, and, importantly, strong support among white, blue-collar voters – the same demographic that propelled President Trump to the White House.” If Biden runs, said Alexander, “polls show he would immediately become a front runner,” but his “challenge” will be “building support as a familiar establishment face in a party increasingly driven by young progressive voices.”

Nate Silver: Biden’s, Sanders’ Polling Numbers Not Simply A Product Of Name Recognition.

Writing at FiveThirtyEight (3/13), Nate Silver said that polling showing former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) atop the 2020 Democratic presidential field is not simply a product of the candidates’ name recognition. Silver said, “If you think of a mental scale that spans the categories ‘bad,’ ‘meh,’ ‘pretty good,’ ‘good’ and ‘great,’ Biden’s polling qualifies as good even if you do count for name recognition, and Sanders’s as pretty good (inching toward good in the most recent polls). [Sen. Kamala] Harris also belongs in the pretty good category on the basis of her strong favorability ratings, even though she doesn’t have as much first-choice support. Otherwise, the candidates’ polling is pretty underwhelming.” Silver added that Biden’s and Sanders’ “positions aren’t spectacular, but most candidates would gladly give up their own path to the nomination for one of theirs.”

AP: Biden’s History Of Bipartisanship May Be A Drawback In Democratic Race.

The AP (3/13) reports, “Still stung by President Barack Obama’s fierce battles with Republicans and at odds with nearly every policy the GOP has pursued during the Trump administration, some Democrats say they have little interest in talk of” bipartisanship from the field of 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls. Said ex-Obama adviser David Axelrod, “There are some very angry people who have watched the events of the last 10 years and watched Donald Trump and their attitude is ‘hell no.’” The AP adds, “That new reality poses a dilemma for White House hopefuls like Joe Biden, who...has worked closely with scores of Republicans during more than four decades in politics, was Obama’s point man in numerous negotiations with congressional Republicans and will likely make that experience a cornerstone of a 2020 campaign.”

The Guardian: Fundraising, Ties To Financial Industry Pose Challenge For Biden.

The Guardian (UK) (3/14, Helmore) reports that ahead of former Vice President Joe Biden’s expected 2020 bid for president, “some are already warning that” his “ties to the business community and Wall Street could serve to undermine his avuncular reputation as ‘middle-class Joe’ within a party increasingly dominated by progressive politics on social and economic issues. Moreover, Biden has not run a campaign in his own right since...2008, a lifetime ago in political terms and an era dominated by big-money political action committees (Pacs) and wealthy backers now considered problematic to candidates who must display grassroots, small-dollar donor support as proof of their viability.” That could leave Biden, “a candidate known for disliking the grind of fundraising,” facing the challenge of needing to raise “millions of dollars to compete in what is likely to the most expensive presidential campaign in US history.”

Daily Beast Casts Biden As Only Democratic Contender Not To Applaud Death Penalty Moratorium.

Under the headline “The 2020 Democratic Field, Minus Joe Biden, Embraces A Death Penalty Moratorium,” the Daily Beast (3/14, Resnick) reports that a host of 2020 Democratic hopefuls “are rushing to cheer” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) for having “signed an executive order to halt further executions in his state.” The article says “a general opposition to the death penalty...is shared by much of the current Democratic field,” though “there is one likely candidate who has previously taken a different path. As a US senator, Joe Biden helped write the 1994 crime bill that expanded the application of the death penalty, saying at one point that ‘we have predators on our streets’ who are ‘beyond the pale.’ [Sen. Bernie] Sanders voted for it too, though he framed it as a compromise measure.”

Jamal Simmons: Biden “Could Make A Great President,” But Faces Hurdles.

In his column for The Hill (3/13), Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said that former Vice President Joe Biden “could make a great president, but he’d have to defy history to do it.” Simmons said that “it’s sobering to remember no current or former Democratic vice president (who was not elevated by death of the president) has ever won the White House in the history of the modern Democratic Party.” If Biden is to win, added Simmons, he will need to appeal to a Democratic base that his grown younger and more diverse, promoting policies desired by progressives “that would positively impact women, rural Americans, people of color and religious minorities,” and “not couch positions in code words meant to make unreachable conservative voters feel more comfortable.”

        GOP Consultant: Biden’s Strengths May Outweigh His Weaknesses In Quest For Nomination. Writing at The Bulwark (3/13), GOP consultant Liz Mair said that while some think Biden is “too centrist” and “too old” to win the Democratic primary, “it’s easy to see how” he “could get the nomination anyway – if he makes a run and gives 100 percent effort to it.” Mair said that Biden’s strong “name ID,” his history as former President Barack Obama’s vice president, and his “ability to” appeal to “blue-collar, white working-class voters” could help Biden overcome the drawbacks he’d bring to a campaign.

        Harper’s Magazine Offers Critical Look At Biden’s “Disastrous Legislative Legacy.” Under the heading “No Joe! Joe Biden’s Disastrous Legislative Legacy,” Andrew Cockburn writes in a negative piece for the March issue of Harper’s Magazine (3/13) about Biden’s lengthy record in the Senate, highlighting his past opposition to busing and his support for the 1994 crime bill. Among other things, Cockburn also criticizes Biden’s embrace of bipartisanship, saying, “It was bipartisan accord...that brought us the permanent war economy, the war on drugs, the mass incarceration of black people, 1990s welfare ‘reform,’ Wall Street deregulation and the consequent $16 trillion in bank bailouts, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, and other atrocities too numerous to mention.”

        Polman: Biden’s “Time May Have Passed.” In his online column for WHYY-TV Philadelphia (3/13), Dick Polman said that early polls show Biden leading, but those surveys “do not measure what may well happen when a 76-year-old white guy tries to woo a party that’s being energized by young non-white progressives.” Polman asserts that Biden’s “long season of tortured indecision” on the 2020 race “can be traced to his reasonable suspicion that time may have passed him by. He failed as a national candidate in 1988 and 2008 – indeed, he has never won a race on his own outside tiny Delaware – so why should he, or we, believe that he can succeed in an era when racial and #MeToo sensitivities are so acute?” Polman goes on to highlight Biden’s past opposition to busing and his support for the 1994 crime bill, among other potentially damaging aspects of Biden’s “long track record in Washington.”

        WPost’s Waldman Lists Questions A Biden Bid Would Help Answer. Writing on the website of the Washington Post (3/13), Paul Waldman said that if Biden enters the race for president, “here are some of the questions his candidacy would help us answer.” The questions listed by Waldman are: “How do Democratic voters feel about electing an old white guy?”; “Is there really a moderate ‘lane,’ and is that where you’d want to be?”; “How ready are voters to forgive the sins of a candidate’s past,” such as Biden’s “opposition to school busing in the 1970s” and “his work on the notorious 1994 crime bill,” among other things?; and “Do gaffes matter?” Waldman added, “My own unscientific reading of Democrats tells me that while a lot of them like Biden, there aren’t that many who love Biden.”

Politico: Warren Breaks “Sharply” With Biden In Declaring Pence “Not An Honorable Person.”

Politico (3/13, Morin) reported that during a Wednesday appearance on MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said that Vice President Mike Pence “is ‘not an honorable person,’ a sharply different characterization than the one former Vice President Joe Biden offered last month.” Warren replied “with a flat �98no’ when asked whether she believed Pence is an honorable man, slamming his historic opposition to same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues.” Said Warren, “Anyone who engages in the kind of homophobia and attacks on people who are different from himself is not an honorable person.” Politico added that Biden “called Pence a ‘decent guy’ while speaking last month at the Forum in Global Leadership at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.”

        Meanwhile, BuzzFeed News (3/13, Berman) reported that South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D), “who is running for president, understands how...Biden might think...Pence is a ‘decent guy.’ But he believes that Pence’s demeanor is covering up something else. ‘I mean to your face, if he were sitting right here, you’d think that this guy is very polite,’ Buttigieg told BuzzFeed News...after being asked about Biden’s comments in an interview filmed from SXSW last weekend. ‘But that masks this absolutely fanatical view about how the world works or how the universe works that has led to these incredibly hurtful, dangerous, and harmful policies, and that’s what we have now in the White House. And I think it chills a lot of us, especially in the LGBTQ community, to see that somebody like that can be in that kind of position of power.’”

Rosie O’Donnell, Ken Olin Say Biden “Too Old” To Run For President.

In continuing coverage, USA Today (3/13, Cummings) reports that “there is a steady chorus of concern from some liberals who aren’t convinced former Vice President Joe Biden should be their party’s nominee in 2020.” The article highlights Rosie O’Donnell’s Tuesday tweet asserting, “Joe Biden is too old to for president. Period.” USA Today says “O’Donnell is not the only liberal celebrity expressing concerns about Biden’s age. Ken Olin, the executive producer of ‘This is Us,’” similarly asserted on Twitter last week that Biden “is ‘too old.’” USA Today adds, “From his vote authorizing President George W. Bush to take military action in Iraq, to his tough talk in support of the 1994 crime bill and his opposition to school busing in the 1970s, Biden’s long career could provide a lot of ammunition for liberal candidates to attack him from the left.”

        Breitbart (3/13, Huston) reported that O’Donnell “joins a growing number of left-wing voices attempting to discourage Biden from jumping into the 2020 race. Huffington Post, for instance, published a long piece tearing Biden down and pegging him as a ‘supporter of the corporate elite,’ while New York magazine as much as called Biden a racist. As for O’Donnell, she has already announced her support for California Senator Kamala Harris for the Democrat nomination for 2020.”

In Tweet, Biden Remembers Late Amtrak Chief Boardman.

Progressive Railroading (3/13) reported that former Vice President Joe Biden, “a longtime rider and fan of Amtrak, offered his thoughts this week on former Amtrak President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Boardman, who died in Florida last week at the age of 70.” Biden is quoted as saying in a tweet, “Joe Boardman led Amtrak through difficult times, taking over during the worst economic crisis since the Depression, and starting a modernization that will help deliver the 21st century rail system America deserves. My thoughts are with his wife Joanne and their family.”

O’Rourke Announces Presidential Bid.

The El Paso (TX) Times (3/14, Kolenc, Mekelburg) reports that ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) on Thursday morning “officially entered the 2020 presidential race.” Speaking with the Times ahead of the announcement, O’Rourke said, “I want to be president because I feel that we can bring this country together. We can unify around our ambitions, our aspirations, the big things that we know we are capable of when all of us have the opportunity to contribute.” He added, “I just want to serve this country so badly to the highest of my ability, and I believe that is serving as president of the United States.”

        The New York Times (3/14, Flegenheimer, Martin) reports that O’Rourke is “betting that voters will prize his message of national unity and generational change in a 2020 primary teeming with committed progressives. His decision jolts an early election season already stuffed with contenders, adding to the mix a relentless campaigner with a small-dollar fund-raising army.” However, O’Rourke “also comes to the 2020 race with few notable legislative accomplishments after three terms in the House” and “without a signature proposal that might serve as the ideological anchor of his bid.”

        The Houston Chronicle (3/14, Diaz) reports, “The long-anticipated announcement adds O’Rourke to a crowded field of Democrats vying to take on President Donald Trump, with whom he has repeatedly clashed over the administration’s hardline policies on border security, asylum, and immigration. Running on his identity as a lifelong resident of Texas’ heavily Hispanic border region,” O’Rourke “could be a leading Democratic voice on immigration, an issue that Trump made the centerpiece of his 2016 campaign with his promise to build a wall spanning the US border with Mexico.”

        Bloomberg (3/14, House, Epstein) reports that O’Rourke “announced his run via a video announcement, skipping the traditional set piece speech in his home state and foreshadowing an unconventional approach to the campaign. He headed directly to Iowa for a three-day trip to meet with voters who’ll be taking part in the state’s caucuses next February, the first official contest in the nomination race.” In an online article, NBC News (3/14, Seitz-Wald) reports, “In a video announcing his decision.” O’Rourke said, “This is a defining moment of truth for this country, and for every single one of us. The challenges that we face right now; the interconnected crises in our economy, our democracy, and our climate have never been greater. And they will either consume us, or they will afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash the genius of the United States of America.”

        The Washington Times (3/13, Ernst) reports that O’Rourke “told told Vanity Fair for its April cover story that a 2020 presidential campaign may be in the making, although being ‘white’ poses a problem for him within the party. ‘You can probably tell that I want to run,’ he told writer Joe Hagan. ‘I do. I think I’d be good at it. This is the fight of our lives. ... Man, I’m just born to be in it, and want to do everything I humanly can for this country at this moment.” O’Rourke added, “The government at all levels is overly represented by white men. That’s part of the problem, and I’m a white man. So if I were to run, I think it’s just so important that those who would comprise my team looked like this country. If I were to run, if I were to win, that my administration looks like this country.”

        O’Rourke’s 2018 Donors May Not Back His Presidential Campaign. The Washington Times (3/13, McLaughlin) reports that O’Rourke “deployed astonishing fundraising skills” in his unsuccessful 2018 challenge to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), collecting “$80 million even as he fell short in the race.” The Times says that $37 million of that total “came from small donors who gave $200 or less. The rest came from larger-dollar donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.” However, “some of the donors contacted by The Washington Times said they shouldn’t be taken for granted” to support him in a presidential bid.

        O’Rourke Says Biden Camp Didn’t Ask Him About Being A Running Mate. Meanwhile, the El Paso (TX) Times (3/14, Kolenc) says, “Published reports said former Vice President Joe Biden’s camp contacted O’Rourke to see if he’d be interested in being Biden’s running mate if Biden runs for president. But O’Rourke said the conversation never happened.” In an interview, O’Rourke said, “I have not spoken to the vice president since he left office. And I’ve not spoken to anyone on his team. No one on his team has reached out to me. So, that’s one of many stories floating around. I don’t know the provenance. But there’s no truth to it.”

Reuters Analysis: Centrists May Reject Democrats Who Support “Medicare-For-All.”

Reuters (3/13, Becker, Gibson) reports in an analysis that “five of the US senators seeking the Democratic presidential nomination...back a Medicare-for-all bill that would replace the current mix of private and government coverage with a plan provided solely by the government.” Democrats “have long pushed for some type of universal healthcare,” but “the Medicare-for-all proposal has met resistance from more centrist party members concerned about the hefty price tag and disrupting voters’ current coverage.” Reuters says Medicare “will likely remain an issue for the general election in November 2020, with Democrats already criticizing President Donald Trump’s proposal on Monday to slash $845 billion from the program’s budget over the next decade.”

CNN: Sanders’ 2016 Bid Helped Boost Democratic Socialists Groups In US.

In an online article, CNN (3/13, Krieg) reported on how the 2016 bid of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, has boosted the groups The Democratic Socialists of America and the Young Democratic Socialists of America. CNN said that the Young Democratic Socialists of America co-hosted a Sanders rally in Iowa last week and the Democratic Socialists of America” has grown more than tenfold since the 2016 election, when its membership hovered around 5,000.”

        After 2016 Drubbing In SC, Sanders Hoping For Stronger Showing This Time Around. The AP (3/13, Kinnard) reports that while Sanders in 2016 received “the cold shoulder” from South Carolina, he’s now hoping “the state is ready to warm to him.” Sanders “has spent months working to deepen his ties with the black community in South Carolina, where minority voters make up the majority of the Democratic primary electorate. He returns to South Carolina” today, “eager to prove that those efforts put him in a more competitive position in a state he lost by a staggering 47 points” to Hillary Clinton.

Warren Has “Zero” Sympathy For Parents Ensnared In College Cheating Scandal.

The Washington Times (3/13, Boyer) reports that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), “accused of exaggerating American Indian ancestry to further her career, said Wednesday she has ‘zero’ sympathy for parents caught in a college cheating scandal.” Appearing on MSNBC, Warren “was asked, ‘As a parent, how much sympathy would you have for these parents who are embroiled in this alleged cheating scandal?’ Zero,’ the senator replied.” Warren, “who took a DNA test showing that she is 1/1024th Indian, has been dogged by accusations that she claimed minority status at Harvard University and on a state bar application to gain an advantage in her career.”

        The Hill (3/13, Frazin) reported that RNC chief Ronna McDaniel “called Warren’s comment ‘ironic.’ ‘It’s ironic that she’s so offended given that she lied about being a minority to climb the Ivy League ladder,’ McDaniel tweeted.” The Hill added that Donald Trump Jr. “similarly criticized Warren,” saying in a tweet, “LOL, Yea it’s almost like they faked minority status to get into school and future tenured jobs in academia.” Breitbart (3/13, Key) also reported on the story.

        AP: Warren Banking On Her Policy Proposals To Gain Traction In Democratic Race. Meanwhile, the AP (3/13, Schor) reports that Warren “has laid down significant markers in a half-dozen different policy areas since the year began.” However, her “approach is built on a risky bet: that voters will respond to her detail-driven effort when other Democrats are appealing to hearts as much as their minds and after a 2016 presidential campaign in which Hillary Clinton’s policy portfolio wilted in the face of Donald Trump’s personal attacks.” The AP adds that “it’s clear that Warren is angling to be known as the idea woman in the field.”

In Miami Speech, Schultz Blasts Both Parties, Preaches Bipartisanship.

The Miami Herald (3/13, Smiley) reports that during a Wednesday speech in Miami, Florida, ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz – mulling an independent White House run – “lauded South Florida’s Cuban, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan exiles and then criticized the Democratic Party for embracing socialism and jeopardizing free trade.” Said Schultz, “Our free enterprise system is under attack. Several Democratic presidential candidates espouse policies that amount to thinly veiled levels of socialism. Democrats in Congress are full partners of this left-wing tilt, with unrealistic plans like the Green New Deal and false promises like government-paid healthcare, free college and jobs for all.” Schultz also “called Donald Trump a symptom of a country divided by extremes.”

        The Washington Post (3/13, Scherer) reports that Schultz said in his speech that “he would establish an informal partisan veto in Congress if he is elected president, pledging to refuse to sign any bill unless it is supported by members of both parties.” Schultz said, “I would not sign any legislation – none – into law that does not have bipartisan support. ... We need to be candid with the American people and admit, yes, that both sides have good ideas if we work together.” The Post says Schultz’s proposal “risks grinding Congress to a halt if Democrats or Republicans are united in opposition to a bill.” Wednesday’s speech “was the first of a series of policy addresses Schultz plans to make in coming weeks to lay out his vision of a post-partisan presidential campaign.” In a Miami Herald (3/13) op-ed, Schultz also pitched his message of bipartisan cooperation, blasting both President Trump and what he described as “Trumpism by Democrats,” saying both have led to “extremism.”

        WPost: Project Where Schultz Grew Up Much Nicer Than He Describes. Meanwhile, with Democrats expressing concern that an independent Schultz bid could help Trump win reelection, the Washington Post (3/13, Fisher) takes aim at the ex-Starbucks CEO, who touts himself as “a poor kid who escaped from the chaos and cacophony of a Brooklyn housing project to become the architect of a global coffee behemoth.” However, the Post says “Schultz’s depiction of Bayview as a rough, low-income community is inconsistent with the city’s definition of the project, the requirements for tenants to get into the buildings, and the experience of others who lived there.” The Post quotes Barnard College sociologist Jonathan Rieder as saying, “Bayview was a heavily Jewish, solidly middle-income place. It was an oasis, a sanctuary.”

Trump Campaign Plans Early Focus On Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

Citing “two campaign advisers,” Reuters (3/13, Holland) reports that President Trump’s re-election campaign is “preparing an early focus on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, states that were instrumental to his improbable 2016 victory but where his support has softened.” Reuters calls the decision “to accelerate campaign organizing and eventually get” Trump “to make trips” to the states a “recognition that” his “path to re-election in 2020 will need to repeat some of the successes he had in 2016.” Trump advisers “also see a need to bolster” his “support in Florida, a battleground state he considers his second home but where opinion polls show him struggling.” However, his advisers “see an opportunity for gains in Minnesota and Colorado, two states Trump narrowly lost.”

        AP Analysis: Trump Eager To Exploit Omar’s Views On Israel. An AP (3/13, Miller) analysis says Trump “can’t get enough of” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and “as Democrats try to turn the page after the freshman lawmaker’s remarks, criticized by some as anti-Semitic, ignited an embarrassing intra-party fight,” Trump is “trying to prolong and weaponize the issue for his 2020 campaign, asserting during a private weekend fundraiser that Democrats ‘hate’ Jews.” Trump’s “rhetorical escalation also is designed to unsettle the Democratic primary debate, exploit an issue that can energize his supporters and move past his own history of toying in anti-Semitic motifs.”

Leading the News

Following Other Nations’ Leads, Trump Grounds Boeing 737 Max Models.

President Trump’s grounding of Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft in the wake of the Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 crash, a step that media consistently said that other countries already had taken, received heavy coverage in major outlets and led all three major network newscasts.

        In its lead segment, the CBS Evening News (3/13, lead story, 3:10, Glor) reported, “The US was the latest and last” country to ground the planes “after new satellite information emerged following the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302.” President Trump was shown saying: “Boeing is an incredible company. They are working very, very hard right now. And hopefully they’ll very quickly come up with the answer, but until they do, the planes are grounded.” CBS (Van Cleave) added, “With pressure from the public and politicians increasing, the President made the announcement this afternoon.” Van Cleave said, “Satellite data showed the flight track of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on Sunday was very similar to that of the Lion Air Boeing 737 Max 8 that crashed in October.” Meanwhile, “investigators still don’t have any information from the crash plane’s black boxes, even though they were recovered several days ago.” Also in its lead segment, ABC World News Tonight (3/13, lead story, 3:40, Muir) reported, “Trump announcing the decision from the FAA, citing new evidence.” Trump was shown saying: “We’re going to be issuing an emergency order of prohibition to ground all flights of the 737 Max 8 and the 737 Max 9. The safety of the American people and all people is our paramount concern.” ABC (Kerley) added, “The federal government was under public pressure for days, having watched China, Europe and today, Canada, ground aircraft.”

        In its lead segment, NBC Nightly News (3/13, lead story, 4:00, Holt) reported Trump’s “decision came hours after Canada grounded the planes, leaving the US virtually alone in standing by them.” NBC (Costello) added, “US pilots have raised concerns about the 737 Max and its flight manual, submitting anonymous concerns to a federal database.”

        The New York Times (3/13, Austen, Gebrekidan) says the FAA “had for days resisted calls to ground the plane even as safety regulators in some 42 countries had banned flights by the jets,” and “as recently as Tuesday, the agency said it had seen ‘no systemic performance issues’ that would prompt it to halt flights of the jet.” The AP (3/13, Meseret, Gillies) reports that President Trump, “had received assurances Monday from Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg that the Max aircraft was sound.” Jonathan Karl reported on ABC World News Tonight (3/13, story 2, 1:00, Muir) that “a senior White House official” said “the decision was initially made this morning not to ground the planes because there was no information suggesting any fundamental problem with the Boeing 737 Max. That changed mid-day,” and “the FAA and the Department of Transportation made a recommendation to ground them. The Secretary of Transportation called the President, and he accepted that recommendation.” The AP (3/13, Miller) reports Trump “said the decision to ground the aircraft ‘didn’t have to be made, but we thought it was the right decision.’”

        Bloomberg (3/13, Levin, Epstein) reports, “The move is a major blow to Boeing, which has lost billions of dollars in value this week as nation after nation announced they were barring the aircraft from flying.” However, “The impact on U.S. travelers should be limited because there are only 72 Boeing 737 Max aircraft at three U.S. carriers,” amounting to “only about 3 percent of the mainline fleet at those carriers.” In contrast, NBC Nightly News (3/13, story 2, 1:40, Holt) reported, “Airlines that operate the Max jets are scrambling to update their flight schedules and minimize the impact from today’s grounding.” Similarly, the Los Angeles Times (3/13, Bierman) reports Trump’s move is “expected to spark sizable travel disruptions because there are about 74 737 Max aircraft used by three U.S. carriers – Southwest, American and United.” Boeing said it had “full confidence in the safety of the 737 MAX” but “has determined – out of an abundance of caution and in order to reassure the flying public of the aircraft’s safety – to recommend to the FAA the temporary suspension of operations of the entire global fleet of 371 737 MAX aircraft.”

        The < span style="color:#0000ee">Washington Post (3/13, Schemm) reports that Trump’s announcement “followed one by Canada’s transportation minister grounding all the jets, saying a review of satellite-tracking data by his country’s experts found similarities between Sunday’s crash of an Ethiopian Airlines jet and an October Lion Air crash.” USA Today (3/13, Fritze, Jackson) reports Canada’s announcement had left the US “the only nation still flying the Boeing 737 planes.”

        Politico (3/13, Wolfe, Oprysko) reports that it was “rare” for other countries to not “follow the lead of the Federal Aviation Administration in dealing with the safety of a U.S.-made aircraft,” and, “even more strikingly, the U.S. bowed to the pressure, even after Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg assured Trump in a phone conversation Tuesday that the aircraft is safe.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said on Twitter, “Now it’s Congress’s job to figure out what went wrong here, and why this decision took so long, to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” adding, “Nothing should come before the safety and security of the American people – especially not corporate profits or political favors.” CQ Roll Call (3/13, Bennett) reports, “Democrats who control the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee said they would be investigating not only the administration’s handling of the crash, but its decision to let the planes into the air to begin with.”

        Former NTSB Managing Director Peter Goelz said on CNN’s The Lead (3/13), “I think there is going to be a call for an independent panel to review not only these accidents, but to review the whole certification process and whether Boeing was too close to the FAA, whether the FAA was doing the kind of rigorous oversight that is required.” Asked if the President’s eagerness to praise Boeing makes him uncomfortable, Goelz said, “It does. The idea of aviation being a nonpartisan, nonpolitical industry that is driven by safety, his kind of ham-handed praising of Boeing is really I think uncalled for.” Fox News contributor Morgan Ortagus said on Fox News Special Report (3/13), “I think the FAA has some culpability” in addition to Boeing. “The acting Administrator said yesterday that they weren’t prepared to down the airliner and today we got a completely different story. We need to know what happened from yesterday to today.”

        In an editorial, the Washington Post (3/13) agrees that grounding the Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft was the right move, but President Trump’s process in getting there “was erratic.” Trump “had no business thrusting himself personally into a safety decision that other presidents normally, and wisely, have left to professionals.” Instead, he commented on Twitter about “about purported technological excesses of contemporary aircraft” and took a call from Boeing CEO on the issue. As a result, during “one of the most critical moments for commercial aviation safety of the 21st century,” the US was unable to “inspire other countries with confidence” and instead “found itself following their lead.” The Post concludes with a call for the FAA and Congress to investigate the matter and that the Senate assure itself that any nominee for FAA Administrator “has drawn appropriate lessons from this troubling episode and is capable of standing up for reasoned safety decision-making, regardless of corporate or presidential pressure.”

        Ahead of Trump’s announcement, the New York Times (3/13), in an editorial, called for the planes to be grounded as the “jet hasn’t been proved safe to fly.” The Times laments that “the airlines had a cozy relationship with the F.A.A. for years” and that Boeing “has always been close with Republican administrations.”

        Also covering this story Reuters (3/13, Gemechu, Ljunggren), the Wall Street Journal (3/13, Tangel, Wall, Leary), the Washington Times (3/13, Boyer, Howell), the Daily Caller (3/13, Enjeti), and the Washington Examiner (3/13, Nelson).

        WPost Analysis: Administration Response Highlights Its Ties To Boeing, Difficulty Asserting Itself. In an analysis, the Washington Post (3/13, Dawsey) reports that the “harried” three days before the US followed the rest of the world in responding to the Ethiopian Airlines crash emphasized “the Trump administration’s close ties to Boeing and its difficulty asserting itself as a global leader in the wake of a tragedy.” The Post adds, “throughout the process, Trump played the role of aviation expert, despite having no formal training in aeronautics,” and White House and transportation officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that in consultations with Administration officials on the issue Trump said the planes “sucked” and, in the Post’s words, “paled in comparison to the Boeing 757,” one of which he owns. Despite agreeing “with his aides that the Federal Aviation Administration, as the industry regulator, should formally announce the decision to ground the 737 Max planes, acc ording to two White House officials,” he made the announcement himself.

Foreign Policy

Senate Approves Measure To Force Yemen Withdrawal Despite Trump Veto Threat.

USA Today (3/13, Shesgreen) reports, “Despite a veto threat from the president, the Senate approved legislation Wednesday that would force the Trump administration to end its military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.” The 54-46 vote “served as a bipartisan rebuke” to President Trump and to Saudi leaders, and “also highlighted lawmakers’ growing unease with America’s role in that grisly conflict, which has left more than 50,000 civilians dead and millions of Yemenis on the brink of starvation.” The measure “is expected to pass the House in the coming weeks.” The Trump Administration has “said the measure was ‘flawed’ and would impinge on the president’s constitutional powers as America’s commander in chief,” and also “said it would also ‘harm bilateral relationships’ in the Middle East and hurt America’s efforts to stamp out violent extremist organizations such as ISIS.” The Washington Post (3/13, Demirjian) reports it is unlikely “that either chamber would have the votes necessary to resuscitate the measure if President Trump vetoes it,” as “only seven Senate Republicans joined Democrats...to back the vote.”

British Parliament Votes Against No-Deal Brexit, Setting Up Possible Delay Of EU Departure.

The AP (3/13) reports the British Parliament “voted Wednesday to block the country from leaving the European Union without a divorce agreement, triggering an attempt to delay that departure, currently due to take place on March 29.” Next, UK lawmakers are “scheduled to decide Thursday whether to put the brakes on Brexit” and request an extension from the EU. The AP says, “Parliament likely will agree to delay Brexit, but it would need EU approval. The bloc – openly exasperated by Britain’s continuing Brexit crisis – warned that the UK would need to present a strong reason for any extension.”

        Bloomberg (3/13) reports that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, “said postponing Brexit...won’t be straightforward.” According to Bloomberg, Barnier “said that as far as he’s concerned, the Brexit negotiations are over and that the withdrawal deal is the only way to limit the consequences of the UK’s departure for both sides.” However, Reuters (3/13, James, Maclellan) reports, “positive comments from Germany and Ireland suggested that EU members at last saw a prospect that a viable deal would be found, and were inclined to help.”

        The Washington Post (3/13, Adam) says “the length of the extension sought is not yet clear, but [British Prime Minister Theresa] May has suggested the delay should be short...in order not to interfere with upcoming elections to the European Union parliament.” According to the New York Times (3/13, Castle), the EU “would have no practical objections to a two-month delay, except that it could be too little to accomplish anything. A longer delay would give more time for a change of direction from Britain – perhaps a general election or a second referendum – but would cause big legal and political complications.” However, “one complicating factor is the May 24 start date for elections to the European Parliament.” Neither of Britain’s “main political parties wants to contest these elections,” but “as a matter of law, all member countries are required to participate. So, were Britain to sit out the elections while remaining a European Union member for any period of time, that could open the decisions of the European Parliament to legal challenge.”

State Department Report Describes Golan Heights As “Israeli-Controlled.”

Reuters (3/13, Heller, Wroughton) reports the State Department, in its most recent human rights report, “changed its usual description of the Golan Heights from ‘Israeli-occupied’ to ‘Israeli-controlled.’” The change comes “amid intensified efforts by Israel to win US recognition of its claim to sovereignty over the strategic plateau it captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war and effectively annexed in 1981, a step not recognized internationally.”

        According to Politico (3/13, Toosi), the “linguistic change” is “sure to fuel criticism that the Trump administration is bucking global consensus on Israel’s reach.” However, Ambassador Michael Kozak “briefed reporters Wednesday on the human rights report” and “said the new language did not reflect a change in US policy toward the region. Rather, he said, it was about keeping the annual report more neutral.” Kozak said the phrase “occupied territory” has a specific legal meaning, “adding that the department is trying to stick with ‘just a geographic description.’ He added the report avoided the word ‘occupied’ because it is ‘not a human rights term and it was distracting.’”

        Scholars: Administration’s Secrecy On Mideast Peace Plan Could Work To Its Benefit. In a Wall Street Journal (3/13) op-ed titled “Trump’s Subtlety Could Yield Middle East Peace,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies Senior Vice President Jonathan Schanzer and Washington Institute for Near East Policy senior fellow Ghaith al-Omari say the Administration’s secrecy regarding its Mideast peace deal, and its generally avoidance of fanfare in the peacemaking process, could give President Trump an advantage compared to previous presidents. The authors advise the Administration to take preemptive steps to ensure that the peace plan’s rollout prioritizes communication, diplomacy, and security.

Afghan Leaders Claim Exclusion From US, Taliban Talks.

The Washington Times (3/13, Wolfgang, Muñoz) reports, “Current and former high-level Afghan officials on Wednesday slammed the Trump administration’s push to reach a peace deal with the Taliban, saying the escalating talks were tantamount to a ‘back-door deal’ between Washington and the terror group at the expense of an elected government in Kabul.” The Times states that “the harsh rhetoric from Afghan National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib and Amrullah Saleh, the country’s former interior minister, came as US diplomats and senior Taliban leaders have just concluded the longest face-to-face talks on a peace deal in Doha, Qatar, talks from which the Afghan government has been excluded.” Mohib “told a UN Security Council meeting Monday that the peace process could not work if were just a ‘deal made between elites.’”

        WPost Examines Taliban Attitudes Toward Afghan Women. The Washington Post (3/12, Constable) writes that recent reports from Afghanistan “suggest that the Taliban, which controls more than half of all Afghan districts, is not always as rigid as when it held power in the late 1990s.” The Post states, “While reports have surfaced of the Taliban lashing and stoning women for illicit sex in remote provinces, other accounts describe insurgents compromising on female access to school or health care and promoting sensible reforms such as banning extravagant dowries.” Some Afghan officials and community leaders say the insurgents’ behavior “differed according to region, urban or rural setting, and whether the Taliban forces were local or from other regions.”

State Department Report Faults Saudi Government In Khashoggi Murder.

The AP (3/13, Lee) reports the Administration used the State Department’s annual human rights report “to call out Saudi Arabia on Wednesday over the October killing of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi.” While the report “drew no conclusion as to who was responsible” for the murder, it “said The Washington Post columnist was killed by agents of the kingdom...while he was inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.” The report “cited a range of other human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia” and said Khashoggi’s killing “was one of several instances in which ‘the government or its agents engaged in arbitrary or unlawful killings’ and contributed to ‘an environment of impunity’ in the country.”

        USA Today (3/13, Shesgreen) reports Ambassador Michael Kozak “declined to say what role, if any, the CIA’s assessment of the case played in the account of Khashoggi’s death,” and “said he would not discuss what intelligence information he and other officials reviewed” for the report. However, Kozak conceded the Department “seek[s] all relevant sources of information, including US intelligence information,” when compiling its annual report, but said the “effort is fact-driven rather than opinion-driven.”

        WPost: Saudi Female Activists Deserve Freedom, Not Just Fair Prosecution. In an editorial, the Washington Post (3/13) criticizes Saudi Arabia’s treatment of a group of Saudi female activists who were detained last year, saying “most or all of them were initially held incommunicado in a secret prison. ... Even after they were transferred to conventional prisons, the women were denied legal representation and were not informed of the charges against them – while state media slandered them as traitors.” Given that “dismal context, it might be counted as progress that 10 women were brought to a court in Riyadh on Wednesday and formally charged.” However, the Post asserts “the women remain unjustly imprisoned, and those who tortured them have gone unpunished. For that reason, Western governments must keep up the pressure on a regime that persisted in a pattern of criminal behavior.”

State Department Report Denounces China’s Treatment Of Muslim Minorities.

Reuters (3/13, Wroughton, Brunnstrom) reports the State Department, in its annual human rights report released Wednesday, “slammed” China for human rights violations, “saying the sort of abuses it had inflicted on its Muslim minorities had not been seen ‘since the 1930s.’” According to Reuters, Secretary of State Pompeo “told reporters that China was ‘in a league of its own when it comes to human rights violations.’” Likewise, Ambassador Michael Kozak, “referring to abuses of China’s Muslim minority in the Xinjiang region,” said, “For me, you haven’t seen things like this since the 1930s. ... Rounding up, in some estimations...in the millions of people, putting them into camps, and torturing them, abusing them, and trying to basically erase their culture and their religion. ... It’s just remarkably awful.”

        The New York Times (3/13, Sanger) reports the comments by Pompeo and Kozak together “amounted to the most direct condemnation the United States has made to the roundup of millions of Uighurs and other minorities,” one that “is bound to inflame the government in Beijing at a moment of high tension in trade talks and the standoff over Huawei.”

        Chinese Officials Propose Eliminating Family-Size Limits. The New York Times (3/13, Myers, Fu) reports that “China’s annual legislative session – the National People’s Congress – is typically a staid affair to aggrandize Communist Party rule, but this year it has produced a flurry of proposals to address what experts and officials now acknowledge is a looming demographic crisis caused by the country’s sharply declining birthrate.” According to the Times, “The ideas now being floated by regional officials, businesspeople and others reflect the depth of the concern over the issue but also the fact that there is not yet a clear consensus on what the government should do about it.” The Times says “one deputy, Huang Xihua, went so far as to propose amending the Constitution to remove all limits on family planning.”

State’s Hook: Reimposed Sanctions Have Cost Iran $10B In Oil Revenue.

Reuters (3/13, Tan) reports that Brian Hook, the State Department’s special representative on Iran, speaking today at the CERAWeek energy conference, said Iran has “lost $10 billion in revenue since U.S. sanctions in November have removed about 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude from global markets.” According to Reuters, Hook also said that “due to a global oil surplus – in part due to record U.S. production – the United States is accelerating its plan of bringing Iranian crude exports to zero.” Reuters says US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, “two of the largest oil producers in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and production cuts by OPEC and Russia have boosted global oil prices to near four-month highs.”

        Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Welcomes Rouhani. The Washington Post (3/13, Salim, El-Ghobashy) reports that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “capped his state visit to Iraq on Wednesday by meeting the country’s most respected religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani – a sit-down that has eluded previous Iranian presidents and American leaders alike.” The Post states, “The meeting signals to Washington that the religious, cultural and economic bonds that tie Iran and Iraq will not be undermined by a focused US effort to isolate Tehran.” Rouhani and Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi also “announced agreements to boost trade, establish a rail link between the two countries and take steps to remove travel restrictions for tourists and investors.” One analyst is quoted as saying, “Washington has to acknowledge that Tehran has soft-power advantages that the US lacks,” he added. “If it wants to curb Iranian influence, instead of countering Tehran, it should compete with Tehran’s soft power and economic outreach by helping Baghdad become more self-reliant.”

        Top Iranian Human Rights Lawyer Sentenced To 38 Years In Prison, 148 Lashes. The New York Times (3/13, Magra) reports that Nasrin Sotoudeh, one of the Iran’s “most prominent human rights lawyers,” who has been “detained for eight months,” has been “sentenced to a total of 38 years in prison and 148 lashes, according to her husband.” The Times reports that when Sotoudeh was arrested, she was “defending women who had been arrested after removing their hijabs, or head scarves, in public protests.” The Times notes that Sotoudeh “received the European Union’s most prestigious human rights award, the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, in 2012, while serving a previous prison sentence.” The Times says “a state-funded news outlet, the Iranian Students’ News Agency, quoted a hard-line judge, Mohammad Moghiseh, as saying that he had sentenced Ms. Sotoudeh to a total of seven years in prison and mentioning two charges, of taking part in an illegal assembly and collusion against the state.”

        NYTimes Decries Sentencing Of Sotoudeh, Other Iranian Human Rights Lawyers. In an editorial, the New York Times (3/13) decries “the new prison sentence handed down against Nasrin Sotoudeh, the Iranian human rights lawyer in jail since June, on charges of ‘colluding against the system’ and ‘insulting’ the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” Regardless of the sentence itself, the Times says, “the persecution of Ms. Sotoudeh and other Iranian human rights lawyers represents a flagrant violation of a defendant’s fundamental right to counsel” and, in fact, “amounts to a declaration by the Islamist state that representing a political prisoner is in itself a political crime.” The Times concludes, “Democratic governments and human rights organizations must make clear to the Islamist hard-liners in Iran that their kangaroo courts fool no one, whether those in the dock are dissidents or the lawyers who should be defending them.”

Domestic Policy

Senate Appears Set To Pass Resolution Opposing Border Emergency Declaration.

A Democratic resolution to reject President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the US-Mexico border appeared poised to pass the Senate after the President told Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) that he would not back Lee’s legislation limiting future emergency declarations. The AP (3/13, Fram, Mascaro) reports the “eleventh-hour rescue mission by Republican senators to stave off an awkward defeat [for Trump] and to protect themselves from a politically dicey vote opposing him, seemed to collapse Wednesday.” It appears “all but certain that defections from his own party will force Trump to cast what could be his first veto.” Republicans hoped the President “would support a separate measure curbing a president’s powers to declare future emergencies. Had he done so, they thought, it would be easier for reluctant GOP senators to support the emergency Trump has proclaimed.” But Trump called Le e, “chief sponsor of the bill limiting future emergency declarations, and told him he opposed that proposal.”

        Following the call, the Washington Post (3/13, Werner, Kim, Wagner) reports, Lee “announced plans to defect and vote for” the resolution on Thursday. Lee said, “For decades, Congress has been giving far too much legislative power to the executive branch. While there was attention on the issue I had hoped the ARTICLE ONE Act could begin to take that power back. Unfortunately, it appears the bill does not have an immediate path forward, so I will be voting to terminate the latest emergency declaration.”

        Politico (3/13, Everett) reports Trump “scuttled a final effort by Senate Republicans to avoid an intraparty clash on his emergency declaration” with his rejection of the Lee measure. While Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), one of four Republicans who had announced plans to vote for the resolution, said earlier this week that he was reconsidering his vote, Lee’s announcement means the resolution appears to have the support of at least 51 senators. The Hill (3/13, Bolton) reports Senate Majority Whip Thune said he “would be ‘really surprised’ if Republicans manage to defeat” the resolution.

        Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post tweeted, “Senior White House official says tonight they expect about 10-12 GOP defections on national emergency vote. Trump is trying to wrangle votes but not having as much luck as he’d like. Veto coming.” Politico’s Burgess Everett tweeted that the “undecideds” include Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Rob Portman (R-OH), in addition to “Trump backer” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Thune himself. The Arizona Republic (3/13, Hansen) reports Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) said Wednesday that she will oppose the resolution, saying that the “Pentagon and White House have assured her any funds used for construction of Trump’s long-sought border wall will not affect four key Arizona defense projects.”

        Politico (3/13, Everett, Johnson, Bresnahan) reports, “After more than two years of keeping his veto pen capped, Trump is going to have to put it to use – twice – courtesy of Republicans.” In addition to the national emergency resolution, the Senate is expected to approve “legislation to curtail the U.S. role in Yemen’s civil war. ... It’s ‘extraordinary’ to see Congress working to claw back power from the executive branch in a matter of days,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who plans to “vote with Democrats and a handful of Republicans to form a bipartisan majority to try to handcuff Trump on both issues.”

        Breitbart (3/13, Marlow, Boyle, House, Spiering) reports that in a Monday interview, the President “reserved judgment when asked...if he was satisfied” with Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s handling of the Senate vote. Trump said, “Well, I can’t tell you until I see what happens. But I can tell you this, in Republican circles...I know what the people want and they want border security and they want walls. They want border security, you can’t have it without the wall, or without the barriers, or whatever, you can call it whatever you want.”

        The President tweeted Wednesday at 12:43 p.m., “Democrats will have a unanimous vote on a 20% issue in opposing Republican Senators tomorrow. The Dems are for Open Borders and Crime!” He tweeted five minutes later, “Republican Senators are overthinking tomorrow’s vote on National Emergency. It is very simply Border Security/No Crime – Should not be thought of any other way. We have a MAJOR NATIONAL EMERGENCY at our Border and the People of our Country know it very well!”

        The New York Times (3/13, Hulse) says the “last-ditch gambit...was torpedoed on Wednesday by the president himself.” Reuters (3/13, Becker, Cowan) reports on Lee’s announcement under the headline “Senate Republican Delivers Blow To Trump Border Emergency,” while The Hill (3/13, Bolton) headlines its report “Senate Talks Collapse On Avoiding Trump Showdown Over Emergency Declaration.”

        Pelosi Says House Would Not Take Up Lee Bill. The Washington Times (3/13, Dinan) reports House Speaker Pelosi said Wednesday that the House would not “take up a new Senate GOP bill to curb the National Emergencies Act, saying her goal is to constrain President Trump, not to tackle the bigger presidential powers issues.” The Hill (3/13, Marcos) reports Pelosi said in a statement, “Republican senators are proposing new legislation to allow the President to violate the Constitution just this once in order to give themselves cover. The House will not take up this legislation to give President Trump a pass.”

        Trump Announces News Conference At US-Mexico Border Within Three Weeks. Reuters (3/13, Holland) reports the President said Wednesday that the Administration “would have a news conference at the southern U.S. border with Mexico in the next three weeks, as he continues to seek congressional backing for a wall there.” Trump told reporters, “We’re going to have a news conference at the border over the next three weeks.” The Arizona Republic (3/13) reports, “Details about the trip – his fifth to the southwestern U.S. border as president – are still unclear.” The Washington Times (3/13, Howell) reports Trump also said “the sheer amount of drugs flowing across the border – from meth to cocaine to deadly fentanyl – bolsters his case for declaring an emergency at the border.”

        USA Today Analysis: New House Bill To Protect DREAMers Now Unlikely To Win Senate GOP Support. USA Today (3/13, Gomez, Collins) reports that a new House bill “to grant permanent protections to undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children” seems unlikely to advance in the Senate, even though “there used to be a time when the DREAM Act was accepted by a wide range of Senate Republicans who felt it unfair to punish children for the actions of their parents.” USA Today says that since the 2003 version was introduced, the Senate GOP caucus has become more conservative, and “has backed away from the idea.”

Trump Says He Has Not “Given A Thought” To Pardon As Manafort Sentenced To More Jail Time.

CQ Roll Call (3/13, Bennett) reports President Trump on Wednesday “reiterated his sympathy for Paul Manafort, but would not commit to a pardon after his former campaign chairman manager was sentenced to additional prison time that brings his total behind bars to at least 7 1/2 years.” Said Trump after the sentence was announced, “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort. It’s a very sad situation.” He added, “I have not even given a thought” to a pardon. “It’s not something, right now, in my mind.” The Hill (3/13, Fabian) reports Trump told reporters at the White House, “It’s a very sad situation. Certainly on a human basis, it’s a very sad thing. I feel badly for him.” Along similar lines, Reuters (3/13, Sullivan, Wolfe) says Manafort’s sentencing garnered “sympathy from a president who declined to say whether he would issue a pardon.”

        Media reports describe Manafort’s sentencing Wednesday to additional jail time as another victory for special counsel Robert Mueller. For instance, the AP (3/13, Tucker, Day) says the sentencing was “a milestone moment in...Mueller’s investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 election campaign.” The AP adds, “though the allegations did not relate to his work for Trump, his foreign entanglements and business relationship with a man the US says has ties to Russian intelligence have made him a pivotal figure in the probe.”

        The New York Times (3/13, Lafraniere) reports that Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing, told US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson that “while he was not accusing” Mueller’s office of “mounting a politically motivated prosecution,” he argued that “but for a short stint as campaign manager in a national election, I don’t think we would be here today.” According to the Times, the judge “firmly rejected the argument that the prosecution was somehow ‘misguided or invalid,’ saying it showed Mr. Manafort did not fully accept responsibility for his crimes.” The Times says Jackson “suggested that defense lawyers kept repeating it not because they hoped to influence her thinking, but ‘for some other audience’ – an apparent reference to Mr. Trump, who has commented repeatedly on the Manafort case.”

        ABC World News Tonight (3/13, story 6, 3:05, Muir) reported that while “Manafort’s team had told the court prosecutors showed no proof the Trump campaign colluded with Russia,” Jackson “pointed that was never part of the case, saying, the ‘no collusion refrain is irrelevant to the matter at hand.’”

        Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post (3/13) column that after “Downing suggested Wednesday that Manafort’s manifold crimes wouldn’t have been prosecuted ‘but for a short stint as a campaign manager in a presidential election,’ Jackson unloaded on him,” saying that “repeated” claim “falls flat” and “is not supported by the record.” In what Milbank calls “an apparent reference to Trump,” the judge speculated that the claim “was being repeated for some other audience.”

        The Washington Post (3/13, Marimow) notes that “at least 20 people from the special counsel’s team were in the courtroom Wednesday, a sign of the importance of Manafort’s conviction to the investigation.” The Post says Jackson “criticized Manafort and his attorneys for repeatedly casting his hard fall from power as collateral damage from the special counsel investigation,” but afterwards, Downing called the sentence imposed by Jackson “callous, hostile and totally unnecessary.” According to the Post, Downing “emphasized that the judge had acknowle dged that there was ‘no evidence of any collusion with Russia in this case.’”

        The CBS Evening News (3/13, story 4, 2:20, Glor) reported Manafort asked not to be separated “from his wife and family, but Judge Jackson was not moved, saying Manafort was ‘not a victim,’ and that ‘it is hard to overstate the number of lies and the amount of fraud involved in his crimes.’”

        The AP (3/13, Tucker, Day) reports that Manafort was sentenced to “a total of seven and a half years in prison...after” Jackson “rejected his appeal for no additional time.” Jackson sentenced Manafort to “nearly three-and-a-half years in prison on charges that he misled the US government about his foreign lobbying work and encouraged witnesses to lie on his behalf,” which is “on top of a roughly four-year sentence he received last week in a separate case in Virginia.” NBC Nightly News (3/13, story 5, 1:50, Holt) reported that “Manafort’s lawyer called the sentence callous and harsh.”

        The Los Angeles Times (3/13, Megerian) reports that while “the first sentence was widely criticized as lenient,” Jackson “may have viewed Manafort’s conduct more harshly.” Politico (3/13, Samuelsohn, Gerstein) reports the two sentences combined mark “the longest sentence by far for anyone ensnared in Mueller’s nearly two-year-old probe.” The Washington Times (3/13, Mordock) and Wall Street Journal (3/13, Viswanatha), among other outlets, have similar reports on the sentencing.

        The Wall Street Journal (3/13) editorializes that the sentence shows that Manafort is not getting off easy.

        The Washington Times (3/13, Scarborough) reports President Trump’s former defense attorney, John Dowd, “lambasted” Judge Jackson over Manafort’s sentence, telling the Times, “What a travesty.” While Jackson insisted that “the ‘no collusion’ mantra is simply a non-sequitur,” Dowd argues, “Of course it was about collusion. Special counsel said it was, while hiding the fact that Kilimnik was an asset of our State Department, and claiming a Russian connection. That was the fraud. The sentence was the cruel product of hysterical overreach and exaggerated self-justification for the terrible waste of time and energy. The media mob rules!”

        Media Analyses: New York Charges Effort To Guard Against Pardon. The AP (3/13, Tucker, Day) reports that “within minutes of the sentencing, prosecutors in New York brought state charges against Manafort – a move that appeared at least partly designed to guard against the possibility” that President Trump “could pardon him,” because a president “can pardon federal crimes, but not state offenses.”

        The New York Times (3/13, Rashbaum) reports that Manafort “has been charged in New York with mortgage fraud and more than a dozen other state felonies, the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., said Wednesday, an effort to ensure he will still face prison time if Mr. Trump pardons him for his federal crimes.” The Times says the indictment “grew out of an investigation that began in 2017, when the Manhattan prosecutors began examining loans Mr. Manafort received from two banks.”

        According to the Washington Post (3/13, Barrett), “The charges filed against Manafort may stand as a kind of prosecutorial insurance policy against a possible presidential pardon – a scenario Trump has refused to discuss as Manafort’s case worked its way through the federal court system.” The Post adds that “the new state charges may draw criticism as politicizing a prosecutor’s authority, in what may be an effort by Vance to deter a pardon for Manafort.”

        Bloomberg (3/13, Farrell), however, notes that Vance has been investigating Manafort “since March 2017, before Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate possible Russian interference in the 2016 campaign and any related matter.” With Vance’s announcement, Bloomberg says Manafort “now faces the possibility of additional years in a state prison that could be much harsher than what he gets in the federal system.”

        USA Today (3/13, McCoy, Jansen) reports Manafort’s lawyers “did not immediately respond to questions about the new charges,” and the Washington Examiner (3/13, Quinn) reports White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said Monday that Trump would decide whether to issue a pardon for Manafort “when he is ready.”

        Nadler: Pardoning Manafort Could Be An Impeachable Offense. Manu Raju said on CNN’s Situation Room (3/13) that he asked House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler if it would be an impeachable offense for the President to pardon Manafort. Nadler said, “Pardons done for improper motives could be an impeachable offense, but you would have to know the improper motive.”

        Asked about Nadler’s comment on CNN’s Situation Room (3/13), Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) said, “I just think it is such an enormous if. I think even an if is almost an exaggeration. The President has not given any indication at all that he is going to pardon these individuals, Mr. Manafort, Mr. Cohen, or some of the others that people have speculated. I hope he doesn’t. I don’t think he should. I don’t think that he will.”

Trump Says He Appreciates Pelosi’s “Statement Against Impeachment.”

The AP (3/13) reports President Trump tweeted Wednesday that he “greatly appreciates” House Speaker Pelosi’s “statement against impeachment” but says “everyone must remember the minor fact that I never did anything wrong.” Pelosi told the Washington Post this week that “she’s not for impeachment, at least right now,” saying it is “just not worth it” without overwhelming support in the Senate.

        Trump tweeted, “I greatly appreciate Nancy Pelosi’s statement against impeachment, but everyone must remember the minor fact that I never did anything wrong, the Economy and Unemployment are the best ever, Military and Vets are great – and many other successes! How do you impeach.... a man who is considered by many to be the President with the most successful first two years in history, especially when he has done nothing wrong and impeachment is for “high crimes and misdemeanors”?”

Cummings Satisfied For Now With Cohen’s Answer On Pardon.

The AP (3/13, Jalonick) reports House Oversight and Reform Chairman Elijah Cummings said Wednesday he does “not see the need for further action” against Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen after he clarified his testimony under oath about never seeking a pardon from Trump. In a letter to Cummings, lawyer Michael Monico “clarified that Cohen had asked one of his lawyers to explore the possibility of a pardon before he left a joint-defense agreement with Trump last June.” The AP notes that Cohen testified last month before Cummings’ committee, “I have never asked for, nor would I accept, a pardon from President Trump.” In his letter to Cummings, Monico wrote that Cohen “could have been clearer regarding the time frames,” said Cohen’s testimony was true and he stands by his statement.

        Politico (3/13, Morin) reports Cummings said in a statement Wednesday, “Our practice on this Committee is to give witnesses an opportunity to clarify their testimony, and that is what Mr. Cohen has done. I do not see the need for further action – at least at this time.”

        The Washington Times (3/13, Dinan), however, says Cohen “seemed unequivocal in his Feb. 27 testimony,” and notes that “Cohen’s lawyers have previously admitted that another lawyer acting on behalf of Cohen, also a lawyer, did sound out the president’s lawyers.” The Washington Post (3/13, Itkowitz) notes that President Trump also “challenged” Cohen’s remarks, “tweeting that Cohen had ‘directly asked’ him for a pardon.”

        CNN: Lawyer Said Cohen Could “Sleep Well” After Speaking To Giuliani. Wolf Blitzer said on CNN’s Situation Room (3/13), “CNN has exclusively obtained emails that...Michael Cohen gave to Congress to bolster his claim that the Trump team dangled a pardon in front of him.” After speaking to Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, attorney Robert Costello sent an email to Cohen saying “that Cohen could, quote, ‘sleep well tonight’ because he had, quote, ‘friends in high places.’”

        CNN (3/13, Borger, Herb) reports on its website that two emails – “both dated April 21, 2018, and among documents provided to Congress by the President’s former attorney and fixer – do not specifically mention a pardon,” but the attorney who wrote those emails, Robert Costello, told CNN that Cohen asked him to raise the issue of a pardon with Giuliani. However, a “source with knowledge of Cohen’s thinking at the time disputes Costello’s version of events and insists it was Costello who was pushing his relationship with Giuliani.”

        Prosecutors Seek Records On Cohen’s “Back Channel” With Giuliani. The New York Times (3/13, Protess, Rashbaum, Haberman) reports that “before he pleaded guilty and began assisting federal prosecutors last summer,” Cohen spoke with Costello, who “had about a dozen conversations” with Giuliani, “according to emails and documents reviewed by The New York Times and interviews with people involved in the matter.” In one email, the discussions were characterized as a “back channel of communication.” Federal prosecutors have now “requested the emails and documents from Mr. Costello, according to a copy of the request,” which cited an investigation into “possible violations of federal criminal law” but offered no further detail.

        Nadler: Whitaker “Did Not Deny” Talking To Trump About Cohen, Personnel At SDNY. The Washington Post (3/13, Demirjian) reports House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said Wednesday that former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker “did not deny” that President Trump “called him to discuss the case” against his former lawyer Michael Cohen, “as well as decisions regarding the personnel at the federal prosecutor’s office bringing the case against Cohen.” Speaking to reporters after a two-hour meeting with Whitaker, Nadler “presented Whitaker’s closed-door comments as a contradiction of his public testimony from February, during which Whitaker said Trump never expressed his dissatisfaction with Cohen for pleading guilty to various financial crimes and lying to Congress.” Said Nadler, “Unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the President called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the Southern District,” referring to the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which brought the case against Cohen.

        The New York Times (3/13, Fandos) reports that “Democrats are intensely interested in whether the president tried to push Mr. Whitaker, a Trump loyalist, to influence the investigation during his brief tenure.” Nadler “called the follow-up interview to clarify portions of Mr. Whitaker’s public testimony,” but his remarks Wednesday “appear to have been just as ambiguous and at times contradictory.”

        Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) said on CNN’s Situation Room (3/13), “What’s of great concern is did they – Mr. Whitaker and the President – talk about what the Justice Department was doing? Did he share with him information about the investigation? This goes from being unethical to extraordinarily illegal.” Quigley added, “I think Mr. Whitaker should have known that the President was potentially implicated given all the evidence that was going back and forth, from what he said his knowledge of the case. So, he is now using his office to help someone implicated in the case – no other way to describe it – with the defense of their case. Again, it’s not just unethical. It’s illegal. It’s an extraordinary broadside on the rule of law.”

        Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 (3/13), “What it says to me is that the President was attempting to influence potentially that investigation in New York where he was an unindicted co-conspirator, in effect. He was called ‘individual number one’ but clearly he was that person in a possible campaign finance conspiracy involving Michael Cohen.”

        Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) said on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 (3/13), “You see a fairly clear picture emerging from what is public. The President’s tweets alone, where he calls people who are cooperating rats and weak and when he praises who are not cooperating quite so much as strong. It is language right out of The Godfather.”

Trump: “Much More To Come” In Page Revelations.

President Trump made a series of tweets yesterday in an apparent to response to the recently revealed transcripts from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s testimony before Congress last year. Trump wrote, “The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!” Several hours, he added, “Comey testified (under oath) that it was a ‘unanimous’ decision on Crooked Hillary. Lisa Page transcripts show he LIED. @jasoninthehouse”

        Later in the afternoon, the President tweeted, “‘Double Standard – Former FBI lawyer (Lisa Page) admits being told to go easy on Clinton.’ Very unfair! @FoxNews” He followed up in another tweet, “‘The Lisa Page (FBI) transcript also confirms earlier reporting that Page testified Russian Collusion was still unproven when Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.’ Catherine Herridge, @FoxNews In other words they appointed someone when there was (and is) no crime. Bad!”

        Trump later said, “I agree with Rand Paul. This is a total disgrace and should NEVER happen to another President!” retweeting Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), “This deserves more attention! FBI Mistress, Lisa Page, confirmed to House Judiciary, there was an anti-Trump Insurance Policy and it’s the fake Russian investigation! She admits there was almost no evidence on collusion, yet they continued with WITCH HUNT!”

        Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Fox News’ Hannity (3/13), “Why would you decide not to charge her before you even talk to her? The point is, it seems to me, they were going to make sure it didn’t go too far, that the Department of Justice under Loretta Lynch was never going to let this email investigation go too far. Before they even talked to her, apparently, they decided not to charge her and when they did talk to her, they talked to her without being under oath. They gave a lot of people immunity in the Clinton email investigation for no good reason.”

        Lieu: Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr Testimony “Did Not Help Trump.” The Washington Examiner (3/13, Chaitin) reports Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, is “questioning the timing of the release of the transcripts for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page.” In response to President Trump’s tweet that Page’s testimony last year “shows bias in the Obama-era Justice Department against his presidential campaign.” Lieu wrote on Twitter, “Today is Wednesday. That means @realDonaldTrump is making stuff up, again. Both Lisa Page & Bruce Ohr gave testimony last year to GOP controlled Judiciary Committee. Why did GOP not release the transcripts then? Because their testimony did not help Trump.”

Navarro Defends Trump Trade Policies.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro writes in an op-ed for USA Today (3/13) that critics who blame the President’s trade policies for 2018’s record high trade deficit are wrong. Navarro argues the “robust Trump economy is one of the deficit’s biggest drivers,” the three percent GDP growth, “a rapid rise in real wages and the lowest unemployment in 50 years,” which “boosted import demand even as slower growth in markets like Europe suppressed U.S. exports.” Navarro adds the President’s trade policies “have raised billions of dollars in revenue, encouraged the onshoring of new factories, helped create nearly half a million new manufacturing jobs, and induced a strong revival of our steel and aluminum industries.” The President, he concludes, “remains fiercely committed to reducing America’s trade deficit, and he will attack the problem on all fronts, including eliminating unfair and nonreciprocal trade practices.”

        USA Today: Trump Has Not Brought Trade Deficits Under Control As Promised. USA Today (3/13) argues in an accompanying editorial that “trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing. A deficit can be an indication of a country’s prosperity.” USA Today says that “as a populist candidate in 2016,” Trump “said he would bring [trade deficits] to heel.” Trump “exaggerated the evils of trade deficits and said he alone could fix the problem. That’s not happening.”

Trump Praises Shanahan, Refers To Mattis As “Previous Person.”

The Washington Examiner (3/13, Halaschak) reports that while President Trump “once gushed to the press and others” regarding former Defense Secretary James Mattis, and called him “Mad Dog,” on Wednesday, he called him “our previous person.” Regarding Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan, Trump said Wednesday with respect to ISIS in Syria, “I was told by our previous person that it was going to take two years to knock it out, and I did it in three weeks once we started.”

        CREW Accuses Shanahan Of Favoring Boeing. The Washington Times (3/13, Wolfgang) reports Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has “filed a formal complaint” against Shanahan, requesting an investigation by the Defense Department inspector general into whether “Shanahan violated ethics rules by lobbying for major military contractor Boeing.” The Times adds that “the CREW complaint cites news reports – which the Pentagon has denied – that claim Mr. Shanahan privately pushed for Boeing to be given contracts.”

        The Washington Post (3/13, Ryan) reports the group “asked the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into whether [Shanahan], a former Boeing executive, violated ethics rules in his handling of matters related to his former employer.” The Post adds that CREW cited “news reports” that “Shanahan had criticized Lockheed Martin.”

Cancer Research

FDA Issues Policy To Restrict Sales Of Flavored E-Cigarettes.

The Washington Post (3/13, McGinley) reports the Food and Drug Administration issued a policy “designed to restrict how and where flavored e-cigarettes are sold” with the aim of reducing the “epidemic” of underage vaping, which has been “a top priority of departing FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb.” The new policy “would limit sales of fruity and kid-friendly vaping products to stores that bar minors or have separate adult-only sections,” and it would also require online sellers to “tighten age verification and curb bulk sales.” The article mentions that National Cancer Institute Director Norman “Ned” Sharpless will become the acting commissioner of the FDA after Gottlieb leaves, and Sharpless “is enthusiastic about anti-tobacco initiatives.”

        The New York Times (3/13, Kaplan) reports the FDA’s proposal would require “that stores sequester flavored e-cigarettes to areas off limits to anyone under age 18.” The proposal would also require retailers “to verify the age of their customers.” Gottlieb said in a statement, “Evidence shows that youth are especially attracted to flavored e-cigarette products.” Gottlieb added, “Minors are able to access these products from both brick-and-mortar retailers as well as online, despite federal restrictions on sales to anyone under 18.”

        The AP (3/13, Perrone) reports the proposal will not “apply to three flavors that the FDA says appeal more to adults than teenagers: tobacco, menthol and mint.”

        Fox Business (3/13, Williams) reports on its website that Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said the FDA would not “let-up” in its efforts to curb youth vaping.

        Additional coverage is provided by: USA Today (3/13, Lam), Good Morning America (3/13), CNN (3/13, Nedelman), The Verge (3/13, Becker), Bloomberg (3/13, Edney), Bloomberg Law (3/13, Lichtenberg), Congressional Quarterly (3/13, Siddons), Fortune (3/13, Corbett), The Hill (3/13, Hellmann), the New York Daily News (3/13, Gartland), Reuters (3/13, Kirkham, Mishra), the San Francisco Chronicle (3/13, Ho), TIME (3/13, Ducharme), the Wall Street Journal (3/13, Maloney), the Washington Examiner (3/13, Leonard), the Washington Times (3/13, Howell), the Winston-Salem (NC) Journal (3/13, Craver), Business Insider (3/13, Brodwin, Court), Convenience Store Decisions (3/13), Convenience Store News (3/13), CSP Magazine (3/13, Abcede), HealthDay (3/13, Mundell), and MedPage Today (3/13, Boyles).

        Opinion: FDA Vaping Regulation Will Discourage Quitting Smoking, Hurt Convenience Stores. In a Washington Times (3/13) opinion piece, Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak criticizes the “heavy-handed overregulation,” arguing it “will discourage adult smokers from quitting deadly tobacco products, and punish gas stations, convenience stores and other retailers by making vapor sales cost-prohibitive, moving that revenue to underregulated vapor specialty shops.” He also says the exclusion of mint products under the proposed FDA plan is “crony capitalism at its worst.”

Jury Orders Johnson & Johnson To Pay $29 Million Over Woman’s Cancer Tied To Baby Powder Use.

Bloomberg (3/13, Feeley, Burnson, Fisk) reports a jury in Oakland, California, determined on Wednesday that Johnson & Johnson “must pay about $29 million to a dying California woman who blamed asbestos-tainted talc for causing her cancer.” The decision marks “J&J’s seventh trial loss over claims it hid the health risks of its baby powder for 50 years,” including its first “defeat,” when “a Missouri jury ordered the company last year to pay $4.69 billion to 22 women who blamed their cancer on the product.”

        Reuters (3/14, Bellon) reports the company plans to appeal, “citing ‘serious procedural and evidentiary errors’ in the course of the trial, saying lawyers for the woman had fundamentally failed to show its baby powder contains asbestos.”

Editorials/Op-Eds

New York Times.

“Her Crime? Defending Women’s Rights In Iran.” In an editorial, the New York Times (3/13) decries “the new prison sentence handed down against Nasrin Sotoudeh, the Iranian human rights lawyer in jail since June, on charges of ‘colluding against the system’ and ‘insulting’ the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” Regardless of the sentence itself, the Times says, “the persecution of Ms. Sotoudeh and other Iranian human rights lawyers represents a flagrant violation of a defendant’s fundamental right to counsel” and, in fact, “amounts to a declaration by the Islamist state that representing a political prisoner is in itself a political crime.” The Times concludes, “Democratic governments and human rights organizations must make clear to the Islamist hard-liners in Iran that their kangaroo courts fool no one, whether those in the dock are dissidents or the lawyers who should be defending them.”

        “A Pause On The Nation’s Biggest Death Row.” The New York Times (3/13, Board) editorializes that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “act of executive mercy recognizes the extreme failures of the death penalty,” particularly “risks of executing the innocent.” The Times writes that some trends point to a “growing chorus against a system of punishment that has been shown to be discriminatory, prone to error and ineffective as a crime-fighting tool” and “should spell [the death penalty’s] demise once and for all.”

        “Ground The Boeing Max 8. There Are Too Many Concerns.” Ahead of President Trump’s announcement grounding Boeing Max 8 aircraft, the New York Times (3/13), in an editorial, called for the planes to be grounded as the “jet hasn’t been proved safe to fly.” The Times laments that “the airlines had a cozy relationship with the F.A.A. for years” and that Boeing “has always been close with Republican administrations.”

Washington Post.

        “The College Admissions Scandal Should Prompt Broader Soul-Searching.” In an editorial, the Washington Post (3/13) writes that the “mind-boggling” college admissions scandal “should prompt some soul-searching” about college admissions priorities. Issues that the Post says should be examined include whether colleges’ admissions process should be more transparent, how schools can better police college athletics to avoid abuse, whether the “societal and parental obsession” with “good schools” means students’ interests aren’t being served, and how colleges can contract who “key aspects of the [admissions] system are tilted to those who already have more benefits.”

        “Trump Finally Did The Right Thing On Airplane Safety – But Got There The Wrong Way.” In an editorial, the Washington Post (3/13) agrees that grounding the Boeing 737 Max 8 and Max 9 aircraft was the right move, but President Trump’s process in getting there “was erratic.” Trump “had no business thrusting himself personally into a safety decision that other presidents normally, and wisely, have left to professionals.” Instead, he commented on Twitter about “about purported technological excesses of contemporary aircraft” and took a call from Boeing CEO on the issue. As a result, during “one of the most critical moments for commercial aviation safety of the 21st century” the US was unable to “inspire other countries with confi dence” and instead “found itself following their lead.” The Post concludes with a call for the FAA and Congress to investigate the matter and that the Senate assure itself that any nominee for FAA Administrator “has drawn appropriate lessons from this troubling episode and is capable of standing up for reasoned safety decision-making, regardless of corporate or presidential pressure.”

Copyright 2019 by Bulletin Intelligence LLC Reproduction or redistribution without permission prohibited. Content is drawn from thousands of newspapers, national magazines, national and local television programs, radio broadcasts, social-media platforms and additional forms of open-source data. Sources for Bulletin Intelligence audience-size estimates include Scarborough, GfK MRI, comScore, Nielsen, and the Audit Bureau of Circulation. Data from and access to third party social media platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others, is subject to the respective platform’s terms of use. Services that include Factiva content are governed by Factiva’s terms of use. Services including embedded Tweets are also subject to Twitter for Website's information and privacy policies. The Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing is published five days a week by Bulletin Intelligence, which creates custom briefings for government and corporate leaders. We can be found on the Web at BulletinIntelligence.com, or called at (703) 483-6100.