EMAIL DETAILS

Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing


*From:* Bulletin Intelligence <Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:57 AM
*To:* Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com
*Subject:* Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for
Wednesday, January 30, 2019


*Click to access
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=000-179&t=c>
mobile-optimized online version, including download options and an audio
reader.*


[image: Image removed by sender. Office of Vice President Biden
Intelligence Briefing]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=001-464&t=c>

*To: Vice President Joe Biden*

*Wednesday, January 30, 2019 8:00 AM EST*
Today's Table of Contents

*Biden in the News* <#SECTION_1>

• 2020 Democratic Poll: Biden 33%; Sanders 15%; Harris 10%. <#S1>

• Michigan 2020 Poll: Trump Trails Biden By 13 Points, Other Democrats By
Smaller Margins. <#S2>

• Biden Says There’s No Hurry For Him To Announce 2020 Plans. <#S3>

• NYTimes: Biden, Other “Moderates” Would Test Clout Of Liberals In
Democratic Primary. <#S4>

• Possible Schultz Bid Said To Highlight Pros, Cons Of Potential Biden,
Bloomberg Runs. <#S5>

• Charles Pierce Dismisses Biden’s Chances In Democratic Race. <#S6>

• Page Six Briefly Highlights Biden’s Visit To Fort Lauderdale. <#S7>

• Harris’ Monday Appearance On CNN Was Network’s Highest-Rated Single
Candidate Town Hall. <#S8>

• Operatives From Sanders’ 2016 Campaign Awaiting Word On His 2020 Plans.
<#S9>

• Klobuchar Says She’ll Decide On Presidential Bid “Shortly.” <#S10>

• Politico Analysis: Gabbard Campaign “Already Melting Down.” <#S11>

• In New Hampshire, Bloomberg Pans Potential Liberal Rivals’ Policies As
“Pie In The Sky.” <#S12>

• Schultz Criticizes Policies Of Harris, Ocasio-Cortez, Warren As “Extreme.”
<#S13>

• Trio Of Democratic Party Chairs In Iowa Endorse Delaney. <#S14>

• Podesta: Clinton Is “Not Running For President.” <#S15>

• WPost Analysis: Democratic Candidates Face Political Risk When Asked To
Detail Healthcare Plans. <#S16>

• WPost Analysis: 2020 Democrats Reluctant Specify What Constitutes A
“Green New Deal.” <#S17>

*Leading the News* <#SECTION_2>

• Democrats Express Concern, Confusion Over Whitaker’s Statement On Mueller
Probe. <#S18>

*Foreign Policy* <#SECTION_3>

• Media Analyses: Intel Chiefs Contradict Trump On National Security
Threats. <#S19>

• Bolton Warns Of “Serious Consequences” For Maduro If Regime Harms Guaidó.
<#S20>

• Prospects Of Afghanistan Peace Deal Raise Concerns Of Taliban Returning
To Power. <#S21>

• Kurdish Leader Sees No Sign Of US Withdrawal In Syria. <#S22>

• Officials Optimistic About Progress In China Trade Talks. <#S23>

• US Envoy To Discuss Summit Details During Talks With North Korean
Officials. <#S24>

• Russian Official: US Envoy’s Remarks On INF Talks Inspire “Absolutely No
Optimism.” <#S25>

*Domestic Policy* <#SECTION_4>

• Fox Analyses: White House Believes Trump Has Upper Hand In Border
Security Talks. <#S26>

• White House Says Shutdown Caused No Permanent Damage. <#S27>

• Senate Judiciary Democrats Postpone Vote On Barr Over Russia Questions.
<#S28>

• US Brings 23 Charges Against Huawei, Seeks Extradition Of Meng. <#S29>

• Trump: Sims “Was Nothing More Than A Gofer.” <#S30>

• Democrats Choose Abrams To Deliver State Of The Union Response. <#S31>

• Mnuchin Sees No Indications Of A Recession. <#S32>

*Cancer Research* <#SECTION_5>

• Texas Tech Researchers Receive $9.2M NIH Grant For Multiple Studies.
<#S33>

• Rep. Moore Says She Is In Remission From Cancer, Praises ACA’s
Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. <#S34>

*Editorials/Op-Eds* <#SECTION_6>

• New York Times. <#S35>

• Washington Post. <#S36>
Biden in the News
2020 Democratic Poll: Biden 33%; Sanders 15%; Harris 10%.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=002-f76&t=c>
(1/30, Shepard) reports that a Politico/Morning Consult poll
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=003-fc5&t=c>
of 685 Democratic voters, taken Jan. Jan. 25-27, shows Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) “gaining steam amid the rollout of her campaign, which began on Jan.
21.” She is “now the third choice of Democratic voters,” “at 10 percent, up
from 3 percent earlier this month.” Politico says, “Over the course of four
surveys this month, former Vice President Joe Biden has ranged between 26
percent and 33 percent,” while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) “has been between
15 percent and 16 percent.” Though not specified in the story, the new poll
shows Biden leading with 33%, followed by Sanders at 15%, then Harris at
the aforementioned 10%, followed by ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) and Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) each at 6%, with others lagging further behind.
Michigan 2020 Poll: Trump Trails Biden By 13 Points, Other Democrats By
Smaller Margins.

The Detroit News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=004-41a&t=c>
(1/29, Burke) reports that a Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll of 600 likely
Michigan voters, taken Jan. 24-26, shows that “Michigan voters blame
President Donald Trump over congressional Democrats” by a 45%-26% margin
“for the record-setting 35-day partial government shutdown.” In addition,
23% of those surveyed said they “would ‘definitely’ vote to re-elect Trump
in” 2020, while 49% said they “would ‘definitely’ vote for someone else.”
In hypothetical general election matchups, Trump trails former Vice
President Joe Biden 53%-40%; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 52%-41%; Sen.
Kamala Harris (D-CA) 47%-42%; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) 46%-43%. On
its website, WDIV-TV
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=005-0bb&t=c>
Detroit (1/29, Haddad) also reported on the poll results.
Biden Says There’s No Hurry For Him To Announce 2020 Plans.

In an online article, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=006-7f1&t=c>
(1/29, Saenz) reported that former Vice President Joe Biden “told CNN on
Tuesday he’s in no hurry to announce whether he’s running for president in
2020 but knows he needs to make a decision soon. ‘I don’t think there’s any
hurry to have to announce,’ Biden said as he was deplaning a flight from
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Washington Dulles International Airport.”
Biden added, “I don’t have any particular timetable. I don’t think there’s
any hurry, but there’s a bigger hurry to decide just personally.”
Responding to a question about “how his family currently feels about a run,
Biden, who was seated in business class, said, ‘They’re thinking.’”

*Political Analysts Say Biden Could Benefit From Delaying 2020
Announcement. *The Wilmington (DE) News Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=007-a07&t=c>
(1/29, Baker) reports, “Despite the anticipation for a Biden announcement,
election experts say it could be advantageous for him to wait.” Biden
“already has nationwide name recognition, said John Halpin, a senior fellow
at the Center for American Progress. Postponing an announcement for a
couple of months would allow Biden to wait on the sidelines as early
Democratic candidates endure the bruising from rivals’ inevitable political
shots, he said.” And it “would allow him to formulate a winning strategy
within a party that is rapidly shifting to the left, he said. ‘He looks
like he matches up very well against Trump, but you have to get through the
Democratic primary,’ Halpin said.”

However, writing for National Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=008-dc1&t=c>
(1/29), Kyle Trygstad says, “As the latest early primary poll indicated,
Biden remains at the front of the pack thanks to his vice presidential
tenure, ties to President Obama, and average-joe profile.” However, that
“Washington Post-ABC News poll
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=009-a68&t=c>
made it clear most Democrat-aligned Americans don’t yet have a preference
for a particular candidate yet, and that could be a problem for him. Voters
and donors have plenty of other options this time around, regardless of
their place on the party spectrum. So as Biden’s indecision casts a looming
shadow over the entire process, it also gives others a running start.”
NYTimes: Biden, Other “Moderates” Would Test Clout Of Liberals In
Democratic Primary.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00a-1ac&t=c>
(1/30, Burns) reports that there is a group of potential Democratic
presidential contenders who hold “a distinctly white-collar blend of
conservative fiscal instincts and liberal social values.” These Democrats
“call themselves moderates and problem-solvers, consensus-builders and
pragmatists. Monochrome and male, they do not embody social change or hold
out the promise of making history.” The Times says ex-Vice President Joe
Biden is atop this group, which includes, among others, ex-Govs. John
Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) and ex-New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg. The Times says, “If they run, these Democrats would test
whether there is a large audience of primary voters open to promises of
incremental change and political compromise, or whether the ascendant
liberal wing is now fully dominant.”
Possible Schultz Bid Said To Highlight Pros, Cons Of Potential Biden,
Bloomberg Runs.

In a blog entry on the website of the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00b-534&t=c>
(1/30), Jacqueline Alemany writes that ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s
“announcement that he’s seriously weighing an independent presidential bid
in 2020” sparked “backlash among Democrats who insist” such a bid would
only help President Trump win another term. However, Schultz’s “interest in
a centrist, throw-all-the-bums out candidacy has also been instructive for
some Democrats across the spectrum: They believe it helps make the case for
or against Joe Biden to” enter the 2020 race. Schultz’s announcement is
viewed “by some grass roots organizers as a precursor to the problems that
candidates in similarly moderate lanes like Biden and former New York mayor
Michael Bloomberg might face if they” run. Yet, “there’s a good argument to
be made there are too many Democrats already running in the progressive
lane and that a centrist candidate could take advantage of that dynamic.”
Charles Pierce Dismisses Biden’s Chances In Democratic Race.

Political writer Charles Pierce on Tuesday appeared on ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel
Live[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00c-ee9&t=c>
(1/30), where the host said, “A lot of people think Joe Biden is the
Democrats’ best chance to win [in 2020]. You do not agree with that.”
Pierce replied, “No, I don’t. And I like Joe Biden and I thought he was a
heck of a vice president. ... I think he’s missed his window – sometime in
the 1980s, to be perfectly honest with you. And I think the party has moved
considerably in a more progressive direction than to be satisfied with Joe
Biden. I think there are people out there who can appeal to the same, you
know, Joe Biden voters in the Midwest.” As examples, Pierce cited Sens.
Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). Of
Biden, Pierce added, “I don’t think there’s a spot for him at this time. If
he wanted to be kingmaker, that would be his role.”
Page Six Briefly Highlights Biden’s Visit To Fort Lauderdale.

In a brief item, Page Six
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00d-b71&t=c>
(1/29, Siegler) reports that former Vice President Joe Biden “lapped up
attention after announcing during an event...in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on
Monday that he’s getting ‘a lot closer’ to deciding if he will run in 2020
– and will ‘make the decision soon.’” Biden “was spotted staying at the
nearby Diplomat Beach Resort where ‘he was talking to hotel guests and
taking selfies,’ said a source who spied the Dem having brunch at the
hotel’s Geoffrey Zakarian eatery Point Royal.”
Harris’ Monday Appearance On CNN Was Network’s Highest-Rated Single
Candidate Town Hall.

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00e-dae&t=c>
(1/29, Axelrod) reported that Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA) “town hall Monday
night on CNN got the network its highest ratings ever for such an event
with an individual election candidate, according to the network. Monday
night’s town hall ‘was the most watched cable news single candidate
election town hall ever,’ CNN said in a statement. ‘In total viewers, the
Town Hall averaged 1.957 million, a +75% advantage over CNN’s prior four
(1.119 million).’”

*Hill Becomes Second Congressional Democrat To Endorse Harris. *
Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=00f-28b&t=c>
(1/29, Hanchett) reported that freshman Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) said during
a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC that she is backing Harris’ bid for
president. A day earlier, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) became the first member of
Congress to endorse Harris’ bid.

*WPost’s Hesse: Talk Of Female Candidates’ Love Life Undermines
Their Legitimacy. *Writing in the “Style” section of the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=010-113&t=c>
(1/29), Monica Hesse discusses the revelation that ex-San Francisco Mayor
Willie Brown’s (D) “past relationship with” Harris “was confirmed for the
national media when Brown published an op-ed: Yes, they’d dated. And, yes,
he ‘may have influenced her career’ by appointing her to two commissions.”
Hesse says that when discussing the sexual relationships of male and female
politicians, “we...talk about them in a different way. We talk about men
abusing power. We talk about women not even deserving power.” Hesse adds
that “the only way a woman is ever going to be elected to the top of
anything is if we stop making insinuations about how she got there.”
Operatives From Sanders’ 2016 Campaign Awaiting Word On His 2020 Plans.

The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=011-7d4&t=c>
(1/29, McLaughlin) says that reports Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) “is
planning to run for president in 2020 are news to key operatives from his
last national campaign, who say they have yet to hear from” him. However,
those operatives “are eager, and in some cases growing impatient, for him
to reach out and tell them the campaign is a go. ... ‘I really think there
are a big number of Bernie supporters, at least in states I worked in,
[that are] waiting,’ said Pete D’Alessandro, Mr. Sanders’ 2016 campaign
coordinator in Iowa. ‘They are not going to make a decision until he gets
in. I think that number is much higher than people think it is.’”

*Video Said To Show Sanders Partying With Russians During 1988
Visit To USSR. *Writing at Townhall
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=012-4dd&t=c>
(1/29), Matt Vespa highlighted a “video that supposedly shows Bernie
Sanders getting plastered with some Soviets during a trip to the USSR in
1988. Bernie, who was mayor of Burlington at the time, had recently married
Jane and decided to use his work trip to Yaroslavl, Burlington’s sister
city, where Mrs. Sanders referred to it as their ‘honeymoon.’”
Klobuchar Says She’ll Decide On Presidential Bid “Shortly.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), appearing Tuesday on CNN’s New Day[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=013-659&t=c>
(1/29, 8:15 a.m. EST), commented on her possible 2020 run for president,
saying, “There are many people that could win in this election. The key for
the American people will be to look at the candidates and say, who can win?
... I will be making a decision shortly.”
Politico Analysis: Gabbard Campaign “Already Melting Down.”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=014-191&t=c>
(1/29, Strauss, Thompson) reported that less than three weeks after Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced her intention to run for president, her
campaign is “already melting down. ... Campaign manager Rania Batrice and
Gabbard’s consulting firm Revolution Messaging are set to depart after this
weekend’s official kickoff,” with Gabbard “leaning on her sister...to fill
the void.” Politico said, “Three people familiar with the presidential bid
over the past few months describe a candidate who managed to be both
indecisive and impulsive,” making “repeated retreats” on announcing her
intentions before making an announcement that “blindsided” her team.
Politico said that Gabbard has been under fire from the left over, among
other things, her past anti-gay views.

Indeed, responding to the Politico piece, CNN’s Harry Enten tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=015-51d&t=c>,
“This is...not surprising.” Sahil Kapur of Bloomberg News tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=016-cac&t=c>,
“Some candidates run because there’s a viable path to victory. Others run
to elevate an ideological cause. Yet others run because they’re retired and
bored and want a TV gig or something. The Tulsi Gabbard rationale remains a
mystery to me.” The Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=017-309&t=c>,
“Tulsi Gabbard’s presidential campaign is a way to get on TV and raise
money and...not much else, it seems.”
In New Hampshire, Bloomberg Pans Potential Liberal Rivals’ Policies As “Pie
In The Sky.”

The Boston Globe
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=018-4b2&t=c>
(1/29, Pindell) reports that as he mulls a 2020 run for president, ex-New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) on Tuesday visited New Hampshire,
where he criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) “recent proposal to tax
wealth instead of income, comparing such a levy to socialism.” Speaking
with reporters, Bloomberg, “one of the richest people on the planet,” said,
“We need a healthy economy, and we shouldn’t be embarrassed about our
system. If you want to look at a system that’s non-capitalistic, just take
a look at what was once, perhaps, the wealthiest country in the world, and
today people are starving to death. It’s called Venezuela.”

The Concord (NH) Monitor
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=019-ab1&t=c>
(1/29, Steinhauser) reports that Bloomberg also criticized Sen. Kamala
Harris’ (D-CA) support “for a ‘Medicare-for-all’ single-payer health care
plan.” On Monday, Harris had said “she’s willing to end private insurance
to make Medicare-for-all happen. ‘I think you could never afford that.
You’re talking about trillions of dollars,’ Bloomberg said. ‘To replace the
entire private system where companies provide health care for their
employees would bankrupt us for a very long time. It’s just not a practical
thing.’” Bloomberg also panned Warren’s tax proposal as “unconstitutional”
and zinged Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) push “to offer all in-state students
attending community colleges and some students at four-year public colleges
a tuition-free higher education.”

In an online article, NBC News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01a-422&t=c>
(1/29, Smith) reported that Bloomberg “praised the idea of a ‘Green New
Deal’ in New Hampshire on Tuesday but cautioned against Democrats making a
‘pie in the sky’ proposal.” Said Bloomberg, “I’m a little bit tired of
listening to things that are pie in the sky, that we never are going to
pass, are never going to afford. I think it’s just disingenuous to promote
those things. You’ve got to do something that’s practical.” Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01b-6a9&t=c>
(1/29, Moran) reported that Bloomberg “nixed the idea of Medicare for All,
saying, ‘You could never afford that, you’re talking about trillions of
dollars.’”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01c-d4b&t=c>
(1/29, Murray) reported, “Other than his sharp criticisms of Donald Trump
on climate change, the government shutdown and the president’s governing
style,” Bloomberg “seemed intent on testing the limits of how far he could
deviate from Democratic Party orthodoxy. Some of the most popular issues
among Democratic candidates – tuition free college, Medicare for all and a
wealth tax – were among the proposals Bloomberg deemed unrealistic, too
expensive and even unconstitutional during his one-day New Hampshire
swing.”
Schultz Criticizes Policies Of Harris, Ocasio-Cortez, Warren As “Extreme.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01d-956&t=c>
(1/29, Wagner) reports that ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who is
considering an independent bid for president, is criticizing “the
health-care and tax policies of three of the Democratic Party’s most
stalwart” progressives: Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Elizabeth Warren
(D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Speaking on Tuesday with
NPR, Schultz, “a billionaire, said that Warren’s plan for a special 2
percent annual tax on Americans whose net worth exceeds $50 million is
‘ridiculous,’” accusing her “of crafting the idea to get a ‘good
headline.’” In another interview, Schultz criticized Ocasio-Cortez as “‘a
bit misinformed’ and pushed back on her idea of a top marginal tax rate of
70 percent.” Schultz also panned Harris’ support for “Medicare-for-All” as
“extreme.”

The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01e-f07&t=c>
(1/29, Muñoz) reports that Schultz criticized Harris “for endorsing a
Medicare For All bill that would virtually eliminate private healthcare
plans. ‘That’s not correct. That’s not American,’ he said on CBS News.
‘What’s next? What industry are we going to abolish next? The coffee
industry?’” The Washington Free Beacon
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=01f-765&t=c>
(1/29, Rutz) reported that in response to Schultz’s criticism, Warren
tweeted, “What’s ‘ridiculous’ is billionaires who think they can buy the
presidency to keep the system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips
away for everyone else. The top 0.1%, who’d pay my #UltraMillionaireTax,
own about the same wealth as 90% of America. It’s time for change.”

*WPost: Schultz Has “Secretly” Been Preparing To Run For Months. *The
Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=020-819&t=c>
(1/29, Scherer) reports that prior to saying this week that he may seek the
White House, Schultz “secretly undertook a months-long effort to prepare an
independent presidential campaign against the nation’s two-party political
system, deploying more than six national polls and laying the groundwork
for paid advertising that could debut in the next two months.” The effort
“suggests that his stated goal of disrupting the US political process is
not likely to fade away anytime soon, despite enormous historical barriers
to success and Democratic predictions that his entry in the race will help
President Trump get reelected.”

*Schultz Explains His Rationale For Possible 2020 Independent
Presidential Bid. *In a USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=021-c62&t=c>
(1/29) op-ed, Schultz discusses his possible independent bid for president,
saying, “Our two parties are not working for most Americans. Sixty-six
percent of likely voters say ‘neither party is really representing my needs
or interests,’ according to a recent No Labels/HarrisX poll.” Schultz adds,
“To those who say an independent run would help ensure the re-election of
Donald Trump, I say the two parties’ inability to come together to serve
the people has created the opportunity for a centrist independent to be
successful. To suggest that either party’s candidate could lose because of
a third choice is intellectually dishonest. I am considering a run because
members of both parties are not yet doing the job they were elected to do.”

*DNC Chief: Schultz Run Would Help Trump Win Reelection. *DNC
Chairman Tom Perez said on Fox News’ Special Report[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=022-a42&t=c>
(1/29), “I have respect for Howard Schultz. If he chooses to get in the
race, I hope he gets in the Democratic Party. We will treat him very
fairly. I tend to agree, again, Mayor Bloomberg I think it was who said, ‘I
have studied independent runs, and what an independent runway do in 2020 is
simply split the anti-Trump vote and help Donald Trump get reelected.’
Howard Schultz himself said ‘I’m only going to run if there is a real
pathway to victory.’”
Trio Of Democratic Party Chairs In Iowa Endorse Delaney.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=023-218&t=c>
(1/29, Thompson) reported that ex-Rep. John Delaney (D-MD), who “announced
in July 2017” that he would “forgo reelection in favor of focusing” on a
run for president, has “earned endorsements from three Democratic Party
county chairs in Iowa, according to his campaign. Donna Crum, Nancy
Camardo, and Twyla Peacock head Democratic parties in three counties –
Mills, Wayne, and Van Buren – that supported Donald Trump with at least 65
percent of the vote.” Politico added that Delaney has “made Iowa the
centerpiece of his long-shot bid, already having traveled to all 99
counties before most candidates have traveled to a few.”
Podesta: Clinton Is “Not Running For President.”

The New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=024-b4d&t=c>
(1/29, Feuerherd) reports in a brief item that Hillary Clinton’s “former
campaign manager John Podesta on Tuesday beat back reports that she’s
mulling a presidential run in 2020.” Podesta told CNN, “I think this is
media catnip. I take her at her word. She’s not running for president.”
WPost Analysis: Democratic Candidates Face Political Risk When Asked To
Detail Healthcare Plans.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=025-c9a&t=c>
(1/29, Linskey) says presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris’ (D-CA)
recent discussion of the Medicare-for-all concept demonstrated “how easily
the idea can be weaponized politically, especially as candidates are
increasingly pressed for specifics.” Candidates “often hear complaints from
voters frustrated by rising drug prices, staggering and widely inconsistent
medical bills, skyrocketing deductibles, unaffordable premiums, and
difficult-to-conquer bureaucracies, creating pressure to offer a sweeping
overhaul plan.” But their slogans “inevitably prove difficult to implement.
And often it’s not exactly clear what those slogans meant to begin with.”
WPost Analysis: 2020 Democrats Reluctant Specify What Constitutes A “Green
New Deal.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=026-eb6&t=c>
(1/29, Grandoni) reports, “Last November, the ‘Green New Deal’ was barely
on the lips of any Democrat running for office. Fast-forward two months,
and the phrase is all over the campaign trail.” Even so, says the Post,
White House “hopefuls want to appeal to the Democratic Party’s progressive
base, but they appear hesitant to bind themselves yet to any specific
policy proposals – or outline what might constitute this kind of landmark
climate deal. An aide to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for example, recently” said
“that the Massachusetts Democrat supports the ‘idea’ of a Green New Deal.”
And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said recently “that ‘the platform of it
is really exciting,’ even through ‘there’s not a lot of details yet behind
the Green New Deal.’” The “less-than-full-throated endorsements hint at a
coming tussle over the exact meaning of what” constitutes a “Green New
Deal.”
Leading the News
Democrats Express Concern, Confusion Over Whitaker’s Statement On Mueller
Probe.

CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=027-dc9&t=c>
(1/29, Connolly) reports, “Some House Democrats scratched their heads in
confusion” following Acting Attorney General Whitaker’s Monday statement
that “he believes the special counsel investigation into Russian election
interference is ‘close to being completed.’” House Judiciary Committee
member Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) said, “It doesn’t jive with what I’m hearing.
I don’t have any reason to think that what [Whitaker] said makes sense.”
House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL)
“cautioned that he did not know what Whitaker’s ‘intention’ was for
discussing the probe’s possible timeline. But given Whitaker’s past
comments about the special counsel, Krishnamoorthi is ‘very concerned’
about the acting AG’s intention.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=028-3b3&t=c>
(1/29), “That kind of comment would be bizarre from the most inexperienced
junior prosecutor, and from the...Acting Attorney General, they are truly a
disservice.” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=029-e70&t=c>
(1/29) that Whitaker “needs to be careful not to interfere or try to put
his finger on the scale of that investigation.” Asked if it would be a
problem if Whitaker briefed the President or others about Mueller told him,
Castro said, “It would for me. I don’t think there should be communication
to the President about it. I think at this point, they should keep that
separate.” On CNN’s New Day[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02a-acd&t=c>
(1/29), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said, “I was surprised. I’m not sure if he
was citing from some recognition or knowledge, or was just wishful
thinking.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02b-859&t=c>
(1/29, Paul) reports, “Although Monday’s briefing was wholly unrelated to
special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation,” Whitaker “took the
opportunity to report that he had been ‘fully briefed’ on the probe into
Russian election interference,” which he discussed “with a litany of
unclear commentary.”

*Stone Pleads Not Guilty To Seven Counts, Says He Won’t “Make Up
Lies” Like Cohen. *ABC World News Tonight[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02c-87c&t=c>
(1/29, story 8, 1:35, Muir) reported, “Roger Stone, the President’s
long-time adviser,” was in court on Tuesday, “pleading not guilty to
charges brought by the special counsel.” ABC’s Pierre Thomas reported that
during “a speedy 12-minute hearing,” Stone pleaded not guilty to “seven
felonies, including lying to Congress, obstruction, and witness tampering.
Robert Mueller accusing the self-described dirty trickster of reaching out
to WikiLeaks through an intermediary on behalf of the Trump campaign.
President Trump and Stone go back decades. But the President insists none
of this has anything to do with him.” The CBS Evening News[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02d-358&t=c>
(1/29, story 4, 0:20, Glor) reported in a brief item that “the President’s
longtime friend and adviser pleaded not guilty” and “said nothing as he
left federal court.”

On NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02e-7ec&t=c>
(1/29, story 5, 1:05, Holt), Pete Williams reported that Stone “was
surprisingly low-key at federal court,” but in a radio interview, “Stone
blasted Mueller’s case.” Stone: “They know they have to take me down in
order to take Donald Trump down.” Stone later said on Fox News’ Ingraham
Angle[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=02f-f9e&t=c>
(1/29), “I’m going to tell the truth under oath and to the investigators if
they have questions – subject, obviously, to the advice format-wise of my
attorneys. But I’m not going to do what Michael Cohen has done. I’m not
going to make up lies or bear false witness against Donald Trump or anyone
else.”

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=030-4e1&t=c>
(1/29, Johnson) reports, “Stone brought his one-man show to the federal
courthouse Tuesday, setting off from Florida as if it were just another
tour stop for an unusual political circus.” But most coverage focuses on
the fact that Stone was, as the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=031-e6d&t=c>
(1/29, Tucker, Day) puts it, “uncharacteristically quiet.” The New York
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=032-b51&t=c>
(1/29, Mazzetti, Goldman) reports that “the often flamboyant Mr. Stone
appeared solemn and said little.” The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=033-35e&t=c>
(1/29, Mordock) also says he “was strikingly quiet, only speaking three
times in answering the judge’s questions.” The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=034-8bc&t=c>
(1/29, Viswanatha, Gurman) also says Stone was generally quiet. Dana
Milbank writes in his Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=035-049&t=c>
(1/29) column, “For once, Roger Stone was at a loss for words.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=036-bc8&t=c>
(1/28, Hsu, Marimow, Barrett) calls Stone “President Trump’s longtime
friend.” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=037-c5b&t=c>
(1/29, Chalfant, Wheeler) calls Stone “an informal adviser to President
Trump,” and a “self-proclaimed ‘dirty trickster.’” The Hill adds,
“Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson then ordered Stone to return to court
at 1:30 p.m. Friday for a status hearing before Judge Amy Berman Jackson.”
Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=038-7b7&t=c>
(1/29, Samuelsohn, Choi) calls him a “longtime Donald Trump associate.”

Justice correspondent Evan Perez said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=039-c6c&t=c>
(1/29), “I think there is a very high possibility there is more to come for
Roger Stone.” Lawyers for former Stone employee Andrew Miller, “who has
been fighting the subpoena from the Mueller investigation, said they were
told they are still seeking his testimony. What this could mean is that
they are still trying to gather evidence that prosecutors believe will be
used in a superseding indictment – more charges against Roger Stone.”

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03a-b13&t=c>
(1/29) columnist James Robbins writes, “After two years of investigations –
or three if you count CIA and FBI efforts in 2016 – the collusion story is
as weak as ever. It has dwindled significantly over time. ... Now we are
left with Roger Stone wanting to see Hillary Clinton’s emails. Well, who
didn’t?”

*Trump Says He Has Not Given Possible Stone Pardon “Any Thought.” *The
Washington Post’s Philip Rucker tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03b-968&t=c>,
“Asked Tuesday whether he would consider pardoning Stone, President Trump
told The Washington Post, ‘I have not given it any thought.’” Laurence
Tribe tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03c-c97&t=c>,
“The theory that a presidential pardon of guys like Stone would backfire
because it would strip them of their 5th Amendment privilege & expose them
to contempt for refusing to testify fully & truthfully overlooks Trump’s
history of pardoning contempt convictions like Joe Arpaio’s.”

*Belarusian Model Recants Claims About Knowledge Of Russian
Election-Meddling Efforts. *The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03d-148&t=c>
(1/29, Yilek) reports, “A Belarusian model who claimed to have secret
information about Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election now
says she made up those claims in an effort to save her life.” Anastasia
Vashukevich “was arrested last year in Thailand for holding sex training
seminars in the country” and was jailed for nearly a year. She was deported
and “arrested in Moscow earlier this month on prostitution charges.”
Vashukevich “claimed to have recordings of Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
that would reveal more information about President Trump’s connections to
Russia” but is “now walking back her declaration, saying she made up the
claims to attract media attention to save her life while she was being held
in Thailand.”

*Townhall: Support For Impeachment Drops In WPost/ABC Poll. *
Townhall
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03e-cbb&t=c>
(1/29, Benson) reports that while in August, the Washington Post-ABC News
poll “showed a thin plurality (49/46) in favor of impeachment proceedings”
against President Trump, “since then, that spread has shifted from (+3) to
(-15),” with 40 percent now backing impeachment with 55 percent opposed.
Foreign Policy
Media Analyses: Intel Chiefs Contradict Trump On National Security Threats.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony by the nation’s intelligence chiefs is
cast by the media as contradicting President Trump’s claims on several
areas of national security. ABC World News Tonight[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=03f-46b&t=c>
(1/29, story 5, 2:35, Muir), called it “one of the clearest examples yet”
of how the intelligence community’s conclusions “differ from the
President’s own.” Jim Scuitto said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=040-b5f&t=c>
(1/29) that “it is really hard to imagine a bigger void between a sitting
President and the US intelligence community.” Even Fox News’ Special
Report[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=041-a46&t=c>
(1/29) said the testimony highlighted “a divide between the President and
the intelligence community over what is a real threat to our nation.”

To the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=042-d19&t=c>
(1/29, Burns) the officials were “directly contradicting” Trump, saying
that North Korea “is unlikely to dismantle its nuclear arsenal, that the
Islamic State group remains a threat and that the Iran nuclear deal is
working.” They also “made no mention of a crisis at the US-Mexican border.”

Calling it “a stunning moment,” NBC Nightly News[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=043-286&t=c>
(1/29, story 4, 1:30, Holt) said “the nation’s intelligence chiefs one
after another publicly contradicting President Trump on global threats from
North Korea to Iran.” NBC (Mitchell) added, “Just weeks before the
President holds a second summit with Kim Jong-un, after claiming North
Korea no longer pose as nuclear threat, the nation’s intelligence chiefs
say Kim may never give up his nuclear weapons. ... Just one example in an
unprecedented divide between the nation’s intelligence leaders and the
commander in chief.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=044-12f&t=c>
(1/29, Sanger, Barnes) likewise says their testimony “directly
contradict[ed] two top tenets of President Trump’s foreign policy” – North
Korea and Iran. DNI Coats “also challenged Mr. Trump’s insistence that the
Islamic State had been defeated,” saying the group “still commands
thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria,” and maintains networks around the
world. The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=045-b96&t=c>
(1/29, Thomsen) reports Coats and CIA Director Haspel “painted the picture
of an adversary that has been weakened, but notably did not describe ISIS
as having been completely defeated.”

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=046-73d&t=c>
(1/29, Zengerle, Chiacu) reports the intelligence officials said “China and
Russia pose the biggest risks to the United States and are more aligned
than they have been in decades.” During what the New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=047-478&t=c>
(1/29, Fredericks) calls “a grim update on world threats,” Coats said
Russia and China are locked in “a race for technological and military
superiority” over the US. The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=048-91c&t=c>
(1/29, Volz, Strobel) says the intelligence officials also warned that the
efforts by China and Russia could lead to a higher risk of regional
conflicts, especially in the Middle East and East Asia.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=049-713&t=c>
(1/28, Harris) says the hearing “underscored the distance between the US
intelligence community and President Trump on several critical fronts.” On
North Korea, for example, Coats said the regime is “unlikely to completely
give up its nuclear weapons and production capabilities,” which it
considers “critical to the regime’s survival.” The Post says “that
assessment threw cold water on the White House’s more optimistic view that
the United States and North Korea will achieve a lasting peace and that the
regime will ultimately give up its nuclear weapons.”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04a-2a5&t=c>
(1/29, Morin, Toosi) too says Coats’ remarks “underscored how out of step
Trump’s pronouncements on major national security issues often are with the
rest of the government he leads, including intelligence agencies that he
has long scorned.” To Politico, that “divergence...was perhaps most notable
in the case of North Korea.”

On the subject of Russia, Business Insider
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04b-320&t=c>
(1/29, Foster) reports Coats “confirm[ed] Russian influence during the 2016
presidential election,” and “also reiterated that foreign groups tried to
influence the 2018 US midterm elections.” Coats further warned that
“foreign actors will view the 2020 US elections as an opportunity to
advance their interests.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04c-a4f&t=c>
(1/29, Matishak) reports Coats said that in addition to Russia, China and
Iran “probably already are looking to the 2020 US elections as an
opportunity to advance their interests.”

The South China Morning Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04d-452&t=c>
(1/29, Churchill) reports the intelligence officials also “issued a harsh
warning” about “China’s cyberespionage and counter-intelligence threats to
the US, a day before high-stakes trade talks between the two countries are
set to begin in Washington.” FBI Director Wray told senators, “The Chinese
counter-intelligence threat is more deep, more diverse, more vexing, more
challenging, more comprehensive and more concerning than any
counter-intelligence threat that I can think of.” CNBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04e-a8c&t=c>
(1/29, Loeb) says that “a day after two landmark indictments against
China’s Huawei, the Senate heard from leaders from the CIA, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, NSA and FBI on the increasing threats
from China.”

A New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=04f-159&t=c>
(1/29) editorial says that while “many critics were quick to note where the
consensus judgments of the intelligence community differed with the
statements and policies of the Trump administration,” the officials’ annual
assessment of threats “also makes a reasoned assessment of some of the
issues that Mr. Trump has focused on in his public statements.” The Times
argues that while it is “tempting to see the report as simply a scorecard
on the president’s own threat assessments...what matters most is that the
nation grapples with the problems as they are, rather than how it imagines
them to be.”

Charles P. Pierce writes in a piece for Esquire Magazine
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=050-2c5&t=c>
(1/29) that the officials “testified that the President of the United
States doesn’t know enough about foreign affairs generally, and the threats
to this country in particular, to throw a cat.” He adds, “Coats and the
rest of them have done everything except sound an air raid siren about this
administration’s bungling attempts to develop a foreign policy, and there’s
no indication yet that the Senate Republicans have mustered the gumption to
act on the alarm.”

Legal analyst Laura Coates said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=051-483&t=c>
(1/29), “Think about that notion of a public hearing. They did not show
deference to the President of the United States because they were that
against and at odds with policies. ... They were very adamant, probably
because they knew they had a responsibility and also because the reasons
they are talking about that it was more important to tell the truth than to
placate the President of the United States. That’s very telling about what
their view of him is.”

On the issue of North Korea, NPR’s Mara Liasson said on Fox News’
Special Report[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=052-1c7&t=c>
(1/29), “I thought it was a pretty serious warning. They said that North
Korea would not give up its nuclear weapons. So that is setting the stage
for the upcoming meeting between the President and Kim Jong Un. It is going
to be a lot harder, I think, than maybe Donald Trump thought to get North
Korea to make the kind of deal that he wants.”

National security analyst Samantha Vinograd said on CNN’s Situation
Room[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=053-edc&t=c>
(1/29) that the officials’ comments “reaffirm to our enemies that their
strategy of going straight to the President and not working with the rest
of his team is probably a pretty good one to continue following.”

*McConnell Urges Trump Not To Withdraw From Syria, Afghanistan. *Nancy
Cordes reported for the CBS Evening News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=054-e03&t=c>
(1/29, story 5, 2:20, Glor) that “Republican leaders downplayed
discrepancies” between the President and the intelligence community, but
Senate Majority Leader McConnell “himself also broke with Mr. Trump today,
urging him not to withdraw from Syria, even if troops have retaken most
ISIS territory.” Said McConnell, “We’ve seen the downside of telling the
enemy they can just wait us out.” Peter Baker writes in a New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=055-ba9&t=c>
(1/29) analysis that McConnell’s remarks – and his introduction of a
measure denouncing “a precipitous withdrawal” of US troops from Syria and
Afghanistan – reflect a “disconnect between President Trump and the
Republican establishment on foreign policy” that has “rarely been as
stark.”
Bolton Warns Of “Serious Consequences” For Maduro If Regime Harms Guaidó.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=056-ea8&t=c>
(1/30, Smith) reports Venezuelan Attorney General Tarek William Saab “asked
the country’s top court to ban opposition leader Juan Guaidó from leaving
the country” and to block his financial accounts, “launching a criminal
probe into his anti-government activities while international pressure
builds against President Nicolas Maduro.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=057-7cf&t=c>
(1/29, Martinez) reports that, in response to Saab’s actions, National
Security Adviser Bolton, in a tweet
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=058-099&t=c>,
warned of “serious consequences for those who attempt to subvert democracy
and harm Guaido” and called Saab the “illegitimate former Venezuelan
Attorney General.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=059-de5&t=c>
(1/29, Faiola) reports Guaidó responded to Saab’s “move by dismissing it as
‘nothing new under the sun.’” He added that the regime “doesn’t give
answers to Venezuelans” and that its “only answer is persecution and
repression.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05a-a60&t=c>
(1/29, Wong), meanwhile, reports that, as “part of a campaign by President
Trump and his top foreign policy officials to oust” Venezuela’s Nicolás
Maduro, the State Department gave Guaidó “the right to control assets and
property in the United States bank accounts of the government of
Venezuela.” Specifically listed were “accounts of the government of
Venezuela or Central Bank of Venezuela that are in the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, but the turnover of control applies to similar accounts in any
United States insured bank.” Additionally, the State Department “issued a
red-level travel warning for Venezuela, telling American citizens not to
travel to the country.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05b-edf&t=c>
(1/29, Shesgreen) reports, “The State Department noted that violent crime
is common, food and medical shortages are rampant, and spontaneous
demonstrations ‘typically elicit a strong police and security force
response.’”

*Mnuchin: US Seeking To Cut Off Money To Maduro. *Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin said on Fox Business Mornings with Maria[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05c-186&t=c>
(1/29), “There’s no question that what we’re trying to do is to cut off the
money to the regime that should not be in power and make sure that the
President has access to funds and has access to the assets of the country
and to make sure we protect these assets for the people of Venezuela.”

*NYTimes Analysis: Sanctions Could Bring Chaos To Venezuela. *In an
analysis, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05d-54e&t=c>
(1/29, Herrero, Krauss) reports, “The fierce struggle to shape Venezuela is
entering a new, uncertain phase,” as the country is “reeling from American
oil sanctions,” which the Times calls part of “one of Washington’s most
overt attempts in decades to carry out regime change in Latin America.”
Analysts fear the move “could turbocharge what is already the world’s worst
inflation, worsen fuel shortages and compromise the state’s ability to buy
and distribute food.” However, “many opposition leaders are sanguine about
the turbulence ahead, welcoming Washington’s kingmaker role in Venezuela’s
political standoff as crucial to restoring democracy and starting to
rebuild a nation ravaged by mismanagement under Mr. Maduro.”

*Maduro Cracks Down After Protests In Once-Loyal Slums. *The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05e-131&t=c>
(1/29, Faiola) reports that observers say that as opposition to his rule
has “dramatically escalated,” Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro imposed his “most
ruthless crackdown...since coming to power in 2013,” with government forces
sent into at least six “rebellious slums across the capital, leaving 35
people dead...and more than 850 arrested.” Unlike previous protests, which
were led by middle- and upper-class residents, these have been in the
“desperate barrios once loyal to” Maduro.

*Shanahan Refuses To Rule Out Sending Troops To Region. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=05f-26b&t=c>
(1/29, Baldor) reports, “Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan on Tuesday
would not rule out sending U.S. military forces to Colombia” or nearby “in
connection with the ongoing political upheaval in Venezuela.” Shanahan
said, “We’re monitoring the situation very carefully and we’re watching and
we’re working very much in real time.”

Questions came after, Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=060-1b5&t=c>
(1/29, Holland, Ali, Cobb) reports, National Security Adviser Bolton
“appeared at a briefing on Monday with a notepad containing the words
‘5,000 troops to Colombia,’ which neighbors Venezuela.” When asked about
the notes, a White House spokesman said, “As the President has said, all
options are on the table.” Meanwhile, Colombian Foreign Minister Carlos
Holmes Trujillo said in a statement, “We are not aware of the significance
or the reason” for Bolton’s notes.

*Saudi Arabia May Be Less Accommodating In Avoiding Oil Price
Effects Of US Sanctions On Venezuela. *The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=061-662&t=c>
(1/29, Said, Faucon) reports that there is no evidence that the US has
asked key ally Saudi Arabia to boost oil exports in the wake of US
sanctions on Venezuela. However, people familiar with Saudi Arabia’s
thinking say that the nation will not be as accommodating as it was when
the US sanctioned Iran. They say that Riyadh believes the issue could be
solved by the US selling from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve and because
its last action caused a global glut after the US surprised Riyadh by
exempting eight countries from the sanctions.

*Murphy, Former Deputy National Security Adviser Call For Changes
In Handling Of Crisis. *Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and former Deputy National
Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, in an op-ed in the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=062-cf8&t=c>
(1/29), write, “No modern US president has done more to promote autocracy
and undermine democratic movements all over the world than Donald Trump,”
but Democrats should work with him to support “democracy and dignity for
people in Venezuela and around the world.” The two call for the US to work
with other countries as well as for negotiations among Venezuela’s factions
and sanctions on Maduro. They call for Temporary Protected Status for
Venezuelans, support for Colombia, and preparing humanitarian assistance
for Venezuela. Additionally, they call for the Administration to “recognize
the troubled history of US intervention in Latin America” and that “public
bluster about military options and private leaks about coup planning only
serve to undercut the legitimacy of the democracy that we should support.”
Prospects Of Afghanistan Peace Deal Raise Concerns Of Taliban Returning To
Power.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=063-e35&t=c>
(1/29, Constable) reports that news of “the vague outline of an agreement
between American and Taliban negotiators” has raised fears in Afghanistan
about the possibility that the Taliban may return to power. Many Afghans
worry “that American officials, in their eagerness to reach a settlement
and bring home US troops, would squander their leverage to force the
Taliban to honor any pledge to share power or respect the democratic
institutions and norms that have evolved since the fall of Taliban rule in
2001.” Some experts and officials say that the Taliban continues to seek
“the full-fledged imposition of Islamic law and conservative religious
mores.”

*Former Ambassador: US Negotiating Its Surrender. *Ryan Crocker, a
former US ambassador to Afghanistan, warns in a Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=064-63d&t=c>
(1/29) op-ed that the current peace talks with the Taliban are akin to the
Paris peace talks during the Vietnam War, as “then, as now, it was clear
that by going to the table we were surrendering.” Furthermore, by acceding
to the Taliban demand to not negotiate with the Afghan government, “we have
ourselves delegitimized the government we claim to support.” Meanwhile,
“when we are gone and the Taliban is back, we will have no means of
enforcing any” Taliban promises. Crocker calls for President Trump to “make
clear that the United States has interests, values and allies, and will
stand behind them” by requiring “the full inclusion of the Afghan
government” in any talks and warning that “President Barack Obama proved in
Iraq that America cannot end a war by withdrawing its forces.”

*Ignatius: Exhaustion, Popular Outrage Helping Peace Efforts In
Yemen, Afghanistan. *In his column in the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=065-565&t=c>
(1/29), David Ignatius writes, “Fragile peace agreements are emerging in”
Yemen and Afghanistan, “thanks to skillful diplomats” and helped by
“fatigue and frustration at the existing, costly stalemates in both
battlefields.” While “war has a momentum that’s hard to stop, even when
there’s a broad yearning to end a conflict,” it is slowed by “fatigue,
popular rage at the human cost of continued fighting and peacemaking
formulas that allow each side to claim a measure of success and avoid
humiliation.” Ignatius concludes that everyone should hope that the
diplomats seeking to create the “delicate but essential deals” needed to
bring peace to Yemen and Afghanistan succeed.

*NYTimes Analysis: Documents On Soviet Invasion Of Afghanistan
Offer Lessons For Trump. *In an analysis, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=066-e6e&t=c>
(1/29, Baker) reports that newly published document shed “light on what
really drove the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan”: no “terrorism, as
claimed this month by President Trump, who said the Soviets were right to
invade,” but “a fear that Afghanistan might switch loyalties to the West.”
The Times adds the documents “offer lessons for a history-challenged Mr.
Trump as he negotiates an end to the United States’ own war in
Afghanistan.”
Kurdish Leader Sees No Sign Of US Withdrawal In Syria.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=067-94a&t=c>
(1/29, Deyoung) reports that “more than a month after President Trump
announced that US forces were leaving Syria, there has been no sign of
troop departures or a change in the relationship between Americans and
their Syrian Kurdish allies, according to the leadership of the political
umbrella organization of the Kurdish fighters.” Ilham Ahmed, who heads the
executive committee of the Syrian Democratic Council, said, “There has been
no change in the situation on the ground.” The situation, she said, is
“just like before” Trump’s announcement. Ahmed, who is in Washington “to
try to understand and influence US policy,” was “not scheduled to meet with
the president,” but they had “an impromptu exchange” Monday night, “when
they were dining separately at Trump’s hotel in Washington.”
Officials Optimistic About Progress In China Trade Talks.

Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said on Fox Business Mornings with Maria[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=068-72f&t=c>
(1/29), “We have two days of talks with China, starting tomorrow. The
President is going to be involved in those talks at the conclusion. ... We
have another 30 days after this. So I think we’re making significant
progress, and I think on the trade front, these are all very positive
impacts for the US economy.” Asked what he is expecting out of the talks,
Mnuchin said, “The President wants fair trade, with China. It’s got to be
reciprocal. Right now China has free access into our markets, and we have
limited access to there. So the critical issues that we have talked about
is market access, making sure there aren’t forced joint ventures, not
forced transfer of technology, and that we have a mechanism that when we
reach an agreement that we can monitor that agreement and live up to it.”

National Economic Council Director Kudlow said on Fox Business
Mornings with Maria[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019013001biden&r=email-b123&l=069-6d9&t=c>
(1/29), “I think eve