EMAIL DETAILS

Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing


*From:* Bulletin Intelligence <Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com>
*Sent:* Friday, February 15, 2019 7:57 AM
*To:* Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com
*Subject:* Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for Friday,
February 15, 2019


*Click to access
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=000-896&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=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=001-76b&t=c>

*To: Vice President Joe Biden*

*Friday, February 15, 2019 8:00 AM EST*

*Holiday Message*

In observance of the U.S. Washington's Birthday holiday, we will not
publish on Monday, February 18, 2019. Service will resume on Tuesday,
February 19, 2019. We wish our readers a safe and happy holiday.


Today's Table of Contents

*Biden in the News* <#SECTION_1>

• Media Analyses: Biden “Almost Certain” To Launch 2020 Presidential Bid.
<#S1>

• FiveThirtyEight Analysis: Polling Shows Biden “Unusually Beloved” Among
Democrats. <#S2>

• CNN Pundits’ 2020 Rankings: Harris Atop Democratic Field, With Biden
Second. <#S3>

• US News & World Report: Booker, Harris, Warren Have “Biggest Potential
For A Breakout In” Iowa. <#S4>

• DNC Announces Criteria For Qualifying For First Two Democratic
Presidential Debates. <#S5>

• Fox News: Sources Say Sanders “Likely” To Announce 2020 Decision By
Month’s End. <#S6>

• CBC’s Lee Backs Harris In 2020 Democratic Primary. <#S7>

• New Jersey Poll: 42% Say Booker Wouldn’t Make A Good President, 37% Say
He Would. <#S8>

• O’Rourke Says He’d Remove Border Wall Separating El Paso, Mexico. <#S9>

• Hickenlooper: Support For “Medicare-For-All,” “New Green Deal” Shouldn’t
Be “Litmus Test.” <#S10>

• Schultz Says He Might Drop Independent Bid, If Democrats Nominate
“Centrist.” <#S11>

• Poll: 55% Of Voters Think Democrats Have “Excellent” Or “Good” Chance Of
Defeating Trump. <#S12>

*Leading the News* <#SECTION_2>

• Trump Will Sign Spending Bill, Move To Fund Rest Of Wall Through
Executive Action. <#S13>

*Foreign Policy* <#SECTION_3>

• Pence Blasts Europe For Failing To Renounce Iran Nuclear Deal. <#S14>

• ISIS Militants Fight To Hold Last Square Mile In Eastern Syria. <#S15>

• Pompeo Urges Political Solution In Afghanistan. <#S16>

• Suicide Bombing Kills Dozens Of Indian Soldiers In Kashmir. <#S17>

• Abrams: US Looking For Ways To Deliver Aid To Venezuela. <#S18>

• May Suffers Another Defeat In Parliament Over Brexit Plan. <#S19>

• Media Analyses: Trudeau Faces Growing Political Scandal. <#S20>

*Domestic Policy* <#SECTION_4>

• Trump Blasts McCabe After CBS Interview. <#S21>

• Media Analyses: Manafort Likely To Die In Prison If Trump Doesn’t Pardon
Him. <#S22>

• Senate Confirms Barr By 54-45 Margin. <#S23>

• IRS: Average Tax Refund Is Down Nine Percent From Last Year. <#S24>

• TVA Votes To Close Coal Plant That Trump Tried To Save. <#S25>

• Physician Says Trump Is In “Very Good Health.” <#S26>

• FTC, Facebook Negotiating Multi-Billion Dollar Fine Over Privacy Lapses.
<#S27>

*Cancer Research* <#SECTION_5>

• All Breast Cancer Patients Should Get Genetic Testing, New Guidelines Say.
<#S28>

• Racial Disparities In Cancer Mortality Declining, Report Finds. <#S29>

*Editorials/Op-Eds* <#SECTION_6>

• New York Times. <#S30>

• Washington Post. <#S31>
Biden in the News
Media Analyses: Biden “Almost Certain” To Launch 2020 Presidential Bid.

In an “exclusive,” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=002-032&t=c>
(2/14, Parnes) reported that former Vice President Joe Biden “is almost
certain to enter the 2020 presidential race, according to sources familiar
with his plans. ‘It’s pretty clear he’s jumping in,’ said one source with
direct knowledge of the would-be campaign’s moves, adding that Biden is ‘95
percent there.’” Citing “sources,” The Hill added that Biden has recently
been seeking “to build support from grass-roots activists and is
specifically asking donors for their help in the lead-up to an
announcement.” Vanity Fair
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=003-6cf&t=c>
(2/13, Nguyen), Townhall
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=004-8f2&t=c>
(2/14, Vespa), and the Independent Journal Review
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=005-0d6&t=c>
(2/14, Thomas) highlighted The Hill report on Biden.

In an online article, Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=006-dde&t=c>
(2/14, Emanuel, Pappas) similarly reported that Biden “is almost certain to
run for president in 2020,” according to “a source with direct knowledge,”
who “said the timing of an announcement is still up in the air. With such a
crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, Biden wants to keep big donors and
potential staffers with him, and has been conducting outreach to former
colleagues, grassroots activists and contributors, the source said.” Fox
News added, “A ‘Friends of Joe’ group, which has been inactive since 2016,
has been busy with a flurry of emails, conversations and activities, the
source said. The group comprises longtime aides, donors, supporters and
friends.”

On its website, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=007-75a&t=c>
(2/14, Raju, Correspondent) reported that Biden “privately met with Sen.
Dianne Feinstein Thursday morning...and the California senator believes
Biden plans to mount a bid for the presidency. ‘Oh, yes,’ Feinstein”
responded to “CNN Thursday when asked if she thinks he’ll run in 2020. But
Feinstein said it was only her impression that he would run and that Biden
did not tell her one way or another about his intentions. ‘No, he did not,’
she said when asked if Biden said explicitly he would run.” Drawing from
the CNN story, The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=008-8e8&t=c>
(2/14, Axelrod) reported that Feinstein “said she would likely support
Biden. ... ‘He made me the first woman on the Judiciary Committee 26 years
ago, and I’ve never forgotten it,’ Feinstein said, referring to Biden’s
tenure leading the panel. ‘I’ve known him, I’ve worked with him and it’s
just a logical step for me.’”
FiveThirtyEight Analysis: Polling Shows Biden “Unusually Beloved” Among
Democrats.

Writing at FiveThirtyEight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=009-1a7&t=c>
(2/14), Nathaniel Rakich, in a chart, “plotted the share of Democrats who
can form an opinion of each major” 2020 Democratic presidential “candidate
(favorable rating plus unfavorable rating) against the candidate’s net
favorability rating (favorable rating minus unfavorable rating) among
Democrats, according to an average of national polls taken between Jan. 1
and Feb. 5 of this year. On the high-recognition end of the spectrum” are
“Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Among the three, however,
Biden has the highest net favorability rating (+69 percentage points).”
Rakich added that Biden “is unusually beloved, even for a politician as
well-known as he is. The 12-point difference between his actual net
favorability rating and his projected net favorability rating places him at
the top of the table.”
CNN Pundits’ 2020 Rankings: Harris Atop Democratic Field, With Biden Second.

In an “analysis” on the website of CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00a-490&t=c>
(2/14), Chris Cillizza and Harry Enten offered their latest “monthly power
rankings of Democrats most likely to get their party’s presidential
nomination in 2020.” Atop the list is Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), followed
by former Vice President Joe Biden, of whom the writers said, “There is
perhaps no candidate who we are more unsure of,” because “we wonder whether
Biden’s support would fall apart if he ran. Much of it may merely be
goodwill leftover from” his time as Vice President, which “may disappear
when he is attacked over his fairly moderate record. We’re also at least
somewhat doubtful that [the] party base that despises [President Trump]
will nominate its own older white man to be Democrats’ standard-bearer.”
Third in the rankings is ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), followed by Sen.
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), with Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) rounding out the top
five.
US News & World Report: Booker, Harris, Warren Have “Biggest Potential For
A Breakout In” Iowa.

Writing for U.S. News & World Report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00b-d66&t=c>
(2/15), David Catanese discusses “the early state of play in Iowa,” saying
that “according to interviews with more than a dozen Democrats” in the
Hawkeye State, Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “are
earning widespread acclaim for their splashy events and blue-chip staff
hires,” while Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) “is buzzing, too, though she left
some grumbling about why she didn’t stay longer.” Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie
Sanders’ (I-VT) “core team is getting snapped up by rivals, while Joe Biden
is keeping a discrete line of communication open to a select band of
allies.” Catanese adds, “With the strong caveat that the field of hopefuls
is far from set, most see” Booker, Harris, and Warren “as having the
biggest potential for a breakout in” Iowa “over the next year.”
DNC Announces Criteria For Qualifying For First Two Democratic Presidential
Debates.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00c-190&t=c>
(2/14, Barrow) reports, “The first two Democratic presidential debates for
the 2020 election will have two heats with room for a total of 20
candidates who meet certain polling or grassroots fundraising thresholds,”
according to the DNC. The AP says, “Candidates can qualify by reaching 1
percent support in at least three national or early primary state polls.
They also can qualify by collecting campaign donations from at least 65,000
individuals, with at least 200 unique donors in at least 20 states.”
The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00d-df7&t=c>
(2/14, Scherer) reports, “The only way to qualify for early Democratic
debates in 2015 was to register at least 1 percent in three national
polls.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00e-c29&t=c>
(2/14, Lerer) reports, “The criteria will apply only to the first two
debates, scheduled for back-to-back weeknights in June and July, allowing
the committee to update its requirements as the field shifts. NBC News,
MSNBC and Telemundo are sponsoring the first debate, and CNN will host the
second, with specific dates and locations to be announced in the coming
weeks.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=00f-e4b&t=c>
(2/14, Siders) reported, “The DNC and those networks will use random
selection to arrange the candidate lineups for each night.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=010-b6f&t=c>
(2/14, Oliphant), the Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=011-e60&t=c>
(2/14, McLaughlin), Bloomberg
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=012-a01&t=c>
(2/14, Epstein), The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=013-07e&t=c>
(2/14, Samuels), and the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=014-137&t=c>
(2/14, Thomas) also report on the story.
Fox News: Sources Say Sanders “Likely” To Announce 2020 Decision By Month’s
End.

On its website, Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=015-d69&t=c>
(2/14, Steinhauser) reported, “Two sources close to” Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT) say “it’s likely Sanders could announce his 2020 plans before the
end of this month. And they say the senator is leaning toward declaring his
candidacy for president.”
CBC’s Lee Backs Harris In 2020 Democratic Primary.

In an online article, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=016-166&t=c>
(2/14, Henderson) reported that Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) on Thursday
“picked up her biggest endorsement to date in her fledgling 2020 campaign,”
winning the backing of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), a “former Congressional
Black Caucus chair and all-around anti-war and social justice activist
star. Lee, who has been called ‘the House’s lefty conscience’ will be
California co-chair of Harris’ presidential campaign.” CNN added that Lee
is “the first CBC member to weigh in on the Democratic primary, a contest
that for the first time includes two CBC members – Harris and Sen. Cory
Booker of New Jersey.”
New Jersey Poll: 42% Say Booker Wouldn’t Make A Good President, 37% Say He
Would.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=017-055&t=c>
(2/14, Friedman) reported that a Monmouth University poll of 549 New Jersey
voters, taken Feb. 8-10, shows that the disapproval rating of Sen. Cory
Booker (D-NJ) – “who launched his presidential campaign two weeks ago – is
the highest it’s been since he took office in 2013.” Even so Booker
“remains the most popular of New Jersey’s three statewide elected
officials,” sporting a 48% job-approval rating, with 38% disapproving. The
highest Booker’s disapproval rating had been in the past was 31%. In
addition, 37% of those surveyed “said [Booker] would make a good
president,” compared to 42% who “said he would not.”

The New Jersey Globe
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=018-ebc&t=c>
(2/15, Wildstein) reported that the poll also “shows that 66% of the state”
think Booker shouldn’t seek reelection next year, if he wins the Democratic
presidential nomination. The Globe added, “A new law approved last fall
allows Booker the option of running for President and Senate
simultaneously,” but the survey reveals “that New Jerseyans don’t think he
should avail himself of that opportunity, even if it’s legal.” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=019-726&t=c>
(2/14, Bowden) and NJ News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01a-c98&t=c>
(2/14, Salant) also report on the poll results.
O’Rourke Says He’d Remove Border Wall Separating El Paso, Mexico.

In an online article, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01b-975&t=c>
(2/14, Bradner) reported that during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC,
ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) – mulling a presidential bid – said “that if
he could, he’d tear down the border wall that separates El Paso, Texas,
from Mexico. ‘Yes, absolutely. I’d take the wall down,’ he told MSNBC’s
Chris Hayes in an interview from a spot overlooking the border and Ciudad
Juárez, Mexico.” During a Monday rally in El Paso, President Trump cited
that wall as “proof that ‘walls work.’ But O’Rourke, pointing to violent
crime rates, said the fence’s construction in 2008 ‘didn’t make us any
safer.’”

*O’Rourke To Visit University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus Today. *The
AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01c-a28&t=c>
(2/13, Bauer) reports that O’Rourke “is coming to the University of
Wisconsin-Madison campus Friday for a meet and greet with students and
faculty, a closely guarded event that will be” his “first visit to a key
state in the battleground, industrial Midwest. O’Rourke is scheduled to be
on campus for a two-hour meeting early Friday evening.” A school
spokesperson “said Thursday the event is not open to the press, public or
anyone not affiliated with the university. The campus Political Science
Student Association organized the meeting.” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01d-a4a&t=c>
(2/14, Axelrod) also reported on the story.
Hickenlooper: Support For “Medicare-For-All,” “New Green Deal” Shouldn’t Be
“Litmus Test.”

On its website, Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01e-3ab&t=c>
(2/14, Steinhauser) reported that ex-Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO),
visiting New Hampshire on Thursday as a he mulls a 2020 White House run,
“touted his progressive credentials,” though he “pointedly said that
support for ‘Medicare-for-all’ and the Green New Deal shouldn’t be any sort
of ‘a litmus test of what it takes to be a good Democrat.’” Speaking with
reporters, Hickenlooper said of healthcare, “We will get to some version of
single payer, but single payer doesn’t include getting rid of insurance
companies.” And during a campaign event, Hickenlooper said “that he hadn’t
seen all of the details of the plan, but ‘I’m going to guess that 99
percent of what’s in the Green New Deal I will be happy to embrace,’”
though he added that the proposal “shouldn’t be ‘a litmus test that you’re
either with us or wrong.’”
Schultz Says He Might Drop Independent Bid, If Democrats Nominate
“Centrist.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=01f-74c&t=c>
(2/14, Scherer, Jan) reports that ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on
Thursday said “that he would be willing to abandon his presidential
ambitions midstream if Democrats nominate a centrist who makes it too
difficult for him to win as an independent candidate.” Schultz “has paid
for internal polling that he says suggest he would be competitive in a
three-way race against President Trump and a liberal Democratic candidate
such as Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). A more moderate Democratic nominee, such as
former vice president Joe Biden or former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg,
could complicate Schultz’s perceived path to victory.” Schultz told the
Post, “I would reassess the situation if the numbers change as a result of
a centrist Democrat winning the nomination.”
Poll: 55% Of Voters Think Democrats Have “Excellent” Or “Good” Chance Of
Defeating Trump.

In an online article, Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=020-633&t=c>
(2/14, Balara) reported that in a Fox News poll of 1,004 US voters, taken
Feb. 10-12, 55 percent of those surveyed said that the odds of a Democrat
defeating President Trump in the 2020 election are “either excellent (19
percent) or good (36 percent) while 39 percent think they have either no
chance (13 percent) or not much of one (26 percent). Most Democrats (84
percent) and a plurality of independents (48 percent) think the Democratic
Party’s chances are excellent or good – as do nearly 3 in 10 Republicans
(28 percent).”
Leading the News
Trump Will Sign Spending Bill, Move To Fund Rest Of Wall Through Executive
Action.

To outrage from Democrats and some media commentators, the White House
announced yesterday that President Trump will sign into law a spending bill
that funds 55 miles of border barriers – and then move to build the rest of
his “wall” through executive action. The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=021-e18&t=c>
(2/14, Werner, Paletta, Kim, Bade) reports the White House’s “goal for
weeks has been to build more than 230 miles of wall along the Mexico
border, and Congress approved roughly one-quarter of that in the new
agreement.” It is now “unclear whether Trump will try and secure the
remainder of it through executive orders, try for a more narrower plan, or
attempt to do even more than he has asked for in the past.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=022-1a0&t=c>
(2/14, Ferris, Bresnahan) says Trump’s action “will create a test of
loyalty for Republicans,” and already, the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=023-e3a&t=c>
(2/15, Fram, Taylor, Colvin) reports, “in a surprising development,” Senate
Majority Leader McConnell “said he would support Trump’s emergency
declaration” – a “turnabout for the Kentucky Republican” who “has until now
opposed such action.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=024-d28&t=c>
(2/14) editorializes that “by his declaration, Mr. Trump will inaugurate a
new, imperial phase of his presidency,” and that “McConnell...will show he
has perfected a trick: roll over and play dead.”

All three major network newscasts led with the story last night. ABC
World News Tonight[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=025-bf5&t=c>
(2/14, lead story, 2:55, Karl) reported Republicans are warning the
declaration “sets a terrible precedent that will be cited by a future
Democratic president,” and NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=026-4c8&t=c>
(2/14, lead story, 2:30, Alexander) that “for weeks, many Republicans
advised the President not to take this path, warning it’s a dangerous
precedent, and constitutionally questionable.” The CBS Evening News[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=027-3bc&t=c>
(2/14, lead story, 2:30, Glor) said, meanwhile, that “Republicans are
divided,” and showed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) saying, “I think he has all
the legal authority in the world to do this.” NBC Nightly News[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=028-a7e&t=c>
(2/14, story 2, 1:00, Hunt) indicated Democrats are “weighing their
options,” and “could force a vote that would really divide Republicans and
could seriously embarrass the President.”

Manu Raju said on CNN’s The Lead[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=029-348&t=c>
(2/14) that “several Republican senators” are “very concerned about what
this means, people like Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Roy Blunt, a member of the
Republican leadership, all told me they are very worried about this. Also,
as well as John Cornyn, the Republican of Texas. All of them are saying
they need more details.” Jeffrey Toobin, however, predicted on CNN’s
Situation Room[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02a-38e&t=c>
(2/14) that “all those senators who are clearing their throats and
muttering concerns, they’re all going to fall into line. They are all going
to sanction this serious erosion of the separation of powers.”

Sabrina Siddiqui of The Guardian said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02b-bc8&t=c>
(2/14) that “this is an overtly political move on the President’s part. If
there was truly an emergency, he could have declared one on December 22
when they hit that first funding deadline, which caused what was the
longest government shutdown in this country’s history.” David Swerdlick of
the Washington Post said, also on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02c-d84&t=c>
(2/14), “You can imagine that if it was President Obama now doing the
action that President Trump is proposing, Republicans would be howling.”

As CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02d-790&t=c>
(2/14, Lesniewski) puts it, “the big bipartisan government funding deal is
going to become law, but it will be far from the end of the border security
battle between...Trump and members of Congress.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02e-076&t=c>
(2/14, Ferris, Bresnahan) refers to the plans for an emergency declaration
as “sudden move” that “caught most on Capitol Hill by surprise,” and
in a separate
story
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=02f-92e&t=c>
to a “surprise announcement...blindsided some Republicans, confused others
and sent the Senate GOP into a general state of shock.” However, the Daily
Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=030-b3c&t=c>
(2/14, Enjeti) reports “Trump’s action is not unexpected,” and notes that
“in a speech on re-opening the US government in late January, he said he
would allow for a 3-week negotiation period and that if an unsatisfactory
deal was reached, he would declare a national emergency.” Moreover, Acting
Chief of Staff Mulvaney indicated Sunday on Fox News that “other avenues of
funding are available outside of Congress.”

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=031-c22&t=c>
(2/14, Collins, Collins, Jackson) reports Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), “who
voted for the [spending] bill, said he supports Trump’s plan to declare an
emergency.” Said Kennedy, “The President’s not exercising any power that
Congress didn’t give him. ... Had Congress done its job instead of playing
politics, he wouldn’t have to do it.”

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=032-1a3&t=c>
(2/14) that “the problem that we’re dealing with on the border” has
“existed through multiple administrations. However, I do not think the tool
that the President should be using on this is a declaration of a national
emergency.”

House Minority Whip Scalise said on Fox News’ The Story[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=033-67a&t=c>
(2/14), “You have got to look at what the President’s main objective is and
that is to keep America safe. ... We have a crisis at our southern border.
He’s been trying in multiple ways to solve that. We’ve been able to get
some money for the border wall, not as much as I’d like to see.” This
agreement “is not as much of the President or I would like to see, so there
are other ways the President can go.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) said on CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=034-ec0&t=c>
(2/14), “Any president should look at executive action as a last resort. We
have been through a shutdown. We’ve been through a conference committee.
Every negotiating tool that can be has been deployed.”

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=035-35f&t=c>
(2/15, Fram, Taylor, Colvin) reports House Speaker Pelosi and Senate
Minority Leader Schumer “quickly branded such a presidential declaration ‘a
lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate
attempt to distract from the fact that...Trump broke his core promise to
have Mexico pay for his wall.’” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=036-d58&t=c>
(2/14, Cowan, Holland) reports “Trump appeared headed toward triggering a
swift court challenge from Democrats on constitutional grounds,” and Axios
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=037-b2c&t=c>
(2/14, Basu) that the declaration is “likely to be met with several legal
challenges, including one from...Pelosi, who said after the announcement
that it’s one option Democrats will consider.”

The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=038-604&t=c>
(2/14) notes White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement,
“President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has
stated before, he will also take other executive action – including a
national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and
humanitarian crisis at the border. ... The President is once again
delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border and secure
our great country.” The New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=039-fdb&t=c>
(2/14, Fredericks) reports “Sanders said the White House was prepared to
fight any legal challenge – and took a jab at Congress,” saying, “We’re
very prepared, but there shouldn’t be [legal challenges]. The President’s
doing his job. Congress should do theirs.”

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03a-811&t=c>
(2/14, Fritze, Wolf) reports “experts said the move would create a legal
morass that could take until the middle of next year to resolve.” Yet
“although that could delay construction of his border barriers, an extended
legal battle would give Trump a potent political issue to run on in the
2020 presidential election.” Asked whether she would file a lawsuit against
Trump, Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03b-1cc&t=c>
(2/14, Cornwell) reports, Pelosi said yesterday, “I may. ... We will review
our options.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03c-43d&t=c>
(2/14, Bade, Kim, DeBonis, Kane) quotes Pelosi as further stating, “You
want to talk about an national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the
one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun
violence in America. ... That’s a national emergency. … A Democratic
president could do that. ... So the precedent that the President is setting
here should be met with unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03d-469&t=c>
(2/14, Baker, Cochrane, Haberman) refers to “a provocative move that would
test the bounds of presidential authority in a time of divided government.”
The Times adds “legal experts have said Mr. Trump has a plausible case that
he can take such action under current law, but it would almost surely
prompt a court challenge from critics arguing that he is usurping two
centuries of congressional control over spending.”

To the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03e-d31&t=c>
(2/14, Savage), “the move means the country will avoid another protracted
shutdown,” but “legal specialists warned that the long-term costs to
American democracy could be steep.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=03f-e9c&t=c>
(2/14, Barbash, Nakashima, Dawsey) reports “there will be lawsuits. Lots of
them. From California to Congress, the litigants will multiply.” DOJ “has
told the White House that the president’s action is likely to be blocked in
the courts, and the White House counsel’s office warned Trump against
declaring a national emergency, calling it a ‘high litigation risk,’
according to a person with knowledge of the discussions.” The Wall Street
Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=040-dfa&t=c>
(2/14, Peterson, Andrews) runs a similar analysis.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=041-d43&t=c>
(2/14), “I don’t think that it’s a national emergency. I think this would
be a fake emergency. If you look at the active national emergencies right
now, those mostly revolve around national security issues. I am prepared,
if the President does declare a national emergency to build his border
wall, to file a joint resolution under the National Emergencies Act that
would essentially terminate his declaration. We would have a vote either on
my resolution or somebody else’s on the House floor and then it is my
understanding that that resolution would have to be voted upon in the
Senate. And there have been very critical comments that have been made by
senators, including Republican senators, about the President’s ability and
the wisdom of declaring a national emergency for this purpose.”

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics said on Fox News Special Report[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=042-732&t=c>
(2/14), “This is a risky move on Trump’s part in the sense that it does
certainly shore up his base and it keeps the issue top of mind. I think the
contrast that Trump likes is the idea that it’s a matter of opinion. He
says this is a national emergency and Democrats are rushing to the
barricades to say this is a complete fiction, it is an invention. That’s a
contrast that he wants. The downside is” it “puts the focus back on a split
in the Republican caucus.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=043-376&t=c>
(2/14) editorializes that “this fit of presidential pique is about more
than a wall. It constitutes a reordering of the power dynamic between the
branches of government. Mr. Trump aims to usurp one of Congress’s most
basic responsibilities, the power of the purse.” The times adds “this
administration is forever coming up with creative new ways to disturb and
dismay the nation,” and that “Trump’s eagerness to undermine the
Constitution to serve his short-term political gain remains among the most
outrageous.”

In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=044-c56&t=c>
(2/14) opposes Trump’s plan to declare an emergency, arguing it sets a bad
precedent for future presidents and would ultimately leave the wall’s
construction tied up in court for years – causing political damage to his
reelection prospects.

*Sources: Officials Have Identified Billions They Can “Legally Tap”
For Wall. *Brian Kilmeade said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=045-ded&t=c>
(2/14) that according to Acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney, Trump will declare
an emergency and “it’s going to be about $8 billion. He had the $1.3
[billion]. Then $600 million will come from the Treasury, the Treasury
forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion out of DOD. They consulted with Mick Mulvaney
and the White House over the last few months on what they could actually do
and they are going to use some money they feel they can spare on the drug
interdiction account. Then they came across with $3.5 billion for the
military construction budget. They feel they can help in that respect. And
then, of course, they have additional money. It all adds up to $8 billion.”

The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=046-123&t=c>
(2/14) cites “a person with knowledge of the White House’s thinking” who
“said officials have identified as much as $10 billion that they believe
they can legally tap from sources including the Department of Defense, the
Department of Homeland Security and the Army Corps of Engineers.” This “is
money that has been appropriated by Congress but not used, possibly because
a project has been canceled or not completed.” This “person said attorneys
from multiple agencies have signed off on a declaration and that Pat
Cipollone, White House counsel, briefed senators Wednesday on Capitol
Hill.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=047-f78&t=c>
(2/14, Cowan, Holland), meanwhile, refers to “a source familiar with the
situation” who “said that the White House had identified $2.7 billion in
funds previously provided by Congress that could be redirected to barrier
funding as part of a national emergency.” This “source said White House
lawyers had vetted the figures and believed they would withstand a legal
challenge.”

Citing “congressional aides,” the Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=048-998&t=c>
(2/14, A1, Dinan, Wolfgang) reports “Trump has a pool of roughly $21
billion in military construction funds he can use to build the border wall
by emergency declaration.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=049-644&t=c>
(2/14, Werner, Paletta, Kim, Bade) reports “White House officials have kept
their precise plans closely held for weeks,” and “one reason they were
circumspect is because they were waiting for final details of the
congressional deal to be made public, so they could ascertain the level of
resources they would need to redirect from other programs.”

*“Sources” Tell Hannity Trump Signing Bill In Exchange For GOP
Senators’ Support For Emergency. *Sean Hannity said on Fox News’ Hannity[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04a-5fe&t=c>
(2/14), “My sources confirm – and this is the behind the scenes that nobody
else is going to report – one of the main reasons that the President is
supporting this horrible bill is because weak Republican in the Senate,
behind the scenes, were afraid of the President using emergency measures.
So they made a deal that the President signs this bad bill, they would
support his emergency actions that will happen tomorrow.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04b-ded&t=c>
(2/14, Kim) reports, meanwhile, that “after three weeks of pained
negotiations to keep the federal government open,” Trump “almost blew the
whole thing up again on Thursday,” threatening “not to sign the
legislation.” McConnell “was on the phone with Trump at least three times
during the course of the nerve-racking day, pressing him to stay the course
and asserting that Democrats had actually lost the spending fight, two
people familiar with the conversations said.” To convince him, “McConnell
promised Trump he would encourage others to support the emergency in a bid
to get the president to sign, according to people familiar with the
conversations.” The Post also reports that “Trump refused to sign the bill
Thursday until the White House Counsel’s Office convinced him it would not
preclude him from declaring a national emergency, two senior administration
officials said.”

Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04c-9db&t=c>
(2/14, Caplan) reports that “speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, House
Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) warned ‘it would be political
suicide’ if the president backs the bill and does not seek money elsewhere
to fund the wall.”

*Congress Passes Bill With Most House Republicans Voting Against
It. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04d-59d&t=c>
(2/14, Fram, Taylor, Colvin) reports the Senate passed the spending bill “
83-16
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04e-2d0&t=c>,
with both parties solidly aboard.” The House “followed with a 300-128
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=04f-72c&t=c>
tally, with Trump’s signature planned Friday.” House Democrats
“overwhelmingly backed the legislation, with only 19 – most of whom were
Hispanic – opposed. Just over half of Republicans voted ‘no.’” The Daily
Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=050-6b0&t=c>
(2/14, Brest) points out just “87 Republicans doing the same. Conversely,
19 Democrats voted against the bill, along with 109 Republicans.”

Ahead of the vote, Bloomberg
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=051-36a&t=c>
(2/14, Wasson, Litvan, Edgerton) reported “Republicans touted that the bill
provides 55 miles of barrier in the Border Patrol’s highest priority areas,
a $942 million increase to Customs and Border Protection for 800 new
officers, and $615 million for new equipment at ports of entry.” It
“includes a total of $22.54 billion for border security, according to the
statement from Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby’s
office.” The Washington
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=052-e38&t=c>
(2/14, Dinan) pointed out that “in addition to homeland security money, the
package also includes funding through September for departments like NASA
and the EPA that are covered by six other individual spending bills
lawmakers had been close to finalizing last year before the standoff over
the border wall derailed the process.” The measure “includes a 1.9 percent
pay increase for civilian federal workers, and a $1 billion boost for the
Commerce Department to prepare for the 2020 census,” as well as “$11.3
billion for the IRS, a slight boost compared to 2018.”

*Groups Sue Administration Over Policy Of Returning Asylum Seekers
To Mexico. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=053-e05&t=c>
(2/14, Rosenberg) reports human rights groups sued the Administration on
Thursday “over its policy of sending non-Mexican migrants who cross the
southern border to seek asylum in the United States back to Mexico to wait
while their requests are being processed.” The lawsuit filed in US District
Court in California by the ACLU and other organizations alleges the policy
“puts asylum seekers in danger and violates protections they are entitled
to under US and international law.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=054-8a7&t=c>
(2/14, Gomez) reports the lawsuit “requests that a judge strike down the
plan formally called ‘Migrant Protection Protocols’ but is commonly
referred to as ‘Remain in Mexico.’”

*Professor Urges Congress To Narrow Definition Of “Emergency” In
National Emergencies Act. *Peter H. Schuck, an emeritus professor of law at
Yale and scholar-in-residence at NYU, writes in the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=055-d30&t=c>
(2/14) that “the fact that he may actually possess the legal authority to
require agencies to waste billions of dollars simply to fulfill a foolish
campaign promise he thinks won him the election is itself scandalous.”
Congress “has handed presidents an all-too-handy tool of tyranny commonly
used by autocrats to amass more power, crush dissent and eviscerate
democratic institutions. In Mr. Trump’s case, it has handed an unguided
missile to an ignorant, impetuous man-child.” Schuck adds “Congress should
have known better” when “it enacted the National Emergencies Act of 1976”
defining “a national emergency as ‘a general declaration of emergency made
by the president.’ This circular definition, of course, is no constraint at
all.” Schuck goes on to urge Congress to narrow that definition.
Foreign Policy
Pence Blasts Europe For Failing To Renounce Iran Nuclear Deal.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=056-88b&t=c>
(2/14, Wroughton, Ptak) reports that in Warsaw yesterday, Vice President
Pence “accused European powers...of undermining Washington’s crack down on
Iran by trying to break US sanctions against Tehran.” Said Pence, “Sadly,
some of our leading European partners have not been nearly as cooperative.
In fact, they have led the effort to create mechanisms to break up our
sanctions.” Reuters warns Pence’s criticism is “likely to further strain
transatlantic relations.”

Describing Pence’s remarks as “unusually blunt,” the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=057-2d3&t=c>
(2/14, Lee, Heller) says Pence “called for Europe to abandon the nuclear
agreement altogether, making explicit a demand that Trump administration
officials had previously only hinted at.” Said Pence, “The time has come
for our European partners to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.” The AP
says Pence’s “harsh criticism threatened to further chill US-European ties
that are already badly strained on many issues, including trade and defense
spending.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=058-0c0&t=c>
(2/14, Sanger, Rogers) calls Pence’s speech was “a remarkable, open breach
with the European nations that, along with the United States, had
negotiated the 2015 nuclear accord.” The Times says that “to the Europeans,
it is Mr. Trump – not the Iranians – who was the first to break the
agreement’s terms.” Since the US withdrew from the deal, Europeans “have
been trying to persuade the Iranians to continue to comply with the deal.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=059-673&t=c>
(2/14, Gearan) reports that “virtually all countries in Europe support the
Iran nuclear agreement as essential to their own security and oppose US
efforts to dismantle it.” The Post says Pence’s speech “underscored why
some of the nations invited to the [Warsaw] conference decided to send
lower-level diplomats instead of their foreign ministers.” The Wall Street
Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05a-835&t=c>
(2/14, Donati, Rasmussen) reports one diplomat said Pence’s remarks caught
Europeans off guard because they had been reassured by US officials that
the conference would not be an effort to build a coalition against Iran.

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05b-d4b&t=c>
(2/14, Hjelmgaard) reports Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo “took the
White House’s aggressive anti-Iran message to a US-sponsored meeting in
Poland on peace and security in the Middle East that concluded Thursday.”
Pence “used his address...to demand that European countries withdraw from
the nuclear deal,” while Pompeo said that the Middle East “can’t achieve
peace and security” in that region without first “confronting Iran.” The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05c-3e4&t=c>
(2/14, Lee, Heller) reports Pompeo said the goal of the conference is to
encourage “true back-and-forth dialogue” between participants and to “break
out of traditional thinking.”

Speaking with Brett Baier on Fox News Special Report[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05d-2fc&t=c>
(2/14), Pompeo said, “We’ve made it clear since our withdrawal from the
JCPOA that we thought it was a horrible deal, and one that was not good –
not only for America, but for the Europeans as well. We’ve been encouraging
them to leave the deal since the very day we did. The Europeans have chosen
something different, and we have urged them too not disrupt the sanctions
regime out there.”

*Pompeo: Just One Iranian Spy In US Is “Too Many.” *Asked about
revelations that a US Air Force intelligence specialist defected to Iran in
2013 in an interview with Fox News Special Report[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05e-f7e&t=c>
(2/14), Pompeo said he would “have to defer to the Department of Justice”
as “it’s a criminal proceeding.” Pompeo added that just one Iranian spy in
the US is “too many.”
ISIS Militants Fight To Hold Last Square Mile In Eastern Syria.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=05f-615&t=c>
(2/14, El Deeb) reports ISIS militants “clung to their last square mile of
land in eastern Syria on Thursday with an unknown number of civilians
trapped inside, officials said.” US-backed forces carried out “precision
operations targeting the militants’ outposts in and around the village of
Baghouz and worked to clear surrounding villages of remaining fighters,
officials with the Kurdish-led forces said.”

*US Commander: ISIS Caliphate “Crushed” But Threat Remains.
*The Washington
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=060-615&t=c>
(2/14, Meier) reports Gen. Raymond Thomas, commander of US Special
Operations Command, told lawmakers Thursday that the threat from ISIS “has
largely diminished, but the terror group remains a threat.” Testifying
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Thomas declared, “We have
crushed the physical caliphate” ISIS established in Syria and Iraq, “but
they continue to be a threat.”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=061-4f0&t=c>
(2/14, Morgan) reports President Trump “has said to expect an announcement
soon that the United States and its allies have pushed the Islamic State
out of ‘100 percent’ of the territory it once controlled in Iraq and
Syria.” But Politico says “Trump’s emphasis on the Islamic State’s
territorial losses in Iraq and Syria doesn’t jibe with how the US military
and intelligence agencies and outside experts view a determined foe that
still operates freely at night in parts of those two countries and whose
overseas branches still hold ground across Africa and Asia.”

*Putin Vows To Take Out “Terrorists” Remaining In Idlib. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=062-dcc&t=c>
(2/14, Soldatkin, Osborn) reports Russian President Vladimir Putin
announced Thursday that Russia, Turkey and Iran have “agreed to take
unspecified extra steps to clear Syria’s Idlib region of what he called ‘a
hotbed of terrorists,’ but the Kremlin said there would be no military
operation there.” Putin was speaking after hosting a summit in Sochi “to
weigh the future of Syria with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani.” Putin told reporters, “We should not put up with
the presence of terrorist groups in Idlib. That’s why I propose we consider
practical concrete steps that Russia, Turkey and Iran can take to
completely destroy this hotbed of terrorists.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=063-041&t=c>
(2/14, Ferris-Rotman) reports that a joint statement released by Putin,
Erdoğan and Rouhani reads: “It is our joint view that the [US withdrawal]
is a positive move that will help stabilize this part of Syria, where
legitimate government control should eventually be restored.” However,
Putin also “said he had not seen any signs on the ground in Syria to
suggest that Washington was withdrawing, adding that Trump does not always
deliver on his campaign promises.”

*Some Countries To Take Custody Of Their ISIS Fighter Citizens Held
By Kurds. *According to the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=064-05d&t=c>
(2/14, Savage, Schmitt), President Trump’s “abrupt decision to withdraw
American troops from northern Syria provoked widespread fears over a future
resurgence of the Islamic State. But it may yet have a silver lining: Other
countries have signaled they are willing to take back their citizens who
joined the terrorist group but are now detained in makeshift camps.” The
Times reports that “about 850 men and several thousand women and children
from nearly 50 countries are being held in northern Syria in detention
camps for Islamic State fighters and sympathizers...by the Kurdish-led
Syrian Democratic Forces.”

Asked in an interview with Fox News Special Report[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=065-cfe&t=c>
(2/14) about the foreign fighters whose countries are refusing to take them
back, Pompeo said, “It’s a real challenge – it’s one of the reasons my team
has been working for weeks to get each of those countries to agree take
back the foreign terrorist fighters who traveled to Syria from their
nation.” Pompeo continued, “We need to make sure we have a solution, and
there are many options on the table.”

*British Teen Who Joined ISIS In Syria Seeks To Return Home.
*The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=066-cd6&t=c>
(2/14, Adam) reports that “when London teenager Shamima Begum fled Britain
with two other schoolgirls in 2015 to join the Islamic State, it shocked a
nation. Now, she wants to come home.” Begum, 19, fled to Syria when she was
only 15 years old, married an ISIS fighter and had two children, “who died
of malnutrition and disease.” She now hopes to give birth at home in
Britain.
Pompeo Urges Political Solution In Afghanistan.

Asked about peace talks with the Taliban during an interview on Fox News
Special Report[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=067-d4d&t=c>
(2/14), Secretary of State Pompeo said, “We’ve made real progress, not just
with the Taliban, but with other Afghans as well. I think they all have a
view that 17 years of death and misery is not in the best interest of their
nation.” Pompeo said US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad “is actively engaged
to see if we cannot find a means by which we can get a political resolution
in Afghanistan that provides the security elements, which are so richly
needed, and a political solution that can ultimately take down the risk
that Afghanistan has presented to the United States for now 17-odd years.”

*US Denies Taliban Claim Two Sides Plan To Hold Peace Talks.
*The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=068-afe&t=c>
(2/14, Constable) reports that a “surprise announcement by Afghan Taliban
leaders that they are sending a delegation [to Islamabad] early next week
to meet with American negotiators and Pakistani officials was met with a
cautious US denial on Thursday and silence from Pakistan.” A spokesman for
the US Embassy in Islamabad said the Taliban’s announcement had been
“noted” but that “we have not received a formal invitation to any talks.
... We are not going to negotiate in public.” The Post says that if such a
meeting “does take place on Monday, it would upstage the formal resumption
of ongoing US-Taliban meetings on Feb. 25 in Qatar and represent the first
time the Afghan insurgents have openly met with Pakistani leaders” since
2001.

*Shanahan: US Will “Double Down” In Afghanistan, “No Unilateral
Troop Reductions.” *The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=069-229&t=c>
(2/14, Wolfgang) reports Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan said Thursday
the US “will not unilaterally pull its forces from Afghanistan and any
drawdown will be done in close consultation with NATO allies.” According to
the Times, Shanahan, speaking to reporters in Brussels after a NATO
meeting, “seemed to shoot down reports that President Trump plans to pull
about half of the 14,000 US troops from Afghanistan in the immediate
future.” Said Shanahan, “There will be no unilateral troop reductions. That
was one of the messages: It will be coordinated. We’re together. ... What
we talked about was, how do we double down on support for Afghan national
defense and security forces to put even more pressure on the Taliban.” To
the Times, Shanahan’s remarks “raise questions about the Trump
administration’s strategy to exit a war zone in which it’s operated for 17
years.”

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06a-ce1&t=c>
(2/14, Cook) says Shanahan “made clear that if US troop cuts are made,
either in connection with peace negotiations with the Taliban or in other
circumstances, Washington will consult with NATO to ensure coordination.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06b-87c&t=c>
(2/14, Birnbaum) says that “in his NATO debut this week...Shanahan sought
to reassure skeptical US allies,” but “underlying the scripted interactions
at NATO headquarters in Brussels was a central question for nations
unnerved by the departure of his predecessor, Jim Mattis, widely respected
retired Marine general who quit in December: Can anyone, especially someone
with limited defense experience who’s auditioning for a job, steer
President Trump away from damaging decisions?”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06c-d60&t=c>
(2/14, Gibbons-Neff, Erlanger) reports that “so far, NATO leaders have not
received from Mr. Shanahan the kind of reassurance Mr. Mattis provided for
two years; in fact, they cannot be sure he will be the United States
military chief much longer.”

*Russia “Repackaging” Soviet Union’s Defeat In Afghanistan As
“Patriotic Victory.” *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06d-f69&t=c>
(2/14, Ferris-Rotman) reports that on Friday, “the date the last Red Army
unit withdrew from Afghanistan 30 years ago, the Russian parliament plans
to pass a resolution declaring that the war was justified.” President
Vladimir Putin then is “expected to lead a lavish commemoration ceremony at
the Kremlin.” The Post says that while “makeovers of history are not
uncommon in many countries,” Russia’s remaking of the Afghan war narrative
“is among the most comprehensive and systematic of such historical
revisions.”
Suicide Bombing Kills Dozens Of Indian Soldiers In Kashmir.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06e-151&t=c>
(2/14, Yasir, Abi-Habib) reports that “a vehicle filled with explosives
rammed into a convoy of Indian paramilitary forces on a busy highway in the
Indian-controlled part of Kashmir on Thursday, killing at least 40
soldiers.” The Times says it was “the worst attack in the disputed region
in three decades.” Jaish-e-Muhammad claimed responsibility for the attack.
The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=06f-066&t=c>
(2/14, Naseem) says “the killings will inflame tensions between
nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, which both claim the Himalayan
territory of Kashmir.” In a statement Thursday, India’s foreign ministry
“pointed the finger at the country’s neighbor,” while “a spokesman for
Pakistan’s government said on Twitter that it ‘strongly’ rejected any
insinuation linking the attack to Pakistan ‘without investigations.’”

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=070-d0b&t=c>
(2/14, Hussain) reports Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi condemned the
attack in a tweet Thursday evening, writing, “I strongly condemn this
dastardly attack. The sacrifices of our brave security personnel shall not
go in vain.” The Pakistan Foreign Ministry in a statement said. “We
strongly reject any insinuation by elements in the Indian media and
government that seek to link the attack to Pakistan without
investigations.”
Abrams: US Looking For Ways To Deliver Aid To Venezuela.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=071-0e4&t=c>
(2/14, Cohen, Cambero) reports US special envoy Elliott Abrams said
Thursday that the US is “looking for ways to send in aid” to Venezuela
currently stockpiled in neighboring Colombia. He comments came as Carlos
Vecchio, Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s representative in the
US, “urged the international community to help let assistance into the
crisis-stricken country.” Vecchio “spoke to an international aid conference
hosted at the Organization of American States (OAS) headquarters in
Washington as a deadlock persisted in delivering aid.”

*Maduro: Foreign Minister Held Secret Talks With Abrams. *In an
interview with the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=072-b1b&t=c>
(2/15, Phillips, Goodman), Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro said he has invited
US special envoy Elliott Abrams to Venezuela after revealing “that his
foreign minister recently held secret talks with the US official in New
York.” A “senior Venezuelan official said the second of two meetings took
place Feb. 11 – four days after...Abrams said the ‘time for dialogue with
Maduro had long passed,’ and as the Trump administration publicly backed an
effort to unseat” Maduro. There was no immediate US reaction to Maduro’s
comments.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=073-0d2&t=c>
(2/14, Gladstone), meanwhile, reports “Venezuela’s foreign minister said
Thursday that a new coalition of nations would fight what he called an
illicit, American-led effort to topple his government, and he accused the
United States of using sanctions and emergency aid as political weapons
against Venezuelans.” Speaking to reporters at the UN in New York, Jorge
Arreaza said, “We all have the right to live without the threat of use of
force and without application of illegal, coercive unilateral measures.”
The Times notes that he was “flanked by ambassadors of several countries,”
including China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia and Syria.

*Cuba: US Moving Special Forces In Preparation For Venezuela
Intervention. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019021501biden&r=email-b1c2&l=074-630&t=c>
(2/14, Frank) reports Cuba said Thursday the US “was moving special forces
closer to Venezuela as part of a covert plan to intervene” in the country
“using the pretext of a humanitarian crisis.” Cuba alleged that “between
February 6 and 1