EMAIL DETAILS

Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing


*From:* Bulletin Intelligence <Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 7:58 AM
*To:* Biden@BulletinIntelligence.com
*Subject:* Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for
Tuesday, January 8, 2019


*Click to access
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=000-12e&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=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=001-04f&t=c>

*To: Vice President Joe Biden*

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

*Biden in the News* <#SECTION_1>

• CNN: Biden’s Decision Looms Large In 2020 Race For Democratic
Presidential Nomination. <#S1>

• Politico: Biden’s PAC Largely Used Midterms Fundraising Cash To Boost
Potential 2020 Bid. <#S2>

• Rubin: Biden’s Rationale For Running Would Take A Hit If Trump Isn’t GOP
Nominee. <#S3>

• Conservative Columnist: If Biden Runs, He Should Quickly Choose A Running
Mate. <#S4>

• Report: Recent “Cultural Changes” Would Pose 2020 Hurdles For Biden. <#S5>

• Writer: “Being A White Male” Would Be Big Drawback For Biden In
Democratic Race. <#S6>

• Writer Downplays Biden’s Appeal To Blue-Collar White Voters. <#S7>

• Esquire’s Pierce Pans Possible Biden Campaign. <#S8>

• Writer: Biden’s “Ego Is Greater Than His Electability.” <#S9>

• TPM: Obama’s Call For “Fresh Blood” At Leadership Event Could Bode Ill
For Biden. <#S10>

• Columnist Highlights Biden’s 1987 Remarks On Free Trade. <#S11>

• McAuliffe Says Biden’s 2020 Decision Won’t Affect His Own Deliberations
On Possible Bid. <#S12>

• Report Examines Why Biden Turned Down Speaker’s Fee At University Of Utah.
<#S13>

• Writers Highlight Partnership Between Beau Biden Foundation, Special
Olympics International. <#S14>

• “Draft Beto” Campaign Expanding Efforts To Convince O’Rourke To Run In
2020. <#S15>

• Harris Set To Promote Her New Book Ahead Of Likely 2020 Run. <#S16>

• Castro Woos Voters In Iowa, Slated To Visit New Hampshire Next Week.
<#S17>

• Democratic Senators In No Hurry To Back Warren. <#S18>

*Leading the News* <#SECTION_2>

• Trump Plans Tuesday Speech On Border “Crisis,” Thursday Trip To Region.
<#S19>

*Foreign Policy* <#SECTION_3>

• Trump Says Syria Plans Have Not Changed. <#S20>

• South Korean Reports: Kim In Beijing For Talks With China’s Xi. <#S21>

• Ross Optimistic About US-China Deal As Talks Resume In Beijing. <#S22>

• In Cairo, Pompeo Expected To Rebuke Obama’s Middle East Vision. <#S23>

• Trump, Canada’s Trudeau Agree To Seek Release Of Canadians Unlawfully
Detained In China. <#S24>

• Key Saudi Suspect In Khashoggi Case Goes Missing. <#S25>

• Saudi Arabia Plans Oil Export Reduction In Effort To Boost Prices. <#S26>

*Domestic Policy* <#SECTION_4>

• White House: Government Shutdown Will Not Affect Tax Refunds. <#S27>

• Trump: “I Can Relate” To Federal Workers Without Pay, Who “Will Make
Adjustments.” <#S28>

• Trump Calls Media “Crazed Lunatics” Who Have “Never Been Worse.” <#S29>

• Conway: House Democratic Leaders Pulling Back On Impeachment Talk. <#S30>

• Warner: Barr Memo On Mueller Probe Disqualifies Him From AG Post. <#S31>

• Politico Analysis: Trump Having Difficulty Finding New Defense Secretary.
<#S32>

• Ginsburg Misses Arguments For First Time Since Joining Supreme Court.
<#S33>

*Cancer Research* <#SECTION_5>

• Use Of Flavored Tobacco Products By US Teens “Rebounded” In 2017 With
Rising E-Cigarette Use. <#S34>

• CDC: Uterine Cancer Incidence, Mortality Increasing. <#S35>

*Editorials/Op-Eds* <#SECTION_6>

• New York Times. <#S36>

• Washington Post. <#S37>
Biden in the News
CNN: Biden’s Decision Looms Large In 2020 Race For Democratic Presidential
Nomination.

In an online article this morning, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=002-f13&t=c>
(1/8, Merica, Saenz) reports that former Vice President Joe Biden “is the
elephant in the room for the 2020 Democratic primary. As the Democrats’
2020 field begins to take shape,” Biden looms “over the race, with his
decision on whether to run becoming an X factor for some potential 2020
Democrats, especially those who believe they will appeal to the same type
of voters as” him. Biden, “according to a source familiar with the
discussions, is poised to decide in the coming month whether he will” run
for president.

*Biden’s Brother Thinks He’ll Mount 2020 Bid. *The Palm Beach (FL)
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=003-fb1&t=c>
(1/7, Bennett) reports that Biden’s “youngest brother believes Biden will
launch a 2020 campaign for president and win over the ‘disaffected’ voters
Democrats lost to Donald Trump in 2016.” Speaking with the Post, Frank
Biden said, “I think we’re going to run. You can say that ‘Frank thinks his
brother’s going to run.’ Now, he could surprise me. But I know the family’s
behind him 100 percent.” The Post adds that Frank Biden “said Joe Biden
will make a final decision after family members huddle ‘very soon’ to
discuss the race.”

Drawing from the Post’s story, the Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=004-2c5&t=c>
(1/7, Lim) quoted Frank Biden as saying, “The decision the party has to
make is almost an existential one. ... Are we going to go with someone that
everyone implicitly trusts, has confidence in, and no one doubts Joe’s
ability to do the job? Who do you think that the disaffected Republicans
and the disaffected Democrats that we need to win over to win Pennsylvania,
to win Michigan, to win Wisconsin, to win Ohio, to win Florida – as a
strictly Machiavellian question, who is best positioned to win those folks
back?”

Also drawing from the Post’s story, the New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=005-89e&t=c>
(1/7, Campanile) reports that Frank Biden blasted “Hillary Clinton’s failed
2016 campaign – saying his sibling would have won Pennsylvania, would have
campaigned aggressively in Michigan and would not have insulted voters as
‘deplorables.’ ‘We never would have lost Pennsylvania, and all my relatives
– the Finnegan family [his mom’s family] – who voted for Donald Trump
because they felt slighted by Hillary and her campaign,’ Frank Biden” said.

In a story that largely focuses on Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s (D-TX)
plans to meet with voters during a solo road trip as he mulls a 2020 White
House bid, the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=006-8ff&t=c>
(1/7, Epstein, Thomas) quotes an unnamed source as saying that Biden is
“leaning forward” toward entering the race for president. The Journal also
quotes Frank Biden as saying of his brother during a Monday interview with
Michael Smerconish, “If he decides to go, he will be the most dynamic
70-something-year-old you’ve ever met in your entire life.” Salon
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=007-776&t=c>
(1/7, Rozsa) reported that Frank Biden told Smerconish “that he
‘absolutely, positively’ wants his brother to run, predicting that his
brother ‘could annihilate Trump.’”
Politico: Biden’s PAC Largely Used Midterms Fundraising Cash To Boost
Potential 2020 Bid.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=008-8cc&t=c>
(1/8, Severns, Cadelago) reports that former Vice President Joe Biden
“raised more money for a PAC that supports Democrats in 2018 than any of
his likely White House competitors did,” though “unlike many of them, he
spent the lion’s share of that haul on himself. Biden’s PAC gave Democratic
candidates just a quarter of the more than $2 million he raised and spent
during the midterms. At the same time, he spent half a million dollars on
websites and digital ads that could help him bolster his online presence
and raise money from small donors for a 2020 primary campaign, and more of
his PAC funds went to travel and other expenses.”
Rubin: Biden’s Rationale For Running Would Take A Hit If Trump Isn’t GOP
Nominee.

Writing on the website of the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=009-193&t=c>
(1/7), Jennifer Rubin highlighted Sunday’s New York Times report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00a-359&t=c>
(covered in yesterday’s briefing) that said former Vice President Joe Biden
has concluded “that he is not just the best positioned [Democrat] to”
defeat President Trump in 2020, “but perhaps the only one who can.”
However, Rubin said that Biden “has a more fundamental problem than the
deficits his opponents would cite, namely: What if Trump isn’t the GOP
nominee in 2020? ... What’s the rationale for Biden’s candidacy if, say,
former senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) or a GOP governor is the nominee?”
Rubin added, “If the GOP nominee is not Trump, Democrats’ criteria for
picking a nominee would change considerably. The most sober, experienced,
insider-y candidate who would have advantages in a race against Trump might
look stale, unexciting and old against a fresher GOP face, especially if
that person is not tainted by Trump sycophancy.”
Conservative Columnist: If Biden Runs, He Should Quickly Choose A Running
Mate.

Writing for the Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00b-d8b&t=c>
(1/7), Philip Klein said that if former Vice President Joe Biden enters the
2020 White House race, “he’ll bring some assets but also significant
baggage. To overcome the latter, he should consider the unorthodox move of
picking his vice presidential running mate as early as possible in the
process.” Klein added, “It would benefit Biden considerably if he could
deflect questions about his age or charges that he’s displayed retrograde
views if he signals early that he plans to make sure the younger and more
diverse generation is represented in his administration and that somebody
exciting is waiting in the wings, especially if he were to serve one term.”
Report: Recent “Cultural Changes” Would Pose 2020 Hurdles For Biden.

A lengthy piece that appeared on the website of WKRC-TV
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00c-cf4&t=c>
Cincinnati (1/7, Loiaconi) and many other Sinclair Broadcast Group stations
said that in the wake of President Trump’s win in the 2016 election, former
Vice President Joe Biden “and others criticized Democratic nominee Hillary
Clinton for failing to hone an economic message that appealed to working
class white voters. Many Democrats think [Biden] could have succeeded where
she failed in connecting with voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin and delivered an electoral college victory.” However, though “the
post-2016 landscape in many ways makes...Biden a more viable national
candidate, cultural changes over the last two years have also created new
obstacles for him. The #MeToo movement and the controversy surrounding
sexual assault allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh,” for example, “revived questions about” Biden’s handling of the
Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings.
Writer: “Being A White Male” Would Be Big Drawback For Biden In Democratic
Race.

Writing for the Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00d-9e5&t=c>
(1/7), Eddie Scarry said that former Vice President Joe Biden “voted for
the Iraq War, plagiarized speeches, has deep and sometimes shady ties to
banks, wrote the now-loathed 1994 crime bill, and supported the Patriot
Act, but in the Democratic primary, the main crime for which he will have
to answer is being a white male.” Scarry cited several media reports in
making the claim, saying, for example, “The Hill reported just two weeks
ago that Democrats are wracked with ‘worry’ because a poll of Iowa voters
showed that ‘the three people leading polls in the very early stages of
their presidential race are all white men.’” Scarry added, “Biden may have
some of the working-class appeal that President Trump has, but
unfortunately for him, he’s white and in the wrong party.”

*Buchanan: Biden “An Old White Male In A Party That Wants The Torch
Passed To Women And Minorities.” *In his syndicated column, which appears
at Townhall
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00e-e51&t=c>
(1/8), Pat Buchanan writes, “The Democratic front-runners for the
presidential nomination – Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Beto [O’Rourke] –
are all white males. ... But while Biden is the front-runner, consider how
far away” he “is from the new realities in his party. Though millennials
are one voting bloc Democrats are courting most, Biden would be the oldest
president ever elected.” He’s “an old white male in a party that wants the
torch passed to women and minorities.” Biden voted “for the war in Iraq,”
supported “an anti-crime bill in the early 1990s that incarcerated
individuals now gaining release by the latest crime bill,” and “presided
over the hearings that resulted in a vote to elevate Clarence Thomas to the
Supreme Court.”
Writer Downplays Biden’s Appeal To Blue-Collar White Voters.

Writing at Slate
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=00f-125&t=c>
(1/7), Ben Mathis-Lilley said that former Vice President Joe Biden “sells
himself as a blunt-talking son of blue-collar Scranton, Pennsylvania;”
someone who can win back Rust-Belt states for Democrats, enabling the party
to retake the White House. However, Mathis-Lilley said that Biden’s
blue-collar appeals to white voters on behalf candidates in the region
during the 2018 midterms were a mixed bag. Consequently, Mathis-Lilley
said, it isn’t “at all clear that the Democrats need a Biden-like candidate
to win” in 2020, “but it’s also not clear that he’d be doomed. ... Given
the above, and his well-documented ‘90s policy baggage, not to mention his
age, it seems like instead of” mounting a White House bid, Biden should
continue making “cable-news appearances as a Democratic surrogate who
remains beloved because he didn’t have to have his record litigated in a
tough primary.”
Esquire’s Pierce Pans Possible Biden Campaign.

Writing for Esquire Magazine
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=010-764&t=c>
(1/7), Charles P. Pierce pans the motion of a 2020 run by former Vice
President Joe Biden, writing that he “has run for president twice before
and he was a genuinely terrible candidate both times.” In addition, Biden
“has a track record that puts him on the wrong side of every issue that
currently energizes his political party.” Pierce cites Biden’s “sponsorship
of a grotesque bankruptcy bill,” his backing of “the truly awful crime bill
proposed by President Bill Clinton,” and his “turtling on Anita Hill. It’s
hard to imagine a presidential candidate who’s a worse fit for the party
that just swept all those new members into the House of Representatives.”
Pierce adds that “a Joe Biden campaign in 2020 would be the most divisive
thing that could happen to a Democratic primary field.”
Writer: Biden’s “Ego Is Greater Than His Electability.”

In a piece for the American Spectator
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=011-4cf&t=c>
(1/8), George Neumayr cites Sunday’s New York Times report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=012-d71&t=c>
in writing that former Vice President Joe Biden is “telling fellow
Democrats that he is the only electable candidate against [President] Trump
in 2020. But liberals are already throwing a wet blanket over his assumed
candidacy.” Neumayr says that Biden’s “ego is greater than his
electability, and the faux-centrism he has worked so hard to cultivate will
cut against his chances of even winning Democratic primaries.” Neumayr adds
that Biden “should quit while he is ahead, but he won’t. His persistent
vanity – a tendency to get ‘out ahead of his skis,’ as [former President]
Obama once put it – simply won’t let him and foreshadows his final fall.”
TPM: Obama’s Call For “Fresh Blood” At Leadership Event Could Bode Ill For
Biden.

Talking Points Memo
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=013-b1a&t=c>
(1/7, Riga) reported that former President Obama delivered “a speech for
the Obama Foundation in Hawaii Sunday night during which he said we have a
‘deficit of leadership’ and ‘need fresh blood,’ according to a Honolulu
Civil Beat report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=014-458&t=c>.”
His remarks “may have been innocuous: Obama was speaking at an event
dedicated to nurturing future leaders in the Asia-Pacific region. But if
the President was sending a subtle signal about his 2020 preferences, it
would be bad news for his former vice president. Joe Biden, openly
considering a presidential bid, won his first federal-level election in
1972 and has been a major political player for almost 50 years – hardly new
blood.”
Columnist Highlights Biden’s 1987 Remarks On Free Trade.

Writing for the Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=015-fa4&t=c>
(1/7), Philip Wegmann said, “If Joe Biden jumps in the race, and if 2020 is
anything like the 1988 presidential primary, it will be ‘Make America Great
Again,’ minus the protectionism.” Wegmann cited Biden’s “June 1987
announcement speech, an address he made from the financially strong
Wilmington, Del.,” in which Biden said, “We cannot accept the naivete of
free traders who ignore the flagrant abuses of our trading partners, nor
can we accept the morally bankrupt, easy answer on protectionism – an
answer that smacks of defeatism. Protecting one job today at the cost of
ten of our children’s jobs tomorrow is unacceptable.” Wegmann added that
“if an older and wiser Biden believes what a younger and more idealistic
Biden believed, we are in for a wild 2020,” as he’d “be to the right of”
President Trump on trade.
McAuliffe Says Biden’s 2020 Decision Won’t Affect His Own Deliberations On
Possible Bid.

The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=016-6e8&t=c>
(1/7, Lim) reported that during a Monday appearance on CNN, ex-Gov. Terry
McAuliffe (D-VA) said that former Vice President Joe Biden’s decision on a
potential 2020 run for president won’t be a factor in his own deliberations
on a possible White House bid. McAuliffe is quoted as saying, “I do think
Vice President Biden’s probably running from my conversations with him.
He’s got to make his decision. Mine will be totally independent of what the
vice president does. I’ve always been a big fan of Joe Biden’s. I hope he
gets in the race. The more the merrier.”

*Columnist: Possible 2020 Mitch Landrieu Bid Likely Hinges On
Whether Biden Runs. *In her Baton Rouge (LA) Advocate
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=017-c02&t=c>
(1/7) column, Stephanie Grace says that Biden’s 2020 decision will likely
have a big impact on whether ex-New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA)
decides to enter the presidential race. Grace says that “few possible
candidates have tied their own process as closely to Biden’s as...Landrieu
has.” In an interview last year, Landrieu “said that Biden is his preferred
choice to take on [President] Trump.” That “interview made it clear that
Landrieu’s been grappling with his hypothetical place in a potential
presidential filed for a while now. ... What that means for Landrieu should
become much clearer in the coming weeks, once Biden makes his move – or
doesn’t.”
Report Examines Why Biden Turned Down Speaker’s Fee At University Of Utah.

The Daily Utah Chronicle
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=018-110&t=c>
(1/7, Collett) reports that former Vice President Joe Biden addressed
“students at the University of Utah in December as the keynote speaker to
the MUSE project’s theme of hope, hardship and purpose. ... The most
shocking surprise came when Mark Matheson, director of the MUSE project,
mentioned that Biden did not take the money offered to him by the school.”
Biden “told Matheson that he did not take the money because ‘it should be
put to better use,’ suggesting that the money be put into scholarship
funds.” However, “according to speculation from the New York Times, the
move may also have a political motivation.” The Times report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=019-a8a&t=c>
(1/1, Sack, Burns), says the Chronicle, claimed “that after Biden and his
aides learned that the compensational money came from state taxpayers,
their decision to not take the money was made” out of concern that “‘such a
windfall might appear...politically distasteful.’”
Writers Highlight Partnership Between Beau Biden Foundation, Special
Olympics International.

In a Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01a-d72&t=c>
(1/8) op-ed, Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation President and CEO Steve Salem and
Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation board member Robbie Callaway write, “The Beau
Biden Foundation (BBF) for the Protection of Children is...taking action
and filling an important gap in protection of children with disabilities.
Based on their expertise in child abuse prevention, BBF recently announced
that it has begun working with Special Olympics International to help the
organization update their existing policies and best practices, conduct
training, and implement new standard operating procedures. Through this
partnership, BBF will lend its team of child protection experts with years
of experience in training, education, and litigation to Special Olympics
International to further help prevent child abuse just as they have done
for law enforcement, educators, healthcare providers, and thousands of
others across the country.”
“Draft Beto” Campaign Expanding Efforts To Convince O’Rourke To Run In 2020.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01b-e2c&t=c>
(1/7, Siders) reported that ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) “is getting a
significant lift in the early nominating states of South Carolina and
Nevada, with operatives in both states joining an effort to draft” him to
enter the 2020 race for president. Politico reported that ex-state Rep.
Boyd Brown (D-SC), a “former Democratic National Committee member, told
POLITICO on Monday that he will become national senior adviser to a ‘Draft
Beto’ campaign,” which “was expected later Monday to announce the hiring of
political consultant Michael Soneff as Nevada state director.” Politico
added, “The ‘Draft Beto’ effort, the most prominent of several similar
draft campaigns, is aiming to raise $1 million for O’Rourke.”

The Houston Chronicle
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01c-188&t=c>
(1/7, Wallace) reports, “Nate Lerner, a co-founder of the group based in
Brooklyn, said other groups are trying to also draft O’Rourke to run, but
what makes Draft Beto different is the group is building a network of
operatives and volunteers that could easily transfer over to an official
O’Rourke campaign. ‘No other candidate has anything remotely like this,’
said Lerner, who worked on President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election
campaign.”

*O’Rourke Planning Solo Road Trip Beyond Texas To Talk With Voters.
*Citing an unnamed source, the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01d-9a0&t=c>
(1/7, Epstein, Thomas) reports that as he weighs a run for president,
O’Rourke is in the midst of setting up plans to make a solo trip to states
beyond Texas, driving to venues such as community colleges, where he could
talk with potential voters. The Journal says O’Rourke isn’t planning to
have media or staff members accompany him on the trip, though he may
highlight stops along the way using social media. The Journal adds that
O’Rourke isn’t planning to visit key early voting states like Iowa.
Harris Set To Promote Her New Book Ahead Of Likely 2020 Run.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01e-5b4&t=c>
(1/7, Cadelago) reported that with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) already
“formally exploring a run for the White House,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA)
“is stepping onto the 2020 stage herself, beginning with a book tour and a
flurry of largely friendly broadcast media appearances in advance of her
own expected presidential announcement. It’s a chance for Harris to roll
out her personal story while previewing the fundamental themes of her
prospective campaign, drawn from her time as a career prosecutor and her
ideas about reforming the criminal justice system.” Politico highlighted
the various venues where Harris will be promoting her book over the next
week or so.

In an online article, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=01f-672&t=c>
(1/7, Reston) reported that Harris’ “book, ‘The Truths We Hold,’ and the
accompanying publicity blitz will offer some hints about the rationale for”
her “likely presidential candidacy. This second work is a more personal
look at her upbringing and the roots of her activism than her first book,
which drew lessons from her career as a prosecutor to explain her approach
to fixing the criminal justice system.”

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=020-11c&t=c>
(1/8, Summers) reports that as he mulls a White House run, Harris “is
taking on what could be a hurdle in a Democratic primary: her past as a
prosecutor. In her memoir,” Harris “describes herself as a ‘progressive
prosecutor’ and says it’s a ‘false choice’ to decide between supporting the
police and advocating for greater scrutiny of law enforcement. The argument
is aimed at liberal critics of her record who argue she was sometimes too
quick to side with the police and too slow to adopt sentencing reforms.”
Castro Woos Voters In Iowa, Slated To Visit New Hampshire Next Week.

The Des Moines (IA) Register
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=021-5af&t=c>
(1/7, Opsahl) reports that ex-HUD Secretary Julián Castro (D-TX) on Monday
made his “first visit to Iowa since he announced his presidential
exploratory committee in December. With 2020 intentions nearly out in the
open,” Castro – speaking at a home in Iowa City – “told the crowd why he
thought he’d be a good pick for president. In part, he said it’s his
Democrat values – like his support for universal health care, affordable
housing and rebuilding infrastructure – but also because his track
record...as mayor of San Antonio and as the [HUD] secretary in President
Barack Obama’s cabinet.”

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=022-b40&t=c>
(1/7, Greenwood) reported that Castro “will make a trip to New Hampshire
next week, days after he’s expected to announce a firm decision on a 2020
presidential bid. Castro is slated to headline the New Hampshire Institute
of Politics’ ‘Politics and Eggs’ forum on Jan. 16 in Manchester.” Castro
“formed a committee last month to explore a potential presidential bid and
is scheduled to announce his decision on Saturday in his hometown of San
Antonio.”
Democratic Senators In No Hurry To Back Warren.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=023-714&t=c>
(1/7, Everett) reported that while Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
“electrified some in the liberal grass roots when she became the first
senator to enter the” 2020 White House contest, “her colleagues aren’t
leaping to support her – or anyone else in the Senate, for that matter.”
Politico said that Warren’s “hard-edged brand of progressive politics has
annoyed some of her colleagues at times, but the lack of support from her
caucus isn’t personal. With a wide open Democratic primary, including
perhaps a half-dozen” other Democratic senators “set to join the race,
there’s no sense in getting out ahead of anyone, according to a dozen
Democratic senators from across the ideological spectrum.”
Leading the News
Trump Plans Tuesday Speech On Border “Crisis,” Thursday Trip To Region.

President Trump’s Twitter announcement
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=024-48b&t=c>
that he will “will Address the Nation on the Humanitarian and National
Security crisis on our Southern Border” on Tuesday evening leads coverage
of the ongoing partial government shutdown, along with continuing coverage
of the possibility the President will declare a national emergency in order
to circumvent Congress on funding a US-Mexico border wall. Some coverage is
skeptical of the Administration’s claim that there is a crisis at the
border, and reports state that the impasse between the Administration and
Democrats in Congress seemed no closer to resolution on Monday.

All three broadcast networks led their newscasts with the story. ABC
World News Tonight[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=025-2ac&t=c>
(1/7, lead story, 1:20, Muir) reported that on “Day 17” of the government
shutdown, the President “reveal[ed] he now wants to deliver a prime-time
address from the Oval Office tomorrow night, calling it a national security
crisis.” ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “President Trump is planning an all-out PR
blitz to make the case for his border wall”: the Tuesday speech, “and on
Thursday, a trip to the Mexican border. The White House insists the
President has already made a big concession.” President Donald Trump: “The
barrier, of the wall, can be of steel instead of concrete, if that helps
people. It may be better.” Karl: “But the Democrats say they don’t care
what it’s made of; it’s not happening.” House Speaker Pelosi: “The fact is
a wall is an immorality. It’s not who we are as a nation.”

The CBS Evening News[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=026-659&t=c>
(1/7, lead story, 2:20, Glor) reported, “Out of more than two million
federal workers, 800,000 remain furloughed or are working without pay.
Tomorrow night in prime-time, the President will take his case directly to
the nation.” CBS’ Paula Reid said the President’s “publicity blitz comes as
the White House and Democratic leaders appear no closer to resolving the
shutdown. The President wants $5.7 billion to build 234 miles of wall. Over
the weekend, the White House requested an additional $7 billion for more
immigration judges, border agents, medical supplies, and detention
facilities.”

NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=027-959&t=c>
(1/7, lead story, 2:05, Holt) reported, “With negotiations to reopen the
government going nowhere, President Trump is going directly to the American
people to build support for that border wall.” The speech and the border
trip are “aimed at awakening Americans to what he says is a major crisis.
Government data, however, reviewed by NBC News appears to undercut a big
part of that argument.” NBC’s Hallie Jackson: “While the White House cites
the growing threat of terrorism at the southern border, numbers provided to
Congress in May...show in the first half of the 2018 fiscal year, agents
encountered only six immigrants listed on a terrorist screening database.”

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=028-0df&t=c>
(1/8, Daly, Lucey, Colvin) reports the address “will be carried live by
ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox Broadcasting, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network,
MSNBC and NBC.” The broadcast networks had not immediately committed to
airing the speech live, but had agreed to by late Monday. The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=029-c6c&t=c>
(1/7, Dawsey) says the speech “shapes up as both a policy issue and a
political stunt – an attempt by the president to persuade the public that
his vision of a border wall trumps Democratic opposition to it. As such,
the White House’s request for airtime is more problematic than other kinds
of presidential addresses, such as a response to a national defense
emergency, an economic crisis or the annual State of the Union speech.” The
broadcast networks did not air a speech on immigration policy by President
Obama in November 2014.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02a-ca9&t=c>
(1/7, Tackett, Fandos) says the President “unleashed an offensive on Monday
to persuade Americans that a ‘humanitarian and security crisis’ on the
southern border must be addressed before a government shutdown can end,”
announcing both the speech and the trip. The Times says Trump “has offered
little to his Democratic adversaries to lure them to the table. Now, he
will try to use a broad-based public appeal to raise the pressure.” The Wall
Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02b-4be&t=c>
(1/7, Ballhaus, Bender, Nicholas) reports the White House initially weighed
a televised speech in late December, but feared audiences would be small
during the holiday season.

Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02c-0b2&t=c>
(1/7, Spiering) says in its brief report that “the address will be Trump’s
first address to the nation from the Oval Office as president.” Jim Acosta
said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02d-d7d&t=c>
(1/7), “Even the President’s own allies...have been warning him that his
immigration message has not been resonating with voters or with the base,
which is why you will see the President insist in his speech tomorrow night
that the nation faces a border crisis.” Bill Kristol said on CNN’s The
Lead[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02e-f20&t=c>
(1/7), “If he gives [the speech] and it goes nowhere, which is what I would
expect, I think by Wednesday, Thursday, then you see serious erosion of
Republican support on the Hill. This is Trump’s last card. What else is he
going to do?”

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=02f-4bc&t=c>
(1/7, Mason, Rampton) reports Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer
“called for the networks to grant them equal time in a joint statement.”
They said, “Now that the television networks have decided to air the
President’s address, which if his past statements are any indication will
be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given
equal airtime.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=030-33d&t=c>
(1/7, Jackson, Fritze) reports, “Democrats said Trump and aides exaggerate
the numbers of immigrants entering the country illegally to justify his
stance on the wall.”

The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=031-b0a&t=c>
(1/7, Stokols) writes that “little evidence supports Trump’s claim of a
crisis. In the most recent budget year that ended Sept. 30, the number of
people apprehended or refused entry at the border stood at just over
520,000, or about half the number in many years from the 1980s to the
mid-2000s.” Wolf Blitzer said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=032-2d6&t=c>
(1/7), “The White House has been using false claims to spin this into a
crisis, insisting against all evidence that terrorists have been crossing
the border from Mexico into the United States.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=033-48a&t=c>
(1/7), “A speech tomorrow night and a political visit to the border on the
following day, means that he’s not anxious to have this dispute be
resolved. ... He has a ‘my way or the highway’ approach, and he’s willing
to hold literally hundreds of thousands of Americans’ lives and economic
well-being in jeopardy until he tries to extract what he wants.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=034-dc4&t=c>
(1/7) editorializes, “Trump’s mass incarceration of migrant families is
overwhelming an already burdened system that, without a giant injection of
taxpayer dollars, will continue to collapse, leading to ever more human
suffering. ... The Trump administration is asking Congress and the American
public to embrace warped logic, that its policies are going to continue and
that the only question is whether any money should be spent on measures to
ease the suffering caused by those policies.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=035-c8d&t=c>
(1/7) says in an editorial, “Rather than talk about the immorality of a
wall, Democrats could use their leverage to achieve a truly moral purpose.
In return for a few billion dollars for a segment of the president’s wall –
which would immediately be challenged in court by property owners along the
border – Democrats might permanently shield from deportation well over 1
million ‘dreamers.’”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=036-1a1&t=c>
(1/7, Everett, Morin) runs its report under the headline “Trump Starts PR
War As Shutdown Talks Falter.” Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=037-188&t=c>
(1/7, Epstein, Smith, Litvan), The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=038-966&t=c>
(1/7, Fabian), and CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=039-310&t=c>
(1/7, Bennett) also report.

*No Details Released Yet On Thursday Border Trip. *The New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03a-ea0&t=c>
(1/7, Fredericks) reports, “No details were released about Trump’s trip,
although the Federal Aviation Administration issued a notice that airspace
over the vicinity of McAllen, Texas, would be restricted Thursday because
of a ‘VIP movement.’” The city “is home to a Customs and Border Protection
facility where migrants who have crossed illegally into the United States
have been detained.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03b-83a&t=c>
(1/7, Correll) reports “conservative commentator” Ann Coulter “condemned
the decision” for the President to travel to the border in a series of
tweets. One read, “Trump GOING TO THE BORDER is beyond moronic. Does he
need to meet with a cancer patient before deciding to fund cancer
research?”

*Pence, Conway Say Trump Has Made No Decision On Declaring National
Emergency. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03c-b2a&t=c>
(1/7, Mason) reports Vice President Pence said Monday that the President
“has not made a decision on whether to declare a national emergency over
his demand for border wall funding and the White House counsel’s office is
studying the matter.” The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03d-ad2&t=c>
(1/7, Boyer) reports Pence also criticized congressional Democrats, asking,
“When are the Democrats going to start negotiating? There is a crisis at
the southern border. We just need the Democrats to start negotiating.” The New
York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03e-5ed&t=c>
(1/7, Haberman, Karni) reports the White House and Democrats “have made
little progress” toward resolving the impasse, and weekend meetings led by
Pence “showed in ways big and small how the distance between the two sides
remains a wide gulf with no clear compromise on the horizon.”

Kellyanne Conway, appearing on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=03f-f2b&t=c>
(1/7), also did not say whether the President would declare a national
emergency. Conway said, “What he has said about that is that he is
considering it. He has never committed to it. The White House Counsel’s
office is researching the legal implications of it.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=040-bde&t=c>
(1/7, A1, Costa, Rucker) says Trump “believes forcing a drastic reckoning
by executive action may be necessary given the Democratic resistance and
the wall’s symbolic power for his core voters,” according to White House
officials. House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who visited the border
Monday, warned against such a move, saying, “We will oppose any effort by
the President to make himself a king and a tyrant. The President has no
authority to usurp Congress’ power of the purse.”

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=041-ce5&t=c>
(1/7) that if the President were to declare a national emergency, “it is
going to be tied up in litigation. Without a doubt, if he were to make that
declaration, it is going to be tied up in the courts. There is going to be
a question of constitutional law under Article II and Title 50. So I don’t
even think it would be allow to move forward.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=042-c6e&t=c>
(1/7, Gibson) similarly writes that the President “would almost certainly
face a legal challenge if he carries out his threat.”

*Ex-President Carter Denies Supporting Border Wall. *Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=043-744&t=c>
(1/7, Choi) reports ex-President Carter “denied ever supporting...Trump’s
border wall, contradicting the current commander in chief’s claim that
previous presidents confided they regret not building a physical barrier on
the southern border.” Carter said in a statement, “I have not discussed the
border wall with President Trump, and do not support him on the issue.”
Every living former president other than Obama has now denied supporting
the wall, “but Obama has not met with Trump since the funeral of George
H.W. Bush in early December; they had last met at Trump’s 2017
inauguration.”

*Democratic Legislation Would Fund Some Agencies, Block Senate
Action Until Shutdown Resolved. *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=044-ea3&t=c>
(1/7, Werner, Kim, Stein) reports, “Democrats moved on two fronts Monday to
goad Republicans into reopening the federal government, lining up House
bills to fund shuttered agencies and preparing to block action in the
Senate until the shutdown is resolved.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=045-73d&t=c>
(1/7, Bresnahan, Ferris) reports, “Several dozen House Republicans might
cross the aisle this week to vote for Democratic bills to reopen shuttered
parts of the federal government” amid GOP concerns that Republican “support
for the shutdown is eroding.”
Foreign Policy
Trump Says Syria Plans Have Not Changed.

In a tweet Monday, President Trump blasted as “very inaccurate” a New York
Times report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=046-c99&t=c>
which said US forces could be in Syria for years. Trump wrote
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=047-4b8&t=c>,
“The Failing New York Times has knowingly written a very inaccurate story
on my intentions on Syria. No different from my original statements, we
will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight
ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!” In a tweet
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=048-e74&t=c>
Monday evening, Trump wrote, “Endless Wars, especially those which are
fought out of judgement mistakes that were made many years ago, & those
where we are getting little financial or military help from the rich
countries that so greatly benefit from what we are doing, will eventually
come to a glorious end!”

David Martin said on the CBS Evening News[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=049-418&t=c>
(1/7, story 5, 2:00, Glor) that while Trump “insisted today he has not
changed his mind about pulling troops out of Syria, the new timetable for
their withdrawal is dramatically different.” The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04a-a3b&t=c>
(1/7, Boyer) reports The Times said White House National Security Adviser
Bolton “indicated on a trip to Israel that the troop pullout could be
delayed ‘for months or even years.’”

Ian Pannell said on ABC World News Tonight[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04b-7ea&t=c>
(1/7, story 7, 1:55, Muir) that Bolton “appear[ed] to contradict the
Commander-in-Chief about pulling American troops out of Syria.” Bolton
“stressed there is now no timetable for removal of the 2,000 troops.” NBC
Nightly News[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04c-2fa&t=c>
(1/7, story 3, 1:30, Holt) reported Bolton is “doing damage control,” while
the Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04d-22a&t=c>
(1/7, Taylor) describes the Administration as “scrambl[ing]” to “straighten
out the messaging of its Middle East policy and assure allies of America’s
staying power amid confusion in the region over the scope and pace of the
president’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria.”

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04e-b4f&t=c>
(1/7, Ryan) says Trump’s comment, “which differed from earlier promises of
a swift departure for the more than 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in Syria,
was the latest iteration of an evolving roadmap for concluding the military
mission there.”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=04f-392&t=c>
(1/7, Morin) says Trump “pushed back against reports that...Bolton had
contradicted the president’s initial plans to quickly withdraw troops from
Syria.” Politico says that since the President announced that US troops
were being withdrawn from Syria, “White House officials have downplayed
Trump’s declaration, with Bolton most recently putting conditions on
withdrawing troops from Syria that could delay the pullout months or even
years.” Similarly, Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=050-b69&t=c>
(1/7, Alexander) says Administration officials have in recent days,
“applied the brakes, making clear the withdrawal will not happen quickly.”

In an editorial, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=051-8b5&t=c>
(1/7) says the Administration “began backtracking almost immediately” after
the President announced his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria.
After Bolton’s comments, Trump “insisted in a tweet on Monday that the way
things stand is ‘no different from my original statements.’ But which
senior administration official should the nation and the world believe –
the boss or everyone below him?” The Times says Bolton and Secretary of
State Pompeo “are crisscrossing the Middle East this week to reassure
friendly governments that the administration is pursuing a coherent agenda,
particularly in building a coalition against Iran. Is Mr. Trump also on
board?”

Former NSA attorney Susan Hennessey said on CNN’s Situation Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=052-aee&t=c>
(1/7), “I think what we are seeing now is that the President, frankly, has
such spectacularly bad ideas” and “instead of having an administration that
is attempting to actually implement the President’s policies, what we have
are Administration officials whose basic task is to mitigate and try to
work around the President’s worst impulses.”

*Bolton Pressing Turkey For Assurances Kurdish Forces In Syria Will
Not Be Attacked. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=053-67d&t=c>
(1/7, Miller) reports from Ankara that National Security Adviser Bolton is
“set to press Turkey for assurances that it won’t attack the Kurdish
fighters in Syria, which he said is now a condition for the withdrawal of
American troops from northeastern Syria.” According to the AP, Bolton
arrived in Turkey “for negotiations with the NATO ally about the safety of
the Kurds, who have fought alongside American forces against the Islamic
State in Syria, and fear a military assault from Turkey should the U.S.
pull out.” The AP adds that “the talks are likely to be contentious, as
Turkey considers the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG, a
terrorist group linked to an insurgency within its borders, and has
threatened to mount a campaign against the groups.”

Erdoğan: Turkey Will “Get The Job Done” In Syria. In an op-ed for
the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=054-6ca&t=c>
(1/7), Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan writes that President Trump’s
decision to withdraw US troops from Syria was right, but the withdrawal
“must be planned carefully and performed in cooperation with the right
partners to protect the interests of the United States, the international
community and the Syrian people.” Erdoğan stresses Turkey’s commitment “to
defeating the so-called Islamic State and other terrorist groups in Syria,”
and says Turkey is “the sole stakeholder that can work simultaneously with
the United States and Russia. We will build on those partnerships to get
the job done in Syria.” Erdoğan concludes, “Turkey is volunteering to
shoulder this heavy burden at a critical time in history. We are counting
on the international community to stand with us.”

*Singh: China Needs US-Led International Order To Safeguard Its
Interests. *In the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=055-129&t=c>
(1/7), Mike Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near
East Policy, says China has been silent about the President’s decision to
withdraw US forces from Syria because it depends on the international
order, led by the US, to safeguard its interests.
South Korean Reports: Kim In Beijing For Talks With China’s Xi.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=056-8ad&t=c>
(1/7, Shin) reports that “South Korea’s Hankyoreh newspaper, citing an
unidentified source with close knowledge of North Korea-China affairs,
reported” that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “was traveling to Beijing
late on Monday” to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Citing “an
unspecified source familiar with North Korea issues,” South Korea’s Yonhap
news agency similarly “said a North Korean train possibly carrying a
‘high-level’ official had crossed the border into China.” News of Kim’s
likely Beijing visit broke just hours after “the South Korean newspaper
Munhwa Ilbo reported that U.S. State Department officials recently met
multiple times with North Korean counterparts in Hanoi and discussed
planning a second summit between Trump and Kim, fuelling speculation that
Vietnam could host the event.” Also on Monday, in an interview with CNBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=057-48d&t=c>
(1/7), Secretary of State Pompeo “praised China’s support for resolving the
North Korean crisis and said he did not think the U.S. trade dispute with
Beijing would affect this.” Said Pompeo, “The Chinese have been very clear
to us that these are separate issues,” and their “behavior has demonstrated
that as well and we appreciate that. China has actually been a good partner
in our efforts to reduce the risk to the world from North Korea’s nuclear
capability; I expect they will continue to do so.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=058-40e&t=c>
(1/7, Choe) says that if Kim is in Beijing, the visit would provide Xi
“with an opportunity to accentuate his country’s leverage over North Korea
as China and the United States try to head off a trade war.” According to
the Times, such a visit would also suggest that the North Korean leader is
seeking “Xi’s advice or demonstrating his country’s alliance with China as
he prepares for another meeting” with President Trump. Kim similarly met
with Xi in China in three separate visits “before and after his historic
first summit meeting with Mr. Trump, in Singapore last June.”

*USA Today: Trump Should Not Meet Kim In Second Summit. *In an
editorial, USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=059-9b7&t=c>
(1/7) argues that President Trump should not agree to a second summit with
Kim. USA Today explains that nearly seven months after Trump “emerged from
his historic summit last June” proclaiming that the nuclear threat is over,
Kim has “made plain” that “hasn’t budged on a crucial pre-summit demand: no
disarmament until U.S.-led sanctions are removed.” Kim also has sent
“flowery missives to Trump” in a strategy “perhaps best described as
flattery-will-get-you-everywhere.” Finally, USA Today says, “Trump has a
history of making one-sided foreign policy moves without getting anything
in return.” Instead of a second summit, USA Today recommends that Trump
“set those beautiful letters aside and continue sanctions until Kim takes
concrete steps toward dismantling his nuclear arsenal.”

USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05a-dad&t=c>
(1/7) columnist James Robbins acknowledges that “Pyongyang has still not
given up its nuclear weapons,” but argues “the fact that Kim is willing to
denuclearize constitutes a historic diplomatic breakthrough.” Robbins
writes, “Those who rush to declare the diplomatic process a failure must
reckon with the fact that the mere existence of the process is a resounding
success.” After contrasting “Trump’s efforts with the failed attempts of 12
previous presidents over 67 years to promote durable peace on the Korean
Peninsula,” Robbins calls on critics to “agree that it might take slightly
longer than seven months to overcome almost seven decades of hostility.”
Ross Optimistic About US-China Deal As Talks Resume In Beijing.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05b-17a&t=c>
(1/7, Martina) reports that in an interview with CNBC, Commerce Secretary
Ross “predicted...that Beijing and Washington could reach a trade deal that
‘we can live with’ as officials from the world’s two largest economies
resumed talks in a bid to end their trade dispute.” According to Reuters,
Ross said “the immediate trade issues would be easiest to tackle while
enforcement issues and structural reforms, such as intellectual property
rights and market access, would be more challenging to resolve.” Ross is
quoted as saying, “I think there’s a very good chance that we will get a
reasonable settlement that China can live with, that we can live with and
that addresses all of the key issues.”

The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05c-40a&t=c>
(1/7, Wei) reports that a key issue US negotiators are pressing their
counterparts on is how to ensure China fulfills its promises. Concerns
include specific dates it will make purchases by and assurance that
governmental powers in licensing, environmental regulation, and other areas
won’t be used to hinder American companies if the US gets increased access
to Chinese markets. US officials say that China has a history of making
market-opening pledges and then increasing the barriers for foreign firms.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05d-e1e&t=c>
(1/7, McDonald) reports from Beijing that “talks aimed at ending a trade
war between China and the U.S. are underway, with the world’s two biggest
economies expressing optimism over the potential for progress but neither
indicating its stance has changed.” The AP says “cooling economic growth in
both countries is increasing pressure to reach a settlement.” The AP adds
that the US delegation is led by deputy US trade representative Jeffrey
Gerrish, “and includes agriculture, energy, commerce, treasury and State
Department officials.”

According to the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05e-e2e&t=c>
(1/7, Lynch), “In a sign that the working-level meeting was off to a good
start, China’s economic czar, Vice Premier Liu He, dropped by the talks to
spur on the negotiators.” The Post says “a potential deal would likely
involve a sharp increase in Chinese purchases of American soybeans and
liquefied natural gas.” The Post adds that President Trump “has repeatedly
said that China is desperate to strike a deal because its economy is
slowing while the United States continues to power ahead.”

Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=05f-60c&t=c>
(1/7) reports that Liu, “the top economic adviser to Chinese President Xi
Jinping...led previous negotiations in Washington that produced a deal that
President Donald Trump then repudiated.” Bloomberg News says China “had
previously said the talks would be led by a lower-ranking official from the
Ministry of Commerce.” Bloomberg News also reports that USTR Lighthizer is
“expected to meet with Liu later this month,” and his “participation in the
meeting...signals that China is attaching high importance to the talks,
even if the main participants this time are mid-level officials.”

*Ross Denies Trade Talks Led To Apple’s Revenue Warning. *Ross said
on CNBC’s Squawk Box[image: Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=060-67e&t=c>
(1/7), “I don’t think Apple’s earnings miss had anything to do with the
present trade talks. Think about it, there have been no tariffs put on
Apple products. So that’s not it.”
In Cairo, Pompeo Expected To Rebuke Obama’s Middle East Vision.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=061-d7d&t=c>
(1/7, Toosi) reports Secretary of State Pompeo is embarking “on what may
prove his toughest trip yet, a weeklong swing through the Middle East in
which he will give a major speech about America’s role in the region and
privately reassure Arab allies that the U.S. remains committed to them.” In
an address “to be given in Cairo, Pompeo plans to repudiate the Middle East
vision” of former President Obama. Sources told Politico that Pompeo “will
slam Obama’s engagement with Iran,” while asserting that President Trump
“has the region’s best interests at heart.” Politico says foreign leaders
are questioning whether they can believe Pompeo, because “Trump has spent
the last several days contradicting him and other top advisers about his
administration’s plans in the Middle East.” State Department spokesman
Robert Palladino on Monday “sought to reassure on that front,” saying
Pompeo and the President “talk often,” and that Pompeo “is in lockstep”
with Trump on “foreign policy priorities.”
Trump, Canada’s Trudeau Agree To Seek Release Of Canadians Unlawfully
Detained In China.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=062-8de&t=c>
(1/8, Gillies) reports that the Administration “is calling the detentions
of two Canadians in China unlawful and Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau and President Donald Trump have agreed to continue to seek their
release, officials said Monday.” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
said in a statement that during a Monday phone call, Trump and Trudeau
“discussed the unlawful detention of two Canadian citizens in China as well
as bilateral trade issues.” Trudeau’s office said in a statement
summarizing the call that the Canadian premier “thanked the President for
the strong statements of support by the United States in response to the
arbitrary detention of two Canadians in China. The two leaders agreed to
continue to seek their release.” According to the AP, Secretary Pompeo and
the State Department “previously called for their release,” but the “White
House hasn’t spoken publicly about the detained Canadians until now.”
Key Saudi Suspect In Khashoggi Case Goes Missing.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010801biden&r=email-8427&l=063-3cb&t=c>
(1/7, Fahim) reports that the whereabouts of “Saud al-Qahtani, a powerful
royal adviser whom Saudi prosecutors allege played a major role in the
events that led to Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in Istanbul three months ago,”
are unknown. Saudi authorities “did not respond to requests for comment
about whether he is free, detained or under indictment.” The Saudi
government’s “treatm