Subject: FW: Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for Thursday, December 20, 2018
From: "Kathy Chung" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ashley Blazer Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Jill Tracy Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Jimmy Biden" <[email-masked]>, "Valerie Biden Owens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:11:01 -0500

Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing

*From:* Bulletin Intelligence <[email-masked]>
*Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:02 AM
*To:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for
Thursday, December 20, 2018

*Click to access
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=000-ac8&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=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=001-ec9&t=c>

*To: Vice President Joe Biden*

*Thursday, December 20, 2018 8:00 AM EST*
Today's Table of Contents

*Biden in the News* <#SECTION_1>

• Poll: Biden Tops Trump, Potential 2020 Democratic Candidates In
Favorability Rating. <#S1>

• Daily Caller Examines Healthcare Stances Of Biden, Five Other Potential
2020 Democrats. <#S2>

• Biden Rips GM Over US Plant Closures, New Investments In China, Mexico.
<#S3>

• Snopes: Claim On Biden Remarks On Shotguns “Mostly True.” <#S4>

• Politico Playbook: Bidens, Their Granddaughters Watch “To Kill A
Mockingbird” On Broadway. <#S5>

*Leading the News* <#SECTION_2>

• Senate Passes Temporary Spending Bill As Trump Signals Military Could
Build Wall. <#S6>

*Foreign Policy* <#SECTION_3>

• Trump Declares Victory Over ISIS, Orders US Troops Out Of Syria. <#S7>

• US, China Clash At WTO Over Allegations Of Intellectual Property Theft.
<#S8>

• China Steps In With Military Projects For Pakistan After Trump Suspends
US Aid. <#S9>

• Treasury Imposes New Russia Sanctions, Lifts Others. <#S10>

• State Department Official Says North Korea Travel Ban Will Be Reviewed.
<#S11>

• After Discovery Of Tunnels, Israel Urges International Condemnation Of
Hezbollah. <#S12>

• Lankford: Taliban More Like A “Big Political Party” Than A Terrorist
Organization. <#S13>

*Domestic Policy* <#SECTION_4>

• Despite Trump Pressure, Fed Hikes Rates And Sends Stocks Stumbling. <#S14>

• Judge From Flynn Sentencing Orders Administration To Return Deported
Asylum Seekers To US. <#S15>

• Trump Retweets Steele Assertion That Clinton Wanted Dossier To Contest
Election. <#S16>

• Cummings Demands Administration Documents On Wide Range Of Issues. <#S17>

• Schumer Will Reportedly Not Agree To Customary Deal To Approve Judicial
Nominees. <#S18>

• NYTimes Analysis: Facebook Gave Amazon, Others “Intrusive Access To
Users’ Personal Data.” <#S19>

• Sources Say Mulvaney Will Not Try To Constrain Trump As Acting Chief Of
Staff. <#S20>

*Cancer Research* <#SECTION_5>

• Johnson & Johnson Loses Bid To Reverse $4.69 Billion Jury Verdict Over
Talc. <#S21>

• Studies Find Some Personalized Vaccines Stimulated Immune Response To
Glioblastoma. <#S22>

*Editorials/Op-Eds* <#SECTION_6>

• New York Times. <#S23>

• Washington Post. <#S24>
Biden in the News
Poll: Biden Tops Trump, Potential 2020 Democratic Candidates In
Favorability Rating.

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=002-ad2&t=c>
(12/19, Burke) reported that a Quinnipiac University nationwide poll
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=003-bf2&t=c>
of 1,147 US voters, taken Dec. 12-17, shows that former Vice President Joe
Biden “has the best favorability rating among a group of leading potential
Democratic presidential contenders.” In the poll, Biden’s
favorable/unfavorable split stands at 53%/33%; he “is the only possible
2020 candidate in the poll who has a favorability rating” topping 50%. Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), and Sen. Sherrod Brown
(D-OH) “are the only candidates other than Biden included in the poll whom
more voters view favorably than unfavorably.” Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton
“has the highest unfavorable score among the candidates” at 61%.

        Writing for Vox
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=004-d61&t=c>
(12/19), Matthew Iglesias said that the poll shows Biden and Sanders “are
both more popular than Donald Trump,” whose favorable/unfavorable split
stands at 40%/56%. Iglesias added, “In contrast to Trump...Biden’s numbers
look fantastic with a 53/33 favorable/unfavorable split. Democrats love
Biden, with 84 percent approving, and he’s above water with essentially all
demographic subcategories: African Americans love Biden, 73-12. A lot of
Latinos don’t know who he is, but those who do like him 46-18. White people
like Biden, too, by a 52-38 margin. Biden even does okay with white men
(49-43) and white voters with no college degree (44-41). Biden does best
with voters under 35 (60-21) but also does pretty well with old people
(54-33).”

        Under the heading “Joe Biden Has Higher Favorability Ratings Than
Donald Trump,” Chris Walker wrote at Inquisitr
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=005-74a&t=c>
(12/19), “While the poll did not directly ask respondents who they would
prefer in 2020, the findings are the clearest yet that indicate Trump may
be vulnerable to Biden, should the Democrat choose to run.” Writing
for the Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=006-2d8&t=c>
(12/19), Philip Bump says that in the poll, “many of the possible
Democratic candidates got shrugs, with big chunks of respondents across the
board indicating that they hadn’t yet heard enough about the candidates to
have an opinion.” Even so, Bump said, “Biden’s is a good position to be in.
But, then, it’s early.”

        In its report on the poll results, the Springfield (MA) Republican
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=007-809&t=c>
(12/19, Young) largely highlighted the numbers of Sen. Elizabeth Warren
(D-MA), saying that in contrast to Biden, 37% of respondents “said they do
not have favorable views of” the Massachusetts Democrat, while 30% “said
they see the senator positively.” The article says that Sanders’
favorable/unfavorable split stands at 44%/42%, while O’Rourke’s split
stands at 24%/20%. In its report on the poll results, the Cleveland Plain
Dealer
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=008-87f&t=c>
(12/19, Eaton) highlights the numbers of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), saying
that 77% of those surveyed “didn’t know enough about [him] to form an
opinion about him.” Brown’s favorable/unfavorable split stands at 12%/9% in
the poll.

        *History Shows 2020 Democratic Nominee Likely Already Polling In
The Top Three. *Writing for the Dallas Morning News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=009-dea&t=c>
(12/19, Gillman, Chief), Todd Gillman asks, “Is the race for 2020 already
over on the Democratic side? History shows that candidates who aren’t
already polling in the top three rarely win the nomination.” And with
recent polls showing Biden, Sanders, and O’Rourke running first, second,
and third, respectively, says Gillman, other potential 2020 contenders
“need to step up their game, fast.” Gillman adds, “In seven of the last
nine presidential primaries without an incumbent, the eventual nominee was
already in” the top three of polling “by January of the year before the
election. That’s next month – a year before voters in Iowa and New
Hampshire start to winnow the field.”
Daily Caller Examines Healthcare Stances Of Biden, Five Other Potential
2020 Democrats.

The Daily Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00a-6e9&t=c>
(12/19, Fordham) ran a piece offering short synopses of “where six
potential [Democratic] presidential hopefuls stand on health care.” Of
former Vice President Joe Biden, the article said that he called “the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) a ‘big [expletive] deal’ in 2010, but time will
tell whether he remains as enthusiastic about what is now seen by some as a
rather moderate health care platform. ... Biden has not gotten behind
Medicare for all, and Vox
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00b-275&t=c>
predicts he might face pressure to say he supports Medicare for all in a
2020 Democratic primary where nearly all possible contenders strongly
support the idea.” The report also looked at the healthcare stances of
Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kamala Harris (D-CA), and Elizabeth Warren
(D-MA), and Reps. John Delaney (D-MD) and Beto O’Rourke (D-TX).
Biden Rips GM Over US Plant Closures, New Investments In China, Mexico.

The Independent Journal Review
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00c-037&t=c>
(12/19, Billinson) reported that former Vice President Joe Biden “took on
General Motors in a Wednesday video message for the United Auto Workers
International Union.” Offering “his full support for members of the UAW who
have been impacted by a string of recently announced plant closures,” Biden
recounted “the efforts of the Obama administration to shore up General
Motors and other struggling automotive manufacturers during the 2009
crisis,” and went on to say, “I know GM’s corporate leaders have said that
they have to make tough decisions to deal with changing consumer sentiment.
... But why are they making new investments in Mexico and China? Any new
investments they are making now in new vehicles that they’re producing,
they owe it to us to build them in the United States.”
Snopes: Claim On Biden Remarks On Shotguns “Mostly True.”

In a fact-check piece, Snopes
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00d-6fa&t=c>
(12/19) examines the claim that former Vice President Joe Biden once said,
“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because
if you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun
through the door.” Snopes rates the claim as “Mostly True,” saying that
Biden did make the statement, but his “remarks were part of a broader
argument against the usefulness and necessity of owning a semi-automatic
AR-15 rifle for self-defense.”
Politico Playbook: Bidens, Their Granddaughters Watch “To Kill A
Mockingbird” On Broadway.

In a brief item, Politico Playbook
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00e-b4f&t=c>
(12/20, Sherman, Palmer, Lippman) reports in its “Spotted” section, “Joe
and Jill Biden (and their granddaughters) yesterday at the Broadway show,
‘To Kill A Mockingbird,’ Aaron Sorkin’s adaptation of Harper Lee’s novel.
Per our tipster: ‘Biden received a huge ovation when he took his seats and
a bigger ovation from the cast when he came backstage after the show.
Photos, selfies and even a voice mail message left for a cast member’s
mother, Biden was the highlight of the performance, especially for star
Jeff Daniels (who handed Biden a pen with the logo that read ‘ATTICUS FINCH
IN 2020!’). ... Outside the Shubert Theatre on W 44th Street, the Bidens
waded through a sea of selfies until they reached safer ground at Carmine’s
Restaurant.’”
Leading the News
Senate Passes Temporary Spending Bill As Trump Signals Military Could Build
Wall.

By a voice vote Wednesday night, the Senate approved stopgap legislation to
temporarily fund the government – without funding for President Trump’s
proposed wall on the US-Mexico border. Earlier Wednesday, the President
suggested in a tweet that the military could build the wall, and
Administration officials stressed that his stance on the wall is not
changing. However, the bill is being cast as a retreat, particularly by
conservatives, who argue Trump is losing his last chance to secure
Congressional funding for the wall before Democrats take control of the
House in January.

        Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=00f-0ec&t=c>
(12/19, Oprysko) reports that as he “seemingly walk[ed] back threats to
shut down the government if Congress fails to appropriate for the wall by
the end of the week,” Trump said the US military will construct the wall
and “doubled-down on his claim that Mexico is paying for the wall’s
construction by virtue of a recently renegotiated trilateral trade
agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada.” Trump tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=010-621&t=c>,
“Mexico is paying (indirectly) for the Wall through the new USMCA, the
replacement for NAFTA! Far more money coming to the U.S. Because of the
tremendous dangers at the Border, including large scale criminal and drug
inflow, the United States Military will build the Wall!” In an earlier tweet
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=011-217&t=c>,
Trump wrote, “In our Country, so much money has been poured down the drain,
for so many years, but when it comes to Border Security and the Military,
the Democrats fight to the death. We won on the Military, which is being
completely rebuilt. One way or the other, we will win on the Wall!”

        Trump’s tweets came on the same day the Senate approved by voice
vote a temporary funding bill to keep several agencies, including DHS
“operating through Feb. 8,” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=012-d1e&t=c>
(12/20) reports. The measure does not include “the $5 billion to build a
wall on the US-Mexico border that President Donald Trump had demanded.” The New
York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=013-acb&t=c>
(12/19, Cochrane) says the measure “would punt the impasse over a southern
border wall to the new year and a divided Congress.” A Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=014-2f6&t=c>
(12/19) editorial casts the legislation as a loss for Republicans that was
likely inevitable after the President announced he would be proud to shut
down the government.

        The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=015-78d&t=c>
(12/19, Haberkorn) reports Congress is “calling President Trump’s bluff as
the holiday looms,” while the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=016-1e1&t=c>
(12/19, Mascaro, Daly, Lucey) says Trump “backed off his demand for money
for a border wall with Mexico.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=017-7fc&t=c>
(12/19, Paletta) reports “lawmakers say they expect Trump to sign the
bill,” but the CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=018-36f&t=c>
(12/19, story 3, 0:20, Glor) reported Trump “has not said whether he would
sign it.”

        An earlier report from the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=019-e30&t=c>
(12/19, Cochrane) said “it remained unclear if Mr. Trump, who has been a
volatile factor throughout the spending debate, would sign such a measure
without the $5 billion he has demanded for a wall at the Mexican border.”
Senate Appropriations Chairman Shelby said Wednesday, “I don’t believe the
leader would bring it up if he hadn’t had some assurance that the president
would sign, but you never know.”

        Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01a-3d1&t=c>
(12/19, Pappas) reported on its website that Senate Majority Leader
McConnell, who announced that the Senate would consider the measure because
of the “reality of our political moment,” on Wednesday “ripped into
Democrats...for rejecting ‘an extremely reasonable offer yesterday’ to
provide $1 billion for border security.” McConnell called the compromise
offer “sensible policy.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01b-7e0&t=c>
(12/19, Caralle) says McConnell “criticized Democrats for forcing a debate
on President Trump’s border wall into next year.” Meanwhile, the Washington
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01c-288&t=c>
(12/19, Sherfinski) reports Senate Minority Leader Schumer said Wednesday
that it is “good news” that Mr. Trump has “retreated” from his stance and
that Democrats would support the plan.

        The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01d-e46&t=c>
(12/19, Peterson) reports Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway told
reporters that Trump would “take a look at” the CR, but he was not changing
his stance. Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01e-e08&t=c>
(12/19, Everett, Johnson, Ferris) reports Conway told Fox News Wednesday
morning that Trump “is not going to back down” but “she declined to rule
out Trump signing the stopgap spending bill.” Conway said, “We’ll see what
the Senate and the House present to the president.” Eddie Scarry of
the Washington
Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=01f-25f&t=c>
(12/19) criticizes what he describes as Conway’s “preposterous claim that
Trump ‘is not softening his stance.’” Conway, he writes, “did what
Democrats have been doing: Insist that a wall isn’t as important as some
vague assurance about ‘border security.’”

        Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=020-480&t=c>
(12/19, Wasson, Litvan) says the White House “retreated from an immediate
confrontation over the wall money,” but adds that “the battle over the wall
funding may become more difficult early next year with Democrats in control
of the House.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=021-7bb&t=c>
(12/19, Cowan) says “Democrats will be in a somewhat stronger bargaining
position next year when they take majority control of the House,” while
McClatchy
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=022-b45&t=c>
(12/19, Clark) says Trump “isn’t getting the ‘big, beautiful’ wall he wants
at the border with Mexico anytime this year. And it’s highly unlikely he’ll
get it in 2019 or 2020.”

        CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=023-962&t=c>
(12/19, Lesniewski) reports that according to Shelby, the measure “was hung
up in the Senate Wednesday afternoon over a spat involving the Land and
Water Conservation Fund and other items left out of the stopgap.” Shelby
“expressed hope that senators could be convinced to let the measure through
the chamber,” saying, “I would hope that people will become rational and
realize that the CR is clean. We want to keep it clean. ... We’ve fought to
keep it clean, and the president I think has signaled explicitly that if
it’s loaded up, he’s not going to sign it.” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=024-cc8&t=c>
(12/19, Bolton) says the bill “could wind up being delayed until Thursday.”

        *Bill Draws Fire From Conservatives. *On ABC World News Tonight[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=025-54b&t=c>
(12/19, story 6, 1:25, Muir), Mary Bruce said the White House “is
retreating” and conservatives “are outraged.” Hallie Jackson said on NBC
Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=026-b16&t=c>
(12/19, story 4, 1:40, Holt) that the bill “is not sitting well with some
conservatives who think the President is blowing his last best chance
before Republicans lose control of the House.”

        On CNN’s The Lead
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=027-345&t=c>
(12/19), White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins cited “sources” who say
the President “is becoming increasingly concerned that there is this
criticism that he’s backing off his signature campaign promise of building
that wall on the US-Mexico border.” That criticism can be seen in a piece
by Saagar Enjeti of the Daily Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=028-e20&t=c>
(12/19), who writes that “immigration restrictionists” are “concerned that
the administration is losing its last chance to deliver on a signature
campaign promise.” Author Ann Coulter tells the DC, “Either Trump never
intended to build a wall and was scamming voters from the beginning or he
hasn’t the first idea in how to get it done and no interest in finding
out.” Coulter added, “My prediction is his support will evaporate and Trump
will very likely not finish his term and definitely not be elected to a
second term.” The Twitter feed @TrumpsAlert, which automatically tracks who
Trump and other key Administration figures follow and unfollow on Twitter,
tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=029-6c1&t=c>
at 7:40 p.m. that the President unfollowed Coulter Wednesday.

        Coulter was not the only critic, however. American Conservative
Union Chairman Matt Schlapp said on Fox News’ Hannity[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02a-e0a&t=c>
(12/19), “The President should veto this bill. This breaks the promise with
his supporters.” Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post said on Fox News’
Special Report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02b-488&t=c>
(12/19) that Trump “has weakened himself going into the negotiations next
year with Pelosi and Schumer and the Democratic Congress because the wall
is the leverage that the Democrats have. If they choose to use it, they can
get a lot of their agenda through in exchange for the wall. Donald Trump
wants the wall.”

        However, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took a different view
of the situation. Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02c-8d2&t=c>
(12/19) reports on its website that Gingrich argued that Trump is “not
giving up on securing funding for a border wall,” and predicted that
Democrats are “‘one really disastrous crime away from looking really bad’
when it comes to border security.”

        *House Freedom Caucus Urges Trump, Congress To Fund Wall. *Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02d-099&t=c>
(12/19, Moran) reports in “a series of fiery speeches Wednesday night,”
members of the House Freedom Caucus and Chairman Mark Meadows (R-NC) called
on the President and Congress “to fund his promised border wall; Meadows
said they will back Trump if he vetoes the spending bill.”

        *Polls Show Strong Support For Wall Among GOP Voters. *Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02e-e2f&t=c>
(12/19, Moran) reports that a Morning Consult/Politico poll
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=02f-eee&t=c>
released Wednesday shows that “immigration reform and building a wall along
America’s southern border serve as two of the top issues for Republican
voters.” In a separate story, Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=030-940&t=c>
(12/19, Starr) reports a Rasmussen Reports poll
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=031-424&t=c>
“shows that one in three Republicans would be willing to pitch in to pay
for a wall on the U.S. southern border with Mexico if Congress fails to
give President Donald Trump the $5 billion he has asked Congress to approve
for it.”

        *GoFundMe Page Raises More Than $1 Million To Fund Wall. *The Daily
Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=032-5fe&t=c>
(12/19, Brest) reports a GoFundMe page started by Brian Kolfage, a Purple
Heart recipient, “has raised over $1 million” to help fund the border wall.
Kolfage, “a triple amputee who served in Iraq, created the fundraising page
on Sunday. As of Wednesday afternoon, the fundraiser has received
$1,003,544 from 16,333 donors.”
Foreign Policy
Trump Declares Victory Over ISIS, Orders US Troops Out Of Syria.

President Trump took to Twitter
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=033-e5d&t=c>
yesterday morning to announce, “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only
reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” The President’s tweet
came as Vice President Pence met with top leaders at the Pentagon. Shortly
after the meeting, a senior Administration official told reporters that all
2,000 US troops currently in Syria would be withdrawn. Later Wednesday,
Trump tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=034-11d&t=c>,
“After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young
people home!” The announcement was met with criticism from lawmakers of
both parties, and media reports indicate that US military leaders,
including Defense Secretary Mattis, have recently spoken publicly of the
need for US troops to remain in the country.

        USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=035-6d1&t=c>
(12/19, Brook, Jackson), for example, says Trump made the decision “over
the apparent objections of military advisers and a bipartisan group of
lawmakers.” While a “US official” told USA Today the withdrawal “is based
on Trump’s decision that the mission against ISIS is complete,” Mattis “in
recent weeks and months” has “spoken of the need for US troops to remain in
the eastern part of the country to help stabilize it and allow for peace
negotiations to proceed.” The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=036-01a&t=c>
(12/19, Baldor, George, Lucey) likewise says Trump “suddenly declared
victory over the Islamic State, contradicting his own experts’ assessments
and sparking surprise and outrage from his party’s lawmakers who called his
action rash and dangerous.”

        The New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=037-33b&t=c>
(12/19, Fredericks) reports that “a senior administration official on
Wednesday declined to comment on whom if anyone President Trump consulted
before” making the announcement, but according to the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=038-ce8&t=c>
(12/19, DeYoung), the decision “was made on Tuesday, according to people
familiar with the issue, following a small meeting attended only by senior
White House aides and the secretaries of defense and state, most of whom,
if not all, sharply disagreed.”

        Another Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=039-2d6&t=c>
(12/19, Dawsey) piece says Trump’s decision “is a clear rebuke” to Mattis,
who “had argued that the counterterrorism mission in Syria is not over and
that the small US presence in Syria should remain, said current and former
US officials.” Trump, however, “brush[ed] aside his defense secretary’s
advice.”

        Calling it a “surprise announcement,” the CBS Evening News[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03a-882&t=c>
(12/19, lead story, 2:35, Glor) said in its lead story that while US troops
have “helped push ISIS into a few isolated areas...today’s announcement
still stunned some top Republicans, who believe more work needs to be
done.” CBS (Martin) added, “It is true the territory ISIS once held...has
been reduced to just a few pockets, but the fighting remains fierce. ...
The abrupt withdrawal runs counter to US strategy, as explained little more
than a week ago by a senior State Department official.” US special envoy
Brett McGurk: “I think it’s fair to say Americans will remain on the ground
after the physical defeat of the caliphate until we have the pieces in
place to ensure that defeat is enduring.”

        On ABC World News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03b-f30&t=c>
(12/19, story 3, 1:55, Muir), Martha Raddatz said the move “flies in the
face of what many of his own advisers on Syria were saying just days ago.”
McGurk: “If we’ve learned one thing over the years, enduring defeat of a
group like this, means you can’t just defeat their physical space and
leave. You have to make sure the internal security forces are in place to
ensure that those security gains are enduring.” Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford: “As far as stabilization, we still
have a long way to go.”

        NBC Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03c-379&t=c>
(12/19, story 3, 2:20, Holt) said the “big US foreign policy shift” is
“taking a lot of folks by surprise.” Richard Engel said “a US official told
NBC News this decision came quickly in the last 24 hours, quote, ‘right
from the top.’ And tonight, the US military is scrambling to figure out how
to implement it, with grave concerns about ISIS and our allies.” Bloomberg
News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03d-af7&t=c>
(12/19, Wadhams, Capaccio, Talev) likewise says the announcement “appeared
to take the Pentagon by surprise,” and “left key details unanswered – such
as a timetable for withdrawal, whether all troops would be pulled out and
whether airstrikes would continue.”

        To the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03e-581&t=c>
(12/19, Ryan), it “signals a halt to an extended American ground campaign
against the Islamic State and upends plans across the US government –
articulated by senior officials as recently as this week – for an ongoing
mission to stabilize areas once controlled by the militants.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=03f-a38&t=c>
(12/19, Ali, Stewart) says it “raise[s] doubts about how to prevent a
resurgence of the militant group, undercut[s] US leverage in the region and
undermine[s] diplomatic efforts to end the Syrian civil war now in its
eighth year.” Reuters also notes that Dunford “cautioned earlier in
December that the United States had trained only about 20 percent of Syrian
forces required to stabilize areas captured from Islamic State.”

        The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=040-fe1&t=c>
(12/19, McIntyre) says the withdrawal also marks “a sharp reversal from
statements made in September by national security adviser John Bolton, who
said the US would stay in Syria as a counterweight to the Iranian presence
there.” Along similar lines, The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=041-48a&t=c>
(12/19, Kheel) says a “full withdrawal from Syria would be a reversal for
the Trump administration, which as recently as Monday was talking about the
need to remain in the country until the ‘enduring’ defeat of the terrorist
group.” The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=042-df4&t=c>
(12/19, Nissenbaum, Youssef) has a similar report under the headline “In
Shift, Trump Orders US Troops Out Of Syria.”

        The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=043-87b&t=c>
(12/19, Cooper, Schmitt, Landler) reports “Pentagon officials who had
sought to talk the president out of the decision as late as Wednesday
morning argued that such a move would betray Kurdish allies who have fought
alongside American troops in Syria and who could find themselves under
attack in a military offensive now threatened by Turkey.” According to the
Times, “one American official said that Kurdish leaders were informed of
the president’s decision on Wednesday morning.” Over the past several days,
“Mattis and other senior national security officials have tried to dissuade
Mr. Trump from a wholesale troop withdrawal, arguing that the significant
national security policy shift would essentially cede foreign influence in
Syria to Russia and Iran.”

        On the CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=044-bb4&t=c>
(12/19, story 2, 1:20, Glor), Holly Williams said the withdrawal would make
it more difficult for the Syrian Democratic Forces to fight ISIS. It could
also “force the SDF to embrace the Syrian regime, as well as its backers
Iran and Russia, simply to ensure their own survival.” A New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=045-1ec&t=c>
(12/19, Nordland) analysis similarly says the withdrawal “is seen by
analysts as an abandonment of America’s key allies in Syria, the
Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, and a boon for the Islamic State.” It
is also “expected to give a green light to Turkey to carry out its
threatened invasion of northeastern Syria, a move likely to draw Kurdish
forces from the fight against the Islamic State in the southeast.”

        Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=046-423&t=c>
(12/19, Toosi) reports that in wake of the announcement, “Trump aides were
mostly quiet on Wednesday – the State Department canceled a planned
afternoon briefing.” Pressed on “why Trump was ignoring his advisers, a
senior administration official told reporters Wednesday afternoon that
Trump was merely fulfilling campaign promises about bringing troops home.”
Said the senior Administration official, “The issue here is that the
president has made a decision. He gets to do that. That’s his prerogative.”

        John Glaser writes for Axios
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=047-0d6&t=c>
(12/19) that the “US withdrawal from Syria puts a check on mission creep,”
and argues that “ISIS’ permanent defeat probably does not require a US
ground presence in Syria.” The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=048-6ff&t=c>
(12/19, Bierman), however, says the move is also “rais[ing] fears among
national security professionals that he might follow the Syria decision
with a draw-down in Afghanistan, something he has long wanted to do.” The Daily
Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=049-9d9&t=c>
(12/19, Enjeti) likewise reports that “Trump has long wanted to withdraw
troops from Syria,” saying in April, “I want to get out. ... I want to
bring our troops back home.”

        Lawmakers from both parties were critical of the announcement. USA
Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04a-ca9&t=c>
(12/19, Brook, Jackson) reports Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04b-c34&t=c>,
“Withdrawal of this small American force in Syria would be a huge
Obama-like mistake.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04c-981&t=c>
that the move was a “major blunder” and made against the Pentagon’s advice.
The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04d-d58&t=c>
(12/19, Baldor, George, Lucey) says Graham said he was “blindsided” by the
announcement and called the decision “a disaster in the making.” He said,
“The biggest winners in this are ISIS and Iran.”

        McClatchy
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04e-f28&t=c>
(12/19, Dumain) says “Graham was not alone in his shock and outrage.” The
outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob
Corker (R-TN), and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe
(R-OK) “both said they were not informed of the decision prior to Trump’s
tweet and wanted answers.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=04f-2d6&t=c>
(12/19, Tritten) reports Corker “said he was waiting for calls back from
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to get some
information on the decision.”

        Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=050-000&t=c>
(12/19, Brown, Hellman, Everett) reports that Vice President Pence was
“dispatched to the Hill as the administration began absorbing a torrent of
condemnation from hawkish Republicans, who blasted the White House’s
announcement.” Graham “told Pence that he was ‘personally offended’ to read
about the decision in the news rather than hearing from the president or
his aides.”

        On CNN’s Situation Room
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=051-4e2&t=c>
(12/19), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) called it “a rash decision,” as
well as “an unexpected” and “ill-coordinated” one. Whitehouse saw the move
as “good for the Russians and bad for US credibility.” On Fox News’ Special
Report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=052-e9f&t=c>
(12/19), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) said the move to pull out troops is “the
wrong thing to do,” especially to our allies like the Kurds, who will now
be “sitting ducks.” Klobuchar argued that there was a “better way to do
this.” On CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=053-e62&t=c>
(12/19), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) said he was perturbed by the way the
decision was made. He said the “ham-handed” move, “pulling the rug out” of
our diplomats and our allies in the region, made “the country weaker.”

        Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said on CNN’s The Lead[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=054-847&t=c>
(12/19), “I’m speechless today. ... To see the President wake up today and
say we’ve defeated [ISIS] when we know that is not true...that’s not only
going to hamper our current operation, it’s going to double or triple the
ranks of ISIS.”

        Sen. Ben Cardin tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=055-fa9&t=c>,
“@POTUS: What’s your strategy? American troops deserve to know that you
have one, and the American people deserve transparency from their commander
in chief. Explain yourself.”

        Following the criticism from lawmakers, the President took to
Twitter again Wednesday night to highlight praise on Fox News for his
decision. Trump wrote
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=056-141&t=c>,
“Col. Jim Carafano on @IngrahamAngle ‘Trump has made the Middle East a
better place. When Trump came into office, ISIS was running amuck in the
Middle East. Over a million refugees poured into Western Europe – none of
that is happening today. That’s all due to Trump.’” In a second tweet
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=057-dad&t=c>
13 minutes later, he said, “‘Trump gets no credit for what he’s done in the
Middle East.’ @IngrahamAngle So true, thank you Laura!”

        Media commentary casts the President’s decision as a victory for
Syria and its backers – Russia and Iran. David Ignatius, for example,
writes in his Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=058-7a0&t=c>
(12/19) column that the decision “is riskier than it looks. It ends a
low-cost, high-impact mission and creates a vacuum that will be filled by
one of a series of bad actors – Iran, Russia, Turkey, Islamic extremists,
the Syrian regime – take your pick, they’re all dangerous for US interests
in the Middle East.”

        In his Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=059-80a&t=c>
(12/19) column, Max Boot similarly writes that “by withdrawing US troops,
who were in control of one-third of Syria, he is handing a Christmas
present to the mullahs [of Iran]. So much for Trump’s conceit that he is
the most pro-Israel president ever. A US withdrawal from Syria will
entrench the Islamic Republic of Iran on Israel’s doorstep. That damage
vastly outweighs the empty symbolism of moving the US Embassy to
Jerusalem.”

        Former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland writes in
a Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05a-c79&t=c>
(12/19) op-ed titled “In A Single Tweet, Trump Destroys US Policy In The
Middle East” that the decision to withdraw US troops “hands a huge New
Year’s gift to President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State, the Kremlin
and Tehran. He also guarantees the reversal of US military gains there and
extinguishes any leverage Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his special
envoy for Syria, James Jeffrey, may have to drive a diplomatic settlement
that meets the administration’s own goals of keeping the Islamic State and
Iran out.”

        USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05b-9f2&t=c>
(12/19) contributor Tony Badran of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies writes that the decision “carries implications for the
administration’s Iran policy, as Tehran and its client, the Assad regime,
are poised to take advantage of the American withdrawal.” Badran warns that
the move will “also affect the administration’s economic pressure campaign
against Iran and its regional assets.”

        On its editorial page, the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05c-cc7&t=c>
(12/19) says the decision “undermined at a stroke several foreign policy
goals [Trump] has championed.” While he claimed the ISIS “had been
defeated...that is not the view of the Defense and State Departments.” At
the same time, Trump has “vowed to roll back Iran’s aggression across the
Middle East,” but the Post says his decision “will allow its forces to
entrench in the country that is the keystone of Tehran’s ambitions.”
Lastly, though Trump has “promised to protect Israel,” it “will now be left
to face alone the buildup by Iran and its proxies along its northern
border.”

        A Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05d-be5&t=c>
(12/19) editorial is also critical of the decision, which it too says will
hurt his Administration’s Iran strategy. Also critical is a New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05e-fcb&t=c>
(12/19) editorial, which argues that the “abrupt and dangerous decision,
detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, sowed
new uncertainty about America’s commitment to the Middle East, its
willingness to be a global leader and Mr. Trump’s role as commander in
chief.” The Times argues that Trump “undercut his advisers, and American
interests, by reversing course.”

        Former Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby (ret.)
said on CNN’s
Situation Room
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=05f-329&t=c>
(12/19) that this was “a reckless decision. Now is exactly not the time to
be rapidly pulling troops out of Syria. It is true that ISIS has been
decimated in Syria in terms of their territory, where they possess. Now is
the time to press that advantage forward. Remember, our troops are not
there to fight ISIS directly necessarily, but to advise and assist Syrian
democratic forces, indigenous forces that you need for sustainable
security. So this is exactly the wrong time to do it.” Kirby added, “I
think it’s a big gift to Russia, who would love nothing more than to have
us out of there.”

        Charles Hurt of the Washington Times said on Fox News’ Special
Report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=060-140&t=c>
(12/19), “The bottom line remains: this is the President, who won an
election promising to curtail military engagement and involvement overseas.
We can have all kinds of debates about whether that is a smart thing to do.
But, this is the President keeping that promise of reining those things in.
While a lot of people around here are obviously very upset about it, and a
lot of people can make some very good arguments about needing to continue
to fight against ISIS, I don’t think beyond the Beltway here people are
nearly as worked up about it out in the rest of America.”

        *NYTimes Analysis: Trump’s View Of US Force In Mideast “Echoes”
Obama’s. *David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=061-3d2&t=c>
(12/19) that President Trump’s “view that American forces cannot alter the
strategic balance in the Middle East, and should not be there, was
fundamentally shared by his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama.” Sanger
notes that Obama, “at almost the exact same moment in his presidency,
announced the removal of America’s last troops in Iraq – fulfilling a
campaign promise.” Obama’s “strategy – rely on local partners on the
ground, use American air power when necessary to defend American interests
and celebrate a return of American troops for the holidays – sounds a lot
like discussions inside Mr. Trump’s White House over the past several
days.”
US, China Clash At WTO Over Allegations Of Intellectual Property Theft.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=062-4a6&t=c>
(12/19) reports the US and China “traded barbs again at the World Trade
Organization, with the US ambassador accusing China of theft of technology
and an envoy from Beijing retorting that the US was ‘finger-pointing.’” The New
York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=063-448&t=c>
(12/19, Ewing) reports the Americans “accused the Chinese of being
modern-day mercantilists who steal intellectual property,” and the Chinese
said the US “is not using its superpowers with great responsibility.” The
Times says the “trash-talking by otherwise restrained diplomats took place
at a normally dull occasion: a review of American trade policies at the
World Trade Organization in Geneva.”

        *Trump’s Use Of National Security To Justify Tariffs Challenged In
Court. *The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=064-2a4&t=c>
(12/19, Thrush) reports a three-judge panel on Wednesday “considered the
most far-reaching legal challenge” to President Trump’s “aggressive use of
national security to justify placing levies on steel and aluminum imports
from Europe as well as Canada, Mexico, China and other nations.” The legal
action, “filed by an alliance of steel importers, revolves around an
important constitutional question: whether a provision of United States
trade law, known as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, gives
the president too much power over taxes and tariffs — powers that the
founding fathers explicitly granted to Congress.” The Times says “the
constitutional challenge is considered something of a long shot in legal
circles because the Supreme Court almost never overturns a congressional
decision to delegate power to the executive branch.”

        *Third Canadian Detained In China. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=065-5b4&t=c>
(12/19, Ljunggren) reports that the Canadian government says “a third
Canadian has been detained in China following the arrest of a Chinese
technology executive in Vancouver.” Reuters adds that “the detentions of
the Canadians followed the Dec. 1 arrest in Vancouver of Meng Wanzhou,
chief financial officer of the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei...at
the request of the United States, which is engaged in a trade war with
Canada.” However, according to Reuters, a Canadian official “said there is
no reason to believe the latest detention is linked to the previous
arrests,” and “gave no details of the latest incident.” The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=066-33a&t=c>
(12/19, Wong) reports that “Chinese security agencies detained two other
Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, on Dec. 10.” According to the
Times, “Chinese officials have suggested in public comments that the
agencies are looking into potential national security charges.”
China Steps In With Military Projects For Pakistan After Trump Suspends US
Aid.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=067-753&t=c>
(12/19, Abi-Habib) reports, “When President Trump started the new year by
suspending billions of dollars of security aid to Pakistan, one theory was
that it would scare the Pakistani military into cooperating better with its
American allies.” However, “the reality was that Pakistan already had a
replacement sponsor lined up.” The Times goes on to report that “just two
weeks later, the Pakistani Air Force and Chinese officials were putting the
final touches on a secret proposal to expand Pakistan’s building of Chinese
military jets, weaponry” and “also deepen the cooperation between China and
Pakistan in space.” The Times says “all those military projects were
designated as part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion chain
of infrastructure development programs stretching across some 70 countries,
built and financed by Beijing.”
Treasury Imposes New Russia Sanctions, Lifts Others.

Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=068-001&t=c>
(12/19, Sink) reports the Administration is “sanctioning 15 Russian
military intelligence operatives over efforts to interfere in the 2016 US
election and the attempted assassination of a former double agent in the
UK.” Bloomberg News points out that the imposition of new sanctions “comes
amid a strain in relations between President Donald Trump and Russian
President Vladimir Putin, with the US upset over Russia’s capture of
Ukrainian ships and sailors in the Kerch Strait near Crimea.”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=069-528&t=c>
(12/19, Morello) reports the Administration sanctioned “18 Russian
intelligence agents Wednesday for a variety of activities, including
interfering in the US presidential election, the attempted assassination of
a former spy in Britain and hacking international agencies that combat
chemical weapons and doping.”

        The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06a-75e&t=c>
(12/19, Boyer) reports Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said, “The United States
will continue to work with international allies and partners to take
collective action to deter and defend against sustained malign activity by
Russia, its proxies, and intelligence agencies.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06b-743&t=c>
(12/19, Chiacu, Layne) reports that the Treasury Department “said in a
statement on its website that it was imposing the new sanctions on
individuals and entities involved in the alleged election interference, the
hacking of the World Anti-Doping Agency and other ‘malign activities.’”
Treasury also “said it would lift sanctions on three companies controlled
by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska,” who is “known to be in Russian
President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.” The companies that had sanctions
lifted are “aluminum producer Rusal, its parent En+, and another company
tied to Deripaska.”

        In a second article, Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06c-a27&t=c>
(12/19, Devitt, Layne) reports that following lobbying by European
governments, Washington “started talks with Deripaska’s team on removing
Rusal and En+ from the blacklist if he ceded control of Rusal.” Meanwhile,
“the three Deripaska companies – Rusal, En+ and electricity firm
EuroSibEnergo – have agreed to restructure to reduce Deripaska’s stakes.”
State Department Official Says North Korea Travel Ban Will Be Reviewed.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06d-3e5&t=c>
(12/19, Sang-Hun) reports that Stephen Biegun, the State Department’s
special representative for North Korea, says the US “plans to review its
ban on American travel to North Korea to help facilitate humanitarian aid
shipments.” According to the Times, Biegun’s “remarks...indicated that
Washington was easing some of its ‘maximum’ pressure on North Korea to
break a prolonged stalemate in talks on denuclearizing the North.” However,
the Times adds that “it remained unclear whether the lifting of the travel
ban and humanitarian aid deliveries will be enough for the North to make a
major concession toward denuclearization.”
After Discovery Of Tunnels, Israel Urges International Condemnation Of
Hezbollah.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06e-9b8&t=c>
(12/19, Eglash) reports that in a speech, “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu called on the international community to hold Lebanon, Iran and
Hezbollah accountable for” violating of Israeli sovereignty by constructing
tunnels under the Lebanon-Israel border. Netanyahu accused Lebanon of
“doing nothing at best, colluding at worst.” At an emergency UN Security
Council session requested by Israel and the United States, Israel called
for the condemnation of Hezbollah and its designation as “a terrorist
organization in its entirety.” Israel “also pressed for increased sanctions
on the militant group and demanded that Lebanon stop allowing its territory
to be used to carry out attacks against Israel.”

        *Israel Claims UN Force In Lebanon Passed On Information To
Hezbollah. *Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=06f-f8e&t=c>
(12/19, Wainer) reports that Israel “said information about a tunnel that
it shared with the United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon was passed
on to Hezbollah, which used the knowledge to foil efforts to detect the
secret passageway.” According to Danny Danon, Israel’s UN ambassador,
Israel “gave the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, the peacekeepers
assigned to ensure security along the Israel-Lebanese border, ‘precise
information about the location of the tunnel.’” Danon said, “Sources within
the Lebanese army informed Hezbollah about the information, which enabled
the terrorist organization to conceal the tunnel’s operations and thwart
Israel’s defensive actions.”
Lankford: Taliban More Like A “Big Political Party” Than A Terrorist
Organization.

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=070-3ac&t=c>
(12/19), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who was in Afghanistan last weekend,
said, “There are breakthroughs that are happening in negotiations trying to
get the Taliban and the existing Ghani government to sit down and do
reconciliation. ... The Taliban, some people see them as a terrorist
organization, but they are more like a big political party in Afghanistan
that clearly has some very strong militant elements in it.” Asked if he
sees “a day in the foreseeable future where there are not Americans on the
ground in Afghanistan,” Lankford replied, “No. ... I do seen a end to the
war but I don’t see an end to the day when we don’t have some Americans
bases there.”
Domestic Policy
Despite Trump Pressure, Fed Hikes Rates And Sends Stocks Stumbling.

ABC World News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=071-5ab&t=c>
(12/19, story 9, 0:20, Muir) reported on “the Federal Reserve raising
interest rates, defying pressure from President Trump to do nothing. That
key lending rate going up a quarter point, the fourth hike this year. Your
car loan, mortgage, and credit card payments likely going up, too, with
this.” Added ABC, “The Dow plunging on the news, falling 351 points to the
lowest level so far this year.” The CBS Evening News[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=072-f30&t=c>
(12/19, story 6, 1:45, Glor) also said “the raise came despite complaints
by President consistently about the rate hikes,” and that “the news sent
stock markets into reverse.”

        NBC Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=073-e95&t=c>
(12/19, story 5, 1:30, Costello) reported that “amid compelling evidence of
a strong economy, the Federal Reserve...ignored...Trump’s criticisms and
raised interest rates again, the ninth rate hike since 2015.” The Los
Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=074-c56&t=c>
(12/19, Lee) also reports “the latest statement, and an updated economic
forecast also released Wednesday, show Fed policymakers remain bullish
about the economy,” as “they noted the strong job gains, consumer spending
and the low unemployment rate.” However, the Fed “slightly lowered its
economic growth projections for this year and next,” and “in their latest
statement, they gave a nod to recent concerns about a slowdown outside the
US and the volatile stock market,” saying it “will continue to monitor
global economic and financial developments and assess their implications
for the economic outlook.” Along those lines, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=075-71d&t=c>
(12/19, Appelbaum) says “the Fed’s announcement offered a few crumbs for
critics, including...Trump, who have urged the central bank to stop raising
rates.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=076-1f0&t=c>
(12/19, Crutsinger) reports “the Fed has raised rates with steady
regularity as the US economy has strengthened,” and that “Wednesday’s was”
its “ninth hike since it began gradually tightening credit three years
ago.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=077-037&t=c>
(12/19, Davidson) says “the central bank’s latest move, which comes
amid...Trump’s repeated criticism of Fed rate hikes, is expected to set off
a domino effect across the economy, bumping up rates on credit cards, home
equity lines of credit, and adjustable-rate mortgages.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=078-348&t=c>
(12/19, Long) notes “the latest move by the Fed brings interest rates up a
quarter-point to a range of 2.25 percent to 2.5 percent, the highest rate
in more than a decade.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=079-046&t=c>
(12/19, Saphir, Schneider) points out the Fed acted “after weeks of market
volatility and calls by...Trump to stop increasing borrowing costs,” while
Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07a-0da&t=c>
(12/19, Guida) headlines its story “Fed Raises Rates, Defying Trump,” The
Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07b-3a9&t=c>
(12/19, Jagoda, Lane) “Fed Raises Interest Rates, Defying Trump” and CQ
Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07c-572&t=c>
(12/19, Bennett) “Fed Sends Signal To Trump By Boosting Interest Rates.”
Roll Call further describes the Fed as “defying...Trump and flashing its
independence.” Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07d-a2f&t=c>
(12/19, Moons), the New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07e-40d&t=c>
(12/19, English), Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=07f-b19&t=c>
(12/19, Wilhelm) and Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=080-a0d&t=c>
(12/19, Timiraos), among other news outlets, run similar accounts.

        *Stocks End Sharply Down After Fed Announcement. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=081-97f&t=c>
(12/19, Joyner) reports “US stocks declined sharply on Wednesday after the
Federal Reserve’s forecast of fewer interest-rate increases in 2019 fell
short of investors’ hopes of a more dovish monetary policy.” The Dow “fell
351.98 points, or 1.49 percent, to 23,323.66, the S&P 500 lost 35.48
points, or 1.39 percent, to 2,510.68, and the Nasdaq Composite dropped
140.80 points, or 2.08 percent, to 6,643.11.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=082-af3&t=c>
(12/19, Shell), the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=083-5af&t=c>
(12/19, Phillips), Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=084-8b2&t=c>
(12/19, Williams), Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=085-ae0&t=c>
(12/19, Ponczek, Hajric) and Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=086-032&t=c>
(12/19, Ramkumar), among other news outlets, also link the stocks’ decline
to the Fed announcement.

        In an editorial, the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=087-a4b&t=c>
(12/19) says the Fed’s decision to hike rates was a message to the markets
that their health is not deemed all that important to the overall US
economy. To the Journal, the stocks selloff underlines the fact the market
understood that was the intended message.
Judge From Flynn Sentencing Orders Administration To Return Deported Asylum
Seekers To US.

The CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=088-1a8&t=c>
(12/19, story 11, 0:20, Glor) reported that “a federal judge...blocked the
Trump administration from enforcing new restrictions on immigrants seeking
asylum.” Judge Emmet Sullivan also “ordered the government to return some
immigrants who had been deported under the rules. In June, the
administration said gang violence or domestic abuse were no longer grounds
for asylum.” The judge “said only Congress could make those changes.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=089-74b&t=c>
(12/19, Long) says Sullivan “declared that some of the guidance that
then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued this year by cannot be used to
determine whether an immigrant has a credible fear of persecution or
torture in their home countries, the first step to making an asylum claim
in the US,” and Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08a-e61&t=c>
(12/19, Mears) that “in addition to returning asylum seekers to the US,
Sullivan blocked the Trump administration policies from being further
applied.” The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08b-31f&t=c>
(12/19, Dinan) reports Sessions “had tried to block asylum claims of
migrants who said they faced gang violence or domestic abuse back home.”
Sessions “had argued that while traumatic, those reasons strayed far from
the political or religious persecution by governments that traditionally
made someone eligible for asylum.”

        The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08c-84b&t=c>
(12/19, O'Toole) reports “the Department of Justice did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on the ruling or on how many people the
government could be forced to bring back.” The Times points out “it’s been
a busy week for Sullivan, who on Tuesday postponed sentencing for Trump’s
former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, and publicly excoriated
him, saying, ‘Arguably, you sold your country out!’” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08d-9fc&t=c>
(12/19, Gomez), the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08e-386&t=c>
(12/19, Zapotosky) and The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=08f-3bb&t=c>
(12/19, Wheeler), among other news outlets, also report the story.
Trump Retweets Steele Assertion That Clinton Wanted Dossier To Contest
Election.

President Trump retweeted a Mike Huckabee tweet
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=090-e51&t=c>
in which Huckabee wrote, “It took a British court to reveal it, but more
shocking evidence of the REAL ‘Russian collusion’ and it wasn’t about
@realDonaldTrump but guys like St. Comey, the self-righteous liar/leaker.
Corruption, Collusion, and Crime!” Huckabee included a link to a Monday
post on the conservative site PJ Media
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=091-ce9&t=c>
stating, “The DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign funneled cash to ex-British
spy Christopher Steele to help them ‘challenge the validity of the outcome’
of the 2016 election in the event Clinton lost, according to a new British
court filing.” The post was based on an earlier Washington Times report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=092-645&t=c>.

        *Court Filing: McCain Associate Gave Steele Dossier To BuzzFeed. *The
Daily Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=093-71b&t=c>
(12/19, Ross) reports David Kramer, “a longtime associate” of late Sen.
John McCain, “provided a copy of the infamous Steele dossier to BuzzFeed
News,” according to a court filing. Kramer, “a former State Department
official who was an executive at the McCain Institute, met on Dec. 29, 2016
with BuzzFeed reporter Ken Bensinger,” according to the filing. The New
York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=094-cb4&t=c>
(12/19, Peiser) reports the filing came as a federal judge ruled in
BuzzFeed’s favor in “a defamation lawsuit filed by a Russian technology
executive over the website’s publication” of the dossier.

        *Giuliani Acknowledges Trump Signed Letter Of Intent To Develop
Moscow Project In 2015. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=095-135&t=c>
(12/19, Freifeld) reports Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that President Trump
“signed an October 2015 letter of intent to develop a real estate project
in Russia during his presidential campaign, after earlier denying it in a
weekend television interview.” On CNN on Sunday, Giuliani said “‘no one
signed’ the letter of intent to go forward with the Moscow project,
although he acknowledged talks about the development had extended through
November 2016.” On Wednesday, Giuliani “reversed course...after CNN
reported late on Tuesday that it had obtained a copy of the Oct. 28, 2015
letter signed by Trump, who had announced his White House bid in June that
year. ‘If I said it, I made a mistake,’ Giuliani said of his previous
denial about Trump having signed the letter.”

        The New York Daily News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=096-6d1&t=c>
(12/19, Sommerfeldt, Braine) reports, “‘I don’t think I said nobody signed
it,’ Giuliani told the Daily News, even though he told [CNN] ‘no one
signed’ the letter. In a stunning contradiction, Giuliani told The News
that ‘of course’ Trump signed it. ‘How could you send it but nobody signed
it?’ he said.”

        Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=097-a22&t=c>
(12/19), “The President very clearly lied about this, and you can go back
and run the tape. He said, ‘I have no deals, I have no prospects of deals,
I have no nothing.’ In fact, he had a signed letter of intent. ... Once
again, and it seems like a daily occurrence, we are finding that the
President and the President’s people cannot be honest on the subject of
Russia.”

        Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=098-1e2&t=c>
(12/19), “The person who really has the obligation is Donald Trump. He’s
the one who has been saying all along, ‘I have nothing to do with Russia.’
And here’s a signed document to build Trump Tower in Moscow. ... And the
fact that Donald Trump has spent now years lying about his relationship
with Russia is just extraordinary. Now, as Rudy Giuliani may point out, we
haven’t seen him lie under oath about it, but just as a political matter,
it’s just a shameful, shameful thing.”

        Abby Phillip said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=099-46e&t=c>
(12/19), “This is a knowable thing. It is not something that should have
come as a surprise to someone who is technically the President’s lawyer.
It’s something that has been known for now more than two years. And so when
Giuliani goes out on a Sunday show and says, ‘This document was never
signed, it basically doesn’t exist,’ and it does exist, that’s clearly an
attempt to lie about the facts of the case, to shift public opinion in the
President’s direction.”

        Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09a-0ff&t=c>
(12/19, Milbank) column, “The ‘fool’ has been a dramatic fixture at least
since Shakespeare scribbled, and Giuliani is the fool for our time.
Occasionally he speaks accidental truths, but mostly he plays the clown.
He’s America’s crazy uncle at a time when, according to a Wired tally
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09b-25d&t=c>,
seven sets of prosecutors and investigators are pursuing at least 17 court
cases involving Trump. ... Clearly, some Giuliani dopiness is an effort to
divulge damaging information gently. But he often makes matters worse.”

        *Giuliani Says Daniels/McDougal Payments Not Illegal Even If Meant
“To Aid The Campaign.” *The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09c-4da&t=c>
(12/19, Stanage) reports Giuliani “floated a new line of defense Wednesday
regarding payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal” in 2016. In an
“unsolicited text to The Hill on Wednesday afternoon, Giuliani argued that
those payments would not violate campaign finance laws ‘even if a purpose
was to aid the campaign.’ Such payments would be defensible, he argued, so
long as ‘there is a strong personal component to a payment – like
protecting your wife, children and family from scandal.’”

        Giuliani tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09d-f8f&t=c>
Tuesday evening, “The payments to Daniels and McDougall do not violate the
law. Congress has spent millions settling sexual harassment claims against
members which are not reported as campaign contributions. Why aren’t those
Congressmen under investigation.”

        Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09e-1e1&t=c>,
“Rudy Giuliani last week suggested Trump didn’t know directing a hush-money
payment by an outside company during the election was illegal. Today, he
said: ‘Honestly, I don’t think his knowledge goes that deep because mine
didn’t until I researched it.’”

        *Legal Experts: Trump’s Sworn Statements Show He Has Knowledge Of
Campaign Finance Law. *The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=09f-5d0&t=c>
(12/19, Ballhaus, Palazzolo) reports legal experts say sworn statements by
the President from 1998 and 2000 indicate that he has knowledge of campaign
finance laws, which could prove crucial should investigators charge him
over his involvement with the payment of hush-money during the 2016
campaign to women who claim to have had affairs with him.

        *Mueller Seeks Transcript Of House Intelligence Committee Stone
Testimony. *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a0-11a&t=c>
(12/19, Roig-Franzia) reports Special Counsel Robert Mueller “asked the
House Intelligence Committee on Friday for an official transcript of Trump
adviser Roger Stone’s testimony, according to people familiar with the
request, a sign that prosecutors could be moving to charge him with a
crime.” The sources say it is “the first time Mueller has formally asked
the committee to turn over material the panel has gathered in its
investigation” of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Stone said
Wednesday that “he had not been notified of Mueller’s request,” but said he
is “confident that the transcript of his testimony will not provide the
special counsel with grounds to charge him.”

        *The Federalist’s Mill: Flynn’s Sticking To Plea “Solved”
Misconduct “Problem” For Mueller. *Adam Mill writes at The Federalist
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a1-c43&t=c>
(12/19, Mill) that Michael Flynn’s “continued willingness to stick to his
plea” during his court appearance Tuesday “solved a big problem” for
Mueller’s team. Among the “many acts of misconduct committed to get Flynn,
we’re now finding out that the Mueller team quietly returned the Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page phones back to the FBI to be deleted and re-issued
when they knew the text messages on those phones undercut the credibility
of their lead investigator.”

        *Ledeen: Flynn Lied To Mueller, Not FBI. *Michael Ledeen of the
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies writes in the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a2-d35&t=c>
(12/19, Ledeen) that Flynn must either revisit the plea, which expose his
son to action by Mueller, or insist on being sentenced, which could lead to
prison time. Ledeen says he believes Flynn made a false confession to
Mueller in order to make a deal, and that he did not lie to the FBI.

        *House Investigation Of Probes At Apparent Close Following Lynch
Testimony. *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a3-0a7&t=c>
(12/19, Demirjian) reports, “A House investigation of how the FBI and the
Justice Department conducted probes of the Trump campaign’s alleged Russia
ties and Hillary Clinton’s emails is fizzling to a close after lawmakers
interviewed their last scheduled witness Wednesday and have no apparent
plans to release a comprehensive report of their findings.” Former Attorney
General Loretta Lynch “met behind closed doors with members of the House
Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees for nearly seven
hours” in what Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) “called ‘the swan song for a
wild-goose chase by the Republicans.’”

        *Requests Seek Information On Russian Backing Of US Environmental
Groups. *The Washington Free Beacon
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a4-8f1&t=c>
(12/19, Mooney) reports that “the Treasury and State Departments have
failed to respond to open records requests seeking ‘certain correspondence
and related records discussing Russian funding of environmental pressure
groups’ advocacy in the United States,’ according to lawsuits filed today
against Treasury and Monday against State.” In June 2017, Reps. Lamar Smith
(R-TX) and Randy Weber sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin “asking
him to ‘conduct a full and complete investigation’ into allegations the
Russian government has been funneling tens of millions of dollars into U.S.
environmental groups to support misinformation campaigns aimed at
suppressing U.S. natural gas development.”
Cummings Demands Administration Documents On Wide Range Of Issues.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a5-409&t=c>
(12/19, Gibson) reports Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), who will become
chairman of the House Oversight Committee next month, “sent 51 letters on
Wednesday demanding that the Trump administration provide documents for a
wave of investigations expected to gain momentum in January.” The letters
“cover topics ranging from separation of immigrant children from their
parents, the U.S. response to the hurricane in Puerto Rico, lead poisoning
of the water in Flint, Michigan, and travel by White House staff and
cabinet secretaries.” Cummings gave the Administration until January 11 to
comply.

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a6-6dc&t=c>
(12/19, Wagner) reports, “Cummings said that none of the requests are
altogether new. They previously were made Republican lawmakers, but the
Trump administration refused to fully comply – an option that will become
more difficult once House Democrats are armed with subpoena power.” In a
statement, he said, “As Democrats prepare to take the reins in Congress, we
are insisting – as a basic first step – that the Trump administration and
others comply with these Republican requests.”

        The House Oversight Committee Democrats tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a7-8ca&t=c>,
“Every single document sought in these 51 letters was first requested by
House Republicans. They should support them now.”
Schumer Will Reportedly Not Agree To Customary Deal To Approve Judicial
Nominees.

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a8-579&t=c>
(12/19, Bolton, Carney) reports Senate Minority Leader Schumer, “under
pressure from groups on the left, will not agree to a customary year-end
package of judicial nominees, according to a Senate Democratic aide.” The
Hill says Schumer and other Senate Democrats “are in no mood to agree to a
year-end deal” following a federal judge’s striking down of the Affordable
Care Act last week. Senate Democrats “are also upset over Republicans not
respecting the Senate’s blue-slip tradition, which gives both senators from
a judicial nominee’s home state power to hold up his or her nomination.”
NYTimes Analysis: Facebook Gave Amazon, Others “Intrusive Access To Users’
Personal Data.”

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0a9-4e4&t=c>
(12/18, A1, Dance, Laforgia, Confessore) obtained internal documents
revealing that for “years, Facebook gave some of the world’s largest
technology companies more intrusive access to users’ personal data than it
has disclosed, effectively exempting those business partners from its usual
privacy rules.” For example, Facebook “permitted Amazon to obtain users’
names and contact information through their friends.” According to the
Times, “Some of the largest partners, including Amazon, Microsoft and
Yahoo, said they had used the data appropriately,” while “Facebook has
found no evidence of abuse by its partners, a spokeswoman said.” The social
network “did say that it had mismanaged some of its partnerships, allowing
certain companies’ access to continue long after they had shut down the
features that required the data.”

        All three network news programs reported on the New York Times
piece framing the release as a fresh scandal for Facebook. Tony Dokoupil
reported on the CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0aa-ced&t=c>
(12/19, story 4, 2:00, Glor) that what Facebook “has been doing is
sharing...data for years, in fact, striking special deals” that “reportedly
gave Facebook access to more users while partners got access to personal
data.” Dokoupil said, “The Times report says that Spotify and Netflix were
allowed to read Facebook users’ private messages, while Amazon was able to
obtain users’ names and contact info. And Microsoft’s Bing was able to see
the names of virtually all Facebook users’ friends without consent.”

        On NBC Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0ab-50b&t=c>
(12/19, story 6, 1:30, Holt), Ann Thompson said some of Facebook’s
“partnerships gave companies the ability to read, write, and delete private
messages without users’ knowledge or consent.” As a result, Facebook users
are increasingly “fed up” and “deciding Facebook is not their friend.” ABC
World News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0ac-8bb&t=c>
(12/19, story 7, 1:30, Muir) reported Facebook has ended its data-sharing
partnerships with other companies, and some of them, such as Spotify and
Netflix, said they did not use personal data. ABC said the Times’ piece
contradicts assurances Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made to a congressional
committee in April when he said Facebook users have complete control over
their own data.

        *DC Attorney General Files Suit Against Facebook Over Alleged Data
Misuse. *The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0ad-ecf&t=c>
(12/19, McKinnon, Needleman) reports Washington, DC Attorney General Karl
Racine filed a lawsuit against Facebook on Wednesday alleging the company
failed to safeguard user data during the 2016 presidential campaign. The
suit, which represents the first noteworthy action against Facebook by an
attorney general, alleges Facebook lacked oversight and misled users over
privacy settings. The Journal adds that the FTC is engaged in a probe of
Facebook over various privacy concerns and the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Sources Say Mulvaney Will Not Try To Constrain Trump As Acting Chief Of
Staff.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0ae-7ea&t=c>
(12/19, Cook) reports that while Chief of Staff Kelly “tried and failed to
bring a military discipline” to the Trump White House, “Mick Mulvaney
doesn’t plan to try.” The OMB Director “will approach the job far
differently than Kelly, according to six sources close to the Trump aide
and Republicans close to the White House. Most notably, he intends to give
Trump more leeway to act as he chooses – a recognition that trying to
control Trump is a futile approach.” Mulvaney told Politico, “My agenda is
simple – utilize the same strategy that has brought success at the two
other agencies I’ve run for President Trump: quiet competence. All of my
energies as Acting Chief of Staff will be spent to assist the President as
he makes – and keeps – America great.”
Cancer Research
Johnson & Johnson Loses Bid To Reverse $4.69 Billion Jury Verdict Over Talc.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0af-94b&t=c>
(12/19, Hsu) reports “Johnson & Johnson [J&J] lost its motion...to reverse
a jury verdict that awarded $4.69 billion to women who blamed their ovarian
cancer on asbestos in the company’s baby powder and other talc products.”
The article explains that in the case at hand, the plaintiffs claimed J&J’s
talc products were contaminated with asbestos, which caused the plaintiffs
to develop ovarian cancer.

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b0-cbf&t=c>
(12/19, Bellon) reports the case “was the first in which plaintiffs claimed
that asbestos fibers in J&J’s talc caused ovarian cancer,” and “it relied
on unsealed internal company documents detailing J&J’s alleged knowledge of
asbestos contamination since at least the 1970s.” J&J said it will now
appeal the verdict. The article notes that the company is facing “thousands
of lawsuits over the safety of talc in its Baby Powder, a fixture of its
consumer products division that has been core to J&J’s reputation as a
family friendly company.”

        CNBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b1-d1e&t=c>
(12/19, Lucas) reports on its website that Missouri Circuit Court Judge Rex
Burlison said in his ruling that there was “substantial evidence” of
“particularly reprehensible conduct” by the company. Burlison also said
that executives “knew of the presence of asbestos in products that they
knowingly targeted for sale to mothers and babies, knew of the damage their
products caused, and misrepresented the safety of these products for
decades.”
Studies Find Some Personalized Vaccines Stimulated Immune Response To
Glioblastoma.

STAT Plus
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b2-557&t=c>
(12/19, Joseph) reports two studies published in Nature indicated that
“personalized vaccines for” glioblastoma “mounted an immune system response
against the tumors in a small number of patients.” Stat adds, “The patients
did not see the course of their disease change, and even patients who
generated an immune response died from their cancers.”
Editorials/Op-Eds
New York Times.

*“On Syria, It’s Trump vs. The Trump Administration.”* A New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b3-887&t=c>
(12/19) editorial argues that the “abrupt and dangerous decision” to
withdraw US forces from Syria, “detached from any broader strategic context
or any public rationale, sowed new uncertainty about America’s commitment
to the Middle East, its willingness to be a global leader and Mr. Trump’s
role as commander in chief.” The Times argues that Trump “undercut his
advisers, and American interests, by reversing course.”
Washington Post.

*“The First Step Act Will Offer A Fairer Deal To Prison Inmates.”* A Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b4-3e9&t=c>
(12/19) editorial says the “significance” of the criminal justice reform
bill which passed the Senate Tuesday “should not be understated.” The Post
adds, “We wish we could say this more often: Credit to Republicans,
including President Trump, for finally shepherding a compromise reform
package through the Senate.”

        *“Nicaragua’s Dangerous New Attacks On The Press.” *In an
editorial, the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b5-cf1&t=c>
(12/19) blasts Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s “aging strongman presiding over
an economy in free fall and faced with months of popular street protests,”
for his new crackdown on “independent media, human rights groups and other
outposts of civil society.” The Post calls for the UN and international
financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the
Inter-American Development Bank to join the US in imposing “sanctions on
Mr. Ortega and his wife in an effort to force them to resurrect the rule of
law and hold new elections.” The Post warns that without such moves,
“Ortega’s repression is likely to get worse.”

        *“This Not The Way To Leave Syria.” *On its editorial page,
the Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b6-e64&t=c>
(12/19) says the President’s decision to withdraw US forces from Syria
“undermined at a stroke several foreign policy goals [Trump] has
championed.” While he claimed ISIS “had been defeated...that is not the
view of the Defense and State Departments.” At the same time, Trump has
“vowed to roll back Iran’s aggression across the Middle East,” but the Post
says his decision “will allow its forces to entrench in the country that is
the keystone of Tehran’s ambitions.” Lastly, though Trump has “promised to
protect Israel,” it “will now be left to face alone the buildup by Iran and
its proxies along its northern border.”

*Copyright 2018 by Bulletin Intelligence LLC* Reproduction or
redistribution without permission prohibited. Content is drawn from
thousands of newspapers, national magazines, national and local television
programs, radio broadcasts, social-media platforms and additional forms of
open-source data. Sources for Bulletin Intelligence audience-size estimates
include Scarborough, GfK MRI, comScore, Nielsen, and the Audit Bureau of
Circulation. Data from and access to third party social media platforms,
including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others, is
subject to the respective platform’s terms of use. Services that include
Factiva content are governed by Factiva’s terms of use
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b7-8d8&t=c>.
Services including embedded Tweets are also subject to Twitter for
Website's information and privacy policies
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2018122001biden&r=email-f9ce&l=0b8-2ad&t=c>.
The Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing is published five
days a week by Bulletin Intelligence, which creates custom briefings for
government and corporate leaders. We can be found on the Web at
BulletinIntelligence.com, or called at (703) 483-6100