Subject: FW: Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for Wednesday, January 9, 2019
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 09:24:42 -0500

Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing

*From:* Bulletin Intelligence <[email-masked]>
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 9, 2019 7:59 AM
*To:* [email-masked]
*Subject:* Office of Vice President Biden Intelligence Briefing for
Wednesday, January 9, 2019

*Click to access
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=000-293&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=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=001-4b7&t=c>

*To: Vice President Joe Biden*

*Wednesday, January 9, 2019 8:00 AM EST*
Today's Table of Contents

*Biden in the News* <#SECTION_1>

• Daily Kos 2020 Straw Poll: Warren Atop Democratic Field; Biden Tied For
Fourth. <#S1>

• Writer: Biden A “Beloved Figure” Deserving Of Respect. <#S2>

• Author Ponders “How Old Is Too Old To Be President?” <#S3>

• Writer: Biden Supporters “Exaggerating” His Appeal. <#S4>

• Columnist Rips Suggestion Biden Is Only Candidate Who Can Beat Trump.
<#S5>

• Hallie Biden Hails Beau Biden Foundation’s New Partnership With Special
Olympics International. <#S6>

• Politico: Sources Say O’Rourke “Leaning Toward Running For President.”
<#S7>

• Harris Promotes Her New Book Ahead Of Likely 2020 Presidential Run. <#S8>

• Columnist Says Sanders Shouldn’t Enter 2020 Race, Citing His Response To
Allegations. <#S9>

*Leading the News* <#SECTION_2>

• Media Analyses: Trump Offers Nothing New In Oval Office Address On Border
Security. <#S10>

*Foreign Policy* <#SECTION_3>

• Pompeo Begins Mideast Tour To Ramp Up Pressure On Iran. <#S11>

• Erdogan Blasts Bolton Over Demand Turkey Guarantee Kurdish Fighters’
Safety. <#S12>

• Trump Touts Progress As US-China Trade Talks Extend For Third Day. <#S13>

• US Officials: New Plans Call For Lower Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan.
<#S14>

• Media Analyses: Kim’s Visit To Beijing A Reminder Of China’s Influence.
<#S15>

• US Temporarily Reverses Decision To Reclassify EU Diplomats. <#S16>

• UK Brexit Vote Scheduled For January 15. <#S17>

*Domestic Policy* <#SECTION_4>

• Court Filing Says Manafort Shared Trump Polling Data With A Russian
Associate. <#S18>

• Democrats Concerned About Barr’s Arguments For Expansive Presidential
Powers. <#S19>

• Schiff: Democrats Not Inclined To Impeach Trump If Senate Republicans
Won’t Convict. <#S20>

• CBO: Q1 Deficit Spikes. <#S21>

• US Criticized For Deporting People To Dangerous Mexican Cities. <#S22>

• Zinni Steps Down As Special Envoy. <#S23>

• Judge Orders EPA Release Officials’ Contacts With Industry Groups. <#S24>

*Cancer Research* <#SECTION_5>

• US Cancer Deaths Declined By 27% From 1991 To 2016, Study Shows. <#S25>

• Researchers Reportedly Have Suggested Obesity, Insulin, And Cancer Are
Linked. <#S26>

*Editorials/Op-Eds* <#SECTION_6>

• New York Times. <#S27>

• Washington Post. <#S28>
Biden in the News
Daily Kos 2020 Straw Poll: Warren Atop Democratic Field; Biden Tied For
Fourth.

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=002-b51&t=c>
(1/8, Hagen) reported that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “leads progressive
news website Daily Kos’s first 2020 straw poll.” The “straw poll of nearly
35,000 Daily Kos members” shows Warren leading a field of potential
Democratic presidential contenders with 22%, followed by ex-Rep. Beto
O’Rourke (D-TX) at 15%, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala
Harris (D-CA) tied at 14%, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) at 11%, and others
lagging further behind.
Writer: Biden A “Beloved Figure” Deserving Of Respect.

Writing at Washington Monthly
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=003-078&t=c>
(1/8), Martin Longman, web editor for the Washington Monthly, said, “I
agree with Charles Pierce
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=004-479&t=c>
that a Joe Biden candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination will
badly divide the left” and that the former Vice President’s “extensive
record in Congress” will be a drawback. However, Longman said he disagrees
with Pierce’s other assertions, including his claim that “Biden’s appeal is
limited to being ‘a beloved figure among the pundit class, as well as among
many of the old-line money people who currently are trembling at new forces
that they do not understand.’ In truth, Joe Biden is [a] beloved figure
period, which is probably his best argument for being the nominee.” Longman
added that Biden has “earned the right to run for president without being
dismissed as nothing more than a retread. I am confident that most
Democrats will give him the respect he deserves, even if he cannot
ultimately persuade them to give him the nomination.”
Author Ponders “How Old Is Too Old To Be President?”

In a piece titled “How Old Is Too Old To Be President?”, author Evan Thomas
writes in the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=005-75b&t=c>
(1/8), “Joe Biden is 76 years old, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is 77.”
In 2020, “would either man be too old to be president? Not just physically,
but also culturally and temperamentally? Donald Trump” who “was the oldest
person (70) to be elected president, doesn’t seem to have a problem with
age,” largely “because he is strangely ageless.” However, while Biden “can
seem reassuringly mature at times,” he “can also seem a little dated, like
a character out of the 1950s.” Thomas asks, “when it comes to making tough
calls in the Oval Office, is older wiser? Well, actually, maybe not. Older
people can get stuck in their ways” and they “get worn out, mentally and
physically, no matter how hard they try to stay vigorous and alert. ... So
listen to your elders. But don’t necessarily vote for them.”

        *LATimes: Polls Showing “Septuagenarian White Guys” Leading Defy
Conventional Wisdom. *Under the headline “If Democrats Are Looking For
Fresh, New Faces, Why Are These Septuagenarian White Guys So Popular?”, the Los
Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=006-96a&t=c>
(1/9, Halper) reports, “After congressional elections in which Democrats in
record numbers chose to elevate women, minority and gay candidates, casting
ballots for diversity and youth in district after district, the list of
presidential hopefuls most exciting to Democratic voters is a bit curious.
At the top, several polls indicate, is” Biden, “a septuagenarian white
guy,” followed by Sanders, “another 70-plus white man,” and ex-Rep. Beto
O’Rourke (D-TX), “yet another white elected official, albeit a younger
one.” The Times adds, “The conventional wisdom holds that the Democratic
Party is looking for fresher, more diverse faces. Yet being an older white
man isn’t shaping up to be a deal breaker.”

        *Article Lists “Well-Known Septuagenarians Who Are The Same Age As
Biden.” *Under the headline “Is Joe Biden Too Old To Run For President?
Here’s A Look At 11 Famous Figures His Age,” the Wilmington (DE) News
Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=007-8b2&t=c>
(1/8, Bies) reports, “If Joe Biden, 76, were elected” president, “he’d be
78 years old by the time he was sworn in, displacing Donald Trump as the
oldest person elected president in the US. The debate is already raging: Is
Biden too old to run for president?” With that in mind, the article
identifies “just a few well-known septuagenarians who are the same age as
Biden,” listing Judge Judy, Paul McCartney, Barbra Streisand, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and ex-New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg (D-NY), among others.
Writer: Biden Supporters “Exaggerating” His Appeal.

Writing for the New Republic
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=008-606&t=c>
(1/8), Alex Shephard said that former Vice President Joe Biden “is
convinced not only that he can win” the 2020 Democratic presidential
nomination, “but that he’s the best candidate to beat [President Trump].”
Shephard added, “Some in the party, including Biden himself,” think he “is
the kind of Democrat who can connect with disaffected voters, return the
Midwest to the Democrats, and topple Trump. But these Democrats are
exaggerating Biden’s appeal, underestimating the strength of his potential”
rivals, and in “fixating on the Rust Belt states that narrowly cost Hillary
Clinton the presidency,” are “neglecting the much broader swath of core
Democratic voters who can deliver a victory against a historically weak
president.”
Columnist Rips Suggestion Biden Is Only Candidate Who Can Beat Trump.

In her Boston Globe
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=009-7b5&t=c>
(1/8) column, Renée Graham asks former Vice President Joe Biden: “You don’t
really believe you’re the only person who can beat President Trump in 2020,
do you? With” Biden’s “likely blessing, that’s the message his allies are
spreading.” Graham says that message is “willfully ignorant of recent
history,” writing that the 2018 elections were “a defiant mandate that
Democrats want diverse and progressive representation, not just the same
revolving door of old white guys.” Graham adds, “When Biden promotes
himself as the only person who can win the White House, he’s pushing the
idea that the only way to stop a bad white man as president is with a good
white man as president. It’s a siren call to those white voters who went
all-in on Trump – here’s an comfortable alternative whose gender, race, or
ethnicity won’t challenge their racist and sexist beliefs.”
Hallie Biden Hails Beau Biden Foundation’s New Partnership With Special
Olympics International.

In a Wilmington (DE) News Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00a-f81&t=c>
(1/8) op-ed, Hallie Biden, founder and co-chair of the Board of Directors
of the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of Children, writes, “At
the end of November, the Beau Biden Foundation for the Protection of
Children announced a major new partnership with Special Olympics
International. Operation Safeguard will take the foundation’s programming
to all 50 states in the next few years – and then to countries around the
globe. It’s hard to believe how quickly we have grown, but it’s clear why:
you, our Delaware family.” Biden goes on to offer thanks to “our Delaware
family. Thank you for helping us protect children across the nation and
grow beyond our state lines. But most of all, thank you for being kind,
willing, generous, collaborative, and supportive – that truly is the
Delaware Way.”
Politico: Sources Say O’Rourke “Leaning Toward Running For President.”

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00b-a06&t=c>
(1/8, Siders) reported that ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) “is leaning toward
running for president, according to four people who have spoken with him or
his advisers in recent days. ... ‘It sounds like he’s seeing green and
yellow lights, and not a whole lot of red lights,’ said Boyd Brown, a
former South Carolina lawmaker and former Democratic National Committee
member who is national senior adviser to a ‘Draft Beto’ campaign.” However,
said Politico, “for a presidential contender,” O’Rourke’s “radio silence is
becoming increasingly awkward. In Iowa and New Hampshire – where Democrats
are accustomed to being courted aggressively by presidential contenders –
calls from Democratic Party organizers to O’Rourke’s advisers go
unreturned. And a report in the Wall Street Journal on Monday that O’Rourke
won’t make any decision before February and is preparing for a solo road
trip – but avoiding early nominating states – bewildered even his
supporters.”

        In an online article, NBC News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00c-857&t=c>
(1/8, Seitz-Wald, Haake) similarly reported, “As other potential 2020
Democrats have sped up their preparations, O’Rourke has laid low back home
in El Paso. ... Activists in Iowa and New Hampshire who have spoken to
other potential candidates say they haven’t yet heard from O’Rourke.”
However, “the radio silence may say less about O’Rourke’s intentions than
the fact that he’s aware his every move is being watched as his stature
climbs in early 2020 polling.”

        On its website, CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00d-c8c&t=c>
(1/9, Bradner) reports that as he mulls a White House bid, O’Rourke “and
his top aides are carefully keeping alive expectations that he’ll
ultimately seek the Democratic nomination. In meetings, calls and text
messages,” O’Rourke “and his aides and advisers are – without committing to
anything – talking through the contours and challenges of a presidential
run and evaluating potential staff and supporters.” He won’t likely make a
decision on the race “before February at the earliest, two sources close to
O’Rourke said.”

        *WPost Highlights Efforts Of “Draft Beto” Campaign. *The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00e-c04&t=c>
(1/8, Scherer) reports, “The Democratic presidential possibility who has
done the least to prepare for a run is poised to benefit from an
early-state campaign organization – albeit one that operates independently,
works for free and puts its fundraising dollars in escrow for now. An
effort to” get O’Rourke to run, “DraftBeto.org, has distinguished itself
from similarly named efforts by attracting sought-after talent to its
ranks, including two leaders of” ex-Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D-MD) “2016
presidential campaign.”

        *Political Observers Think O’Rourke May Follow “Obama Model” In
2020. *The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=00f-17d&t=c>
(1/8, Bedard) reported, “There are growing expectations in Democratic and
White House circles that two potential wild card presidential candidates
will shake up the 2020 nomination by seizing former President Barack
Obama’s 2008 model to ride the youth and minority vote to victory over the
party’s war horses. Enter...O’Rourke and former first lady Michelle Obama.”
The Examiner added, “A White House political adviser said that several
insiders expect O’Rourke to be competitive in the Democratic primary to the
end.” After saying that Michelle Obama has ruled out a run, the Examiner
added, “Two Democratic presidential campaign advisers said that the
Spanish-speaking O’Rourke could copy Obama’s path to the White House. They
said he could seize the youth vote in Iowa, use a victory there to bounce
to another in New Hampshire and score big among Hispanic voters in
California, which” now votes on “Super Tuesday.”
Harris Promotes Her New Book Ahead Of Likely 2020 Presidential Run.

Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=010-9dd&t=c>
(1/8, Oprysko) reported that during a Tuesday appearance on ABC’s “Good
Morning America,” Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) “said...she has nothing to
announce about a potential run for president – for now, at least.” Said
Harris, “I’m not going to decide right now.” However, in response to a
question about “what would set her candidacy apart in a crowded 2020
field,” Harris – who was on the program to promote her new book, “The
Truths We Hold: An American Journey” – said, “I think it is clear to me
that what we need in this country is leadership that has a vision of the
future in which everyone can see themselves.” Harris made “no mention of
President Donald Trump,” other than “to criticize his role in the current
government shutdown.”

        The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=011-dfa&t=c>
(1/8, Harper) reports that Harris “has written a new memoir, and as far as
the news media is concerned, it signals the start of her presidential
campaign.” The Times says “multiple news organizations already have
declared that this is the ‘soft launch’ for Ms. Harris and her 2020
candidacy.”

        *Harris: “We Need To Legalize Marijuana And Regulate It.” *Forbes
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=012-89d&t=c>
(1/8, Angell) reports, “All the cool presidential candidates are doing it.
Calling for marijuana legalization, that is.” Forbes quotes Harris as
writing in her new book, “Something else it’s past time we get done is
dismantling the failed war on drugs – starting with legalizing marijuana.
... We need to legalize marijuana and regulate it.” Harris adds, “And we
need to expunge nonviolent marijuana-related offenses from the records of
millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get
on with their lives.”
Columnist Says Sanders Shouldn’t Enter 2020 Race, Citing His Response To
Allegations.

Aimee Ortiz wrote in her Boston Globe
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=013-f4a&t=c>
(1/7) column that a newspaper in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) home state of
Vermont – the Barre Montpelier Times Argus – in a Saturday editorial begged
the lawmaker not to mount a 2020 White House bid, citing a number of
“reasons to be concerned with his potential second run.” Ortiz concurred
with the editorial, and said, “Accusations published in The New York Times
last week against Sanders’s 2016 campaign staff ranged from sexist comments
to poor treatment of women and a wage gap. ... When Sanders was given the
chance to respond on CNN Wednesday night, he apologized and promised to do
better if he ran again, but he also said that in 2016 he was ‘a little bit
busy running around the country trying to make the case’ for his
presidency. That will not do. Not in 2019. Not after #MeToo. Not after
Time’s Up.”
Leading the News
Media Analyses: Trump Offers Nothing New In Oval Office Address On Border
Security.

Coverage of President Trump’s nine-minute address
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=014-0eb&t=c>
on what he called “a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our
southern border” – his first address from the Oval Office in nearly two
years as President – is generally critical, with reports stating that the
President did not add anything new to his usual arguments for a US-Mexico
border wall. Fact-check pieces also say the President made multiple
misstatements during the address. The President was silent about the
upcoming address on Twitter during the day Tuesday, but tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=015-060&t=c>
about two hours after it ended, “Thank you for soooo many nice comments
regarding my Oval Office speech. A very interesting experience!”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=016-7e8&t=c>
(1/9, Daly, Lucey, Colvin) reports, “In a somber televised plea,” Trump
“urged congressional Democrats to fund his long-promised border
wall...blaming illegal immigration for what he called a scourge of drugs
and violence in the US and framing the debate over the partial government
shutdown in stark terms.” He “argued for spending some $5.7 billion for a
border wall on both security and humanitarian grounds,” and, “shifting
between empathetic appeals and the dark immigration rhetoric that was a
trademark of his presidential campaign, Trump asked: ‘How much more
American blood must we shed before Congress does its job?’” The AP says the
speech and remarks by Democratic leaders that followed “appeared unlikely
to do much to break the logjam that has left large swaths of the government
closed.”

        Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=017-92d&t=c>
(1/8, Pettypiece) writes, “Trump summoned the nation’s attention to the
Oval Office on Tuesday for a prime time pronouncement on the border wall
standoff at the center of the government shutdown. Then, he offered nothing
new.” He instead “used the president’s most symbolic and powerful perch –
traditionally reserved for times of war or calls for national unity – to
rattle off familiar statistics, renew complaints about Democratic criticism
of his plan to build a wall on the Mexican border and reprise ominous
anecdotes of brutal crimes committed by people he said were in the country
illegally.”

        Chuck Todd said on NBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=018-f34&t=c>
(1/8), “What was intriguing to me is how much it lacked any new
information. In some ways it actually reminded me, he gave a more
formalized version of the stump speech he used in the last month of the
campaign when he was trying to make the case there was a crisis at the
border...and as we now know, it had no impact. So I am a bit surprised that
this speech is just essentially a rewritten version of that stump speech.”

        Ed O’Keefe said on CBS
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=019-9db&t=c>
(1/8), “We heard from a President held in low regard by most Americans
touting a policy proposal held in low regard by most Americans. And
tonight, based on what we’ve just heard, is all about posturing. I heard
nothing specific from either side on some kind of a compromise that could
potentially break this log jam starting tomorrow.”

        Hallie Jackson said on NBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01a-3b6&t=c>
(1/8), “Probably the newest part about this speech was the setting. It was
the President in the Oval Office using that presidential pulpit to deliver
a message directly to the American people. This is about a PR push for the
President to try to sell his thinking and his strategy behind the
shutdown.” Bret Baier said on Fox News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01b-333&t=c>
(1/8), “The President was trying to tug at the heartstrings there,
obviously, calling it a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of the heart, a
crisis of the soul, and making the case that this is important. It’s
obviously something...he campaigned on.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01c-ac3&t=c>
(1/8, Mason, Cowan) says Trump used “blunt language in an attempt to win
public support. ...But after days of hinting he might use presidential
powers to declare an emergency as a first step toward directing money for
the wall without congressional approval, Trump said he would continue
seeking a solution to the impasse with Congress.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01d-64c&t=c>
(1/8, Collins, Jackson, Fritze, Jansen, King) reports the President “told
Americans that a border wall is needed to keep the country safe – but
avoided talk of declaring a national emergency that would allow him to
start building it without congressional authorization.” The Los Angeles
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01e-dee&t=c>
(1/8, Bierman) also says Trump “stopped short of declaring the national
emergency he’s spoken of in recent days.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=01f-0f6&t=c>
(1/8, Quinn) similarly says “a declaration of a national emergency” was
“entirely absent from the president’s speech.”

        The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=020-ffc&t=c>
(1/8, Baker) reports, “Trump doubled down on one of the biggest gambles of
his presidency” with the “televised appeal...that made no new arguments but
included multiple misleading assertions.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=021-de7&t=c>
(1/8, Rucker, Sonmez) reports, “Trump escalated the battle over his
long-promised border wall,” but his “scripted remarks contained little that
was new. And although he promised to continue negotiating with Democrats to
end the budget impasse, he did not detail any fresh offers in his speech.
He suggested that constructing the wall out of steel rather than concrete
was a concession to Democrats.” Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=022-d32&t=c>
(1/8, Spiering) reports Trump “defended the concept of a border wall,” and
“argued that the steel barrier would pay for itself, and paid for
indirectly by the new trade deal with Mexico.” The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=023-c44&t=c>
(1/8, Ballhaus, Peterson, Bender) says the speech was part of a White House
campaign to sway public opinion in favor of a wall.

        Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=024-738&t=c>
(1/8, Bade, Johnson, Everett, Restuccia) reported shortly before the speech
that “many key Republicans [were] in the dark” about whether an emergency
declaration would be included. Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=025-830&t=c>
(1/8, Choi) later reported that Trump “did not pull the trigger on a
national emergency declaration that would potentially allow him to secure
wall funds without Congress but would also inevitably draw a nasty court
battle. Instead, he dedicated much of the address blaming undocumented
immigrants for many of the nation’s woes.” CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=026-439&t=c>
(1/8, Bennett) headlines its report “Trump Opts Against Declaring National
Border Emergency – For Now.”

        Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=027-bbc&t=c>,
“Here’s a fact: @realDonaldTrump didn’t even mention the federal workers
who are currently furloughed or working without a paycheck during this
#shutdown in his White House address. These are real people w/ real
families. Show them some respect.”

        The New York Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=028-d28&t=c>
(1/8, Schwab) reports Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) “spoke of the
‘amount of dysfunction that this president is advancing’ in the offices on
Capitol Hill” during an MSNBC appearance after the speech. She said, “We
can’t get their case work started because we can’t even get laptops in the
hands of our district offices because the President has decided to hold the
paychecks of everyday Americans hostage. So that he can fulfill a campaign
– I don’t even want to call it a promise – campaign fantasy, that the vast
majority of Americans disapprove of.”

        Dan Balz of the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=029-e1d&t=c>
(1/8) writes, “Past presidents have used the Oval Office in prime time to
announce military action, to lay out major initiatives or to calm the
nation’s nerves in times of stress. President Trump chose the gravity of
that venue for a far different reason Tuesday night – to try to create a
sense of crisis in pursuit of an elusive campaign promise.” The speech “was
a compendium of arguments, some of dubious nature, that he has made
before.”

        The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02a-1d9&t=c>
(1/8, Hennessy-Fiske) reports, “From Mexico City to the US-Mexico border,
to inundated US immigration courts and interior checkpoints, current and
former officials, as well as outside experts, say that to the extent the
border faces such a crisis, it’s largely of the administration’s own
making. ... From the 1980s to the mid-2000s, apprehensions routinely
reached more than 1 million migrants a year. In the fiscal year that ended
in September, 521,090 people were apprehended or stopped at the border.”

        Nicolle Wallace said on MSNBC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02b-72f&t=c>
(1/8), “The big scam of the whole address was that there is a crisis. There
is not a crisis. Border crossings at the southern border are at a 45-year
low. I spoke to a former senior intelligence official today who said that
it was his job to know where all the terrorists were and there aren’t any
on the southern border. Crime is a great issue for him and he should tout
crime, but he shouldn’t lie about where it comes from.” Cecilia Vega said
on ABC
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02c-0f5&t=c>
(1/8), “Just because you say it’s a crisis doesn’t necessarily make it
one.”

        All three broadcast networks again led with the shutdown and
previewed the speech. In opening the CBS Evening News[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02d-5e3&t=c>
(1/8, lead story, 3:35), Jeff Glor called Tuesday “the biggest day of the
second-longest government shutdown in American history.” On ABC World News
Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02e-3e5&t=c>
(1/8, lead story, 3:20, Muir), Jonathan Karl said the President was set to
make “his case to the nation, selling his border wall with a prime-time
address – his first from the Oval Office.” On NBC Nightly News[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=02f-c18&t=c>
(1/8, lead story, 2:45), Lester Holt said Trump was “backed against a wall
that many call his wall.”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=030-021&t=c>
(1/8) editorializes, “As crises go, the situation along the southern border
is certainly a logistical, humanitarian and managerial challenge. Its
urgency is accentuated by laws and infrastructure ill-suited to the current
flood of families seeking asylum in the United States. But it is not a
national emergency, as President Trump has framed it, any more than
numerous other challenges we can think of. ... The one emergency Mr. Trump
fears is the threat he faces from his own base should it conclude his
border-wall promise was a hoax.”

        USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=031-cd2&t=c>
(1/8) says in an editorial, “Trump wants there to be an immigration crisis,
and he tried to make a case for one in a prime-time speech Tuesday night
that repeated his usually litany of exaggerations, falsehoods and
guilt-by-associations.” He “wants, or perhaps needs, a crisis because he
thinks it will gain him leverage in a mundane but damaging dispute he is in
with congressional Democrats.” USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=032-104&t=c>
(1/8) Commentary Editor Jill Lawrence and Deputy Editorial Editor David
Mastio write that a “reasonable facsimile of a President” delivered the
“expected cascade of distortions, but no news.”

        Frank Bruni writes in his New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=033-455&t=c>
(1/8) column, “It’s not really a wall that Trump is after, if indeed it
ever was. It’s a victory for victory’s sake. It’s a show of his might. It’s
proof of his potency. ... Seldom has a president’s ego been this tender,
and seldom has it required so much shoring up. There’s not enough concrete
in creation for that job.”

        Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=034-6a5&t=c>
(1/8) calls the speech a “nothingburger,” writing, “The only thing
surprising about President Trump’s address from the Oval Office on Tuesday
night was how totally unnecessary and un-newsworthy it was.” The Post’s
Philip Rucker tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=035-c30&t=c>,
“Trump’s scripted remarks contained little new. In many respects, his
sedate Oval Office speech was a buttoned-up version of his golden escalator
speech 3.5 years ago.” NBC’s Jonathan Allen tweeted
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=036-fa4&t=c>,
“The big takeaway from the Oval Office address: Trump knows he’s hit a wall
on his border barrier.”

        The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=037-233&t=c>
(1/8, A1, Boyer) and The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=038-cce&t=c>
(1/8, Fabian), among other outlets, also report on the speech.

        *Media Fact-Checks Find Many Misstatements In Address. *In a
fact-check piece, the AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=039-224&t=c>
(1/9, Woodward, Long) reports the President “wrongly accused Democrats of
refusing to pay for border security and ignored the reality of how illicit
drugs come into the country as he pitched his wall as a solution to
trafficking.” In its own fact-check, USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03a-142&t=c>
(1/8) says, “Trump laid out his case for full funding for his long-promised
border wall by repeating several of the misstatements and exaggerations
that his administration has been trumpeting for weeks.” He “cast immigrants
with a dark brush, listing off murders committed by undocumented immigrants
without mentioning that immigrants actually have a lower crime rate than
native-born Americans,” and said drugs “were pouring across the southern
border without mentioning that the vast majority cross through ports of
entry.”

        Jim Acosta said on CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03b-a9d&t=c>
(1/8), “That address probably should have come with a Surgeon General’s
warning. It was hazardous to the truth. There’s a number of claims that are
not going to stand up to the facts.” The Week
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03c-3a4&t=c>
(1/8, Garcia) reports Fox News anchor Shep Smith “was quick to fact-check”
the President, “sharing with the audience that much of what Trump said was
misleading.” The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03d-636&t=c>
(1/8) ran a live online fact-check during the address.

        Jake Tapper said on CNN’s The Lead[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03e-dee&t=c>
(1/8) before the address, “Trump’s own senior Administration officials
privately acknowledge that the continued spreading of falsehoods about this
issue has created a real problem.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=03f-fb8&t=c>
(1/8, Chaitin) reports Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told CNN before the speech,
“I am concerned that someone is totally misinforming, and you never want to
think that your President would lie or people of high positions that we
depend on for day-to-day operations of the government and for the
protection of our lives would ever lie to us. Someone is drastically
misinforming him, and I would find out who that person is, and fire them.” The
Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=040-9c6&t=c>
(1/8, Burke) reports Manchin “announced Tuesday that he will donate his pay
during the government shutdown to food banks in West Virginia. Manchin
called the shutdown ‘reckless’ in a statement and said members of Congress
don’t deserve to be paid if they ‘cannot do our job.’”

        *Experts, Government Assessments: No “Wave Of Terrorist Operatives”
Crossing US-Mexico Border. *Trump’s warnings about terrorists crossing the
border also face scrutiny. The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=041-e8a&t=c>
(1/8, Schmitt, Sanger, Thrush) reports, “Trump has repeatedly warned that
terrorists are pouring into the United States from Mexico...but his own
government’s assessments conclude that Mr. Trump has seriously overstated
the threat.” Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas
Rasmussen said, “There is no wave of terrorist operatives waiting to cross
overland into the United States. It simply isn’t true.”

        Matt Gutman reported on ABC World News Tonight[image: Image removed
by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=042-a09&t=c>
(1/8, story 2, 1:55, Muir), “The President’s own State Department says
there is ‘no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has
traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States.’ In fact, a
recent State Department report shows more concern about Canada, noting it
is more often home to violent extremists aligned with ISIS or Al Qaeda.” On
the CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=043-a6f&t=c>
(1/8, story 2, 1:40, Glor), Jeff Pegues said, “Administration officials,
including the Vice President, have repeated the false claim that terrorists
are pouring in.”

        *Acosta, Conway Spar Over Trump’s Truthfulness. *CQ Roll Call
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=044-f58&t=c>
(1/8, Bennett) reports, “The Trump White House and CNN did battle again on
Tuesday, with Kellyanne Conway calling reporter Jim Acosta ‘a smartass’
during a sharp exchange outside the West Wing. The exchange began” when
Acosta asked Conway if the President intended “to ‘tell the truth’ during a
prime-time address Tuesday night from the Oval Office. Conway then shot
back a question about whether Acosta intends to tell the truth when he goes
back on air, prompting him to opine that she has an ‘alternative facts
problem.’” Conway replied, “You’re such a smartass most of the time.”

        Conway also spoke with Fox News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=045-fbf&t=c>
(1/8), where she said, “The President is trying to share with the American
people what he knows firsthand. Which is what is really happening at the
border: the human trafficking, the drugs, the children. ... But also, what
would help deter that? What kind of physical infrastructure would help to
impede and deter that, so that these vulnerable populations can be
protected on that side of the border?”

        *Trump Reportedly Doubted Speech Would Be Effective. *The New York
Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=046-a43&t=c>
(1/8, Baker) reports, “Privately, Mr. Trump dismissed his own new strategy
as pointless. In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors hours
before the address, he made clear in blunt terms that he was not inclined
to give the speech or go to Texas, but was talked into it by advisers.” The
President reportedly said, “It’s not going to change a damn thing, but I’m
still doing it.”

        *McCarthy, Graham Praise Speech. *House Minority Leader McCarthy
said on Fox News’ Hannity
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=047-1ad&t=c>
(1/8), “What’s going on, and what the President sounded like tonight, I
thought he was very strong and very confident and talked just about the
facts. ... This isn’t just about a party. This is about a country. I was
not even in Congress in 2006 when [Senate Minority Leader] Schumer voted
for that. They promised the American public that we would have 700 miles of
fencing. It’s about time someone stood up and made it happen.”

        Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said on Fox News’ Hannity[image: Image
removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=048-9c0&t=c>
(1/8), “This is the most presidential I have seen President Trump. It was
compelling, and everything he said was true. About 30 percent of the 2,200
miles of border has some form of barrier. There are already walls along the
border. We just need to extend those walls where it makes sense.”

        *Pelosi, Schumer Urge End To Shutdown As Precursor To Border
Security Talks. *House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Schumer
delivered a four-minute response
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=049-cdf&t=c>
to the President’s speech. The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04a-221&t=c>
(1/9, Daly, Lucey, Colvin) reports that they “accused Trump of
misrepresenting the situation on the border as they urged him to reopen
closed government departments and turn loose paychecks for hundreds of
thousands of workers.” Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04b-2cd&t=c>
(1/8, Litvan, John) reports Pelosi “said Trump is rejecting House-passed
legislation reopening shuttered government agencies to fulfill his campaign
promise to build a wall. He is doing that, she said, ‘over his obsession
with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an
expensive and ineffective wall – a wall he always promised Mexico would pay
for.’”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04c-e85&t=c>
(1/8, Mason, Cowan) reports Pelosi said, “President Trump has chosen to
hold hostage critical services for the health, safety and well-being of the
American people and withhold the paychecks of 800,000 innocent workers
across the nation, many of them veterans.” The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04d-0b9&t=c>
(1/8, Ferrechio) reports, “Schumer and Pelosi rejected Trump’s call for
tougher border security and instead called on Trump to agree to sign seven
lapsed spending bills that would reopen about 25 percent of a now partially
shuttered government. In exchange, Schumer promised, ‘we can resolve our
differences over border security.’”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04e-838&t=c>
(1/8, Kim) writes, “No two principals in the shutdown fight have presented
a more united front than ‘Chuck and Nancy,’ as Trump has dubbed them. The
two leaders have refused to make any key strategic moves in the shutdown
fight without consulting each other and have become so simpatico that their
staffs regularly joke that the two finish each other’s sentences.”

        Breitbart
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=04f-950&t=c>
(1/8, Wong) reports Schumer and Pelosi “prompted mocking on social media
after they delivered a wooden rebuttal while being squished together behind
one podium.” Marc Thiessen writes in his Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=050-5f5&t=c>
(1/8) column, “Democrats insisted on equal time, which is highly unusual
for presidential addresses other than the State of the Union. ... Pelosi
and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were
longing to hear – compromise. But Trump did.”

        The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=051-79d&t=c>
(1/8, Dinan) reports that earlier Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader McConnell
“accused Democrats Tuesday of a ‘partisan tantrum,’ saying they backed
border barriers many times before, and have only changed now that President
Trump is the one asking for the money.”

        *Reuters Poll: Majority Believes Trump “Deserves Most Of The Blame”
For Shutdown. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=052-312&t=c>
(1/8, Kahn) reports a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted over the first week of
January finds “a growing proportion of Americans blame [Trump] for a
partial government shutdown that will cut off paychecks to federal workers
this week.” The poll “found that 51 percent of adults believe Trump
‘deserves most of the blame’ for the shutdown. ... Another 32 percent blame
congressional Democrats for the shutdown and 7 percent blame congressional
Republicans, according to the poll. Those percentages are mostly unchanged”
from a previous poll. The CBS Evening News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=053-def&t=c>
(1/8, story 3, 1:55, Glor) and NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=054-548&t=c>
(1/8, story 2, 1:25, Holt) both profiled federal workers who will not be
getting paychecks this week.

        *WPost Analysis: Some Capitol Hill Republicans Breaking With White
House On Shutdown. *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=055-998&t=c>
(1/8, Werner, DeBonis) reports, “Divisions grew among congressional
Republicans on Tuesday over President Trump’s shutdown strategy” in a
“potentially perilous sign for Trump on the 18th day of the partial
shutdown.” A presentation to House Republicans by Vice President Pence
“failed to quiet concerns” from those “who would like to see most of the
government reopen while the fight over the border wall continues.” In the
other chamber, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) “called for Congress to pass
bipartisan bills that would reopen much of the unfunded parts of the
federal government,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) also backed
passing some appropriations measures.

        *House Armed Services Ranking Republican Opposes Military Funding
For Wall Construction. *The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=056-a50&t=c>
(1/8, Correll) reports House Armed Services Committee ranking member Rep.
Mac Thornberry (R-TX) “isn’t on board with President Trump’s idea to use
military funding to build a border wall.” He told reporters Tuesday, “I am
opposed to using defense dollars for nondefense purposes. Seems to me we
ought to fund border security needs on their own and not be taking it from
other accounts.”

        *NYTimes Analysis: “Little Enthusiasm” For Wall Along Border. *The New
York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=057-3cb&t=c>
(1/8, Romero, Fernandez, Real, Ahmed) reports under the headline “On The
Border, Little Enthusiasm For A Wall: ‘We Have Other Problems That Need
Fixing’” that according to one resident of the border town of Columbus, New
Mexico, people in the town “oppose the idea of a wall by about a ‘90-to-10
margin.’” The Times spoke with residents of the four states along the
border “and found few who shared the president’s sense of alarm.” CBS News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=058-e41&t=c>
(1/8) reports on its website, “Nine congressional representatives serve the
districts that line the 2,000-mile southern border,” and “they all have one
thing in common: each is against” a border wall.

        *Trump Campaign Fundraising Off Speech. *The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=059-aff&t=c>
(1/8, Boyer) reports, “Trump’s re-election campaign sent a fundraising
email Tuesday to capitalize off his national prime-time address on border
security during the partial government shutdown. The email under Mr.
Trump’s name asks supporters to donate to his ‘Official Secure the Border
Fund’ through the Trump Make America Great Again Committee. He said the
goal is $500,000.”

        *Democratic Legislators Plan To Deliver Park Service Trash To White
House. *USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05a-f75&t=c>
(1/8, Cummings) reports that with trash collection at national parks
suspended during the government shutdown, Reps. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and
Jared Huffman (D-CA) helped pick up trash at the Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, and their staffers “confirmed to USA TODAY that Speier and
Huffman plan to drop the trash off at the White House at 4:45 p.m. EST.”

        *DC Water Board Muses About Shutting Off White House Service For
Nonpayment. *DCist
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05b-514&t=c>
(1/8, Fenston) reports members of the board of DC Water, the utility that
provides water to the White House, mused about shutting off service for
nonpayment at a board meeting Tuesday. DC Water CFO Matthew Brown notified
the board that the federal government alerted the utility that it “would
not be paying $5 million of its $16.5 million quarterly water bill” due to
the partial government shutdown. Board Chairman Tommy Wells asked, “That
brings up an interesting question. Is there a time from nonpayment when we
cut someone’s water off?” Another board member responded, “1600
Pennsylvania Avenue, is that what you’re talking about?” Under District of
Columbia law, “the water authority may shut off water to a customer for
nonpayment after 30 days.” A DC Water spokesperson said, “Conceivably, DC
Water can shut off service for nonpayment to any customer. We don’t do it
very often, it’s a last resort, we never want to do it.”

        *Federal Workers, With Bills Due, To Begin Missing Paychecks.
*The Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05c-6ed&t=c>
(1/8, Brown) reports, “More than 800,000 federal employees will begin
missing paychecks this week because of the shutdown,” and it is unlikely
that federal contract workers “will get back pay for the time they are out
of work.” National Treasury Employees Union President Tony Reardon said,
“Federal employees feel really helpless.” He added that this “is not a
fight they created or have the ability to resolve. There is a great deal of
fear, anxiety and anger.” The Post focuses on Smithsonian security guard
Donna Kelly, who has bills due and whose money will run out before the end
of the month.

        *Union: TSA Screeners, Lacking Pay, Have Quit Due To Shutdown. *
Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05d-99b&t=c>
(1/8, Beasley) reports the American Federation of Government Employees,
which represents TSA agents, “said screeners were becoming increasingly
panicked as the partial shutdown drags on, diminishing their chances of
getting paid this Friday.” Hydrick Thomas, president of AFGE’s TSA Council
said that some members “have already quit and many are considering quitting
the federal workforce because of this shutdown.” He added that as the TSA
cannot hire new screeners during the shutdown, this could become “a massive
security risk for American travelers.”
Foreign Policy
Pompeo Begins Mideast Tour To Ramp Up Pressure On Iran.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05e-817&t=c>
(1/8, Laub) reports the Administration is “doubling down on commercial and
diplomatic efforts in the coming weeks to ‘put real pressure on Iran,’”
Secretary of State Pompeo said Tuesday at the start of a Mideast tour that
includes stops in Jordan, Egypt and several Gulf nations. The AP says
Pompeo’s trip comes “amid confusion over conflicting statements” by
President Trump and senior US officials “about a planned US troop
withdrawal from Syria.” Pompeo, however, “contended Tuesday that the
planned withdrawal from Syria would not complicate the Administration’s
anti-Iran campaign,” insisting that US allies in the region “agree on what
they view as the ‘enormous risk’ Iran poses for the region.”

        The Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=05f-6f1&t=c>
(1/8, Wilkinson) reports Pompeo, speaking to reporters during his first
stop in Amman, said, “The counter-Iran…coalition [is] as effective today as
it was yesterday, and I’m very hopeful that it will continue to be
effective and even more effective tomorrow.” He added, “The President’s
decision to withdraw our folks from Syria in no way impacts our capacity to
deliver on that.”

        On NBC Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=060-02e&t=c>
(1/8, story 6, 1:10, Holt), the only network to report on Pompeo’s trip
last night, Andrea Mitchell said the Secretary “wants to crack down further
on Iran.” Pompeo said, “We are redoubling not only our diplomatic, but our
commercial efforts to put real pressure on Iran.” AFP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=061-220&t=c>
(1/8) reports Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif “swiftly hit
back,” tweeting that the “pure obsession with Iran is more and more like
the behaviour of persistently failing psychotic stalkers.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=062-d67&t=c>
(1/8, Al-Khalidi) reports Pompeo is “making his first visit to the Middle
East since President Donald Trump’s abrupt announcement that he will pull
the 2,000 US troops from Syria, which caused alarm among US allies in the
region.”

        *State Dept. Official: Administration Not Seeking Backchannel Talks
With Iran. *The Washington Free Beacon
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=063-269&t=c>
(1/8, Kredo) reports the Administration “denied claims by senior Iranian
officials that the United States has been making secret overtures to Tehran
in pursuit of backchannel talks.” According to the Beacon, “A senior aide
to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei claimed earlier this week that the
Trump administration approached Tehran late last year in Afghanistan to
seek high-level meetings with Iran. ... ‘During my visit to Kabul last
month, the Americans…asked to hold talks,’ Ali Shamkhani, a top official in
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council who enjoys close ties with
Khamenei, was quoted as saying” by Iranian state-run media. However, the
Beacon says “US officials quickly slapped down the reports.” However, an
unidentified “State Department official” is quoted by the Beacon as saying,
President Trump is “prepared to engage in dialogue with Iran to find
solutions to urgent national security issues.”

        *EU Sanctions Iranian Intelligence Service For Bomb Plot In France.
*Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=064-bd8&t=c>
(1/8, Stearns) reports the EU on Tuesday sanctioned “an Iranian
intelligence service and two natives of Iran for an alleged bomb plot in
France, highlighting the bloc’s stick-and-carrot approach to the
geopolitical challenges posed by Tehran.” The EU froze the assets of the
Directorate for Internal Security of the Iranian Ministry for Intelligence
and Security and of “individuals identified as Assadollah Asadi and Saeid
Hashemi Moghadam.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=065-975&t=c>
(1/8, Olsen, Cook) reports Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said
the sanctions come amid “suspicions that they have been involved in
assassinations and plots to kill opposition activists in Denmark, France
and the Netherlands.” He said Tuesday’s move is a “strong signal from the
EU that we will not accept such behavior.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=066-cbe&t=c>
(1/8, Taylor) reports “security analysts have said that Iran, under
domestic and international pressure, appears to be stepping up its
intelligence operations around the world and perhaps even making
contingency plans in case of open conflict.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=067-060&t=c>
(1/8, Gronholt-Pedersen, Emmott, Deutsch) reports Iran, however, “denied
any involvement in the alleged plots, saying the accusations were intended
to damage EU-Iran relations.” On Twitter Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote, “Accusing Iran won’t absolve Europe of
responsibility for harboring terrorists.”

        *State Dept. Confirms US Navy Veteran Detained In Iran. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=068-28f&t=c>
(1/8) reports the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=069-f56&t=c>
disclosed Monday that a US Navy veteran has been held in an Iranian prison
since July after visiting his girlfriend there. Michael R. White’s mother
told the newspaper that she “learned three weeks ago that her son is alive
and being held at an Iranian prison.” The State Department “confirmed an
American was detained but did not provide details.” On CNN’s Situation
Room[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06a-a93&t=c>
(1/8), Michelle Kosinski reported White’s mother said State Department
officials “told her they’re trying to gain access to him through
Switzerland which handles the US’ diplomacy with Iran.”

        On NBC Nightly News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06b-9c4&t=c>
(1/8, story 6, 1:10, Holt), Andrea Mitchell reported White’s mother “only
learned three weeks ago from the State Department that he was alive. She
filed a missing person’s report when he went to see his Iranian girlfriend
and didn’t make the flight home.” Mitchell added that getting White
released may “be harder because of renewed tensions after President Trump
pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal last year.” On the CBS Evening News[image:
Image removed by sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06c-a0e&t=c>
(1/8, story 7, 2:05, Glor), Margaret Brennan said Trump has “repeatedly
criticized” President Obama for allowing “a prisoner swap and unfreezing
more than $1 billion in Iranian assets that brought four Americans home in
2016.” However, “President Trump’s confrontational stance, exiting the
nuclear deal and sanctioning Iran, has not stopped the regime from
detaining more Americans.”

        ABC World News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06d-cd7&t=c>
(1/8, story 8, 1:00, Muir) reported, “White’s mother told ABC it was last
July, just two months after President Trump withdrew from the nuclear
agreement, that her son traveled to Iran to see his Iranian girlfriend,
which he had done before. The State Department now telling her there is no
indication of when or if he will be released.”
Erdogan Blasts Bolton Over Demand Turkey Guarantee Kurdish Fighters’ Safety.

The CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06e-3ac&t=c>
(1/8, story 6, 2:00, Glor) reported National Security Adviser Bolton “was
in Turkey today looking for an assurance that when the US pulls its roughly
2,000 troops out of neighboring Syria, the Turkish will not attack
America’s Syrian allies on the ground. Instead, an angry Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Bolton of making a ‘serious mistake’ after
mixed messages on the US’s withdrawal plan.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=06f-c15&t=c>
(1/8, Miller) reports Erdogan charged that Bolton made “a very serious
mistake” when he “demand[ed] that Ankara guarantee the safety of Kurdish
fighters in northeastern Syria before the US withdraws its troops from the
war-torn country.” The AP says a “strained morning of negotiation in Turkey
ended without assurances of protection” for Kurdish forces, and instead
“brought them fresh new threats from Turkey.”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=070-9eb&t=c>
(1/8, Fahim) reports that Bolton “had been expected to meet with Erdogan to
discuss the fate of the Syrian Kurdish fighters,” but, “instead, Bolton met
with Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin,” who “later told the
news media that Erdogan’s meeting with Bolton was ‘never confirmed.’”
According to Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=071-7f0&t=c>
(1/8, Talev, Kozok), however, Erdogan “rebuffed” a meeting with Bolton,
“then took to live television instead to insult him for a lack of
perspective.”

        Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=072-4a7&t=c>
(1/8, Holland, Coskun) says Bolton “left without meeting” Erdogan after he
“made the case to Turkish officials for the need for guarantees that
US-backed Kurdish fighters...would not be harmed after a US withdrawal.”
Erdogan, however, “said the condition was unacceptable.” Erdogan is quoted
as saying, “If they are terrorists, we will do what is necessary no matter
where they come from. ... Bolton has made a serious mistake and whoever
thinks like this has also made a mistake. It is not possible for us to make
compromises on this point.”

        The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=073-c06&t=c>
(1/8, Gall) quotes Erdogan as saying, “It is not possible for us to swallow
the message Bolton gave from Israel.” The Times says Erdogan “had hailed
President Trump’s decision to pull out of Syria as the ‘right call.’” The
Times says the Turkish leader’s refusal to meet Bolton makes “any agreement
between the two NATO partners over a United States withdrawal from Syria
increasingly difficult,” while the Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=074-324&t=c>
(1/8, Salama) says it could also lead to a delay in the withdrawal of US
troops from Syria.

        *Russian Forces Patrolling Outskirts Of Manbij. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=075-ffd&t=c>
(1/8) reports that “Russian military police have started patrolling the
surroundings of the northern Syrian Kurdish-held town of Manbij,” which was
“was previously occupied by US-backed Kurdish-led forces, who were forced
to appeal to Syria and Russia amid fears of a Turkish attack.”

        *USA Today Analysis: Allies Angry, Confused About US Troop
Withdrawal From Syria. *USA Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=076-a70&t=c>
(1/8, Shesgreen) reports, “Turkey’s president is fuming. Israeli leaders
are nervous. Syrian Kurds are terrified. That’s the global state-of-play
three weeks after President Donald Trump abruptly announced a decision to
withdraw US troops from Syria.” Secretary of State Pompeo and National
Security Adviser Bolton are “now on separate swings through the Middle
East, where they’re both trying to calm jittery US allies – and to walk
back the president’s statements.”

        *Policy Experts: Implementation May Doom Trump’s Troop Withdrawal
Decisions. *In a New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=077-02d&t=c>
(1/8) op-ed, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Jon Finer and
International Crisis Group President and Chief Executive Officer Robert
Malley, who both served in former President Obama’s Administration, say
President Trump’s “desire to disentangle the United States from costly
overseas conflicts” is “one belief that deserves to be encouraged, not
denigrated.” The authors stress that withdrawing from Syria and Afghanistan
“is the right thing to do,” but they caution that those “decisions,
assuming he sticks to them, may well lead to disastrous outcomes because of
how they were executed, their timing, the complete lack of consultation
with allies and experts and his utter failure to leverage them.”
Trump Touts Progress As US-China Trade Talks Extend For Third Day.

Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=078-43a&t=c>
(1/8) reports US-China trade talks in Beijing “are progressing and will
extend into Wednesday, an American negotiator said” Tuesday. The
discussions over the past two days “went well,” according to Steven
Winberg, “an Energy Department official” who spoke to reporters in Beijing.
“I can confirm we’re continuing tomorrow,” he added.

        AFP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=079-63d&t=c>
(1/8) reports President Trump on Twitter
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07a-c2c&t=c>
“boasted Tuesday that US-China trade negotiations were going ‘very well’ as
officials held talks in Beijing that will spill into a third day.” Trump
wrote, “Talks with China are going very well!” but gave no further details.
The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07b-459&t=c>
(1/8, Wei), meanwhile, reports the two sides are narrowing their
differences, with Chinese officials offering greater purchases of US goods
and services. Cabinet-level follow-up meetings are expected later this
month.

        The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07c-04a&t=c>
(1/8, Wee, Bradsher) reports, “China is buying American soybeans again and
has cut tariffs on American cars. It is offering to keep its hands off
valuable corporate secrets, while also allowing foreign investors into more
industries than ever before.” According to the Times, China “hopes all of
that will be enough to let President Trump declare victory and end the
trade war.” However, the “offer combines some real concessions, like lower
tariffs, with nebulous promises that will be hard to ensure China sticks to
its commitments,” which “could make it a tough sell in Washington.” The
Administration’s “trade hawks” are “still pushing for a lot more, while
even the doves fret that the new promises need effective enforcement to
make sure that China follows through.”

        *China Approves Five GMO Crops For Import. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07d-52f&t=c>
(1/8, Patton) reports that Chinese regulators “approved five genetically
modified (GM) crops for import on Tuesday, the first in about 18 months in
a move that could boost its overseas grains purchases and ease pressure
from the United States to open its markets to more farm goods.” According
to Reuters, “US farmers and global seed companies have long complained
about Beijing’s slow and unpredictable process for approving GM crops for
import.”

        *Documents Link Huawei To Front Companies In Syria, Iran. *Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07e-abe&t=c>
(1/8, Stecklow, Dehghanpisheh, Pomfret) reports that “the US case against
the chief financial officer of China’s Huawei Technologies, who was
arrested in Canada last month, centers on the company’s suspected ties to
two obscure companies. One is a telecom equipment seller that operated in
Tehran; the other is that firm’s owner, a holding company registered in
Mauritius.” According to Reuters, “US authorities allege CFO Meng Wanzhou
deceived international banks into clearing transactions with Iran by
claiming the two companies were independent of Huawei, when in fact Huawei
controlled them.” Reuters says “corporate filings and other documents
found...in Iran and Syria show that Huawei...is more closely linked to both
firms than previously known.”
US Officials: New Plans Call For Lower Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=07f-025&t=c>
(1/8, Dawsey) reports US officials said the Pentagon is “drafting plans to
withdraw a few thousand troops from Afghanistan while continuing all major
missions,” just weeks after President Trump “sought options for a more
drastic pullout.” Planning is underway after Trump “ordered the Pentagon to
prepare the withdrawal of up to half of the roughly 14,000 US troops
deployed in Afghanistan, six officials said.” However, the current plan
calls for “far fewer than 7,000, two senior White House officials said.”
This comes after military advisers reportedly convinced Trump “that a
smaller, and slower, withdrawal is best for now – although officials
cautioned that a final decision had not been reached and that the president
could order a full pullout at any moment.”

        The Washington Examiner
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=080-4c8&t=c>
(1/8, Correll) too says the Pentagon is “developing a plan to withdraw
about half the number of troops from Afghanistan than was initially
expected when President Trump announced a major withdrawal last month.”

        *Taliban Call Off Peace Talks With US Over “Agenda Differences.” *
Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=081-b2f&t=c>
(1/8, Ahmad) reports the Taliban announced Tuesday the group has called off
peace talks with US officials in Qatar this week due to an “agenda
disagreement,” especially “over the involvement of Afghan officials as well
as a possible ceasefire and prisoner exchange.” A “Taliban source” told
Reuters, “The US officials insisted that the Taliban should meet the Afghan
authorities in Qatar and both sides were in disagreement over declaring a
ceasefire in 2019. Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar.” The US
Embassy in Kabul “did not immediately respond to a request for comment
about the cancellation.”
Media Analyses: Kim’s Visit To Beijing A Reminder Of China’s Influence.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=082-29e&t=c>
(1/8, Talmadge) reports North Korean leader Kim Jong Un arrived in Beijing
Tuesday for a fourth meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in what the
AP says is “yet another nod to the leader Kim most needs to court as he
tries to undermine support for international sanctions while giving up
little, if any, ground on denuclearization.” The AP adds that Kim’s visit
“comes after he expressed frustration in his annual New Year’s address over
the lack of progress in negotiations with Washington since his
unprecedented summit with Trump in Singapore seven months ago.”

        AFP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=083-c65&t=c>
(1/8) reports Kim met with Xi on Tuesday “for around an hour, Seoul’s
Yonhap news agency reported...citing unnamed sources who said the talks
focused on a possible summit with...Trump and ways to deepen ties.” Kim and
his wife Ri Sol Ju later attended a dinner hosted by Xi and first lady Peng
Liyuan at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, Yonhap reported.

        The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=084-350&t=c>
(1/8, Chin, Jeong) says Kim’s visit is a reminder of the close ties between
the two nations, which have given Xi leverage in China’s dealings with the
US. The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=085-5ce&t=c>
(1/8, Bradsher, Choe) says Xi “has offered carrots to President Trump to
stop a trade war that has contributed to a sharp slowdown in the Chinese
economy,” and on Tuesday, “he also seemed to brandish a stick.” The Times
notes that Kim arrived in Beijing amid “talks with midlevel trade
negotiators from the United States.” According to the Times, “Though the
government said the events were unconnected, Mr. Kim’s surprise visit was
an unmistakable reminder that China could complicate the Trump
administration’s pursuit of other goals – including ridding the North of
nuclear weapons – if the two powers fail to strike a deal on trade.”
US Temporarily Reverses Decision To Reclassify EU Diplomats.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=086-d77&t=c>
(1/8, Emmott) reports the Administration “has lowered the status of the
European Union’s diplomats in Washington without notifying Brussels.”
According to Reuters, “The change in protocol for a close US ally means the
bloc’s Washington-based diplomats are less likely to be invited to
high-profile events and have a lower importance than under” previous
administrations.

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=087-c7f&t=c>
(1/8, Birnbaum, Hudson) says the “change comes as relations are strained
between Washington and Brussels” under President Trump. Last month, it
notes, Secretary Pompeo “blasted international organizations in a
wide-ranging foreign policy speech in Brussels that many in his audience
took as a declaration of war. The next day, EU Ambassador David O’Sullivan
wasn’t called in the ordinary order” at former President George H.W. Bush’s
funeral and “suspected something was amiss, an EU official said.”

        However, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=088-add&t=c>
(1/8, Erlanger) reports that “after protest from Brussels and discussion
between the European Union and the Trump administration, the
reclassification of the delegation and the consequent demotion of the
ambassador, David O’Sullivan, is understood to have been reversed, at least
temporarily.”
UK Brexit Vote Scheduled For January 15.

Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=089-2b1&t=c>
(1/8, Piper) reports Britain’s Parliament plans to hold a vote on the
government’s deal to leave the European Union on Jan. 15, Prime Minister
Theresa May’s spokesman said Tuesday after a meeting of senior ministers.
The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08a-b60&t=c>
(1/8, Katz, Cook) reports that earlier Tuesday, Parliament “narrowly
approved financial roadblocks that are designed to make it more difficult
for the country to leave the European Union without a Brexit deal, giving a
defeat to...May’s government.” The AP says the vote “illustrated the
substantial opposition to the real possibility of Britain withdrawing from
the EU on March 29 without a divorce agreement in place on the terms of its
relationship with the remaining members.”

        The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08b-5f0&t=c>
(1/8, Yeginsu) reports that as Parliament prepares for “a momentous debate
over Prime Minister Theresa May’s unpopular plan to leave the European
Union, it is often hard to tell if her government wants to convince people
of the utter calamity of a no-deal exit – the better to secure passage of
the proposal – or to reassure them that everything is under control. In the
event, it seems to be failing at both.”
Domestic Policy
Court Filing Says Manafort Shared Trump Polling Data With A Russian
Associate.

The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08c-f04&t=c>
(1/8, Lafraniere, Vogel) reports that according to a court filing unsealed
on Tuesday, prosecutors allege former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort
“shared Trump campaign polling data with” Konstantin Kilimnik. “an
associate tied to Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign.” The
accusation was revealed “in a document filed by Mr. Manafort’s defense
lawyers that was supposed to be partly blacked out but contained a
formatting error” resulted in the information being revealed. ABC World
News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08d-08c&t=c>
(1/8, story 6, 1:45, Thomas) reported that according to investigators,
“Kilimnik had strong connections with Russian intelligence during the 2016
campaign.”

        Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08e-9bc&t=c>
(1/8, Voreacos, Harris) says “Mueller’s team suspects” that Manafort shared
the data “and lied about it, according to a court filing by Manafort’s
lawyers.” Paula Reid said on the CBS Evening News[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=08f-16a&t=c>
(1/8, story 5, 1:50, Glor) that this is “the first time a Trump official
has been accused of sharing campaign information with Russian interests.”
However, Pete Williams said on NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=090-752&t=c>
(1/8, story 4, 1:15, Holt) that “it’s impossible to tell from this new
filing whether Manafort was intending to share campaign information with
the Russians or just reaching out to his former employee in hopes of lining
up future consulting work once the Trump campaign was over.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=091-360&t=c>
(1/8, Balsamo, Tucker, Day) reports that while the filing “does not say
whether the polling information was public or what was done with it, it
raises the possibility that Russia might have used inside information from
the Trump campaign as part of its effort to interfere with the election on
Trump’s behalf.”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=092-b28&t=c>
(1/8, Helderman) reports the court filing also says the special counsel
“accused Manafort of lying about discussing a Ukrainian peace plan with
Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign.” Manafort’s attorney’s quote the special
counsel as saying, “Manafort ‘conceded’ that he discussed or may have
discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr. Kilimnik on more than one
occasion,” and “‘acknowledged’ that he and Mr. Kilimnik met while they were
both in Madrid.”

        The Washington Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=093-efb&t=c>
(1/8, Mordock) reports another redacted section “disclosed that an unknown
individual texted Manafort about invoking his name if the individual met
Mr. Trump.” Manafort’s attorneys “insisted” that “the exchange did not
constitute ‘outreach’ to the president.”

        Democrats argued Tuesday that the information in the filing is
evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Rep. Eric
Swalwell (D-CA) said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=094-4f3&t=c>
(1/8), “Yes. The Trump campaign met with and worked with Russian spies
while Russia was interfering in our democracy.” Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) said
on CNN’s Situation Room
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=095-c10&t=c>
(1/8), “This is a little bit akin to coming on a crime scene with a dead
body and a bullet hole in it and standing over it is Paul Manafort with a
gun in his hand and smoke still coming out of the barrel. He colluded. He
colluded. He colluded. I think, in fact, the only question that is left to
be answered is what did the President know and when did he know it.” Heck
added, “The walls are closing in. Every brick of evidence and information
seems to reveal more and more and more that there was a tighter and
substantially deep amount of communication between Trump operatives and
Russian operatives with an eye toward the election.”

        Commentators agreed. Former NSA attorney Susan Hennessey said on CNN’s
Situation Room
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=096-3cd&t=c>
(1/8), “It does show yet another example of ongoing communication, ongoing
coordination. We are moving closer and closer to that ‘c’ word, collusion,
that we have all been sort of moving around. I think the big question here
is of course why. Why is Paul Manafort sharing this sensitive internal
polling information with the Russians? What was the Russian purposes and
then how much did Donald Trump or potentially members of his inner circle
know about these efforts?”

        Dana Bash said on CNN’s Situation Room[image: Image removed by
sender. Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=097-030&t=c>
(1/8), “The fact that he shared internal polling data begs the important
question of why. Was he just trying to kind of show that he is the man and
he has got...access to information that he knows that would be of interest
to Russians or was it something much, much more nefarious. That is a
fundamental question. Whether or not President Trump knew about it or not
he was the campaign chairman at the time. That is no small thing.”

        *Manafort Will Not Contest Charge That He Lied To Investigators. *
Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=098-7ae&t=c>
(1/8, Layne) reports that lawyers for Manafort said in court today that
“any ‘misstatements’ made by...Manafort to federal prosecutors were
‘unintentional’ and he would not seek a hearing to contest the allegation
he lied.” Reuters says Manafort “was responding to allegations in December
by the US special counsel investigating Russian meddling in the 2016
presidential election that Manafort had told ‘multiple discernible lies’ to
investigators, breaking a plea agreement struck in September.” According to
Reuters, “Manafort’s lawyers had been given until Monday to decide whether
they would challenge the allegations, a move that would require a court
hearing to weigh evidence, or simply ask the government to move on to
sentencing.” Politico
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=099-d3a&t=c>
(1/8, Samuelsohn) says Manafort’s lawyers “also said they reserved the
right to fight back if Mueller brought new charges surrounding the
allegations that he lied to prosecutors.”

        *Schiff Concerned Mueller Won’t Look Into Trump’s Business
Dealings. *In an interview with the Los Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09a-e2e&t=c>
(1/8, Finnegan) editorial board Monday, House Intelligence Chairman Schiff
“expressed concern ...that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III might
decline to look into President Trump’s private business dealings.” If that
is the case, “the Burbank congressman said, it could be up to Democrats who
took control of the House last week to expose the full scope of alleged
wrongdoing by Trump and his allies.” Schiff said, “Mueller may not be
looking at this, which concerns me, because it means that up until now no
one has looked at this.” The Daily Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09b-59b&t=c>
(1/8, Simonson) cites Schiff’s comments as evidence that “some
congressional Democrats appear concerned that...Mueller isn’t being
thorough enough in his investigation into President Donald Trump.”

        *Russian Lawyer Who Attended Trump Tower Meeting Indicted. *The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09c-d47&t=c>
(1/8, Neumeister, Day, Braun) reports that Natalya Veselnitskaya, “the
Russian lawyer who attended the Trump Tower meeting that is a focus of the
special counsel’s investigation into possible collusion, was charged with
obstructing an unrelated tax-fraud case.” The AP says Veselnitskaya “was
indicted on one count of obstruction of justice after prosecutors said she
teamed up with a senior Russian prosecutor and submitted deceptive
declarations in a civil proceeding involving a Russian tax refund fraud
scheme.”

        Fox News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09d-865&t=c>
(1/8, Singman) reports that Veselnitskaya “represented Cyprus-based real
estate holdings company Prevezon Holdings, in a money laundering lawsuit
brought by the Justice Department in 2013.” The government “sought to prove
that Veselnitskaya’s clients had received and laundered a portion of the
proceeds of a Russian tax refund fraud scheme involving corrupt Russian
officials.” According to federal prosecutors in the Southern District of
New York, Veselnitskaya submitted to the court an “intentionally misleading
declaration in opposition to a government motion.”

        The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09e-016&t=c>
(1/8, Zapotosky) says Veselnitskaya “has long proclaimed she is innocent
and not a representative of the Russian government,” but “the indictment
argues she has worked closely with senior Russian officials for years.”
Richard Engel reported on NBC Nightly News[image: Image removed by sender.
Video]
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=09f-d5e&t=c>
(1/8, story 5, 1:35, Holt) that prosecutors said Veselnitskaya was in
“secret cooperation with the senior Russian official,” which Engel said is
“a reason she and that Trump Tower meeting are of such interest to special
counsel Robert Mueller.”

        The Daily Caller
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a0-498&t=c>
(1/8) reports the charges “are not related to the Trump Tower meeting,” but
the meeting “did center on issues related to Veselnitskaya’s work on behalf
of Prevezon, which is controlled by a Russian businessman named Denis
Katsyv.” The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a1-a6e&t=c>
(1/8, Chalfant) says that although the case “does not appear to have direct
ties to the Trump Tower meeting, the allegations laid out in the indictment
nevertheless paint a portrait of an individual with close ties to the
Russian government.” Similarly, the New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a2-4fc&t=c>
(1/8, Weiser)says the case “was not directly related to the Trump Tower
meeting. But a federal indictment returned in Manhattan seemed to confirm
that Ms. Veselnitskaya had deep ties to senior Russian government
officials.” ABC World News Tonight
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a3-ede&t=c>
(1/8, story 7, 0:20, Muir) also reported briefly on Veselnitskaya’s
indictment.

        *SCOTUS Rejects Company Fighting Subpoena Possibly Linked To
Mueller Probe. *The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a4-a39&t=c>
(1/8, Liptak) reports the Supreme Court has refused to “intercede in a
mysterious fight over a sealed grand jury subpoena to a foreign corporation
issued by a federal prosecutor who may or may not be” special counsel
Robert Mueller. Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a5-746&t=c>
(1/8, Hurley) says the Court rejected the company’s request “to avoid
paying penalties if it does not comply with a subpoena issued by a grand
jury in a sealed case possibly linked” to Mueller’s investigation. The
Washington
Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a6-8c4&t=c>
(1/8, Leonnig) says this is “thought to be the first time that an aspect of
Mueller’s wide-ranging probe into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign
has reached the Supreme Court.”
Democrats Concerned About Barr’s Arguments For Expansive Presidential
Powers.

The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a7-41d&t=c>
(1/8, Tucker) reports President Trump’s nominee for attorney general,
William Barr, has advocated “an expansive view of presidential power” that
limits “the power of Congress and courts to hold” the President in check.
Barr has “advised that a president didn’t need Congress’ permission to
attack Iraq, that the US could arrest a foreign dictator and capture
suspects abroad without that country’s permission.” Democrats are concerned
that as attorney general, Barr “would be overly deferential to Trump in a
position where legal decisions aren’t supposed to be guided by political
considerations.” Barr sent the Justice Department an unsolicited memo
“arguing Trump could not have obstructed justice by firing ex-FBI Director
James Comey,” which “raised Democratic alarms that Barr could influence
special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in ways that protect Trump.”
Schiff: Democrats Not Inclined To Impeach Trump If Senate Republicans Won’t
Convict.

House Intelligence Chairman Schiff “signaled” during an interview with the Los
Angeles Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a8-a78&t=c>
(1/8, Finnegan) editorial board Monday that if special counsel Robert
Mueller’s report implicated the President in criminal wrongdoing, “House
Democratic leaders were not inclined to impeach Trump if it appears the
Republicans who control the Senate will refuse to convict him and remove
him from office.” Schiff said that in his former role as a federal
prosecutor, “it was not our tradition or habit or policy to indict people
that we did not believe we could prove guilty in trial and convict merely
to put them through the process of a trial or to expose wrongdoing if we
couldn’t persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        *Tlaib Sorry Her Trump Comment Was A “Distraction.” *The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0a9-827&t=c>
(1/8, Birnbaum) reports Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) apologized Tuesday that
her “impeach the motherf---er” comment about the President was a
“distraction,” but “added that she will not apologize for the sentiment
behind the remark.” Speaking at a Michigan Veterans Foundation event, Tlaib
said, “I am a person that is authentically me. ... I’m very passionate
about fighting for all of us, and the use of that language was a teachable
moment for me. ... I understand that I am a member of Congress, and I don’t
want anything that I do or say to distract us. And that’s the only thing
that I apologize for – that it was a distraction.” The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0aa-128&t=c>
(1/8, Wagner), among other outlets, also reports on Tlaib’s apology.
CBO: Q1 Deficit Spikes.

The Hill
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0ab-072&t=c>
(1/8, Elis) reports that as “the GOP tax plan slashed revenues relative to
spending,” the Congressional Budget Office said that “the federal deficit
spiked $92 billion in the first quarter of the 2019 fiscal year, a
41-percent increase over the same period of 2018.” Total receipts fell as
an overall share of the economy, and, in particularly, corporate taxes
“plunged $9 billion, or 15 percent,” even as outlays “spiked $93 billion,
or 9 percent.” While “the level of the deficit spike is somewhat overstated
because” the last fiscal year started on a weekend, “if the payment dates
had been aligned, spending would have been $49 billion lower, and the
deficit would have risen $47 billion, or 21 percent,” which would remain a
“significant” spike.
US Criticized For Deporting People To Dangerous Mexican Cities.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0ac-49c&t=c>
(1/8, Sieff) reports, “A third of people deported from the United States to
Mexico, about 60,000 as of October, were sent through” the Mexican state of
Tamaulipas, which is so dangerous it carries the same category of State
Department travel warning as Afghanistan and North Korea. About 16,500
deportees were sent to Reynosa, “one of the most dangerous cities in
Mexico.” Deportees are regularly robbed and kidnapped. Mexican officials
and human rights advocates criticize the US practice of sending deportees
to these areas as “a flagrant human rights violation,” and Mexico’s new
government plans to formally request the US stop deportations to
“dangerous, poorly resourced border cities, and instead concentrate on
safer ports of entry.” ICE spokesman Brendan Raedy said, “Removals to
Tamaulipas, like all removals to Mexico, are coordinated with and approved
by the Government of Mexico.”
Zinni Steps Down As Special Envoy.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0ad-47f&t=c>
(1/8, DeYoung) reports retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni “has become the
latest senior military officer to leave the Trump administration, resigning
his position as special envoy to help resolve disputes in the Persian Gulf
and build a strategic US military alliance with Arab governments in the
region.” Zinni “described his resignation in a Monday letter to the State
Department as a ‘formality,’” and said in a telephone interview that
efforts to resolve a dispute involving Saudi Arabia, the UAE and its
neighbors that broke relations with Qatar in 2017 “did not make any
progress.” That failure, says the Post, “undermined his other task – the
building of a strategic US alliance with the six nations of the Gulf
Cooperation Council.” Reuters
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0ae-128&t=c>
(1/8, Mohammed) reports CBS News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0af-3ae&t=c>
quoted Zinni as saying he stepped down after realizing he could not resolve
the dispute “because of the unwillingness of the regional leaders to agree
to a viable mediation effort that we offered to conduct or assist in
implementing.”

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b0-c80&t=c>
(1/8) reports State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said Tuesday that
the Administration “will continue to pursue the work” of Zinni, and
“expressed thanks for Zinni’s work.”
Judge Orders EPA Release Officials’ Contacts With Industry Groups.

The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b1-ac2&t=c>
(1/7, Grandoni) reports the US District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to release “about
20,000 emails exchanged between industry groups and 25 Trump officials” –
including acting chief Andrew Wheeler. The judge cited former EPA chief
Scott Pruitt’s “departure — and Wheeler’s subsequent elevation to the top
of the agency – as among the ‘persuasive reasons for the urgency’ of the
Sierra Club’s requests for documents pertaining to him.” The Sierra Club
filed the lawsuit after the agency failed to fulfill a Freedom of
Information Act “request for the documents from EPA officials responsible
for the rollback of dozens of rules put in place by the previous
administration to combat the emissions of climate-warming gases and other
pollutants.” Environmentalists hope the documents “will clarify how
industry interests may be influencing” officials’ decisions.
Cancer Research
US Cancer Deaths Declined By 27% From 1991 To 2016, Study Shows.

The CBS Evening News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b2-d05&t=c>
(1/8, story 10, 0:20, Glor) reported that the Americans’ “cancer death rate
has now been falling for at least 25 years, down 27 percent over that
period,” driven by lower smoking rates and medical advances. However,
“obesity-related cancer deaths are rising and prostate cancer deaths are no
longer dropping.”

        The Wall Street Journal
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b3-ce9&t=c>
(1/8, A1, Marcus) reports that the study
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b4-a06&t=c>,
published Tuesday in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians by researchers for
the American Cancer Society found cancer deaths fell 27 percent from 1991
to 2016. Despite the declines, the researchers estimate there will be
607,000 cancer deaths in the US this year. According to the report, cancer
deaths were greatest for men with lung, prostate or colorectal cancer,
while they were greatest for women with lung, breast and colorectal cancer.

        The AP
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b5-bc1&t=c>
(1/8, Stobbe) reports the US “cancer death rate has hit a milestone: It’s
been falling for at least 25 years,” but “obesity-related cancer deaths are
rising, and prostate cancer deaths are no longer dropping.” The AP also
reports that the “main reason” for the decline in cancer death rates is the
decline in lung cancer, which “dropped by nearly 50 percent among men since
1991,” as “a delayed effect from a decline in smoking that began in the
1960s.” The report also found that “the prostate cancer death rate fell by
half” during the period, but “flattened from 2013 to 2016.” The AP added
that among common cancers, “all the ones with increasing death rates are
linked to obesity, including cancers of the pancreas and uterus,” while
“liver cancer deaths have been increasing since the 1970s.” The AP also
reports that there has been a decline in the “racial gap” in death rates,
“but an economic gap is growing.”

        Bloomberg News
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b6-b31&t=c>
(1/8, Cortez) reports the benefit from the decline in cancer deaths has
“been reaped mostly by the well-off.” Bloomberg adds that “in some poor and
rural portions of the country...there are higher death rates of colon,
cervical and lung cancers.” Bloomberg attributes that to “the impact of
limited access to treatment for the poorest Americans.”

        CNN
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b7-8b7&t=c>
(1/8, Howard) also reports “disparities remain between the rich and the
poor.”

        Fortune
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b8-761&t=c>
(1/8, Reints) says the report found that “the socioeconomic gap of cancer
deaths is growing: poorer women have twice as many deaths from cervical
cancer than affluent women, and the lung and liver cancer mortality rate
was 40% higher for poor men than wealthier men from 2012 to 2016.”

        Newsweek
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0b9-26e&t=c>
(1/8, Georgiou) reports the study also found that “in 2016, cancer was
responsible for 22 percent of all deaths – meaning it was second only to
heart disease” as a cause of death.

        TIME
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0ba-4b6&t=c>
(1/8, Ducharme) reports on cancers that are increasing: melanoma and
cancers of the breast, liver, thyroid, pancreas and uterus.

        U.S. News & World Report
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0bb-615&t=c>
(1/8, Newman) reports the incidence of liver cancer is “rising faster than
that for any other cancer in both men and women.”

        HealthDay
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0bc-79f&t=c>
(1/8, Reinberg), Medscape
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0bd-7dc&t=c>
(1/8, Harrison), and HemOnc Today
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0be-f36&t=c>
(1/8, Byrne) also report on the study.
Researchers Reportedly Have Suggested Obesity, Insulin, And Cancer Are
Linked.

Philadelphia Inquirer
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0bf-278&t=c>
(1/9, McCullough) reports “scientists have linked cancer to the same
obesity-related metabolic abnormalities that drive diabetes – especially
resistance to insulin.” The article highlights a “large Canadian-led trial
of early-stage breast cancer patients” that “aims to see whether five years
of metformin — given after standard breast cancer surgery and chemotherapy,
if warranted — can keep cancer from recurring and improve survival over a
decade.” The “researchers wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute” that the findings “provide clear evidence that metformin
improves the metabolic profile of nondiabetic breast cancer patients,
regardless of initial weight or degree of insulin resistance.”
Editorials/Op-Eds
New York Times.

*“When Animal Welfare And Religious Practice Collide.”* A New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c0-29b&t=c>
(1/8) editorial says “there is bound to be impassioned debate” over a new
law in Belgium that bans “the way Muslims and Jews slaughter animals.” The
Times says such a debate “is hardly new,” because while most European
nations allow religious exceptions to similar regulations, “several –
including Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Slovenia – do not.” While
the “pretexts of some politicians does not mean all those who insist on
stunning have dubious motives,” Europe has “a long history of anti-Semitism
and a newer spread of animosity toward Muslim immigrants.” As such, the
Times says, “any regulation that appears to discriminate against Jewish or
Muslim practices and traditions – circumcision and dress are other examples
– is bound to be viewed by the religious as insulting and hostile.”

        *“The Crisis Is In The Oval Office.” *The New York Times
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c1-e00&t=c>
(1/8, Board) editorializes that the “border crisis” may have started out as
one of President Trump’s “self-serving political fictions,” but “the
situation has, with the president’s nurturing, become something far more
tragic.” The Times explains that by pursuing “poorly thought-out and even
more poorly executed policies on the pretext of battling a nonexistent
national security crisis,” the President “has helped create a pressing
humanitarian one.”
Washington Post.

*“Democrats Make Universal Background Checks A Priority.”* A Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c2-158&t=c>
(1/8) editorial says House Democrats are right to make universal background
checks for gun purchases a priority. The Post points out that federal law
prohibits certain people from buying or possessing firearms and background
checks “have blocked licensed dealers from making more than 3.5 million gun
sales to such people,” but no such system exists to prevent those people
from buying guns “at a gun show, over the Internet or through a newspaper
ad.” The Post argues, “Plugging this deadly and unnecessary loophole
(background checks impose no burden on law-abiding gun purchasers) is a
critical first step in comprehensive gun violence prevention.”

        *“The Saudi Blocking Of Hasan Minhaj’s Netflix Show Proves Nothing
Has Changed in Riyadh.” *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c3-495&t=c>
(1/8) editorializes that Saudi authorities’ demand that Netflix block an
episode of “Patriot Act” in which comedian Hasan Minhaj criticizes Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s modernization campaign and the kingdom’s
handling of Jamal Khashoggi’s killing underscores that the “crown prince
dreams of economic modernization under political dictatorship.” The Post
argues that “tyranny and modernization don’t make for natural partners,”
however, and “there does not appear to be any fundamental change in Riyadh,
just window-dressing and damage control.” The Post concludes, “Without true
liberty for his people, the crown prince’s vision will remain profoundly
occluded.”

        *“Here Are Some Real Emergencies. None Of Them Requires The
President To Turn Into A Dictator.” *The Washington Post
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c4-b8f&t=c>
(1/8) editorializes, “As crises go, the situation along the southern border
is certainly a logistical, humanitarian and managerial challenge. Its
urgency is accentuated by laws and infrastructure ill-suited to the current
flood of families seeking asylum in the United States. But it is not a
national emergency, as President Trump has framed it, any more than
numerous other challenges we can think of. ... The one emergency Mr. Trump
fears is the threat he faces from his own base should it conclude his
border-wall promise was a hoax.”

*Copyright 2019 by Bulletin Intelligence LLC* Reproduction or
redistribution without permission prohibited. Content is drawn from
thousands of newspapers, national magazines, national and local television
programs, radio broadcasts, social-media platforms and additional forms of
open-source data. Sources for Bulletin Intelligence audience-size estimates
include Scarborough, GfK MRI, comScore, Nielsen, and the Audit Bureau of
Circulation. Data from and access to third party social media platforms,
including but not limited to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others, is
subject to the respective platform’s terms of use. Services that include
Factiva content are governed by Factiva’s terms of use
<http://mailview.bulletinintelligence.com/mailview.aspx?m=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c5-adc&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=2019010901biden&r=email-e0db&l=0c6-730&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