President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump suggests Sotomayor, Ginsburg should have to recuse themselves on ‘Trump related’ cases Sanders says idea he can’t work with Republicans is ‘total nonsense’ Sanders releases list of how to pay for his proposals MORE cheered his relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and declared the U.S.-India partnership “stronger than ever before” on Tuesday.

Trump and Modi during a joint press statement touted the new defense cooperation between the two countries and progress on various fronts over the president’s past two days in India.

Still, a comprehensive trade agreement between the U.S. and India remains elusive after the two-day meeting, though Trump insisted “tremendous progress” had been made on the topic.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: cheap nsw blues jersey

“Prime Minister Modi, we have made tremendous advances for our people over the past few days and, working together, I know that our two nations will continue to achieve new breakthroughs, unlock new potential and forge even brighter futures in the years ahead,” Trump said.

“I am pleased to say that the U.S.-Indian partnership is now truly stronger than ever before,” Trump continued. “This was a great visit with a tremendous friend and a tremendous leader.”

The president thanked India for offering him and first lady Melania TrumpMelania TrumpThe Hill’s 12:30 Report: Sanders’s momentum puts Democrats on edge Trumps tour Taj Mahal to cap off first day in India The Hill’s Morning Report – Sanders steamrolls to South Carolina primary, Super Tuesday MORE an “outstanding welcome” the day prior, when roughly 100,000 Indian citizens gathered at a cricket stadium in Ahmedabad to participate in a rally-type event called “Namaste Trump.”

Modi called the event an “unprecedented and historic welcome” that will “always be remembered” and said he was happy that Trump brought his family along for the visit. The U.S. delegation also included Trump’s daughter and senior adviser Ivanka TrumpIvana (Ivanka) Marie TrumpTrumps tour Taj Mahal to cap off first day in India Manufacturers group kicks off campaign to close the industry’s skills gap Fed chief issues stark warning to Congress on deficits MORE and her husband Jared KushnerJared Corey KushnerTrumps tour Taj Mahal to cap off first day in India The Hill’s Morning Report – Democrats duke it out during Nevada debate Blagojevich heaps praise on Trump after release from prison MORE, who is also a White House senior adviser.

“In the last eight months, this is the fifth meeting between President Trump and myself,” Modi said. “This relationship is the most important partnership of the 21st century.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Officials announced Tuesday that the United States and India signed two memorandums of understanding – one on mental health and another on safety of drug products – and that India had inked a letter of cooperation with Exxon Mobil to improve India’s natural gas distribution network.

Trump also touted a deal that he announced during his remarks in Ahmedabad a day prior in which India agreed to purchase roughly $3 billion in U.S. military helicopters.

Trump said both sides also discussed combatting “radical Islamic terrorism,” the importance of a secure 5G wireless network and trade.

Trump has spoken optimistically about securing a trade pact with India, but tempered expectations ahead of his trip  about the possibility a deal would be completed soon, saying it could be delayed until after the November presidential election.

“Our teams have made tremendous progress on a comprehensive trade agreement and I’m optimistic we can reach a deal that will be of great importance to both countries,” Trump said Tuesday.

The remarks between Trump and Modi at the joint press statement came after an expanded bilateral meeting between officials from both countries.

There was no explicit mention of India’s controversial new citizenship law, which favors non-Muslims and has prompted protests in the capital of New Delhi, though Trump noted during his remarks that the U.S. and India have always been “united by shared traditions of democracy and constitutions that protect freedom, individual rights and the rule of law.”

President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Memo: Biden seeks revival in South Carolina Congress eyes billion to billion to combat coronavirus Sanders makes the case against Biden ahead of SC primary MORE is threatening to blow up an extension of expiring intelligence programs as he backchannels with a cadre of top allies who want to use the bill to reform a shadowy surveillance court. 

Congress has approximately 10 working days to reauthorize three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 bill that overhauled the country’s surveillance laws, with Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Trump upends controversial surveillance fight Former impeachment managers clash over surveillance bill MORE and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellOvernight Energy: Murkowski, Manchin unveil major energy bill | Lawmakers grill EPA chief over push to slash agency’s budget | GOP lawmaker accuses Trump officials of ‘playing politics’ over Yucca Mountain Lawmakers race to pass emergency coronavirus funding Trump upends controversial surveillance fight MORE (R-Ky.) backing a “clean” extension. 

But Trump threw a grenade into those already fragile plans Thursday, when Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Trump upends controversial surveillance fight Former impeachment managers clash over surveillance bill MORE (R-Ky.) told reporters that the president supports his effort to include broader reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as part of any reauthorization of the intelligence programs. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“I’ve talked to the president, and I plan on insisting on getting a vote,” Paul said, asked by The Hill about including broader FISA reforms in a bill would authorize the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act. 

Paul wants a vote on an amendment that would prevent FISA warrants from being used against Americans. Paul’s proposal would also prevent FISA information from being used against Americans in a domestic courtroom. The president, according to Paul, is supportive of his amendment. 

Trump’s apparent support for including broader changes to the surveillance court associated with FISA comes as he’s railed repeatedly about his campaign being “spied” upon by the Obama-era FBI. 

Progressives and libertarian-minded Republicans have long pushed to reform the court, arguing enough privacy protections and transparency aren’t given to individuals targeted for government surveillance. 

But concerns about the court found a broader audience with Republicans when Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz found 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” as part of the surveillance warrant applications involving Trump campaign associate Carter Page. 

Trump, before Thursday, had not weighed in on whether those broad reforms to the surveillance court needed to be included in the USA Freedom Act reauthorization. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sending the opposite signal, Barr was dispatched to the Capitol on Tuesday where he urged Senate Republicans to pass a clean extension of the three expiring provisions related to roving wiretaps, lone-wolf surveillance and a controversial records program that allows the government to view phone metadata. 

GOP senators say Barr indicated during the lunch that Trump would support a clean extension of the three programs. McConnell threw his support behind extending the authorities during a press conference after the powwow with Barr. 

“These tools have been overwhelmingly useful according to our intelligence advisors, and I hope that when the Senate deals with these expiring provisions in a couple of weeks, we will be able to continue to have them in law, which will, of course, provide maximum protection for the American people,” McConnell told reporters. 

Sen. Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntTrump upends controversial surveillance fight Congress eyes killing controversial surveillance program Senate braces for fight over impeachment whistleblower testimony MORE (R-Mo.), a member of GOP leadership and the Intelligence Committee, noted that Barr was supportive of a clean extension. 

“I certainly think he has talked to the president about it,” Blunt said. “[But] the president speaks for himself.” 

Paul accused Barr of making the administration’s position “cloudy” by advocating for a clean extension. 

“After the conversation with Barr [on Tuesday] I called the president and said, ‘we’re missing a huge opportunity. If your administration is for this,’ and he assured me that that’s not his opinion. So we’re getting conflicting reports … but I think the president is the final word,” Paul said. 

Paul’s comments come after there were signs, via Trump’s Twitter account, that he could be leaning toward pushing for reforms to the surveillance court as part of the intelligence legislation.

Trump retweeted Rep. Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanTrump upends controversial surveillance fight Twitter falling short on pledge to verify primary candidates Trump adviser presses House investigators to make Bezos testify MORE’s call for changes to the FISA process, including a Fox News clip where the Ohio Republican discusses wanting to get changes to the surveillance court. He retweeted Jordan a second time on FISA reforms and added “they spied on my campaign!” 

The tweet comes as Trump and other top White House officials have been talking with a group of Republicans who support using the USA Freedom reauthorization bill to make broader surveillance changes. 

In addition to Paul, Trump has been talking with Republican Sen. Mike LeeMichael (Mike) Shumway LeeThe Hill’s Campaign Report: Sanders top target at CPAC Trump upends controversial surveillance fight Former impeachment managers clash over surveillance bill MORE about the issue, according to a spokesman for the Utah senator. 

“Sen. Lee has had multiple positive phone calls with President Trump on this,” said Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Lee, asked if he had been in contact with the White House about getting FISA reforms into the USA Freedom reauthorization. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Meanwhile, Jordan and Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsSanders, socialism emerge as top targets at CPAC Trump upends controversial surveillance fight House Freedom Caucus chairman endorses Collins’s Georgia Senate bid MORE (R-N.C.) met on Wednesday with Trump son-in-law and adviser Jared KushnerJared Corey KushnerOvernight Health Care — Presented by American Health Care Association — California monitoring 8,400 people for coronavirus | Pence taps career official to coordinate response | Dems insist on guardrails for funding Trump upends controversial surveillance fight Top Trump advisers discuss GOP need to act on health care at retreat with senators MORE to discuss the need for broader surveillance reforms as part of the intelligence bill, according to a Republican staff source. 

The source added that Kushner was “certainly receptive” to the idea of merging surveillance reforms into the legislation.

The negotiations over reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act have already been fraught with division. House Democrats had to pull their own bill after Rep. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenHillicon Valley — Presented by Facebook — Federal court rules tech giants can censor content | Trump upends surveillance fight | Senate passes bill barring federal funds for Huawei equipment Centrist Democrats insist Sanders would need delegate majority to win Trump upends controversial surveillance fight MORE (D-Calif.) threatened to force several FISA-related votes. 

McConnell, meanwhile, has been trying to get Republicans line up behind a clean extension. 

In a bid to try to soothe GOP concerns about potential surveillance abuse, Barr told Republicans that he would use his own rulemaking authority to enact changes to the surveillance court and the warrant application process. 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamTrump upends controversial surveillance fight The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Trump on US coronavirus risks: ‘We’re very, very ready for this’ Surveillance fight emerges as intelligence flashpoint MORE (R-S.C.) is also doing a deep dive on the FISA process, including closed-door depositions that he expects to start next week. Graham appeared caught off guard about Paul’s talk with the president, saying “I haven’t talked to him about it, [but] I’ll see him this weekend.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

Graham and Trump are campaigning in South Carolina together.

It’s unclear if those promises will be enough to get Republicans back on board with a straightforward extension of the expiring surveillance programs.

“If we don’t fix FISA now, it will never be fixed,” said Sen. John KennedyJohn Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.). “This is our opportunity. This is our chance.”

 

Click Here: cheap nsw blues jersey

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is working on a bill to “claw back” the $3.8 billion the Pentagon is redirecting from weapons programs to President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Memo: Biden seeks revival in South Carolina Congress eyes billion to billion to combat coronavirus Sanders makes the case against Biden ahead of SC primary MORE’s border wall, he said Thursday.

“I think we can absolutely pass a bill that says we appropriated this money for these purposes in the FY20 bill, you have taken it out of all these purposes and put it here, put it back,” Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithOvernight Defense: Watchdog investigating VA chief | Allegations claim Wilkie tried to discredit aide who reported sexual assault | Dem chair working to restore Pentagon funding taken for wall | Navy chief says loss of shipbuilding funds ‘not helpful’ House Armed Services chairman working on bill to restore Pentagon funding taken for border wall Navy head: Cutting shipbuilding for nukes, Trump border wall ‘not helpful’ MORE (D-Wash.) told reporters.

“Time is of the essence, and I am right now working with leadership and others to try to get a piece of legislation to the floor as quickly as is possible,” Smith added. “They robbed the bank, and they are now running away with the money. We need to stop them before they get too far.”

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats introduced their own bill to reverse the Pentagon’s shifting of funds to the wall.

Earlier this month, the Pentagon notified Congress it was taking $3.8 billion from several programs and putting the money in its counter-drug fund to be used for Trump’s wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Among the programs that are losing money to the wall are the F-35 fighter jet, MQ-9 reaper drone, the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol plane, the C-130J transport plane, the landing helicopter assault ship replacement, the expeditionary fast transport ship and unspecified equipment for the National Guard and reserves.

Smith said the bill he is working on would be separate from the annual defense policy bill, which he said would be “too late.” Lawmakers are expected to consider the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in the spring.

Smith said it’s “possible” Republicans could support a bill to force the Pentagon to put the money back, but that he “wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Specifically, Smith said he’s talking over bill language with the staff of Rep. Mac ThornberryWilliam (Mac) McClellan ThornberryOvernight Defense: Watchdog investigating VA chief | Allegations claim Wilkie tried to discredit aide who reported sexual assault | Dem chair working to restore Pentagon funding taken for wall | Navy chief says loss of shipbuilding funds ‘not helpful’ House Armed Services chairman working on bill to restore Pentagon funding taken for border wall Overnight Defense: Lawmakers tear into Pentagon over .8B for border wall | Dems offer bill to reverse Trump on wall funding | Senators urge UN to restore Iran sanctions MORE (R-Texas), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.

On Wednesday, at a hearing with Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperOvernight Defense: Watchdog investigating VA chief | Allegations claim Wilkie tried to discredit aide who reported sexual assault | Dem chair working to restore Pentagon funding taken for wall | Navy chief says loss of shipbuilding funds ‘not helpful’ House Armed Services chairman working on bill to restore Pentagon funding taken for border wall Bipartisan senators say Pentagon’s effort to improve military housing falls short MORE and Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, Thornberry blasted the Trump administration for “substituting the judgment of the administration for the judgment of Congress.”

“I’m afraid that the result of this will be greater restrictions on the department’s ability to move money around to meet changing needs, and the country will suffer as a result,” Thornberry said.

After the hearing, Thornberry told reporters he would “look at a variety of options” to respond to the transfer, including restricting the Pentagon’s ability to reprogram funding.

Last year’s House-passed NDAA would have limited the Pentagon’s transfer authorities, but those restrictions were taken out of the final bill signed into law amid opposition from Republicans.

Click Here: Atlanta United FC Jersey

Asked Thursday about trying to restrict the Pentagon reprogramming authorities again, Smith said he was “not as clear on” whether he will take that path.

 

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the House cannot sue to enforce its subpoenas, delivering a win for President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump endorses former White House physician Ronny Jackson for Congress Newly released emails reveal officials’ panic over loss of credibility after Trump’s Dorian claims Lindsey Graham thanks Trump, bemoans ‘never-ending bull—-‘ at South Carolina rally  MORE in his battle against a congressional subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn.

A panel of three judges for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to overturn a federal judge’s order that McGahn must comply with the subpoena, which was issued as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump.

ADVERTISEMENT

The two judges on the panel who sided with Trump were both appointed by Republican presidents. A third, appointed by former President Clinton, dissented.

The ruling argued that the Constitution forbids federal courts from resolving disputes between branches, endorsing a view that had been pushed by the Trump administration that would insulate the White House from congressional oversight.

“If we order McGahn to testify, what happens next? McGahn, compelled to appear, asserts executive privilege in response to the Committee’s questions,” Judge Thomas Griffith wrote in the opinion. “The Committee finds those assertions baseless. In that case, the Committee assures us, it would come right back to court to make McGahn talk.

“The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often,” Griffith added.

Neither the White House nor a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiPelosi blasts Trump pick: He has shown ‘clear disrespect’ for intel community Appeals court rules House can’t sue to enforce McGahn subpoena House approves bill banning flavored tobacco products MORE (D-Calif.) immediately responded when asked for comment.

If it stands, the ruling could essentially render congressional subpoenas of the executive branch unenforceable.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional duties,” Judge Judith Rogers, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her dissent.

“Future Presidents may direct wide scale noncompliance with lawful Congressional inquiries, secure in the knowledge that Congress can do little to enforce a subpoena short of directing a Sergeant at Arms to physically arrest an Executive Branch officer,” Rogers added. “By encouraging Presidential stonewalling, the court effectively dismantles the accommodation process.”

The majority argued that Congress can use political tools to compel the executive branch to comply with its inquiries.

“Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers,” Griffith wrote.

The House Judiciary Committee sued McGahn last year after he refused to comply with a subpoena for his testimony in the impeachment investigation.

The Trump administration argued in court that the president has the power to assert blanket “absolute immunity” over White House aides in order to prevent them from complying with congressional subpoenas.

But District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled that the House not only had standing to sue, but that the president did not have the authority to make such an expansive assertion of immunity of his aides.

“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote in her opinion. “This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control.”

In dismissing the House’s lawsuit on lack of standing, the panel did not rule on the merits of the Trump administration’s arguments about immunity. But Judge Karen Henderson, who was appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, wrote in a concurring opinion that she believes “McGahn’s claimed immunity rests on somewhat shaky legal ground” and chided the administration for refusing to accommodate congressional inquiries.

“Even setting aside the shaky foundation of testimonial immunity, a categorical refusal to participate in congressional inquiries strikes a resounding blow to the system of compromise and accommodation that has governed these fights since the republic began,” Henderson wrote. “Political negotiations should be the first—and, it is hoped, only—recourse to resolve the competing and powerful interests of two coequal branches of government.”

The opinion in the McGahn case could have implications for other cases over congressional subpoenas of the Trump administration. A House Democratic lawsuit over their requests and subpoenas to the administration for President Trump’s tax returns had been delayed while the McGahn ruling was pending.

The administration and Trump’s personal lawyers have argued that the tax-return case should be dismissed because the federal courts can’t be forced to take a side in the dispute. But the House’s lawyers argue that the House does have standing to sue and that the case should move forward.

ADVERTISEMENT

Minutes after the ruling in the McGahn case was issued, a hearing was scheduled for Thursday in the tax-return case on House Democrats’ motion to lift the stay on the case.

Naomi Jagoda contributed.

Updated at 6:22 p.m.

 

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing its policy of having asylum-seekers stay in Mexico as they await their immigration hearings.

The ruling, handed down by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, applies to the U.S. southern border and bans a policy that has been in effect since January 2019. The injunction will be in effect while a legal challenge to the administration’s rule plays out.

A three-judge panel on the circuit court said in the opinion that the policy strips “asylum eligibility from every migrant who crosses into the United States along the southern border of Mexico between designated ports of entry.”

ADVERTISEMENT

They ruled that the rule from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows migrants to apply for asylum when they arrive in the U.S.

“Explicitly authorizing a refugee to file an asylum application because he arrived between ports of entry and then summarily denying the application for the same reason borders on absurdity,” the opinion reads.

“The Rule will likely result in some migrants being wrongfully denied refugee status in this country,” the judges wrote.

Two of the judges are Clinton appointees and one is a George W. Bush appointee.

The appeals court affirmed an initial injunction on the policy handed down in December 2018 by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee.

Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney who argued the case on behalf of a group of legal organizations, applauded the ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Once again the courts have recognized there is tremendous danger facing asylum seekers along the entire southern border, and that the administration cannot unilaterally rewrite the laws,” Gelernt said in a statement.

The White House and Department of Justice (DOJ) did not immediately respond when asked for comment.

The policy was announced in November 2018 with a presidential proclamation and new rules from DHS and DOJ.

“The arrival of large numbers of aliens will contribute to the overloading of our immigration and asylum system and to the release of thousands of aliens into the interior of the United States,” President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump endorses former White House physician Ronny Jackson for Congress Newly released emails reveal officials’ panic over loss of credibility after Trump’s Dorian claims Lindsey Graham thanks Trump, bemoans ‘never-ending bull—-‘ at South Carolina rally  MORE said in the proclamation. “The continuing and threatened mass migration of aliens with no basis for admission into the United States through our southern border has precipitated a crisis and undermines the integrity of our borders.”

A coalition of immigrant advocacy groups — the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Al Otro Lado, Innovation Law Lab and the Central American Resource Center — filed suit and a district court judge and a separate appellate panel ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction against the administration.

The Trump administration has seen a flurry of legal challenges to its efforts to crack down on immigration. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a pair of cases challenging the government’s expedited deportation procedures.

–Updated at 2:32 p.m.

Three groups are suing the Trump administration over a plan to allocate an additional $3.8 billion in Department of Defense (DOD) funding for the border wall. 

“The president is doubling down on his unlawful scheme to raid taxpayer funds for a xenophobic campaign promise that is destroying national treasures, harming the environment, and desecrating tribal lands,” said Dror Ladin, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The ACLU, along with the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), filed the suit in federal court in California on Friday. 

ADVERTISEMENT

DOD notified Congress this month that it would transfer an additional $3.8 billion to be used for the wall. 

The notice to Congress said that the money would come from weapons programs like the F-35 fighter jet and would go toward the “support of higher priority items.”

It said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals, groups, and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors, and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary in order to impede and deny drug smuggling activities.”

The new lawsuit claims that the administration has “acted to circumvent Congress’s exclusive control over appropriations” and that its action “will have devastating effects on the environment.”

“The Trump administration’s illegal transfer of billions of dollars for wall construction has created a disaster in the borderlands,” said Sierra Club managing attorney Gloria Smith in a statement.

“The destruction of cultural sites, Tribal burial grounds, endangered species, protected cacti and water resources shows that Trump will stop at nothing for this wall — not irreplaceable resources nor the Constitution,” Smith added.

Last year, President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump endorses former White House physician Ronny Jackson for Congress Newly released emails reveal officials’ panic over loss of credibility after Trump’s Dorian claims Lindsey Graham thanks Trump, bemoans ‘never-ending bull—-‘ at South Carolina rally  MORE declared a national emergency and announced that he would reallocate Defense Department funds to construction of the border wall after Congress did not allocate as much money as he wanted for the project in the federal budget.

Following that move, several groups accused the president of overreach. The Sierra Club, ACLU and SBCC previously sued the Trump administration over that decision.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the administration could start using military funds for construction at the border, overturning a prior ruling that halted the use of those funds while litigation continues.

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

Happy Friday and welcome to Overnight Defense. I’m Ellen Mitchell, and here’s your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. CLICK HERE to subscribe to the newsletter.

 

THE TOPLINE: A Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee duked it out with Democrats on Friday in a confrontation over the killing of a top Iranian general during a public hearing on U.S. policy in Iran in which Secretary of State Mike PompeoMichael (Mike) Richard PompeoOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall Warren asks administration for assurances that sanctions aren’t hindering coronavirus containment in Iran Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing MORE was present. 

Rep. Brian MastBrian Jeffrey MastOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall GOP rep, Democrats exchange heated remarks during Pompeo hearing on Iran Where do we go from here? Conservation can show the way MORE (R-Fla.) turned his questions to Democrats during the hearing, taking the focus off of Pompeo, who was asked questions about intelligence the U.S. had that justified the Jan. 3 strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the top general of Iran’s Quds Force.

The confrontation erupted between Mast and his Democratic colleagues when the Republican lawmaker misidentified Rep. Abigail SpanbergerAbigail Davis SpanbergerOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall GOP rep, Democrats exchange heated remarks during Pompeo hearing on Iran House approves bill banning flavored tobacco products MORE (D-Va.) as “Ms. Lowenthal,” and elicited a biting reaction from Rep. David CicillineDavid Nicola CicillineOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall Democrat gets in heated exchange with Pompeo at hearing: ‘Do you believe coronavirus is a hoax?’ GOP rep, Democrats exchange heated remarks during Pompeo hearing on Iran MORE (D-R.I.) for suggesting Democrats wished that Soleimani was still alive.

The hearing was Pompeo’s first appearance before the committee since the strike on Soleimani nearly two months earlier, offering lawmakers a chance to question the secretary publicly over the administration’s justification for ordering the strike and its implications.

The issue: Spanberger questioned the secretary on Friday, saying, “You gave a classified briefing in Congress, I was there, and you didn’t provide evidence to us about that claimed imminence.”

Mast took issue with the Spanberger’s line of questioning, turning to the chairman and asking, “was it appropriate for Ms. Lowenthal to offer information from a classified setting?” in reference to Spanberger. 

“Who?” the committee members asked. 

Mast continued to hammer Democrats if there was any red line that his colleagues could accept for justification to kill Soleimani.

“Iran went too far decades ago but the question is whether or not there’s authorization for this particular strike,” Spanberger retorted. 

Other confrontations: Democrats also took issue with the allotted time for the hearing, with Pompeo saying he would “not agree to stay for a few extra minutes” in response to a request from Chairman Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall GOP rep, Democrats exchange heated remarks during Pompeo hearing on Iran Overnight Defense: Army says it isn’t investigating Vindman | White House outlines legal justification for Soleimani strike | Service member dies in Africa MORE (D-N.Y.) to go over the two hours provided.

At one point, Mast also suggested that Democrats wished that Soleimani was still alive. 

“No one on this side wants Soleimani alive, you know better than that, shame on you for even asking that question,” Cicilline shouted at Mast during the hearing. 

Mast, an Army veteran who lost both his legs from an improvised explosive device while serving in Afghanistan, said he would issue a report with the ethics committee over alleged publication of classified information.  

Pompeo sat quietly while Mast questioned his committee colleagues in a heated back-and-forth.   

Off topic: After the lively discussion, the briefing took wild and often unwieldy tangents, with questions from Democrats focusing largely on the threat of coronavirus in the U.S. and the administration’s preparation to protect the American people. 

“Mr. Secretary, it’s taken you two and a half months to come here before this committee to explain the actions of Jan. 3,” Rep. Brad ShermanBradley (Brad) James ShermanOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall GOP rep, Democrats exchange heated remarks during Pompeo hearing on Iran The Hill’s Morning Report – Can Sanders be stopped? MORE (D-Calif.) said. “Today the world faces a worldwide pandemic, the coronavirus. Will you come here next week and explain our international efforts to deal with the coronavirus or will it take two and a half months to have you back here?” 

Help offered to Iran: The United States has offered to help Iran with its outbreak of the novel coronavirus, Pompeo said at the hearing.

“We have made offers to the Islamic Republic of Iran to help, and we’ve made it clear to others around the world and in the region that assistance, humanitarian assistance to push back against the coronavirus in Iran is something the United States of America fully supports,” Pompeo told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a statement after the hearing, Pompeo added that the offer of support “to the Iranian people” has been “formally conveyed to Iran through the government of Switzerland.”

 

TRUMP TOUTS TALIBAN DEAL AHEAD OF SIGNING: Trump on Friday touted a “powerful path” to ending the nearly 19-year war in Afghanistan ahead of the United States and the Taliban signing a deal to start the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

“Soon, at my direction, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will witness the signing of an agreement with representatives of the Taliban, while Secretary of Defense Mark EsperMark EsperOvernight Defense: Lawmakers clash during Pompeo hearing on Iran | Trump touts Taliban deal ahead of signing | Trump sued over plan to use Pentagon funds for border wall GOP senator presses Pentagon on protecting service members from coronavirus White House formally announces Trump’s Navy secretary nominee MORE will issue a joint declaration with the government of Afghanistan,” Trump said in a statement Friday.

“If the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan live up to these commitments, we will have a powerful path forward to end the war in Afghanistan and bring our troops home,” he added.

The expectation: The United States and the Taliban are expected to sign an agreement Saturday in Qatar after a seven-day “reduction in violence” period that U.S. officials have deemed largely successful.

The agreement would begin a U.S. troop withdrawal, starting with a drawdown from 12,000 currently in Afghanistan to 8,600. The remaining troops would focus on counterterrorism against ISIS and al Qaeda, and any drawdown below that, officials insist, will be based on conditions on the ground.

In exchange for the drawdown, the Taliban is to provide assurances it will not allow Afghanistan to be used as a launchpad for terrorist attacks against the West.

The deal will also kickstart intra-Afghan negotiations to reconcile the Afghan government and the Taliban, a vital stage rife with potholes that could cause the entire deal to fall apart.

Trump’s framing: In his statement Friday, Trump framed the agreement as a fulfillment of his campaign promise to end America’s longest war.

“When I ran for office, I promised the American people I would begin to bring our troops home, and seek to end this war,” Trump said. “We are making substantial progress on that promise.”

Trump also urged the Afghans to “seize this opportunity for peace and a new future for their country.”

“These commitments represent an important step to a lasting peace in a new Afghanistan, free from al Qaeda, ISIS, and any other terrorist group that would seek to bring us harm,” he said. “Ultimately it will be up to the people of Afghanistan to work out their future.”

Trump also thanked the U.S. troops who have served in Afghanistan, saying that “these agreements are a result of the strenuous efforts of those who fought so hard in Afghanistan for the United States of America.”

Lawmakers cautious: Lawmakers remain cautious about the Taliban deal, with many arguing the intra-Afghan talks to come will be the hardest part and that a real peace is impossible without such reconciliation.

Others, including Trump’s GOP allies, have warned the Taliban is not to be trusted. Earlier this week, 22 House Republicans sent a letter to Pompeo and Esper, as well as a copy to Trump, expressing “serious concerns” with the deal.

 

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SUED OVER PLAN TO USE PENTAGON FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL: Three groups are suing the Trump administration over a plan to allocate an additional $3.8 billion in Department of Defense (DOD) funding for the border wall. 

“The president is doubling down on his unlawful scheme to raid taxpayer funds for a xenophobic campaign promise that is destroying national treasures, harming the environment, and desecrating tribal lands,” said Dror Ladin, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The ACLU, along with the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), filed the suit in federal court in California on Friday. 

The money grab: DOD notified Congress this month that it would transfer an additional $3.8 billion to be used for the wall. 

The notice to Congress said that the money would come from weapons programs like the F-35 fighter jet and would go toward the “support of higher priority items.”

It said the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has identified areas along the southern border of the United States that are being used by individuals, groups, and transnational criminal organizations as drug smuggling corridors, and determined that the construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the United States border is necessary in order to impede and deny drug smuggling activities.”

The new lawsuit: The new lawsuit claims that the administration has “acted to circumvent Congress’s exclusive control over appropriations” and that its action “will have devastating effects on the environment.”

“The Trump administration’s illegal transfer of billions of dollars for wall construction has created a disaster in the borderlands,” said Sierra Club managing attorney Gloria Smith in a statement.

“The destruction of cultural sites, Tribal burial grounds, endangered species, protected cacti and water resources shows that Trump will stop at nothing for this wall — not irreplaceable resources nor the Constitution,” Smith added.

Efforts last year: Last year, President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump endorses former White House physician Ronny Jackson for Congress Newly released emails reveal officials’ panic over loss of credibility after Trump’s Dorian claims Lindsey Graham thanks Trump, bemoans ‘never-ending bull—-‘ at South Carolina rally  MORE declared a national emergency and announced that he would reallocate Defense Department funds to construction of the border wall after Congress did not allocate as much money as he wanted for the project in the federal budget.

Following that move, several groups accused the president of overreach. The Sierra Club, ACLU and SBCC previously sued the Trump administration over that decision.

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the administration could start using military funds for construction at the border, overturning a prior ruling that halted the use of those funds while litigation continues.

 

ICYMI

— The Hill: GOP senator presses Pentagon on protecting service members from coronavirus

— The Hill: White House formally announces Trump’s Navy secretary nominee

— The Hill: Philippines, US considering new military pact: Report

— The Hill: Trump condemns attack on Turkish troops in discussion with Erdoğan

— The Hill: Turkey suffers mass casualties in Syria airstrike

— The Hill: Democrat gets in heated exchange with Pompeo at hearing: ‘Do you believe coronavirus is a hoax?’

— The Hill: Trump upends controversial surveillance fight 

Click Here: Cheap Chiefs Rugby Jersey 2019

Warsaw puts on a friendlier foreign face

Poland’s leaders visit Brussels and Strasbourg this week to de-escalate tensions with EU.

WARSAW — After a week in which Poland was hit with a European Commission probe over government actions on the constitutional court and had its sovereign debt rating downgraded by Standard & Poor’s, Warsaw is launching a public relations counter-offensive.

President Andrzej Duda will be in Brussels Monday, followed by Prime Minister Beata Szydło on Tuesday in Strasbourg, France. The pair are on a European tour to show a friendlier face of Poland’s Law and Justice ruling party.

The PR battle is largely for external consumption and starts with a meeting between Duda and Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council and Polish prime minister from 2007-2014, who says that the new right-wing Polish government considers him its “enemy No. 1.”

The two will hold a joint news conference on Monday.

Szydło will address the European Parliament during a debate Tuesday on the changes taking place in Poland.

“I will stress in the EP during the debate that Poland — like every other country in the European Union — has the right to undertake sovereign decisions affecting our internal politics,” she told the Polish press.

The government is also taking aim at the domestic political opposition, which has marshaled street protests in the country, mounted a determined but ineffective opposition to legislative changes in the Polish parliament, and expressed negative opinions about the government to foreigners.

In a new campaign-style spot, the ruling party proclaims, “Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but the problem begins when the losing party and their journalistic sympathizers begin to pour out their rage and frustration outside the country.”

Angered at the flood of negative stories about the country, Law and Justice MEPs also took out ads with foreign media (including POLITICO), entitled, “What is really happening in Poland?” and putting the bulk of the blame for the current situation on the actions of the previous government.

Frans Timmermans, the Commission vice president in charge of rule of law, sent two letters to Polish authorities: one asking about changes to the Constitutional Tribunal that critics worry will hobble the country’s highest constitutional court, the other about the government taking direct control of the public media.

He got a toughly worded response from Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. Ziobro accused Timmermans of being politically partisan and admonished him to “exercise more restraint in instructing and cautioning the Parliament and the government of a sovereign and democratic state.”

Just days later, Timmermans pushed through the Commission’s unprecedented probe of Poland’s recent measures related to the Constitutional Tribunal. Last Wednesday’s action was the first step towards possible sanctions against Warsaw.

That prospect isn’t worrying Warsaw much, as any such decision has to be taken unanimously and Hungary won’t back it. In addition, other EU countries don’t want to add Poland to the EU’s list of current crises: Greece’s finances, migrants and a possible British exit.

The PR push doesn’t necessarily imply a coming change in the government’s approach. Poland’s most powerful politician, Law and Justice party leader Jarosław Kaczyński, has stuck to his rhetorical guns, saying that Warsaw would stick by the policies that have aroused domestic opposition and foreign concern.

“There is no sense in being concerned by this. We have to follow our own path and we can’t give way to any pressure,” Kaczyński told the Rzeczpospolita newspaper. “No one should have any doubts that there will be any sort of yielding and any sort of concessions.”

Surprise downgrade

But the drumbeat of negative publicity is proving costly.

On Friday, Standard & Poor’s surprised both the government and financial markets by downgrading Poland a notch to BBB+, the first such step by a rating agency since the transition away from communism a quarter century ago.

“The downgrade reflects our view that Poland’s system of institutional checks and balances has been eroded significantly as the independence and effectiveness of key institutions, such as the constitutional court and public broadcasting, is being weakened by various legislative measures initiated since the October 2015 election,” S&P said in its report.

The złoty immediately lost over 2 percent to the euro and 1.5 percent to the dollar, and the government reacted with anger and disbelief at the prospect of higher borrowing costs.

“The decision … is incomprehensible from an economic and financial analysis point of view,” said the official English language response from the finance ministry.

A different tone

There is a growing sense in Warsaw that the government has to change the narrative.

Duda sat for an interview with Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung where he stressed that Poland’s relations with Germany are “very important” and that he is “very pained” by all emotional responses that have taken place in recent weeks.

That’s a different tone from the one adopted by Ziobro when he wrote recently to Günther Oettinger, the German digital economy commissioner, about concerns over the new Polish media law.

“These type of words, spoken by a German politician, create the worst possible connotations among Poles,” Ziobro wrote. “Also for me, as the grandson of a Polish officer who during the Second World War fought in the underground Home Army against ‘German Oversight.’”

When Duda meets with Tusk, he will try to drain some drama from Poland’s current situation.

“There’s no reason for a fuss,” Krzysztof Szczerski, a presidential adviser, told the Fakt24.pl website. “The emotions around Poland will fade and in a year hardly anyone will remember them.”

Dr Erkut Sogut is aware of the speculation surrounding his client but insists the German playmaker will remain in north London until at least 2021

Mesut Ozil will remain at Arsenal until at least the summer of 2021, claims his agent Dr Erkut Sogut, with it possible that another contract extension could be agreed in north London.

A World Cup-winning playmaker has dominated headlines at Emirates Stadium since penning a lucrative deal back in January 2018.

Questions have been asked of Ozil’s value to the cause, his commitment and whether the funds invested in him could have been better used elsewhere.

More teams

Praise has also been found at times, with the 31-year-old considered to have enjoyed a welcome return to form since his former team-mate Mikel Arteta inherited the managerial reins at Arsenal.

Ozil is enjoying his football again and has stated that he has no intention of breaking his current deal.

Sogut has now reiterated that stance, telling inews of the exit talk which has raged around his client on a regular basis: “At the moment, we don’t even talk about it, because he still has one-and-a-half-years left.

“He still has 15 months to go. Until then, he will stay at Arsenal, for sure. He will stay until the end of his contract. There’s no chance he’ll leave.”

Sogut added on what could happen when Ozil reaches the end of his terms: “He is going into the end of this contract, he will be 32 years old, he will be a free agent, and it’s not a bad situation.

“And he will have probably 100 million followers on the social media side at that time, his marketing will be bigger by that time.

“And he’s 32 so he can still go and play in top-level football for the next two or three years.”

It could be that some of that time is spent at Arsenal, with Sogut refusing to rule out the possibility of Ozil prolonging his association with the Gunners.

He said: “I look at every option, I need to maximise and get the best contract for him.

“The options are coming in now. Maybe he will stay and have a new contract with Arsenal.

“Maybe he has a good end to the season and good next season and the club offers him a new contract.

“It’s down to the club in the end, not to me or Mesut. If the club is not giving him an offer then he can’t stay. If he gets an offer from the club he will consider it.”

Ozil has taken in 253 appearances for Arsenal since being snapped up by Arsene Wenger from Real Madrid in September 2013.

Click Here: Golf special

Tsipras wins backing for bailout reforms

Syriza’s thin majority is enough to pass new austerity measures

ATHENS – Greece’s parliament approved late Friday night a package of thorny pension and tax reforms demanded by the country’s creditors to unlock another €2 billion in vital bailout funds.

In Alexis Tsipras’s first parliamentary test since winning reelection last month, lawmakers in the 300-seat legislature voted 154 to 140 in favor of the reform bill.

Click Here: France Football Shop

Pro-European opposition parties backed the leftist premier when he made a dramatic U-turn in July to accept the harsh terms of a third multi-billion euro bailout, but they told Tsipras he could no longer depend on them to support unpopular measures. Many MPs voted in favor of certain articles but against the bill as a whole.

“What’s good for the country, we’ll vote for. But when it’s tax and it’s recessionary, we will be against it,” Vangelis Meimarakis, leader of the main opposition party New Democracy, told parliament during the long and occasionally stormy debate.

Tsipras accused his opponents of flip-flopping, drawing jeers and applause from the floor.

“You were the ones who voted in August for the (bailout) agreement and today you refuse to. Are you pretending to be anti-bailout? You, who agreed to everything the creditors asked for five years?” he said.

Still, a pre-election purge of far-left members of Tsipras’ Syriza party meant the government’s slim 155-seat parliamentary majority was enough to carry the bill of so-called prior actions stipulated by the €86 billion rescue program.

Opposition leaders did express support for tougher tax evasion penalties, which were among the measures demanded by Greece’s international creditors — the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank.

Tax dodgers could face hefty fines and jail terms under the new legislation, which also cuts some pensions and raises the retirement age to 67 by 2022. Broader reforms include lowering the price of generic drugs and liberalizing the natural gas market.

A controversial proposal to make landlords pay taxes in advance was withdrawn following complaints that it might force property owners to evict tenants who had fallen into arrears.

Civil servants belonging to the ADEDY union and members of the Communist PAME group held demonstrations in central Athens as lawmakers debated the austerity bill.

The protest against the reforms was relatively muted, however, reflecting a mood of resignation among many Greeks wearied by a year of elections, capital controls and arduous debt talks that pushed the country to the brink of a “Grexit” from the eurozone.

“For the moment, there’s a kind of honeymoon between the government and the people,” said Grégory Claeys, a research fellow at the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank.

“The opposition say the prior actions are recessionary, but they did the same. Syriza was the biggest opposition to them and now they’re in power so there’s a feeling of resignation in the country,” he said, adding that reduced political uncertainty could counterbalance the recessionary impact of fresh austerity policies.

Tsipras said passing the roughly dozen new measures would pave the way for a smooth quarterly review by creditors later this month and the recapitalization of the country’s ailing banks by year’s end. Successful completion of the first review is a condition for starting negotiations on debt restructuring, though any haircut is opposed by most of the creditors, including Germany.

“They’re difficult measures and it’s our duty to implement them,” Tsipras told parliament. “But we have a strategy to move towards the review and the recapitalization of the banking system. We cannot always have red lines, we need to focus our efforts and after the review it will be very important to talk about debt relief.”