Posted on

Pelosi’s Game of Chicken Will Leave Her Party Fried

The Speaker’s claims about wanting a fair trial ring hollow as she delays the inevitable and 2020 Democratic candidates suffer.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr/Creative Commons)

After holding a vote to impeach President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to wait on sending the impeachment articles to the Senate. According to many in the media, this brilliant bit of strategy gives her leverage to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to provide a fair trial in the Senate.

There’s so many reasons this is wrong, but let’s start with the most obvious: according to the Democrats’ own impeachment witness, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, Trump isn’t actually impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate, and “an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem.”

“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” writes Feldman.

There’s no moral victory in the House holding a vote to impeach Trump if Pelosi indefinitely sits on the articles, and she holds no leverage over the Senate because McConnell isn’t interested in holding an impeachment trial, and so long as she twiddles her thumbs, he doesn’t have to.

McConnell can use time that would have been spent on impeachment to confirm another 15 to 20 federal judges to lifetime appointments. He’s already said it’s the transformation of the judiciary that he sees as Trump’s legacy.

“It’s beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage,” McConnell told reporters after the House passed the articles.

“Frankly, I’m not anxious to have the trial. If she thinks her case is so weak she doesn’t want to send it over, throw me into that briar patch,” McConnell added.

Should the House send the impeachment articles, McConnell has said he wants two resolutions, one to deal with procedure and one for potential witnesses, similar to what Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.  He is not rejecting witnesses out of hand, but wants each side to present their case before a majority vote is held on witnesses.

But Democrats say they want an agreement on specific witnesses before opening arguments are made. Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argued on Monday that the Senate needs to hear from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former advisor John Bolton, especially in light of a newly published New York Times report that both men urged Trump not to withhold the Ukraine aid.

“This shows all four witnesses we requested — [acting White House chief of staff] Mulvaney, Bolton, Duffey, [White House aide Robert] Blair — were intimately involved & had direct knowledge of Pres. Trump’s decision to cut off aid to benefit himself,” Schumer tweeted.

Of course in order to decide  whether or not to impeach, Senators needs to hear from these witnesses.

But Pelosi made this problem for herself. She could have utilized the House subpoena powers to compel these fact witnesses to appear before her chamber, where she makes the rules. She could have allowed the executive privilege claim to be tested in the courts. Instead, she rushed the vote on an artificial timeline “before Christmas,” twisting the arms of members in purple districts and alienating moderate Democrats in the process. There are 30 odd freshmen Democrats who were elected in 2018 in districts Trump carried in 2016. Now they’re getting shouted down at townhalls over their impeachment vote.

All this Pelosi did because she said Trump is a threat to democracy and he is  a threat to national security.

Yet if she believes that, how can she now sit on the very same articles until the Senate agrees to do things her way? Suddenly there is no urgency to impeachment.

The insistence on specific witnesses appearing in the Senate trial also points to the weaknesses in the House case.

Most view it a foregone conclusion that the Republican-controlled Senate will acquit. No leverage is gained in this delay, but the four Democratic senators running for president will be seriously impeded by a delayed trial, given that they face the Iowa caucuses at the beginning of February.

Pelosi has said that Trump, McConnell and Attorney General William Barr have “gone rogue.” But it’s really her belief that she can dictate how impeachment will unfold in the Senate that is roguest of all.

Posted on

Biden picks up key Iowa endorsement

Joe Biden landed a coveted Iowa endorsement on Thursday, winning the backing of Rep. Abby Finkenauer, one of the youngest women ever elected to Congress and the first in the Iowa congressional delegation to endorse in the 2020 race.

A stamp of approval from the 31-year-old Finkenauer comes at a pivotal time for the 77-year-old former vice president, as he seeks to dispel the notion that he’s too old to win support from younger voters. It also comes from a congresswoman who flipped a competitive district in 2018 that voted twice for Barack Obama and then for Donald Trump in 2016.

“We need a President who reflects those same values and will make America’s working families their top priority. Joe Biden’s character, record, and commitment to rebuilding the backbone of the country — the middle class — is what Iowa and this country needs,” Finkenauer said in a statement.

Posted on

Bernie Sanders fundraising: Sanders raises over $34 million in the fourth quarter

Bernie Sanders keeps setting fundraising records in the 2020 field, and smashing through them.

Sanders, the prominent progressive figure and senator from Vermont, has ridden a wave of small grassroots donations to consistently outraise his competitors throughout the 2020 campaign cycle. On Wednesday morning, his campaign announced they had raised over $34.5 million for the fourth quarter of last year, from 1.8 million individual donors — close to $10 million more than the $25.3 million he raised in the third quarter.

This end-of-year haul means Sanders has so far raised $96 million for the entire year, with 5 million individual donors. His campaign said the average donation was $18 and added that teachers were the most likely to give, as well as workers from Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart, the US Postal Service, and Target.

We don’t yet know the fundraising numbers of all his competitors; but Sanders’s total is $10 million more than the already-impressive $24.7 million South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s campaign raised in the fourth quarter. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign hasn’t yet released their numbers, but hinted at their best fundraising quarter yet, which could put them over the $21.5 million they raised this past spring.

And in fundraising appeals to supporters, progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has said she’s focused on hitting $20 million this quarter. Warren also hasn’t posted her fundraising numbers, but that goal would be less than the $24.6 million she raised in the third quarter. And businessman Andrew Yang raised $16.5 million in the fourth quarter, a significant increase over his third quarter numbers.

Though Sanders has struggled to rise above second in national polling, he’s consistently lead early fundraising in the Democratic field so far this cycle, and he could be on track to do so again as the 2020 primary begins in earnest. Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg are also now the race, using their own money to help fund their campaigns. The two men have spent over $200 million on TV ads so far, according to CNN.

“Bernie Sanders is closing the year with the most donations of any candidate in history at this point in a presidential campaign,” Sanders’s campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement. “He is proving each and every day that working class Americans are ready and willing to fully fund a campaign that stands up for them and takes on the biggest corporations and the wealthy.”

Sanders has demonstrated the power of grassroots donations again

Though none of the Democratic candidates are taking corporate PAC money this year (a few have Super PACs), Sanders and Warren are the two candidates of the 2020 primary who have forsworn high dollar donations.

Sanders and Warren, the two progressives in the race, have made this a central message of their campaign. They tell supporters this shows they’re not beholden to special interests or big corporations, and that if elected, these moneyed entities will have no place in their administrations.

“One year into this campaign, you’ve never found me behind closed doors with corporate executives or spending hours on the phone sucking up to rich donors to fund my campaign,” Warren told supporters at a Tuesday speech in Boston.

Initially there were concerns this wouldn’t pay off; Warren’s initial fundraising numbers were lackluster, and her campaign finance director quit in the spring of 2019 because he disagreed with her approach.

But it’s been an incredibly successful fundraising model for both candidates. FEC rules cap individual campaign donations at $2,800 — so it’s been effective to have millions of donors cutting checks for small amounts throughout the campaign, rather than wealthy supporters maxing out their contributions early on.

Still, Thursday’s fundraising announcement from the Sanders campaign is especially poignant for the Vermont senator, who demonstrated the power of grassroots donations when he was an insurgent candidate challenging Hillary Clinton in 2016. As his hometown paper Seven Days noted; the $34.5 million raised this quarter is more than the $33 million Sanders had raised at this point in the 2016 primary race.

Bringing in such huge grassroots-powered hauls in 2016, especially doing so in a year when big donors for Hillary Clinton and Republican candidates were loading cash into super PACs, showed a modern presidential campaign could be powered by the people. It fed into Sanders rise in 2016 and helped ushered in a new progressive movement after he lost the primary.

Sanders is in another close race in 2020, but his fundraising numbers show he’s still generating enthusiasm from millions of supporters.

Posted on

Ukraine Used Diplomacy; Russia Used Disinformation. The Difference Is Key : NPR

Ukrainian and U.S. flags fly in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters


hide caption

toggle caption

Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters

Ukrainian and U.S. flags fly in Kyiv, Ukraine.

Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters

Brett Bruen (@BrettBruen) was director of global engagement in the Obama White House and was a U.S. diplomat for 12 years. He now runs a crisis communications agency and teaches on the topic at Georgetown University.

What’s the difference between traditional diplomacy and the menace of modern-day meddling? President Trump and some Republicans in Congress suggest Russia and Ukraine both sought to interfere in our 2016 presidential elections. Yet, the actions of the two countries could not have been more different.

It’s not a difficult distinction to draw. Lots of nations, including our own, express views on policies, problems and the general process during elections in other countries. They do so openly and without seeking to affect the outcome of those polls.

Then, there are the pernicious phenomena of adversarial influence operations. These are covert actions that attempt to tip the scales or twist the truth.

The latter endangers democracies, while the other actually strengthens them. Let’s look at why.

I spent a lot of time trying to influence democracies as an American diplomat posted overseas. We met with politicians and public officials, encouraging them to adhere to certain norms and consider America’s policy preferences.

We operated openly. We bought Facebook and Twitter ads, clearly labeled as coming from our government. We were especially interested in confidential insights that could help inform our position. But we never weaponized that information against candidates or parties.

Going back centuries, the rules of diplomacy prohibit interfering in the “internal affairs” of a host country. Sometimes the leaders where we serve try to pull out that red card when ambassadors or others say things they don’t want to hear. The recent departure of the U.S. ambassador from Zambia after speaking out for LGBTQ rights is an illustration of this issue. Discussing difficult topics isn’t disinformation or designed to destabilize democracies.

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States wrote an op-ed in The Hill during the 2016 presidential campaign. Candidate Donald Trump had suggested that perhaps Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, belonged to the invading country. This would have dramatically changed U.S. policy toward the inviolability of countries’ borders. Kyiv’s representative to Washington absolutely was within his rights, and indeed it was his solemn responsibility, to speak up for his nation’s security.

During the impeachment hearings and in a Politico article at the beginning of 2017, it was suggested that Ukraine was actively trying to “sabotage” Trump’s candidacy. Apart from the ambassador’s editorial, volunteer efforts by a young Ukrainian American to investigate Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, were cited. She was not alone. A lot of people were concerned by connections between Trump and Russia.

Information is the currency of diplomacy. Our embassies regularly receive information or briefings from people who have investigated issues on their own and would like to bring their findings to our attention. Unlike Russia, there’s no indication the Ukrainian American stole information or was in any way directed by the Democrats or Kyiv.

It’s not surprising that Ukraine’s government may have been quite alarmed by Trump. The country depends on U.S. aid and assurances of support to contain Russian intrusions from going farther into Ukraine. Yet, there is no evidence that Ukraine ever mounted a coordinated campaign to “sabotage” Trump or influence American voters’ decisions. The fact that Politico used such a loaded term to headline its story is indicative of how little even major outlets understand about the rules and conduct of diplomacy.

If a major candidate or party in Australia were advocating for closer ties to China, the United States would speak up. Our ambassador would write editorials. Our diplomats and their contacts would seek to uncover every bit of information we could find about the Australian politicians and their background. Our embassy would conduct extensive meetings with political, media and other influential actors on the danger of their candidacy. In short, the United States of America, a much more powerful nation than Ukraine, would do exactly what Ukraine did during our 2016 elections.

When Trump won, Ukraine opted for the only path remaining. It hired an expensive Washington, D.C., lobbying firm to help enhance relations with the new administration or, at the very least, stave off the worst-case scenarios. That isn’t meddling. The country registered its actions with the Justice Department and regularly reports on its activities. That’s how diplomacy is supposed to work.

Russia, by contrast, reported nothing and denies everything. It continues to build an elaborate asymmetric influence apparatus to generate doubt, distrust and division across America. The danger of its work derives from its secrecy and subterfuge.

Disinformation and meddling more broadly operate in the shadows; diplomacy is conducted openly. Conflating the two only serves to buttress Moscow’s efforts to blur the line between right and wrong.

We want Ukraine and other nations to speak up when they have concerns. Our democracy does not thrive in isolation. It is crucially important that countries feel as though they can contribute to our national debate in constructive ways. Similarly, it is critically important that we be able to recognize and react when adversaries attempt to damage our democracy.

As we head into the 2020 election, we must do a better job of distinguishing between earnest diplomacy and destructive disinformation. One seeks to strengthen our international relations. The other strives to weaken them, our ideals and institutions.

Posted on

Explainer: How impeachment works and why Trump is unlikely to be removed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate is due to hold a trial to consider whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office, after the House of Representatives voted in December to impeach him for pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival in the 2020 presidential election.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media after participating in a video teleconference with members of the U.S. military at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 24, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

What happens next and why is Trump unlikely to be removed from office?

WHY IMPEACHMENT?

The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

High crimes and misdemeanours have historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to indictable violations of criminal statutes.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: “An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or”articles of impeachment,” by a simple majority of the body’s members.

The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.

The House Intelligence Committee investigated whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to open probes that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings before issuing a formal evidence report.

The House Judiciary Committee used the report to draft formal charges and voted 23-17 along party lines to approve charges against Trump of abuse of power and obstructing House Democrats’ attempts to investigate him for it.

The Democratic-controlled House approved both of those charges on Dec. 18 in votes that fell almost completely along party lines.

That set up a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate.

WHAT WOULD A SENATE TRIAL LOOK LIKE?

House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the United States presides.

Historically, the president has been allowed to have defence lawyers call witnesses and request documents.

Beyond that, parameters of the trial are uncertain at this point. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is pressing for four Trump aides to testify, including Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has thrown cold water on that idea, saying House Democrats should have secured the testimony of Bolton and Mulvaney during their investigation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has delayed sending over the impeachment articles to the Senate in a bid to pressure McConnell. The two sides appear to have made little progress towards an agreement.

CAN THE SENATE REFUSE TO HOLD A TRIAL?

There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules in effect require a trial, and McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed.

Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said.

WHAT’S THE PARTY BREAKDOWN IN CONGRESS?

The House comprises 431 members at present. Only three of the chamber’s 233 Democrats voted against one or both articles of impeachment; one voted “present” and another did not vote. Among Republicans, 195 voted against both articles and two did not vote. Independent Justin Amash, a former Republican, voted for both articles.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber also voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority.

That is highly unlikely in this case. No Senate Republicans have indicated they may vote to convict the leader of their party. Should all 100 senators vote, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him.

WHO BECOMES PRESIDENT IF TRUMP IS REMOVED?

In the unlikely event the Senate convicts Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump’s term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2021.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Andy Sullivan; Editing by Ross Colvin and Grant McCool

Posted on

Baghdad, Indonesia, Australia: Your Thursday Briefing

(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the sign-up.)

Happy new year, and welcome to the first Morning Briefing of 2020.

We’re covering the aftermath of the siege at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, mysterious drone sightings in the Great Plains, and the deaths of two major sports figures.

A two-day standoff at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad involving thousands of pro-Iranian protesters demonstrated how much power Tehran wields within Iraq.

Posted on

Trump and Obama Tied for most admired man of 2019

President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama are tied for 2019’s most admired man, according to Gallup poll results released Monday. Obama has held the spot twelve times, but it’s Trump’s first time, which Gallup attributed to his record job approval rating.

“Trump is more popular now than he was in the past two years, with a 45% job approval rating, among his best as president. Coincident with the rise in his job approval rating, the 18% of Americans currently naming Trump as the most admired man is also up, from 13% in 2018 and 14% in 2017,” Gallup noted.

“Increased mentions of Trump as the most admired man have come almost exclusively among his fellow Republicans — 32% of Republicans named Trump in 2018 and 35% did so in 2017.”

The open-ended poll was conducted between December 2-15. Respondents voted along partisan lines with 41 percent of Democrats voting for Obama and 45 percent of Republicans voting for Trump, according to results.

Other names were mentioned by respondents, but none surpassed 2 percent favorability. According to the poll, the top ten most popular, under Obama and Trump, were former President Jimmy Carter, businessman Elon Musk, philanthropist and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Pope Francis, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Rep. Adam Schiff, the Dalai Lama, and investor Warren Buffett.

Posted on

White House Confirms Trump Had a Super-Friendly Phone Call With Putin Over the Weekend

 

Vladimir Putin called Donald Trump for a chummy holiday season catch-up Sunday, thanking him for intelligence that had helped a prevent terror attack on Russian soil.

During the call, which was initiated by Russia, Putin thanked Trump for “information transmitted through the channels of U.S. special services that has helped thwart terrorist acts in Russia,” the Kremlin said in a statement.

The White House said in a statement Monday that the Russian leader had called Trump to “thank him for information the United States provided that helped foil a potential holiday terrorist attack in Russia.”

The statement gave no further information about the plot that purportedly had been disrupted. But Russian government news agency TASS, citing a source from the Federal Security Service (FSB) intelligence agency, reported that two Russian citizens were arrested on Friday based on intelligence provided by the U.S.

The pair were suspected of planning an attack in St. Petersburg during New Year’s Eve celebrations, according to the report.


Putin’s office said that during the call, the first between the leaders since July, the two men had discussed “several matters of mutual interest” and that “an agreement was made to continue bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism.”

The White House statement also referenced the ongoing counterterrorism cooperation, and said the leaders had “also discussed the state of relations between the United States and Russia, and future efforts to support effective arms control.”

It’s not the first time Putin has called Trump to thank him for a counterterrorism tip-off. A similar call between the leaders took place in December 2017, when Putin thanked Trump for CIA intelligence that had thwarted planned attacks by ISIS-inspired jihadis on multiple targets in St. Petersburg.

The FSB said at the time it had arrested seven members of a terror cell, along with explosives, weapons, and extremist literature.

Trump has faced fierce scrutiny for his cozy relationship with the Russian leader, after U.S. intelligence agencies found that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.


Along with repeatedly praising Putin, Trump has said he believes the Russian leader’s denials that his government meddled, dismissed allegations that Putin used violence against his opponents, and once shared highly classified intelligence with two senior Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting.

When the pair met at the G20 summit in Osaka in July, they made light of the election meddling issue at a press conference, then shared a joke about their mutual problem with “fake news.”


Putin has even invited Trump to Victory Day celebrations in Moscow in May. Trump said last month he was weighing whether or not he’ll attend.

Cover: U.S. President Donald Trump, right, and Russian President Vladimir Putin pose for a photo during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Friday, June 28, 2019. (Mikhail Klimentyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

Posted on

Julian Assange: Democratic Party is “doomed”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had strong words for the Democratic Party on Sunday, blaming party leaders for forcing the politics of centrism on their base. That’s why the Democrats are “doomed,” he wrote in a TwitLonger post.

The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party’s narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party’s base and its relationship with the public. Without the, ‘We didn’t lose — Russia won’ narrative the party’s elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential.

Assange may have a point, insofar as the Russia narrative has consumed so much of the media landscape that it may have eclipsed Democrats’ efforts to regain the roughly 1,000 legislative seats it has lost over the past nine years.

Democrats have also lost all four of the congressional special elections since January, and the predicted surge in Democratic turnout has failed to materialize. As Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir pointed out, the reason the races were close is because Republicans had an even worse turnout.

“Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment,” Assange wrote.

There’s an obvious comeback here: Assange and WikiLeaks likely played a role in the election outcome by leaking hacked Democratic Party emails that were presumably provided by Russian intelligence, either directly or through an intermediary. But the questions Assange has posed are nonetheless valid.

“Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders?” Assange wrote. “A party elite that maintains that it is the ‘crime of the century’ for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.”

Assange finished by calling for the formation of a new party. “The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power.”

Posted on

Trump Jr., Others Lampoon Liberal Media As ‘Trump’s Benghazi’ Fails To Unfold

Donald Trump Jr. and plenty of others took to Twitter after liberal media pundits’ predictions of President Donald Trump’s “Benghazi” failed to unfold, thanks to the U.S. response to Iran-backed protests.

A crowd of rock-throwing militants managed to break through a gate at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, on Tuesday amidst unrest surrounding Sunday’s U.S. airstrikes on a militia group backed by Iran. However, bolstered by the addition of 100 U.S. troops on Tuesday, security personnel used tear gas and rubber bullets Wednesday to successfully protect the main compound and U.S. personnel.

As events unfolded Tuesday, several media figures seemed to compare the president’s response in Iraq to the response to the Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in 2012.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid predicted the situation would be “Trump’s Benghazi.” Later, President Trump himself responded by calling it “the Anti-Benghazi!” during his Tuesday announcement that embassy personnel were safe.

Donald Trump Jr., took to Twitter several times on Wednesday to comment on the topic. Responding specifically to Reid, Trump Jr. wrote that “Trump’s Benghazi” was met “with decisive action.”

Trump Jr. and many others, including Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk and Rep. Lee Zeldin, used the social media network to criticize those who called this “another Benghazi,” and drew a stark contrast between both responses to attacks on U.S. facilities. (RELATED: Donald Trump Jr. Reacts To Blue Checkmark Twitter Bashing Trump For Not Taking Barron To World Series)

Several others weighed in on the hot topic:

x3c!--PRE_SCRIPT_TAG_MACRO--x3ex3c!--POST_SCRIPT_TAG_MACRO--x3e'):""},t.getDefinedParams=function(n,e){return e.filter(function(e){return n[e]}).reduce(function(e,t){return g(e,function(e,t,n){t in e?Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:n,enumerable:!0,configurable:!0,writable:!0}):e[t]=n;return e}({},t,n[t]))},{})},t.isValidMediaTypes=function(e){var t=["banner","native","video"];if(!Object.keys(e).every(function(e){return s()(t,e)}))return!1;if(e.video&&e.video.context)return s()(["instream","outstream","adpod"],e.video.context);return!0},t.getBidderRequest=function(e,t,n){return c()(e,function(e){return 0t[n]?-1:0}};var r=n(3),i=n(88),o=n.n(i),a=n(12),c=n.n(a),u=n(10),s=n.n(u),d=n(9),f=n(89);n.d(t,"deepAccess",function(){return f.a});var l=n(90);function p(e){return function(e){if(Array.isArray(e)){for(var t=0,n=new Array(e.length);t

':"";return"n ".concat("native"===e?'':"",'n n

n n n ").concat(r,"n

n n")}(r,a,n),u={requestId:f[e],cpm:o/100,width:c,height:s,ad:d,ttl:600,creativeId:r,netRevenue:!0,currency:"USD",hb_bidder:"fan",fb_bidid:n,fb_format:a,fb_placementid:r};if(j(a)){var l=S();u.mediaType="video",u.vastUrl="https://an.facebook.com/v1/instream/vast.xml?placementid=".concat(r,"&pageurl=").concat(l,"&playerwidth=").concat(c,"&playerheight=").concat(s,"&bidid=").concat(n),u.ttl=3600}return u})},transformBidParams:function(t,e){return Object(b.convertTypes)({placementId:"string"},t)}};Object(r.registerBidder)(s)}},[204]);
pbjsChunk([181],{334:function(e,n,o){e.exports=o(335)},335:function(e,n,o){"use strict";function i(e){return(i="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(e){return typeof e}:function(e){return e&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&e.constructor===Symbol&&e!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof e})(e)}Object.defineProperty(n,"__esModule",{value:!0});var r=o(8),s=o(0),t=o(4),a=o(7).default,u=t.EVENTS.BID_REQUESTED,d=t.EVENTS.BID_TIMEOUT,c=t.EVENTS.BID_RESPONSE,l=t.EVENTS.BID_WON,f={nonInteraction:!0},b=[],p=null,m=!0,v="Prebid.js Bids",y=0,g=!1,T=null,w=!0,E={};function S(){if(m&&"function"==typeof window[p]){for(var e=0;e