Intelligence officials briefed House lawmakers last week that Russian actors were interfering in the 2020 elections, once more to the benefit of Donald Trump. The contents of the briefing, which was first reported by The New York Times, sparked a series of dramatic events that have further eroded relations between Hill Democrats and the White House, and prompted the president—it appears—to appoint a top political ally to oversee the nation’s national security apparatus. The meeting, which took place on February 13, was conducted for the House Intelligence Committee by an aide to outgoing acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire. According to a legislator who was present, the aide, Shelby Pierson, Maguire’s election security chief, described a Russian elections-intrusion effort that never stopped from 2016. “It continues with the same target, and the same purpose, and it’s clear that they [the Russians] favor one candidate over the other,” is how the lawmaker described it. “The Republicans [on the committee] went nuts,” over Pierson’s presentation, the member told The Daily Beast. A second source familiar with the briefing said that Republicans didn’t understand why the Kremlin would try to boost Trump, since he had been so tough on Russia, in their view. Reps. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), Will Hurd (R-TX) and Chris Stewart (R-UT)—who according to The Times, has been a Trump favorite to replace Maguire—were particularly vocal in their skepticism, the member said. A spokesperson for Wenstrup said the congressman does not comment on classified or closed-door matters before the Intelligence Committee. Spokespersons for Stewart and Hurd did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Word of the meeting trickled back to the White House. And in the wake of the briefing, Trump forced out Maguire, whose tenure was set to expire next month. Other major changes are soon to follow. According to several sources, including one former high ranking intelligence official, the DNI’S Principal Executive Andrew Hallman is departing, as is the ODNI’s General Counsel Jason Klitenic. Klitenic's last day is March 2, a DNI spokesperson said. Hallman is returning to the CIA, sources said. The Times first reported on Hallman’s pending departure. “Hallman, who is a legend and one of the most honest and truthful and experienced and acknowledged persons in the entire intelligence community system,” said the official, who is in a position to know the coordinating of the effort throughout the intelligence community. “Andrew Hallman is a national treasure.” In addition, Kash Patel, the former aide to Rep. Devin Nunes who helmed efforts to push back against the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation, has just started working in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a former intelligence official told The Daily Beast. On Tuesday, the president announced that he was appointing Richard Grenell, a pugnacious political ally and current Ambassador to Germany, as his acting head of ODNI. The news of Grenell’s forthcoming appointment had been circulated inside the walls of the White House for several days before the official announcement. Grenell was alerted to Trump’s final decision earlier in the week. Still, the announcement came as a surprise to current and former ODNI officials who said they were concerned about Grenell taking over the helm as acting director given his lack of experience in intelligence. One former senior intelligence official said Trump’s decision to tap Grenell was “disrespectful to the intelligence community.” “It’s an essential role. And it calls for someone who can gather unbiased intelligence,” the former official said. “The ambassador was basically shut out of every meeting he had in Germany. He wasn’t respected by anyone. Perhaps he doesn’t understand the role … the importance of establishing intelligence relationships. It requires the person to gather true, unbiased facts of how foreign leaders think.”A senior intelligence official told The Daily Beast that they expected Grenell to play a small role in day-to-day office decisions and to liaise directly with the White House on policy questions. But in Democratic circles, his appointment—coming on the heels of the contentious February 13 briefing—sent immediate shockwaves along with fears of a rerun of the Russian interference efforts that muddied the 2016 elections. “Isn’t that absolutely incredible? Predictable but incredible,” former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a phone interview that had been scheduled to discuss the impending Nevada Democratic caucus.  “They are doing it again and I don't know if we have the tools to stop it.” On Capitol Hill, there were fears that the White House was now moving to cut off Democratic lawmakers from full briefings on Russian electoral meddling efforts—a fear that the former high ranking intelligence official said was entirely legitimate. “The president said he didn’t want any more briefings like this,” the former official said. “This is four years of this. We took an oath of office, so help me God. That oath did not include it is okay to lie to the president to make him feel better.”Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, expressed concern that Pierson and others within and beyond the intelligence community are in jeopardy for upsetting the president in the course of attempting to do their jobs. Since his acquittal in the impeachment trial, Trump has forced out officials who he perceived as his enemies, including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, and Undersecretary of Defense John Rood.“If you don’t agree with the king, you’re gone,” Quigley told The Daily Beast. “That has a chilling effect on people being willing to tell the truth, and that makes us less safe.” National security officials have long cautioned that Russia would likely interfere again in the U.S. elections. Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis confirmed that Moscow had interfered in the 2018 midterms. Former Trump officials acknowledge the threat by Russia but also warned against threats from other countries.“Because of the way our society functions—the fact that we have a free press and free speech—unfortunately our elections are susceptible to interference,” said Tim Morrison, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and the former senior official at the national security council. “And since we’re not going to change the way we operate our elections there will always be that concern. But I’d encourage people to also look at the threats posed by China. They’re interfering in congressional districts. Russia isn’t the only malign actor.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

A new swing-state poll conducted by Quinnipiac University found that President Trump leads every Democratic candidate by at least seven points in the battleground state of Wisconsin.The poll shows Trump ahead of Senator Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) by 11 points with a 50-39 percent lead, while the president also comes out on top of both former mayors in the race, Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg, by an eight-point margin of 49-41 percent. Against the progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Trump wins by ten and seven points, respectively — 51-41 over Warren and 50-43 over Sanders.The poll stands in sharp contrast to Quinnipiac’s national polls, which continue to indicate that the Democratic field would best the incumbent by a comfortable margin.Former vice president Joe Biden, who was heavily criticized by Trump during impeachment, is projected to lose to the president by seven points, 49 to 42 percent.While the poll also surveys Pennsylvania — where Democrats lead by an average of five points — and Michigan, where Democrats barely lead by an average of three points, Democrats “are mostly negatively viewed” in all three states."Between President Trump and the Democratic presidential candidates, voters aren't showing much enthusiasm about any candidate. Getting a split favorability rating is the high-water mark,” Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Mary Snow said.Averaged across all three battleground states, the race is a tossup for Democrats against Trump.> New Quinnipiac general election results in PA/MI/WI. > Here's the average across the three states: > Trump v. Biden: Biden+2 > v. Bloomberg: Bloomberg+1 > v. Sanders: Sanders+1 > v. Buttigieg: Trump+1 > v. Klob: Trump+1 > v. Warren: Trump+1https://t.co/xzFeSvdWqO> > -- Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) February 20, 2020 In all three states, Quinnipiac finds the top issue for voters is the economy, Trump's handling of which received a positive rating of 59 - 38 percent in Wisconsin, 57 - 41 percent in Pennsylvania, and 52-44 in Michigan. More than half of respondents in all three states also say they are better off than in 2016.Trump’s polling numbers have ticked up since impeachment, with the president hitting personal high approval ratings in several major indexes over the last month.He has had consistently good numbers in Wisconsin, with a Marquette University Law School poll in November finding him ahead of Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg.

"My testimony would have made no difference" in Trump's impeachment, John Bolton said. "I sleep at night." He added Democrats "made a mess of it."

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House's impeachment proceedings against President Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump's acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book.

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday defended his decision not to discuss alleged details from his upcoming book which Democrats believed would be pertinent to the impeachment of President Trump.Bolton made his remarks at an event at Vanderbilt University, where he shared the stage with his predecessor from the Obama administration, Susan Rice. Audio of the remarks was obtained by ABC News."It's inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony," Rice told the audience to applause. "I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution.""People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done," Bolton said in his defense. "I will bet you a dollar right here and now my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome…I sleep at night because I have followed my conscience."Bolton then criticized the House's handling of the impeachment process."The process drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away from the president because it was so partisan," Bolton said, calling the House's inquiry "impeachment malpractice."Details from Bolton's book, The Room Where it Happened, were leaked to the New York Times in the final stretch of the Senate impeachment trial. The Times reported Bolton wrote that President Trump told him aid to Ukraine was contingent on that country's commitment to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.The book is currently being reviewed by the White House for potential classified information. Bolton said on Monday that he hopes the book is eventually published and is not "suppressed."

It was a moderately tough crowd for former National Security Adviser John Bolton at Nashville's Vanderbilt University on Wednesday night, with the students audibly skeptical of his rationale for declining to tell Congress what he knew about President Trump and Ukraine during Trump's impeachment proceedings. And the audience cheered Bolton's co-panelist and fellow former national security adviser, Susan Rice, when she called him out on it.Bolton said he was surprised Senate Republicans voted against having him testify at Trump's impeachment trial. "People can argue about what I should have said and what I should have done," Bolton said. "I would bet you a dollar right here and now, my testimony would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome." He suggested he's still not revealing the relevant disclosures in his unpublished book because of "implied threat of criminal prosecution" if he were to "just spill my guts" before the White House clears the book for publication."It's inconceivable to me that if I had firsthand knowledge of a gross abuse of presidential power, that I would withhold my testimony," with or without a subpoena, Rice said, getting a round of applause. "I would feel like I was shamefully violating my oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution." She added: "I also can't imagine, frankly, in the absence of being able to provide that information directly to Congress, not having exercised my First Amendment right to speak publicly at a time when my testimony or my experience would be relevant."Bolton prompted grumbling when he said House Democrats "committed impeachment malpractice" by creating a process that "drove Republicans who might have voted for impeachment away because it was so partisan." Rice said Trump clearly abused his power and "Congress abdicated their responsibilities and made it impossible in the future to hold any president accountable." The theme of the talk was "Defining U.S. Global Leadership," so Rice added that the Senate's failure to sanction Trump has "unsettled" America's allies and "weakened our democratic model."More stories from theweek.com The growing crisis in cosmology The Nevada Democratic debate set a new viewership record The Democrats gave Mike Bloomberg what he deserved

Johan Hassel, the international secretary for Sweden's ruling Social Democrats, visited Iowa before the caucuses, and he wasn't impressed with America's standard bearer for democratic socialism, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). "We were at a Sanders event, and it was like being at a Left Party meeting," he told Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet newspaper, according to one translation. "It was a mixture of very young people and old Marxists, who think they were right all along. There were no ordinary people there, simply."Hassel was most "impressed" with Pete Buttigieg, though he also liked Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Eric Kleefeld, assiduous student of foreign politics, provides some context on Sweden's Social Democrats:> Some more context: The “Left Party” he talks about in there is the old Communist Party back home in Sweden. (They changed their name around 1990 or so — wonder why.)> > The Left/Communists have worked with the Social Democrats in minority parliaments, but never included in cabinet.> > — Eric Kleefeld (@EricKleefeld) February 18, 2020Why would a Swedish Social Democrat favor Buttigieg over Sanders? Well, democratic socialism is different than Sweden's social democracy — the "Nordic model" Sanders touts — "and, unfortunately, Sanders has contributed to this confusion," writes MIT political economist Daron Acemoglu. Democratic socialism seeks to fix the iniquities of the market economy by handing control of the means of production to a company's workers or "an administrative structure operated by the state," he explains. "European social democracy is a system for regulating the market economy, not for supplanting it."Lars Løkke Rasmussen, then the prime minister of Denmark, made a similar point in a speech at Harvard in 2015, when Sanders was gaining national attention. "I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy," albeit with "an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens."Rasmussen's model, Vox's Matthew Yglesias wrote at the time, "is not especially different, as a substantive matter, from what Sanders is saying." Sanders wants "higher taxes, a lot more social welfare spending," and single-payer health care, he adds. "But in Rasmussen's view, this doesn't amount to socialism at all." Which may explain why, in Wednesday's debate, Warren affirmed she is a capitalist and Buttigieg held up Denmark as the paragon of the American Dream.More stories from theweek.com Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils Susan Rice shamed John Bolton for sitting on his impeachment testimony. Bolton said it wouldn't have mattered. The Democrats gave Mike Bloomberg what he deserved

The new contestant in the 7,000th Democratic debate, which took place in Las Vegas on Wednesday night, was former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who got on the debate stage by spending 400 million dollars, and most of the key discussion focused on his candidacy and his record.Practically the whole field united to savage Bloomberg. Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Bernie Sanders all attacked him more aggressively than any candidate has attacked another at any previous debate, and Bloomberg was all but helpless before the withering assault. Though he has bought off dozens of Democratic politicians and think tanks, it seems like all but one of his competitors are not at all keen on their party being bought wholesale by a billionaire oligarch.The most riveting moment of any Democratic debate so far came almost immediately, when Warren nailed Bloomberg on his appalling record of sexual harassment, racism, and plutocratic corruption:> I'd like to talk about who we're running against — a billionaire who calls women 'fat broads' and 'horse-faced lesbians.' And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump, I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop-and-frisk … Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. [Elizabeth Warren]Later, when Bloomberg tried to deflect a question about allegations of workplace harassment, Warren pounced again: "He has gotten some number of women — dozens, who knows? — to sign non-disclosure agreements both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all those women from those non-disclosure agreements, so we can hear their side of the story?" (By the way, the total number is at least 64 women as part of 40 different lawsuits.)Bloomberg again tried to deflect, arguing that the agreements were made to protect the privacy of the women involved. "They decided when they made an agreement that they wanted to keep it quiet." Biden then joined in, pointing out the obvious fact that this is not what NDA agreements are really about. People take the money, and in return they agree not to discuss the horrible event. It's basically hush money, and the American people deserve to know the truth. "All the mayor has to do," Biden said, is tell those people, "'You are released from the nondisclosure agreement.'"Bloomberg still did not agree to release the agreements, but he was completely nonplussed by the exchange. He clearly was not prepared for these rather obvious questions, perhaps because he is a cloistered plutocrat surrounded by yes men and toadies, or perhaps because there is no defense at all. He appeared very much like what he in fact is — a very rich man who is likely facing bitter, unfiltered criticism to his face for the first time in years.The only candidate who largely refused to leap on the dogpile was Pete Buttigieg. When Biden and Warren were mercilessly destroying Bloomberg on his sexual harassment history, Buttigieg did not join in. When Klobuchar was attacking Bloomberg for failing to release his tax returns (as Trump has also refused to do), Buttigieg stood aside. When Sanders was attacking Bloomberg for endorsing George W. Bush in 2004, and for being a gigantic vector of corruption in the political system, Buttigieg said nothing.In his one clear attack on Bloomberg, Buttigieg triangulated himself between Bloomberg and Sanders. "Most Americans don’t see where they fit if they’ve got to choose between a socialist who thinks capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks money ought to be the root of all power," he said. "We shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out."Every other candidate, especially Warren, seemed genuinely infuriated at the prospect of a racist, sexist, authoritarian former Republican like Bloomberg buying the Democratic nomination like a slurpee at 7/11. But Buttigieg, well, he's cut from a different kind of cloth.It remains to be seen how much Bloomberg's epic debate faceplant will matter when it comes time to vote in upcoming states. He is spending a totally unprecedented amount of money on this primary. But this was by far the most interesting and dramatic debate of the primary season, and he ate it big time. It doesn't speak well for his ability to hold up under the scrutiny of a general election campaign, where his money will be a lot less useful than it is right now.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils Susan Rice shamed John Bolton for sitting on his impeachment testimony. Bolton said it wouldn't have mattered. Trump's new acting intelligence chief Richard Grenell lacks intelligence experience but he is a gold Trump Card member

But former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice Rice challenged his decision not to publicly discuss Trump's Ukraine pressure campaign.

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Wednesday denounced the House's impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump as ”grossly partisan” and said his testimony would not have changed Trump's acquittal in the Senate, as he continued to stay quiet on the details of a yet-to-be-released book. In his second public discussion this week, Bolton was on stage at Vanderbilt University with former national security adviser under President Barack Obama, Susan Rice, who questioned Bolton's refusal to discuss more details while his book undergoes screening for possible classified national security details by the Trump administration.