"WASHINGTON -- Attorney General William P. Barr has assigned the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut to examine the origins of the Russia investigation, according to two people familiar with the matter, a move that President Trump has long called for but that could anger law enforcement officials who insist that scrutiny of the Trump campaign was lawful.

"John H. Durham, the United States attorney in Connecticut, has a history of serving as a special prosecutor investigating potential wrongdoing among national security officials, including the F.B.I.'s ties to a crime boss in Boston and accusations of C.I.A. abuses of detainees.

"His inquiry is the third known investigation focused on the opening of an F.B.I. counterintelligence investigation during the 2016 presidential campaign into possible ties between Russia's election interference and Trump associates.

"The department's inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is separately examining investigators' use of wiretap applications and informants and whether any political bias against Mr. Trump influenced investigative decisions. And John W. Huber, the United States attorney in Utah, has been reviewing aspects of the Russia investigation. His findings have not been announced."

"In recent weeks the Democrats have turned into a bizarre version of the caricature of Trump they regularly denounce. They lambaste Trump for indulging in conspiracy theories, but the Russia investigation has become their Benghazi, a scandal too complicated and not quite substantive enough to inflame the public imagination. They went after Trump for the 'lock her up' chants at his rallies but flirt with jailing both the attorney general and secretary of the Treasury, passed a New York state law directed at a single individual (forbidden in the Constitution as a bill of attainder), and speculate endlessly about how the president might one day end up behind bars. Pelosi says she worries Trump might not accept a loss in 2020 as Hillary Clinton says the election was stolen from her and the entire Democratic party indulges in the ludicrous fantasy that Stacey Abrams is the legitimate governor of a state she lost by more than 50,000 votes amid record minority turnout.

"This is not a serious party. It has abandoned policy for litigation, and common sense for fantasies of Medicare for All, Green New Deals, abortion after birth, and slavery reparations. The Democrats assume impeachment will be Trump's Watergate. It may well turn out to be their Waterloo."

"You don't have to like tariffs to like President Trump's strategy of imposing harsh ones on China. Those he imposed overnight are punishing, not only to China but to American consumers. The longer they last, the more they will cost. Yet serious trade sanctions are the only hope of getting Beijing to roll back its abusive economic practices and open its markets to U.S. exporters and investors.

"China won't act unless it feels real pain in its export sector, which is a powerful economic driver. And pain is what Trump means to inflict unless China provides much greater market access.

"Half measures and paper promises won't do. The U.S. wants a big deal, and it wants teeth in it to prevent cheating. To get it, Trump is willing to threaten a trade war. We don't know if it will work. ...

"No one doubts China's own protectionism. It uses tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and outright theft of intellectual property to support its industries and harm U.S. interests. It demands American companies share ownership, profits, and proprietary information with local partners, most with strong ties to Communist Party leaders. The U.S. market, by contrast, has been relatively open to Chinese goods and investments, which are protected by the rule of law. No such luck for Americans in China."

"Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Wednesday signed a bill that would arm teachers throughout the Sunshine State.

"In order for teachers to carry on school campuses, their district must opt into the 'Guardian program.' The program allows teachers to go through a screening process and training by their local sheriff's office before they're able to legally carry a firearm on school grounds. They're also required to obtain authorization from the school board, the Orlando Sentinel reported.

"The controversial bill, Senate Bill 7030, is an extension of an already existing piece of legislation that was enacted following the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The original program allowed faculty and staff, but not classroom teachers, to receive firearms training and eventually the ability to carry on campus."

"It's hard to find too many First Amendment absolutists on either the left or the right these days.

"That's especially the case in academia, which seems to be most hostile to the idea of free thoughts and free expression. ...

"But here's the thing. If we cheer on Facebook and Twitter as they remove from their platforms people we find offensive, what happens when somebody finds something we say to be offensive?

"Are we going to have somebody monitoring all of our emails and call the authorities when your friend's uncle sends you a really bad joke? Where does this all end and who gets to decide?

"Who is the referee here? ...

"I for one would rather have a free market of ideas, to go along with the free practice of religion and the freedom to assemble and petition the government."

Read entire article here.

"As of this moment, a fragile truce holds in southern Israel. After Hamas volleyed 600 missiles at Israeli civilian targets on Saturday and Sunday, prompting Israel to attack hundreds of targets in Gaza, the air-raid sirens have fallen silent, for now.

"But over the weekend, when the rockets fell, we saw all the old arguments against Israel's acts of self-defense crop up. The air raids were 'disproportionate,' we were told. There were arguments over individual civilian casualties, as if it would somehow discredit Israel if its precision strikes killed more than a handful of noncombatants. Yes, there were rote condemnations of Hamas's efforts to kill as many civilians as it could, but once again all too many voices on the left rose at once, demanding that the nation under attack -- the nation defending its schools, hospitals, and homes from an indiscriminate rocket barrage -- exercise restraint.

"It's important, however, to be very clear about Israel's legal obligations. When it comes to Hamas, 'restraint' is Israel's choice -- one it may make for tactical and strategic reasons of its own. The actual law of war would allow Israel to invade Gaza, utterly destroy Hamas, and occupy Gaza City until Israel's safety is ensured, even if it burned in the fight."

Read entire article here.

"I understand that Nadler is upset about the refusal of the A.G. to participate in some kind of show trial he was arranging after 5 hours of Barr's testimony before the Senate, but to the extent anyone is acting like a dictator here it's unfortunately Nadler. He has lost all perspective.

"Nancy Pelosi then piled on as well calling the Attorney General a criminal. You may or may not like Barr's demeanor, answers or his summary of the Mueller report, but he is no criminal nor does he deserve this kind of unrestrained disrespect. It's really hard to understand why Nadler or Pelosi believe this kind of personal vitriol will be rewarded at the ballot box. The evidence is that similar behavior during the Senate hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh may have cost Democrats several U.S. Senate seats. For presidential candidates wooing Iowa voters, over the top words and behavior at least makes some political sense. But Nadler and Pelosi should know better. ...

"Legislative oversight is not a specifically enumerated power in the Constitution -- it's a limited power implied from the 'necessary and proper' clause and subject to privileges, separation of powers, and the need for a legitimate legislative purpose. It's not an open-ended power but bounded by the checks and balances of our constitution."

Read entire article here.

"We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon."

"By all appearances, they are mortal enemies. President Donald Trump has been at war with Democratic leaders in Congress for months, as the two sides trade subpoenas, lawsuits and accusations of bad faith.

"But on Tuesday, Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer did something few people expected: They got along -- or at least pretended to.

"After a 90-minute Oval Office meeting to discuss a potential infrastructure bill, both sides gushed about what may have been their first point of agreement this year, on a plan to spend $2 trillion to repair crumbling roads and bridges. Never mind that they left unresolved how to foot the gigantic bill. ...

"There's at least one explanation: Both Trump and Democrats are eager for a legislative win -- or short of that, the appearance of genuine legislative effort -- before the 2020 elections. Trump is about to embark on a tough reelection campaign with key promises, including a grand infrastructure plan, still unmet. Democrats are eager to pivot from the subject of Russia to more tangible issues like the economy, and to provide swing-district moderates with talking points about bipartisan action."

"The Green New Deal (GND) is a set of policy proposals, some more concrete than others, with the central advertised goal of ameliorating a purported climate crisis by implementing policies that would reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to 'net zero,' by 2050 in some formulations. In addition, GND incorporates other important social-policy goals as a means of forging a majority political coalition in support.

"The GND's central premise is that such policies -- either despite or by reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy- producing and energy-consuming capital stock -- would increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity. That is a 'broken windows' argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.

"Moreover, notwithstanding the assertions from GND proponents that it is an essential policy to confront purportedly adverse climate phenomena, the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173 C by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter (equilibrium climate sensitivity) about the effects of reduced GHG emissions. Under an assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083 C by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures. This conclusion is not controversial and suggests strongly that the GND's real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally."

Read entire article here.