The plans for the attack, which featured a more sophisticated version of the device the “underwear bomber” of Christmas 2009 was arrested with, were first revealed by the AP. But a day later, it was revealed that the individual at the center of the plot was a double agent working for Britain’s MI-6 secret intelligence service and the CIA along with Saudi Arabian intelligence assets.

“We have initiated an investigation into this leak,” Mueller testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.  “Leaks such as this threaten ongoing operations, puts at risk the lives of sources, makes it much more difficult to recruit sources, and damages our relationships with our  foreign partners.”

“Leaks such as this have a — I don’t want overuse the word ‘devastating’ — but have a huge impact on our ability to do our business, not just on a particular source and the threat to the particular source, but your ability to recruit sources is severely hampered,” Mueller said, describing the implications of the leak of sensitive national security information.

Mueller continued, “In cases such as this, your – the  relationship with your  counterparts overseas are damaged and which means that an inhibition in the willingness of others to share  information with us where they don’t think that information will remain secure.  So it also has some long-term effects, which is why it is so important to make certain that the persons who are responsible for the leak are brought to justice.”

The investigation is likely being run by the Justice Department’s counterespionage section and agents from the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

Justice Department officials and an FBI spokesman declined to comment on the nature of the investigation. The CIA also declined comment.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is also conducting a review with the DNI’s general counsel to see if the leaks originated in any of the 16 agencies that DNI James Clapper oversees.

Earlier in the day Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, addressed the issue of media leaks relating to the plot and called it “devastating.”

“Leaks do endanger people’s lives … that is not an exaggeration,” Olsen said, speaking before the American Bar Association’s standing Committee on Law and National Security, in Washington, D.C.

The one-minute spot juxtaposes clips of Obama in 2008-2009 making claims about his economic policies alongside factoids about conditions today. All  the issues pinpointed in the ad are at the heart of a new messaging push by the Republican National Committee.

View the ad HERE.

So are the claims true?  Here’s a look at some of the facts:

ISSUE #1: HOUSING CRISIS

Obama: “We must help the millions of homeowners who are facing foreclosure.” (Raleigh, N.C.; June 2008) / Crossroads Narrator:  ”Promise broken: One in five mortgages are still underwater.”

The Facts:

President Obama and Democrats have taken a number of steps to help homeowners facing foreclosure, but the results have fallen short of what the administration had initially projected.

The Home Affordable Modification Program — Obama’s signature effort, enacted in 2009 to help struggling homeowners avoid default and foreclosure by reducing their monthly payments — has helped nearly 795,000 Americans through March, according to the Treasury Department.

Obama had initially projected HAMP would help 3 million to 4 million homeowners.

A separate program – the Home Affordable Refinance Program – has helped roughly 1 million homeowners with federally backed mortgages who are current on their payments to refinance and reduce their rates, the Federal Housing Finance Agency reported.

By the end of Obama’s first year in office, the number of U.S. homeowners with mortgages underwater (those most likely to default on their loans) had climbed to nearly one in four, according mortgage-data firm CoreLogic.

The picture has improved somewhat over the past three years, with roughly 22.8 percent, or 11.1 million, of homeowners with mortgages now owing more than their homes are worth and at risk of foreclosure.

ISSUE #2: TAXES

Obama: “If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up.” (Springfield, Mo.; July 2008) / Crossroads Narrator: “Broken.  Obamacare raised 18 different taxes.”

 The Facts:

President Obama has not approved any income tax increases on families making less than $250,000 a year. The Affordable Care Act - which its opponents call  ”Obamacare” – has not directly imposed any new taxes on the same low- and middle-income families.

Obama’s 2013 budget would cut taxes for all individuals earning less than $100,000 a year; raise them on average of $58 for those making between $100,000-$200,000; and significantly hike rates on those making $200,000 or more, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Still, Republicans argue that some tax hikes included the health care law — namely on employers and some drug companies and medical device manufacturers, and the penalty under the individual mandate for not having health insurance coverage — will affect all families when they take effect in January 2013 and beyond.

ISSUE #3: HEALTH CARE PLANS

Obama: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.” (Washington, D.C.; June 2009) / Crossroads Narrator:  “Broken. Millions could lose their health care coverage and could be forced into a government pool.”

The Facts:

The president’s health care law does not force individuals to change their health plans or mandate certain groups into a “government pool.”

But that doesn’t mean the law won’t drive people from their current insurance plan.

Conditions created by the law will  result in some Americans having to get a new plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.

“Because of the ACA, about 3 million to 5 million fewer people, on net, will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022 than would have been the case under prior law,”  the groups reported in March.

“The businesses that choose not to offer coverage as a result of the ACA will tend to be smaller employers and employers with predominantly lower-wage workers; those workers and their families are more likely to be eligible for Medicaid, CHIP or subsidies through the health insurance exchanges.”

The White House said the president never guaranteed that everyone could keep his or her preferred plan – market dynamics, including costs, shift all the time - just that the legislation wouldn’t force anyone to change.

“What the president promised is that under health care reform, that he would make it more possible for people to have choices in these (health insurance) exchanges,” deputy White Hosue chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle told ABC’s Jake Tapper late last year. “And that’s going to be what will help businesses bring costs down. Right now, they’re just struggling. That’s one reason why they’re shifting costs to employees.”

DeParle said that “once health care reform fully takes hold in 2014 and beyond, employers will have more tools and more ability to help bring down costs,” she said, including the new health insurance exchanges.

ISSUE #4: DEFICIT CUTS

Obama:  ”Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” (Washington, D.C.; February 2009) / Crossroads Narrator: “Broken. Because he hasn’t even come close.”

The Facts:

President Obama has not and will not cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

The president noted in that 2009 speech the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.  The 2013 budget the president submitted in February does not come close to meeting his promise of reducing the deficit to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.

Obama projects a $901 billion deficit in 2013.  That would follow a $1.3 trillion deficit in 2011 and $1.15 trillion deficit in 2012.

The administration projects that its 2013 budget, if enacted, would reduce deficits by $4 trillion over 10 years.

CARNEY:  No, that’s – 

TAPPER:  Separate?

CARNEY:  That’s — that figure is too high.  The — as the original Ryan budget does, it includes OCO, which is the acronym, which stands for something that means what you’re talking about.

And it demonstrates the savings from policy decisions that this president made to end the war in Iraq and to end — to put us on a path of ending the war in Afghanistan, policy decisions that are hugely significant not just as foreign policy and national security matters and not just for the men and women who are sent overseas to fight on our behalf, but for budgetary reasons, which, by the way, leaders — at least some of the leaders in the other party, reject, those who say we should still have American soldiers in Iraq, those who say that we should not have a timetable for ending the war in Afghanistan. 

You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say you’d rather reverse those policies, continue to have troops in Iraq, prolong our stay in Afghanistan, which of course requires that — money to pay for them, and then — and then say, but you can’t count that savings that are a result of concrete policy decisions. 

TAPPER:  So what are – 

CARNEY:  Paul Ryan thought they were legitimate in his first budget proposal. 

TAPPER:  Well, not really.  But – 

CARNEY:  He did.  They were in — go look at the Ryan budget. 

TAPPER:  I did. 

CARNEY:  And it’s in there. 

TAPPER:  There’s one way of scoring in which it’s in there, and then the way — the scoring that they presented, it was not.  But that’s not really what I want to talk about.  So – 

CARNEY:  These are concrete savings from a — the — from a budget — from a — policy decisions that the president of the United States put in place that others, were they in the Oval Office, would not have put in place, with all the resulting costs. 

TAPPER:  In six and a half months we’re facing this potential debacle, right, this $8 trillion.  How much energy does the president intend to devote to trying to solve this problem before it reaches a crisis in December? 

CARNEY:  The president has put forward a budget proposal that solves — I mean, if you’re talking about - 

TAPPER:  I’m talking about negotiating with congressional leaders. 

CARNEY:  — dealing with the sequester, which — by the way, the Congress voted for the Budget Control Act.  The Congress assigned itself the task of – 

TAPPER:  And they --

CARNEY:  — coming up with a balanced solution — coming up with a solution — the only successful one has to be balanced if it’s going to be bipartisan — in order to avoid the sequester, which no party wants to see enacted. 

TAPPER:  Right.  Absolutely.  Congress – 

CARNEY:  Congress continues to have that opportunity.  But – 

TAPPER:  I’m with you.  We have this problem six and a half months from now. 

CARNEY:  But, look, we — as — it is a part of the American ethic that when you get knocked down, you get up and you keep – you keep trying, and that’s what Congress ought to do.  They ought to come together, work out a balanced approach.  The president has put forward, concretely and specifically, the ideas that he thinks should guide that approach.  

You know, the policy choices here are pretty clear.  There’s been a lot of debate and discussion and serious-minded negotiation on these subjects… So there — there’s an opportunity that remains, as the president made clear in the meeting and as I made clear in my readout of the meeting — that remains for the kinds of bipartisan compromise around a balanced approach that the budget the president put forward represents.  

TAPPER:  So, just to clarify, the answer is none.  The president – 

CARNEY:  That’s not — that’s not true at all.  I mean, they talked about it today.  The key stumbling block here – 

TAPPER:  Is that the Republicans in the House refuse to raise any taxes. 

CARNEY:  Refuse to acknowledge that the only way to do this, the only way to come together and get this done is to adopt the balanced approach that not just the president, but just about everyone else who’s looked at this has deemed the right way to do it.  So — and as I said on a number of issues, the president accepts the fact that just because he says he believes it’s the right thing to do, Republicans may not then do it.  But there — they have constituents they need to answer to.  

And one of the more remarkable things about the apparent desire to recreate the debacle of last summer, that was precipitated by the same approach that the speaker of the House suggested we adopt again, is that the American people thought it was a terrible thing.  And I don’t think they would reward leaders who suggest that the right way to fulfill their responsibility as leaders is to risk tanking the American economy.  

That’s just terrible.  That’s not leadership.  That’s a failure of leadership.  And the right way to get something done is to agree that you’re not going to get everything you want and look at what so many people have put forward as the necessary path for bipartisan compromise. 

TAPPER:  The 1.2 trillion dollars — I think it’s $1.2 trillion in cuts that are the sequester cuts that automatically kick in, if the Bush tax cuts, $4 trillion worth, expire, would that eliminate the need to sequester $1.2 trillion in cuts?

CARNEY:  Well, mathematically it might be so.  I haven’t done the analysis myself.  But the president, as you know, believes we should extend tax cuts for the middle class and we absolutely should end unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. 

TAPPER:  Right, I know.  But you also feel that not everybody’s going to get everything they want.  So I was just wondering if it’d be possible – 

CARNEY:  Well, that wouldn’t represent everything we want. We – 

TAPPER:  Is there a mechanism in there — so, I’m just — it’s a technical question.  If the $4 trillion in tax cuts expire, does that negate the need for 1.2 trillion dollars in – 

CARNEY:  I think you’re talking about apples and oranges here.  And I think there are a lot of things that people have talked about that – 

TAPPER:  Not really. 

CARNEY:  — you know, rise to — you know, that will – that will be dealt with, if they haven’t been by then, by the end of the year. 

TAPPER:  It’s $4 trillion in revenue. 

CARNEY:  Right, but there are a number of issues that — there’s the Bush tax cuts, there’s sequester and there are other — you know, the — I’m not going to negotiate how that plays out now. 

TAPPER:  What I’m asking is — I’m not asking you to negotiate.  The question is – 

CARNEY:  As a technical thing, if you’re asking me does 4 trillion dollars account for 1.2 trillion dollars, I – 

TAPPER:  — would that — would it negate it? 

CARNEY:  It doesn’t negate it.  These are policy decisions that policymakers have to make about where they think this country ought to go in terms of — in terms of the policies we ought to adopt that will help grow the economy and deal with our fiscal challenges. And there are — you know, there are a lot of decisions to be made. 

What is helpful in this case is that the universe of options has been pretty thoroughly explored over the last several years as we’ve had commissions and negotiations and budget proposals put forward. 

And the consensus, the broad consensus that has emerged from this prolonged debate, is that we need to take a balanced approach to this. We need to deal with these challenges by cutting nondefense discretionary spending significantly, which the president has already agreed to do and signed into law.  We need to introduce reforms into our entitlement system that strengthen those programs and produce savings in health care.  And we need to increase revenues, so that we don’t have to deal with our deficit and debt in a way that puts all the burden on the middle class and senior citizens, because that’s just not the right thing to do.  And it would be bad for our economy. It would be bad to adopt a proposal that, lacking any other detail

provided in it, would, at the — would potentially cut investments in education and border security and all sorts of other programs, innovation, by something on the order of 19 percent. 

TAPPER:  These commission recommendations you keep talking about, this consensus about — President Obama has not endorsed any of them, right? 

CARNEY:  The president has, through his actions and his proposals, endorsed the balanced approach that is represented by the Simpson-Bowles commission, by the Domenici-Rivlin commission. 

TAPPER:  But he didn’t — those are two – 

CARNEY:  The numbers are not exactly the same, and in fact what is off – 

TAPPER:  But he doesn’t support their recommendations. 

CARNEY:  Not all of them in their specifics, but in – you know, they have far greater defense cuts.  Does Paul Ryan support that?  They have far greater tax revenues.  You know, these are just two areas where it — you know, you guys should be calling out folks who say, well, you know, we should be supporting this commission, when in fact it includes proposals that they wouldn’t come near to with a 10-foot pole. 

The president’s proposals actually proposed in his budget fewer defense cuts and fewer — and less revenues than Simpson-Bowles, another example of his willingness to compromise.  This is – you know, so the outline of what needs to be done is clear.  It has been clear for a long time.  It is supported broadly by the American people.  It is supported by Democrats, independents and Republicans, bipartisan commissions, gray beards, young academics, all sorts of experts.

– Jake Tapper

“This is about unity and, today, I want to formally endorse Gov. Mitt Romney for president of the United States of America,” Cain said Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill. “It is clear that Gov. Mitt Romney’s going to be the Republican nominee and so I wanted to formally endorse him today for president of the United States of America.”

Cain said that, while many conservatives “may not be as excited” about the primary process or Romney’s candidacy, the country is at a turning point and must elect a Republican.

“Gov. Romney gets it right on the big issues,” he said. “President Obama gets it wrong on all of the big issues. That’s why we have got to have a different occupant of the White House.”

Asked why voters should listen to his latest endorsement after he initially signaled support for “the American people” and then Newt Gingrich, Cain attempted to poke fun at President Obama’s evolution on gay marriage.

“My endorsement evolved,” he said to laughter. “Early in the process is one thing, but as we converge toward the convention, what we did earlier isn’t as relevant. It wasn’t a matter of changing my mind.”

“Different voices may be louder on growth than they have been, but the overall approach of how we support Europe’s recovery hasn’t changed,” Clinton told USA TODAY. “It’s been our view that there needed to be some adjustments to just austerity, so that there could be growth, both for economic reasons and for political reasons.”

As the two largest and most stable economies in the Eurozone, France and Germany have been the stalwarts during the ongoing economic crisis. Both have helped bail out other Eurozone countries in trouble, but also set strict austerity requirements for countries to remain part of the Euro. Some, such as Greece, have balked at the forced cuts, causing domestic political turmoil and sending global markets into a tailspin.

The Obama administration has taken the position that Europe cannot solve its economic problems with austerity measures alone. Similar to the U.S. with its stimulus packages, Europe should also have a plan for growth that will stimulate the economy and provide jobs for the continent’s unemployed youth, which makes up more than 22 percent of  the 18- to 24-year-old population.  ”We’ve been delivering that message, publicly and privately, for some time,” said Clinton.

It’s a message that’s likely to resonate with Hollande, who beat incumbent president Sarkozy by campaigning against Sarkozy’s deeply unpopular economic cuts.

Hollande reiterated his  “pro-growth” economic plans in his acceptance speech last week and warned that France and Europe are headed for a shift. “Europe is watching us,” he said to cheering crowds. “Austerity can no longer be the only option.”

The president met with the leaders the day after House Speaker John Boehner insisted he would not back an increase in the debt ceiling unless it was met with equal or greater spending cuts.

“The president emphasized the need for Congress to avoid refighting old political fights,” Carney said. “The president also made clear that he refuses to allow a replay of last summer’s self-inflicted political crisis that eroded confidence and hurt the American economy.”

Carney said the president reiterated the need for a balanced approach to tackling the deficit and made clear his willingness to work with Republicans on the issue, “but was just as clear that he would not accept an approach that asks middle-class families and senior citizens to make sacrifices without asking for anything more from millionaires and billionaires.”

The president met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Boehner for lunch at the White House to discuss his legislative “to-do” list to boost the economy.

“The president urged the leaders to act on additional measures to create jobs and strengthen the economic recovery, including the five items on the president’s ‘to-do’ list for Congress like the tax cuts for small businesses,” Carney said. “The Congress ‘to-do’ list also includes items like helping veterans find jobs and assistance to responsible homeowners; in other words, the kinds of priorities that Republicans and Democrats should be able to work together on to help the economy and support the middle class.”

Obama, who visited local D.C. sandwich shop Taylor Gourmet earlier today to pitch his agenda to small business leaders, brought hoagies back for the luncheon.

The speaker was “very pleased with the sandwiches served,” according to his office.  Read more about what happened at the lunch from ABC News’ John Parkinson.

Boehner asked the president to clarify whether he wants Congress to pass an increase to the debt ceiling that does not include any spending cuts to reduce the deficit, according to a readout provided to reporters by the speaker’s office. After the president answered in the affirmative, Boehner laid down the law according to him.

“As long as I’m around here, I’m not going to allow a debt ceiling increase without doing something serious about the debt,” Boehner told Obama, according to an aide close to the speaker.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also attended the lunch.

Oddly, the readout ended by revealing that “the speaker was very pleased with the sandwiches served.”

Asked what kind of sandwich Boehner enjoyed, a senior aid to the speaker declined to specify beyond confirming “it was Taylor [Gourmet] and he loved it.”

According to a White House Pool note, the president ordered a 12-inch Spruce Street hoagie for himself, which included roast turkey, prosciutto, roasted red peppers and sharp provolone. The tab for all the leaders’ sandwiches from Taylor Gourmet, which specializes in “delivering the finest hoagies” in the area, according to its website, totaled $62.79.

The president began the meeting by laying out some of his policy goals, such as his “to-do list” for Congress, which includes clean energy manufacturing,  a veterans’ job corps and tax credits for small business jobs. But  the bulk of the meeting was spent discussing other issues, including the next debt limit increase and the looming expiration of current tax rates, according to the readout.

Boehner also asked the president for his plan to deal with a number of expiring tax provisions at the end of the year, and he pressed the president to approve the job-creating Keystone pipeline energy project.

The speaker also asked Obama to encourage the attorney general to provide all of the information Congressional investigators have sought about the Fast and Furious ‘gun walking’ operation.  That operation was designed to track illegal weapons moving from the U.S. into the hands of drug cartel leaders in Mexico, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lost track of hundreds of weapons; those weapons have been linked to at least one murder, that of a border patrol agent.

Aides would not reveal how the president reacted to the speaker’s requests.

Luis Martinez / ABC News

Turning a lot of heads today  in a Pentagon hallway is the once-classified scale model of Osama bin Laden’s compound used to plan last year’s Special Operations raid.   It marks the first public display of what was once America’s most secret scale model.

Hundreds of civilian and military employees at the Pentagon have spent time today gawking at a  temporary display that includes the tabletop model of the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan that bin Laden used as his hideout for five years.  The compound itself no longer exists as the Pakistani government ordered that it be razed to the ground shortly after the raid last May.

Under a glass canopy is a model built by  National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency (NGA) model makers who used overhead satellite imagery to create a 3-D view of  the compound in painstaking detail.   The agency manages the network of intelligence gathering satellites and distributes that information throughout the national security apparatus.

A NGA fact sheet vaguely refers to the model as having “traveled extensively, including to the White House for use at senior-level briefings.”

As the intelligence community began to suspect that bin Laden might be hiding out in the compound the model was built to help President Obama and the limited number of top officials briefed on his potential whereabouts so they could visualize what they were seeing on satellite photos.

Image Credit: Luis Martinez / ABC News

Built over the span of six weeks the styrofoam model was made to scale and shows the walls and infrastructure inside the compound’s walls.  Every shrub and piece of ivy lining the walls seen in the satellite pictures is accurately represented in the model.  The model’s scaling is one inch represents 7 feet.

“Model making is one example to replicate what people are seeing from imagery,” said Karen Finn, a spokesperson for NGA.

She said the model is one of several built by the agency to help senior administration officials, as well  as military personnel involved in the planning and carrying out of last year’s raid on the compound.

“That’s what we do at NGA,” said  Finn. “We provide geospatial intelligence information on all sorts of national security issues.”

Because operational and planning details for last year’s raid were some of the most tightly held secrets in the U.S. government, the model was a closely held secret.    Information about the bin Laden compound was so tightly held that analysts at various intelligence agencies knew only the compartmentalized information they were supposed to know.  It’s likely that the NGA model makers had no idea that the model they built was housing the most wanted man on the planet.

The model has now been declassified and since last October has been on display in the lobby of  the NGA’s headquarters in Virgina.  But you can only visit that facility if you’re conducting business so today’s display marks   the first time it’s been publidly displayed, even if it’s for only one day at the Pentagon.  .

Image Credit: Simon & Schuster

That infamous and seemingly immortal tale of Mitt Romney crating his dog on the roof of his car during a 14-hour road trip has already weaseled its way into the narrative of the 2012 campaign and is now splashing its way onto America’s bookshelves.

The Romney family’s now-deceased Irish setter Seamus’ story is being cemented in history in a 64-page satirical book, “Dog on the Roof,” set to be released June 19.

And while the story has already incited pet lovers, pestered the presidential candidate and punctuated attack ads, a national book tour devoted solely to propagating the decades-old event will likely reinvigorate the Seamus saga, which Romney has tried to put to sleep.

“Now for the first time, here is the completely true—and only mildly embellished— shaggy-dog story of Seamus Romney,” reads the books description. “It is the inside (well . . . overhead) look at the Man Who Would Be President and the wild ride that’s sweeping—and bewildering—the nation.”

The authors, political satirists and frequent contributors to NPR’s “All Things Considered” Bruce Kluger and David Slavin, declined ABC’s request for comment.

The book is the latest edition to a growing grassroots advocacy movement using the Seamus story to point out Romney’s “overall appearance of meanness,” as Sean Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney, said.

“It’s a character illuminating anecdote about Romney for a lot of people,” Crider said. “A lot of people are just pure dog lovers and see what he did as being abusive; others see it as a little window about what kind of guy he is.”

Romney’s treatment of Seamus represents a “pattern” of “meanness” from Romney, he said, that is amplified by the recent controversy over his high school bullying and his comments that he “likes being able to fire people.”

Crider, who is promoting the Dogs on the Roof book to the 55,000 Dogs Against Romney Facebook followers, said the book “makes Romney look silly.”

But while the book is humorous and satirical, he said it communicates a serious issue in a way that people who don’t follow politics can relate to.

“Politics is hard for most people, including me, to keep their head around,” Crider said. “Big discussions about universal health care and the debt issues and all these things are really big and complex for busy people to really be able to wrap their heads around.”

“This thing about Seamus cuts right through all that,” he said.

For a “Top Line” interview this week, we asked Bradley for his take on “Linsanity,” a huge sports story this year that turned the Knicks – briefly – into the buzz of the NBA when the Harvard-educated Lin became a breakout star, before an injury ended his season early.

The lesson of Lin for the Knicks, Bradley said, is that there should be more players like him.

“There has to be a decision made to draft character not statistics, and do that for three or four years,” said Bradley, who led Princeton to a Final Four in 1965, then played for the Knicks from 1967 to 1977.

“I think Jeremy Lin is a really interesting player. He had 15 or 20 good games before he was injured. He has to be on a team though that moves without the ball so he can be at his best,” Bradley added.

He concluded with a  lesson about basketball that may be applicable to politics.

“If he is on a team where they hold it down and play people one-on-one, then he is not going to be able to maximize his contribution to the team, and the team is not going to win a championship.”

Get More News at ABC Politics and a Different Spin at OTUS News.