TASK DEFINITION: Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
PROBLEM: Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said that committee Republicans had blocked Democrats’ efforts to subpoena Deutsche Bank for financial records related to President Trump’s family on the suspicion that Russians “may have laundered money through Trump properties.” Democrats also were stymied in their effort to subpoena executives at Twitter  Schiff said  to secure the direct messages that members of Trump’s inner circle exchanged with representatives of WikiLeaks and its founder  Julian Assange  who Democrats believe acted as Russian intermediaries during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“If there’s credible information that Ivanka Trump had contact with any participants in that meeting at the time of that meeting . . . I think it would be valuable to have her come and testify before the committee ”  Schiff  said.
 He  added that  he  believes the committee should invite former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon to testify  saying “it’s my expectation that he will be doing so.”
 Schiff  said Thursday that the committee has interviewed 56 witnesses — half the number of people that have appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee   Schiff  said  meaning there are “dozens” of witnesses they have yet to bring in.
 A spokesman for Nunes  declined to comment.
 Schiff  also said that  he  would hold Ryan responsible if the House probe “is prematurely curtailed for political reasons.”
Ryan responded in a statement: “While  Mr. Schiff  tries to distract from the serious  bipartisan review that’s been underway for nearly a year  we will stay focused on following the facts and working to safeguard the upcoming election.”

SOLUTION: Schiff lays out Republican efforts to block access in Russia probe

PROBLEM: Morten T. Hansen is a management professor at University of California  Berkeley. Formerly a professor at Harvard Business School and INSEAD (France)  professor Hansen holds a PhD from Stanford Business School  where he was a Fulbright scholar.  Hansen  was also a manager at the Boston Consulting Group  where  he  advised corporate clients worldwide.  He  is the coauthor (with Jim Collins) of the New York Times bestseller Great by Choice and the author of the books Collaboration and Great at Work. We caught up with  him  to discuss the latter book.
Courtesy of Morten  Hansen 
 Morten Hansen : I think it owes  in some part  to ingrained norms  in particular our enduring workplace traditions. Although we live in an age of perpetual âdisruption â so much of how people work today is old  born at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The dreaded performance review  for instance  dates from at least the 1940s and draws intellectually from Frederick Taylorâs work on scientific management during the early 20th century. Ethical codes and other rules of professional conduct originated in the 19th century  when modern professions were first taking shape. Technology is now upending many of these conventions  and many people are pushing beyond âbusiness as usualâ and questioning how work gets done. And yet  change is slow  and much of the traditional edifice of work remains in place.
 Hansen : In Great at Work  I set out four âwork smarterâ practices that relate directly to how well individuals get their own work done. In organizing our efforts  for instance  we can choose to restrict the scope of our work and to obsess to excel over the few priorities weâve selected (a practice I call âDo Less  Then Obsessâ). Of course  that is not easy to do when people constantly ask for help  request meetings  and when your boss keeps on giving you more to do. The best handle this by becoming good at saying âno.â Thatâs a key skill to learn to succeed in todayâs hectic workplace.
 Hansen : When I began the research described in this book  I posed a simple question: Why do some people perform better at work than others? As my study progressed  and the answers to this question came into focus  I noticed an interesting pattern: Many of the top performers my research team and I interviewed  the ones who embraced the seven âwork smarterâ practices outlined in the book  realized benefits that extended well beyond their work performance. They were less stressed out  more balanced  and more satisfied with their job.

SOLUTION: Five Questions With 'Great At Work ' Author Morten Hansen

PROBLEM: Laura Ingraham  was one of the few people who saw Donald Trumpâs shocking victory coming. More importantly  as a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who saw firsthand how viciously the Bush-aligned establishment despised Reaganâs working-class voters   Ingraham  understands how powerful the conservative-populist movement is and why the elites in the permanent political class have spent gazillions and worked overtime for three decades to thwart it.
In  her  blockbuster new book  Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump  Ingraham  the best-selling author  explains how Trump got elected and the forces heâand other economic nationalistsâwill have to battle to implement the peopleâs agenda.
Billionaire at the Barricades is a must-read because  Ingraham   who still gets chills when she sees footage of the crowd at Kemper Arena in 1976 realizing they had nominated the wrong man in Gerald Ford  takes readers on a fast-paced journey through the 2016 campaign cycle and shows how everyone who was blindsided by Trumpâs rise should have seen it coming  especially after Dave Bratâs shocking primary victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in 2014.
Elites give off the impression that Trumpâs populism on the campaign trail was something they had never seen before when  in fact  every candidate who has won the presidency in the television age has been the one who was the most populist. As  Ingraham  writes  âpresidential candidates invoke the populist style because it connects with working people.â
Conservatism and populism  according to  Ingraham   âoverlap in their opposition to âbig thingsââbig government  big international organizations  big media  big business cronyism.â
Reagan understood that âthese distant  uncaring entities rob people of decision making and ignore their interests â and  Ingraham  notes that âPat Buchanan and Donald Trump summarized conservative populism best when each vowed to put âAmerica first.ââ
âConservative populists tend to support a policy of economic nationalismâpeople-centered economic policies that put the nation and its workers first. They oppose a massive national debt because it weakens America and makes its citizens beholden to lenders â  she  continues. âThey also believe high taxes are bad because they sap workersâ wages and economic freedom. Similarly  they are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.â
When it comes to foreign policy   Ingraham  explains that âconservative populists oppose broad military interventionism and believe military force should only be used when American interests are threatened.â  She  slams populismâs critics who foolishly toss around âthe term âisolationismâ to dismiss populist foreign policy â even though that label does not describe any populist  she  has ever known.
 Ingraham  points out that âthroughout the Cold War  populists were among the strongest voices opposing Soviet communism.â In addition  populists have always believed that âsquandering the nationâs wealth and blood on un-winnable wars and nation-building is unwise. Instead  they support a pragmatic foreign policy based on achieving âpeace through strengthâ by maintaining a strong military and using it prudently.â
Unfortunately  as  Ingraham  details  âsome conservatives took a dangerous detourâ and âthrust us into a bizarre world of globalization  wars based on idealism and nation-building  and intense hatred toward the very voters who accounted for the Reagan coalition in the first place.â
The betrayal started almost immediately after George H.W. Bush won Reaganâs third term. The Bush administration purged Reaganites  and  Ingraham  recalls that Margaret Tutwiler told Reaganite Ed Rollins at a party that âthere are a lot of us who had to suffer during the eight years of Reagan  and now itâs our turn.â
âWe were Reagan people. They were Bush people. We all knew what the differences were â  Ingraham  writes. âMany of the GOP Establishment types who behind closed doors scoffed at Reagan as a dim-witted former actor with anââultraconservativeâ outlook were now working in the Bush administration. They thought it was time to return the Republican Party to what they believed was its more genteel  respectable roots. In effect  it meant the return to power of the Rockefeller Republicans who had worked to deny Reagan the presidency in 1976.â
Bushâs Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman convinced Bush to infamously abandon his âread my lipsâ pledge not to raise taxes  and  in the end   Ingraham  argues that âGeorge H. W. Bush stalled the conservative-populist engine that powered Reaganism.â As Rollins said  âGeorge Bush was the beneficiary of the greatest baton pass in presidential history in 1988  and he and his people tossed it away.â
âGlobalism is fundamentally anti-American because it aims to raze American sovereignty by atrophying our ability to take independent actions that are in our nationâs best interests â  Ingraham  writes  pointing out that globalists do not understand that âbecause of the enormous anti-American sentiment around the world  itâs almost impossible to create a multinational organization where U.S. interests donât become compromised or harmed.â
Just like his father  George W. Bush campaigned as a populist but governed as a globalist.  Ingraham  blames âBushâs decision to aggressively pursue amnesty after his unpopular warâ for insulting the âmillions of conservative-populists who had worked so hard to put him in power.â
âBecause of Bush  conservatives lost everything â  she  continues. âWe lost the House. We lost the Senate. And we lost the White House.â

SOLUTION:
Laura Ingrahamâs âBillionaire at the Barricadesâ Gives Conservative